5 ms·

The pop-up box you get when you try to run unsigned applications gives the user absolutely no hint as to how they can jump through those hoops to run the thing.

The pop-up box you get when you try to run unsigned applications gives the user absolutely no hint as to how they can jump through those hoops to run the thing. You need to know what to google for to find the right magic incantation to enter into the macOS terminal. On Windows, at least, the “Run anyway” button is merely behind the “More information...” link.

brundolf 6y ago
Right. I'm just saying, user-freedom is technically preserved. This is a huge inconvenience, and bad for Epic's business, but it's not a ban. As an owner of Mac hardware, I still have control over what I can do with my machine.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  The point is though that they have the ability to 'ban' it for 99.99% of users who don't know that.
  - brundolf 6y ago
    This isn't a social app, it's a professional tool that multimillion-dollar businesses are built on (most of which have in-house engine programmers). They'll figure it out if they have to. Heck, Epic could publish instructions for doing so.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      Unreal Engine isn’t a shared iOS component. Apple doesn’t care about signatures on individual lib/so files: only the signature on the published app package. When you make an app or a game using an existing engine then only you become responsible for it. A ragtag band of devs all banned-for-life from Apple’s stores could put together a new app-engine or game-engine that other devs use as the basis for their app and provided that those apps don’t break the rules about undocumented APIs or malware (and no-one in Apple’s higher-ups gets suspicious...) then those apps will appear. I don’t believe Apple has any way to automatically ban or delete all apps that use the same third-party libraries by using their macOS Notary system or iOS Certificate revocation system - they’d have to inspect every published app-package individually (granted, this would be automated, but you know what I mean).
- dimator 6y ago
  Do you honestly think Apple is going to keep this true for Macs in 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? I think there is slim to none chance that they give a shit about the "openness"of Mac. As far as I'm concerned, Mac openness is just a cat that got out of the bag, before anyone knew they could produce a _mint_ from rent seeking walled garden platforms. I find it highly unlikely Apple is not looking to correct this mistake on Mac, even if it's done so gradually that by the time the pull the trigger, no one even bats an eye.
  - brundolf 6y ago
    Even Steve Jobs knew you needed "trucks" of computing. I'm generally fine with my phone being locked down, because I use it for straightforward tasks. I (and the many other developers who use Macs) need my laptop to be a "truck". If it stopped being that, I'd stop being a customer. But we're not at that point yet and I think Apple would be really dumb to go there and alienate a huge market.
  - johncolanduoni 6y ago
    I believe they’ll likely keep this the case, not out of generosity, but because the most valuable thing Mac gets them is developers writing apps for iOS. This will only become more true in time unless there’s a sudden reversal of the trend towards phones and tablets over laptops. They may not care about power users in general, but allowing developers to run their own code to target their platforms is crucial, and there’s no mint to be made on macOS by fully locking it down due to the reduced marketshare. I would not be shocked however if at some point they switched to developers having to buy special Macs to have this capability, and normal Macs would cease to be able to turn off secure boot and SIP and would require code signing/store distribution universally.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      Given you need to be a bona-fide security researcher to qualify to gain access to a partially-unlocked iPhone[1] - I think you’re on to something: having DRM built-in to the lowest levels of the hardware means it’s possible for Apple to truly control the system. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/programs/security-research-device/?=tuesday-july-21-2020 https://developer.apple.com/programs/security-research-devic...
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  That's not freedom. Most users are going to think the unsigned app just doesn't work, and almost none of them are going to know that there is a magic ritual they need to perform in the Settings app to launch the program they wanted to run in the first place.
  - iphone_elegance 6y ago
    It's not possible in the settings app anymore.
whywhywhywhy 6y ago
> You need to know what to google for to find the right magic incantation to enter into the macOS terminal. You right click it and select “Open”... Almost all MacOS users even the non-technical types encounter this at some point unless they go 100% Mac App Store which almost no one does if they have a job.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  I tested this just now on my Mac and “right-click -> Open” on an untrusted .app gave me the same warning message with no obvious way to force-open the app.
  - my123 6y ago
    Because it's “right-click -> Open” not once but _twice_. It's exactly the reverse of intuitive. There's also going to the Settings app and allowing the app, but no signs given to the user about that.
  - weikju 6y ago
    And in that situation you have the much less obvious solution but still not Terminal: go in System Preferences -> Security and you will see a new button appear to allow the specific app to open
    - m463 6y ago
      I think you need to be connected to the network for the button to show up.
  - m463 6y ago
    At first, it was "are you sure". Then later versions of macos wanted right-click open. Newer ones ... I don't even know. I gave up on catalina when I couldn't install little snitch without a network connection. (Apparently there's a way, but I don't know it - it wasn't csrutil)

brundolf 6y ago

Right. I'm just saying, user-freedom is technically preserved. This is a huge inconvenience, and bad for Epic's business, but it's not a ban. As an owner of Mac hardware, I still have control over what I can do with my machine.

jonplackett 6y ago
The point is though that they have the ability to 'ban' it for 99.99% of users who don't know that.
- brundolf 6y ago
  This isn't a social app, it's a professional tool that multimillion-dollar businesses are built on (most of which have in-house engine programmers). They'll figure it out if they have to. Heck, Epic could publish instructions for doing so.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    Unreal Engine isn’t a shared iOS component. Apple doesn’t care about signatures on individual lib/so files: only the signature on the published app package. When you make an app or a game using an existing engine then only you become responsible for it. A ragtag band of devs all banned-for-life from Apple’s stores could put together a new app-engine or game-engine that other devs use as the basis for their app and provided that those apps don’t break the rules about undocumented APIs or malware (and no-one in Apple’s higher-ups gets suspicious...) then those apps will appear. I don’t believe Apple has any way to automatically ban or delete all apps that use the same third-party libraries by using their macOS Notary system or iOS Certificate revocation system - they’d have to inspect every published app-package individually (granted, this would be automated, but you know what I mean).
dimator 6y ago
Do you honestly think Apple is going to keep this true for Macs in 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? I think there is slim to none chance that they give a shit about the "openness"of Mac. As far as I'm concerned, Mac openness is just a cat that got out of the bag, before anyone knew they could produce a _mint_ from rent seeking walled garden platforms. I find it highly unlikely Apple is not looking to correct this mistake on Mac, even if it's done so gradually that by the time the pull the trigger, no one even bats an eye.
- brundolf 6y ago
  Even Steve Jobs knew you needed "trucks" of computing. I'm generally fine with my phone being locked down, because I use it for straightforward tasks. I (and the many other developers who use Macs) need my laptop to be a "truck". If it stopped being that, I'd stop being a customer. But we're not at that point yet and I think Apple would be really dumb to go there and alienate a huge market.
- johncolanduoni 6y ago
  I believe they’ll likely keep this the case, not out of generosity, but because the most valuable thing Mac gets them is developers writing apps for iOS. This will only become more true in time unless there’s a sudden reversal of the trend towards phones and tablets over laptops. They may not care about power users in general, but allowing developers to run their own code to target their platforms is crucial, and there’s no mint to be made on macOS by fully locking it down due to the reduced marketshare. I would not be shocked however if at some point they switched to developers having to buy special Macs to have this capability, and normal Macs would cease to be able to turn off secure boot and SIP and would require code signing/store distribution universally.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    Given you need to be a bona-fide security researcher to qualify to gain access to a partially-unlocked iPhone[1] - I think you’re on to something: having DRM built-in to the lowest levels of the hardware means it’s possible for Apple to truly control the system. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/programs/security-research-device/?=tuesday-july-21-2020 https://developer.apple.com/programs/security-research-devic...
heavyset_go 6y ago
That's not freedom. Most users are going to think the unsigned app just doesn't work, and almost none of them are going to know that there is a magic ritual they need to perform in the Settings app to launch the program they wanted to run in the first place.
- iphone_elegance 6y ago
  It's not possible in the settings app anymore.

whywhywhywhy 6y ago

> You need to know what to google for to find the right magic incantation to enter into the macOS terminal. You right click it and select “Open”... Almost all MacOS users even the non-technical types encounter this at some point unless they go 100% Mac App Store which almost no one does if they have a job.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
I tested this just now on my Mac and “right-click -> Open” on an untrusted .app gave me the same warning message with no obvious way to force-open the app.
- my123 6y ago
  Because it's “right-click -> Open” not once but _twice_. It's exactly the reverse of intuitive. There's also going to the Settings app and allowing the app, but no signs given to the user about that.
- weikju 6y ago
  And in that situation you have the much less obvious solution but still not Terminal: go in System Preferences -> Security and you will see a new button appear to allow the specific app to open
  - m463 6y ago
    I think you need to be connected to the network for the button to show up.
- m463 6y ago
  At first, it was "are you sure". Then later versions of macos wanted right-click open. Newer ones ... I don't even know. I gave up on catalina when I couldn't install little snitch without a network connection. (Apparently there's a way, but I don't know it - it wasn't csrutil)