3 ms·

I'm sorry, it sounds like we're saying the same thing. Notarization is not a stick-less carrot. Anyone can sign up and agree to the rules and pay the fee begin

I'm sorry, it sounds like we're saying the same thing. Notarization is not a stick-less carrot. Anyone can sign up and agree to the rules and pay the fee begin notarizing apps. If you break the rules you agree to when you sign up, you lose access to notarization. It seems like we disagree about this basic understanding, so I'll take a couple guesses at it. Are you, perhaps, arguing that Apple should not be allowed to terminate developer access to notarization under any circumstance — regardless of their behavior? Or are you arguing that Epic's behavior is "acceptable" rule breaking, but other kinds of behavior are "unacceptable" rule breaking? I'm happy to consider that I could be wrong here, but I'll need a few more sentences from you to do so.

damnyou 6y ago
Yes, Apple should very obviously not have a completely unchecked right to disable arbitrary software from running on millions of computers for whatever reason they want. This is so obviously an abuse of power that I can't believe I have to spell it out so clearly. At the very least such decisions should be subject to appeal to an independent board, and failing that the legal system.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  The only time in the past decade that I can think of where they used that power to remove anything other than malware on any platform, was to remove the Zoom daemon that Zoom was using to bypass Installer.app permission checks, which made sense to Apple — and to HN, at the time — because it was considered malicious/exploitable. Should they have not exercised that right, and left us all at risk — even though the daemon itself wasn't malware, nor had it been abused for such purposes by anyone?
  - damnyou 6y ago
    The decisions should be transparent and subject to review and appeal by an independent board. Zoom should be free to appeal Apple's decision to the board, yes. Checks and balances are not a new concept.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    That was a bug, Apple worked together with Zoom, and Zoom still distributes software on all of Apple's platforms, including the Mac. Their developer account was not revoked.
_qulr 6y ago
I'm arguing that Developer ID should be entirely separate from the App Store. That they involve the same Apple developer accounts and programs is merely a matter of convenience, but until now we never had the worry that App Store disputes would lead to problems with Mac software distribution outside the App Store. It's clear now that they should be entirely separate developer programs. If Apple wants to suspend someone's App Store developer account, fine. But you should be able to distribute outside the App Store regardless. The whole point of distributing outside the App Store is to avoid all that nonsense with Apple's rules.
- _qulr 6y ago
  The problem is that App Store is the only distribution method on iOS, so it's almost inevitable that you butt heads with Apple if you make iOS apps. How many App Store developers haven't had some kind of fight with Apple? So if App Store and Developer ID accounts are tied, you're always risking your Mac distribution if you make iOS apps too.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Or just development on the platform period, iOS won’t let you run code at all unless you sign it with a developer account and macOS makes it somewhat annoying to do so.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
Sure, I'll bite. My mental model of notarization is strictly a means to fight malware (which, yes, is a nebulous word, but I think we can all agree that Unreal Engine games don't blanket qualify). Since most people are essentially prevented from running non–notarized macOS software, Apple should treat notarization as a rubber stamp. As long as your app is not literally malware, Apple should notarize it. Apple's use of notarization as a stick for Epic here certainly goes against if not the letter, then the spirit of their developer documentation: [1] > Notarization gives users more confidence that the Developer ID-signed software you distribute has been checked by Apple for malicious components. Notarization is not App Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly. If there are no issues, the notary service generates a ticket for you to staple to your software; the notary service also publishes that ticket online where Gatekeeper can find it. [1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  I think that'd be ideal. 1. You can submit software anonymously, or with a free account, or with a paid account. 2. Apple can refuse notarization for the usual reasons they do now. 3. Apple can, in the future, revoke notarization and notify you. 3a. If you choose to submit anonymously, notification is impossible. 3b. If you choose to submit with a free developer account, they'll notify you of revocation and why. 3c. If you choose to submit with a paid developer account, they'll allow you to contest the revocation.

damnyou 6y ago

Yes, Apple should very obviously not have a completely unchecked right to disable arbitrary software from running on millions of computers for whatever reason they want. This is so obviously an abuse of power that I can't believe I have to spell it out so clearly. At the very least such decisions should be subject to appeal to an independent board, and failing that the legal system.

floatingatoll 6y ago
The only time in the past decade that I can think of where they used that power to remove anything other than malware on any platform, was to remove the Zoom daemon that Zoom was using to bypass Installer.app permission checks, which made sense to Apple — and to HN, at the time — because it was considered malicious/exploitable. Should they have not exercised that right, and left us all at risk — even though the daemon itself wasn't malware, nor had it been abused for such purposes by anyone?
- damnyou 6y ago
  The decisions should be transparent and subject to review and appeal by an independent board. Zoom should be free to appeal Apple's decision to the board, yes. Checks and balances are not a new concept.
- _qulr 6y ago
  That was a bug, Apple worked together with Zoom, and Zoom still distributes software on all of Apple's platforms, including the Mac. Their developer account was not revoked.

_qulr 6y ago

I'm arguing that Developer ID should be entirely separate from the App Store. That they involve the same Apple developer accounts and programs is merely a matter of convenience, but until now we never had the worry that App Store disputes would lead to problems with Mac software distribution outside the App Store. It's clear now that they should be entirely separate developer programs. If Apple wants to suspend someone's App Store developer account, fine. But you should be able to distribute outside the App Store regardless. The whole point of distributing outside the App Store is to avoid all that nonsense with Apple's rules.

_qulr 6y ago
The problem is that App Store is the only distribution method on iOS, so it's almost inevitable that you butt heads with Apple if you make iOS apps. How many App Store developers haven't had some kind of fight with Apple? So if App Store and Developer ID accounts are tied, you're always risking your Mac distribution if you make iOS apps too.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Or just development on the platform period, iOS won’t let you run code at all unless you sign it with a developer account and macOS makes it somewhat annoying to do so.

jakelazaroff 6y ago

Sure, I'll bite. My mental model of notarization is strictly a means to fight malware (which, yes, is a nebulous word, but I think we can all agree that Unreal Engine games don't blanket qualify). Since most people are essentially prevented from running non–notarized macOS software, Apple should treat notarization as a rubber stamp. As long as your app is not literally malware, Apple should notarize it. Apple's use of notarization as a stick for Epic here certainly goes against if not the letter, then the spirit of their developer documentation: [1] > Notarization gives users more confidence that the Developer ID-signed software you distribute has been checked by Apple for malicious components. Notarization is not App Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly. If there are no issues, the notary service generates a ticket for you to staple to your software; the notary service also publishes that ticket online where Gatekeeper can find it. [1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...

floatingatoll 6y ago
I think that'd be ideal. 1. You can submit software anonymously, or with a free account, or with a paid account. 2. Apple can refuse notarization for the usual reasons they do now. 3. Apple can, in the future, revoke notarization and notify you. 3a. If you choose to submit anonymously, notification is impossible. 3b. If you choose to submit with a free developer account, they'll notify you of revocation and why. 3c. If you choose to submit with a paid developer account, they'll allow you to contest the revocation.