11 ms·

It's astonishing that the developer community is fine with requiring open source projects to pay $99/yr for notarization to run on macOS. Malware authors will h

It's astonishing that the developer community is fine with requiring open source projects to pay $99/yr for notarization to run on macOS. Malware authors will happily pay the developer account fees, as seen here, while open source projects are seriously hindered. It should be possible to verify developers and distribute open source apps without a cost on macOS.

dgellow 6y ago
What makes you thing that open source developers are fine with that? What are their other choices? Apple doesn’t care.
- pmontra 6y ago
  The choice is don't build for MacOS. In the long run Apple won't be happy with that and maybe they'll waive the fee.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    How would that get them to waive the fee? If your app is open source and they wanted it that bad they could just build it themselves, or develop their own replacement for it, and anybody else can pound sand. They have you over a barrel and they know it.
    - pmontra 6y ago
      So let's Apple port, build and distribute open source for MacOS. I have no problem with that. Yet I bet it would cost Apple more than the money they do from the license they sell to OS developers.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        But they're not going to do that for your project, only the ones they actually care about. In fact they already do this. Your macOS comes with bash (the old one because they don't like the new license) and a slew of other open source software. The whole thing is built on top of BSD. So they take what they want and then make you pay them for anything else.
        pmontra 6y ago
        No problem with MacOS having only the open source programs Apple care about. In that scenario if Apple want that developers keep buying their hardware they'll have care about a lot of software or hope that everybody will be happy to work in a Linux VM, possibly with a Linux desktop. Imagine a Mac with no docker, no GNU userland and dev tools (if they're a thing on MacOS), no vim, no Node, no Python, etc.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        How is that supposed to help all the small time developers that are trying to get started on a side project and want to distribute it to their 200 existing customers who Apple doesn't care about at all?
        pmontra 6y ago
        They're not the developers I was thinking about. I was thinking about the kind of open source projects that are installed by 100k-100M people. Misunderstanding sorted out, let's see. If I wanted to reach 200 customers on MacOS (real or leads) probably I can invest 0.5 USD per customer and see if I end up making some money because one of them hires me to do anything.
  - cornstalks 6y ago
    > In the long run Apple won't be happy with that and maybe they'll waive the fee. I think you greatly overestimate how much Apple cares about this.
    - viro 6y ago
      I think you underestimate how many power users use macOS. Most of their privacy and security marketing isn't really targeted at normal people. The avg. person doesn't really care that much.
      - an_opabinia 6y ago
        It’s pretty impressive that Ubuntu and Arch (Power User-only experiences in my mind) are considered an alternative to macOS by anyone at all. It shows the Linux desktop is actually delivering something very valuable despite the numbers. Although that the numbers don’t tell the whole story isn’t really saying much. What if it turned out that ease of use and OS-wide app consistency was the easy part all along? That building good APIs - which includes not changing them, making a good publishing experience - which includes not changing your rules every six months, and making your developers rich - which includes lowering fees - were the hard parts? Besides the average person does care about privacy and security. Keychain is a product everyone on macOS and iOS uses. Imagine if the OS forced Private Browsing to actually work.
        nobodyandproud 6y ago
        How reliable is the security vetting in the Ubuntu store?
        dhagz 6y ago
        The thing to remember is that, under all the chrome and Apple styling, macOS is rooted in BSD. So the power users who enjoy the *nix-y bits of macOS and are looking for a replacement will look for something that gives them more of that.
        6y ago
  - mattl 6y ago
    They do waive it for non-profits, if they have the right paperwork. I'm sure Mozilla/Apache/WordPress/Free Software Foundations could get a $0 key if they wanted.
  - throWaythxMod 6y ago
    I haven't been building Apps on their platform. Apple advertises to me daily. Not sure if related.
enjeyw 6y ago
I see your point and principle , but the salary-opportunity-cost on the number of hours that the average piece of OSS takes to develop would surely dwarf 99 dollars, making that fee maybe 1% of the total effective cost.
- rowanG077 6y ago
  This is simply not true. Many OS developers are working in lower income countries. Or aren't even employed yet because they are in school. Your assessment only works for working developers in high income countries. And even then requiring 99 dollars is insane.
  - machello13 6y ago
    Insane is a bit of a strong word — it seems like a reasonable way to ensure that the world isn't flooded with incredibly low-effort apps. I know, I know — the world is already full of those, but I imagine it would be a lot worse if people didn't have to put down $99. Also, the $99 is the blanket cost to be an Apple Developer, including access to the App Store, technical support, etc. and it seems like a reasonable fee to ensure those resources aren't swamped. It is a shame about people who can't afford it — I know Apple has a scholarship program for students but I'm sure it can't do it for everyone. I'm not saying I'm in favor of it. But it seems like there are some pretty clear reasons why this is the way it is beyond "Apple greedy".
    - eptcyka 6y ago
      The app store is full of low effort apps, and the 99$ entry fee really doesn't matter. I think it still is a "Apple greedy". If I were to operate a personal fleet of devices, I wouldn't be able to build my own software once and run it on the fleet. I'd have to build it everywhere. If Microsoft were to do the same thing, people certainly wouldn't be trying to rationalize it as anything else but the money grab that it is.
      - machello13 6y ago
jmull 6y ago
$99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about. Meanwhile, there is good value. (The developer resources Apple provides are not free.) You can argue that Apple should provide developer resources at no cost, but that just means someone else is paying for them or you will pay them in some other way... or do without. I think at this point in the tech boom we can all understand that when a company gives you stuff of value at no cost there are significant tradeoffs and paybacks. In software development, I think you want most arrangements to be straightforward transactions. The strings attached to no-cost things tend to build up and cause problems, especially if you have success. Edit: I struck a nerve, but I don't think this should be very controversial. I'll try to take the objections one at a time in comments.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  > $99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about Huh? Some Open Source/Free software have a $0 budget.
  - Juliate 6y ago
    The resources, time and hardware implicated in the production of open source software, when all added up represent far more than US$99, in terms of value. You may say that a FLOSS project has no bank account, but it does not have $0 budget (unless it has no value, and is produced with nothing of value, by noone whose time has value).
    - _qulr 6y ago
      You don't pay the developer fee with "value", you pay it with legal currency. Which requires a bank account or credit card.
  - jmull 6y ago
    Software development typically requires at least a computer (a Mac for MacOS and iOS development), internet service, and electricity. Dwarfing those, though, is the significant time software development takes. For OSS, the time is donated, whether by individuals or by corporate sponsors who sometimes dedicate employee hours to projects of particular value to them. But in either case the donator has to be in a position to afford it, which typically means significant income from other means.
Razengan 6y ago
> It's astonishing that the developer community is fine with requiring open source projects to pay $99/yr for notarization to run on macOS. There is NO "requirement" for notarization. This FUD keeps getting perpetuated, but you can publish macOS software without paying $99 year. > It should be possible to verify developers and distribute open source apps without a cost on macOS. The cost is convincing your users to trust you and allow your unsigned app to bypass Gatekeeper. I've seen some tools do just that, explaining that they cannot afford the notarization fee.
- gamegod 6y ago
  When did this change? You need to codesign/notarize your application lest users get the super scary warning that tells them to move it to trash when they try to run it. Apple literally tells your users your app is garbage unless you pay for this. Definition of a shakedown.
  - Razengan 6y ago
    Perhaps the warning could be improved. For now, a dev has to add an explanation next to the download link, and let the users decide.
- kevhito 6y ago
  > you can publish macOS software without paying $99 year. Can you point to straightforward apple instructions for doing so? I publish an open source project used in classrooms, mostly used by my own students but also others. Despite strong and principled objections, which I hung on to for years, I have simply given up and now pay the fee. I'd love to not have apple be the gatekeeper. But they are. Every release, every update, every summer when I go to fix a few bugs, the restrictions get tighter and tighter, and old workarounds stop working. I work entirely on Linux and Win10, but I maintain a mac laptop and pay the $99/yr out of pocket just to keep this project alive. I've spent tens of days trying to find a way around either of these requirements, but it's just too difficult (for me, or for my students, or for others wanting to try my software).
  - 6y ago
amelius 6y ago
I think open source licenses are ripe for an update with the following clauses to deal with FAANG companies: This software shall not be used on platforms that hinder users in their free choice of software. This software shall not be used to create or in conjunction with adware, spyware, or other malicious software. (Perhaps after a lawyer has reworded it properly so people can't pretend to not understand what is meant here) Another one I'd like to see is: This software is free for personal use, and for commercial use by companies with an annual revenue less than $1B. (For commercial uses that are not covered by this license, please contact our licensing department)
- selykg 6y ago
  If malware is going to ignore a variety of other things, do you honestly think they'd abide any licensing? I doubt they really care and will happily break that agreement and they're fine doing so until someone can take them to court to stop it (who's going to pay that fee? and I doubt finding the author of such malware is going to be particularly easy, never mind their country of operation may not even make any of this straight forward at all)
  - amelius 6y ago
    Companies do care, see the JSLint case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866
- 3pt14159 6y ago
  > This software is free for personal use, and for commercial use by companies with an annual revenue less than $1B. I've been advocating for something similar: > This software is free for any entity that does not contain material stakeholders (bond holders, debt holders, etc) that are billionaires. A yearly licence fee of $1m waives this requirement. Something like that. I'm sick of wealth centralization. If a startup wants to use the software, great! Once Peter Thiel invests though it's $1m a year. My core beef with billionaires is that they do not pay their fair share in taxes. The push all their money into shell companies or park it overseas and we end up with doctors that actually save peoples lives paying double or triple the tax rate that the ultra wealthy pay.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dgellow 6y ago

What makes you thing that open source developers are fine with that? What are their other choices? Apple doesn’t care.

pmontra 6y ago
The choice is don't build for MacOS. In the long run Apple won't be happy with that and maybe they'll waive the fee.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  How would that get them to waive the fee? If your app is open source and they wanted it that bad they could just build it themselves, or develop their own replacement for it, and anybody else can pound sand. They have you over a barrel and they know it.
  - pmontra 6y ago
    So let's Apple port, build and distribute open source for MacOS. I have no problem with that. Yet I bet it would cost Apple more than the money they do from the license they sell to OS developers.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      But they're not going to do that for your project, only the ones they actually care about. In fact they already do this. Your macOS comes with bash (the old one because they don't like the new license) and a slew of other open source software. The whole thing is built on top of BSD. So they take what they want and then make you pay them for anything else.
      - pmontra 6y ago
        No problem with MacOS having only the open source programs Apple care about. In that scenario if Apple want that developers keep buying their hardware they'll have care about a lot of software or hope that everybody will be happy to work in a Linux VM, possibly with a Linux desktop. Imagine a Mac with no docker, no GNU userland and dev tools (if they're a thing on MacOS), no vim, no Node, no Python, etc.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        How is that supposed to help all the small time developers that are trying to get started on a side project and want to distribute it to their 200 existing customers who Apple doesn't care about at all?
        pmontra 6y ago
        They're not the developers I was thinking about. I was thinking about the kind of open source projects that are installed by 100k-100M people. Misunderstanding sorted out, let's see. If I wanted to reach 200 customers on MacOS (real or leads) probably I can invest 0.5 USD per customer and see if I end up making some money because one of them hires me to do anything.
- cornstalks 6y ago
  > In the long run Apple won't be happy with that and maybe they'll waive the fee. I think you greatly overestimate how much Apple cares about this.
  - viro 6y ago
    I think you underestimate how many power users use macOS. Most of their privacy and security marketing isn't really targeted at normal people. The avg. person doesn't really care that much.
    - an_opabinia 6y ago
      It’s pretty impressive that Ubuntu and Arch (Power User-only experiences in my mind) are considered an alternative to macOS by anyone at all. It shows the Linux desktop is actually delivering something very valuable despite the numbers. Although that the numbers don’t tell the whole story isn’t really saying much. What if it turned out that ease of use and OS-wide app consistency was the easy part all along? That building good APIs - which includes not changing them, making a good publishing experience - which includes not changing your rules every six months, and making your developers rich - which includes lowering fees - were the hard parts? Besides the average person does care about privacy and security. Keychain is a product everyone on macOS and iOS uses. Imagine if the OS forced Private Browsing to actually work.
      - nobodyandproud 6y ago
        How reliable is the security vetting in the Ubuntu store?
      - dhagz 6y ago
        The thing to remember is that, under all the chrome and Apple styling, macOS is rooted in BSD. So the power users who enjoy the *nix-y bits of macOS and are looking for a replacement will look for something that gives them more of that.
        6y ago
- mattl 6y ago
  They do waive it for non-profits, if they have the right paperwork. I'm sure Mozilla/Apache/WordPress/Free Software Foundations could get a $0 key if they wanted.
- throWaythxMod 6y ago
  I haven't been building Apps on their platform. Apple advertises to me daily. Not sure if related.

enjeyw 6y ago

I see your point and principle , but the salary-opportunity-cost on the number of hours that the average piece of OSS takes to develop would surely dwarf 99 dollars, making that fee maybe 1% of the total effective cost.

rowanG077 6y ago
This is simply not true. Many OS developers are working in lower income countries. Or aren't even employed yet because they are in school. Your assessment only works for working developers in high income countries. And even then requiring 99 dollars is insane.
- machello13 6y ago
  Insane is a bit of a strong word — it seems like a reasonable way to ensure that the world isn't flooded with incredibly low-effort apps. I know, I know — the world is already full of those, but I imagine it would be a lot worse if people didn't have to put down $99. Also, the $99 is the blanket cost to be an Apple Developer, including access to the App Store, technical support, etc. and it seems like a reasonable fee to ensure those resources aren't swamped. It is a shame about people who can't afford it — I know Apple has a scholarship program for students but I'm sure it can't do it for everyone. I'm not saying I'm in favor of it. But it seems like there are some pretty clear reasons why this is the way it is beyond "Apple greedy".
  - eptcyka 6y ago
    The app store is full of low effort apps, and the 99$ entry fee really doesn't matter. I think it still is a "Apple greedy". If I were to operate a personal fleet of devices, I wouldn't be able to build my own software once and run it on the fleet. I'd have to build it everywhere. If Microsoft were to do the same thing, people certainly wouldn't be trying to rationalize it as anything else but the money grab that it is.
    - machello13 6y ago

jmull 6y ago

$99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about. Meanwhile, there is good value. (The developer resources Apple provides are not free.) You can argue that Apple should provide developer resources at no cost, but that just means someone else is paying for them or you will pay them in some other way... or do without. I think at this point in the tech boom we can all understand that when a company gives you stuff of value at no cost there are significant tradeoffs and paybacks. In software development, I think you want most arrangements to be straightforward transactions. The strings attached to no-cost things tend to build up and cause problems, especially if you have success. Edit: I struck a nerve, but I don't think this should be very controversial. I'll try to take the objections one at a time in comments.

Someone1234 6y ago
> $99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about Huh? Some Open Source/Free software have a $0 budget.
- Juliate 6y ago
  The resources, time and hardware implicated in the production of open source software, when all added up represent far more than US$99, in terms of value. You may say that a FLOSS project has no bank account, but it does not have $0 budget (unless it has no value, and is produced with nothing of value, by noone whose time has value).
  - _qulr 6y ago
    You don't pay the developer fee with "value", you pay it with legal currency. Which requires a bank account or credit card.
- jmull 6y ago
  Software development typically requires at least a computer (a Mac for MacOS and iOS development), internet service, and electricity. Dwarfing those, though, is the significant time software development takes. For OSS, the time is donated, whether by individuals or by corporate sponsors who sometimes dedicate employee hours to projects of particular value to them. But in either case the donator has to be in a position to afford it, which typically means significant income from other means.

Razengan 6y ago

> It's astonishing that the developer community is fine with requiring open source projects to pay $99/yr for notarization to run on macOS. There is NO "requirement" for notarization. This FUD keeps getting perpetuated, but you can publish macOS software without paying $99 year. > It should be possible to verify developers and distribute open source apps without a cost on macOS. The cost is convincing your users to trust you and allow your unsigned app to bypass Gatekeeper. I've seen some tools do just that, explaining that they cannot afford the notarization fee.

gamegod 6y ago
When did this change? You need to codesign/notarize your application lest users get the super scary warning that tells them to move it to trash when they try to run it. Apple literally tells your users your app is garbage unless you pay for this. Definition of a shakedown.
- Razengan 6y ago
  Perhaps the warning could be improved. For now, a dev has to add an explanation next to the download link, and let the users decide.
kevhito 6y ago
> you can publish macOS software without paying $99 year. Can you point to straightforward apple instructions for doing so? I publish an open source project used in classrooms, mostly used by my own students but also others. Despite strong and principled objections, which I hung on to for years, I have simply given up and now pay the fee. I'd love to not have apple be the gatekeeper. But they are. Every release, every update, every summer when I go to fix a few bugs, the restrictions get tighter and tighter, and old workarounds stop working. I work entirely on Linux and Win10, but I maintain a mac laptop and pay the $99/yr out of pocket just to keep this project alive. I've spent tens of days trying to find a way around either of these requirements, but it's just too difficult (for me, or for my students, or for others wanting to try my software).
- 6y ago

amelius 6y ago

I think open source licenses are ripe for an update with the following clauses to deal with FAANG companies: This software shall not be used on platforms that hinder users in their free choice of software. This software shall not be used to create or in conjunction with adware, spyware, or other malicious software. (Perhaps after a lawyer has reworded it properly so people can't pretend to not understand what is meant here) Another one I'd like to see is: This software is free for personal use, and for commercial use by companies with an annual revenue less than $1B. (For commercial uses that are not covered by this license, please contact our licensing department)

selykg 6y ago
If malware is going to ignore a variety of other things, do you honestly think they'd abide any licensing? I doubt they really care and will happily break that agreement and they're fine doing so until someone can take them to court to stop it (who's going to pay that fee? and I doubt finding the author of such malware is going to be particularly easy, never mind their country of operation may not even make any of this straight forward at all)
- amelius 6y ago
  Companies do care, see the JSLint case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866
3pt14159 6y ago
> This software is free for personal use, and for commercial use by companies with an annual revenue less than $1B. I've been advocating for something similar: > This software is free for any entity that does not contain material stakeholders (bond holders, debt holders, etc) that are billionaires. A yearly licence fee of $1m waives this requirement. Something like that. I'm sick of wealth centralization. If a startup wants to use the software, great! Once Peter Thiel invests though it's $1m a year. My core beef with billionaires is that they do not pay their fair share in taxes. The push all their money into shell companies or park it overseas and we end up with doctors that actually save peoples lives paying double or triple the tax rate that the ultra wealthy pay.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]