4 ms·
That's a good point and it's something I did overlook, despite complaining about it when they changed this. I would argue though that this is DRM just like Denu
by least 5y ago
That's a good point and it's something I did overlook, despite complaining about it when they changed this. I would argue though that this is DRM just like Denuvo is for video games or widevine for a lot of streaming content and wouldn't really consider it the same thing as Apple restricting running arbitrary code in the traditional sense. If something like Gatekeeper made things unsigned by Apple impossible to run rather than simply being annoying (which I mean, is kind of the point of it) then I'd be more inclined to agree with the sentiment.
- Jcowell 5y agoPersonally I don’t see the difference between a local MacOS system doing it and a system phoned by MacOS doing it
- least 5y agoThe difference is that Apple runs the App Store and agreed to allow app developers to opt out of publishing their apps to the Mac App Store. In order to facilitate that they had to implement DRM. Being able to run arbitrary code doesn't really mean you get to run other people's code without their permission, which is essentially what running those applications on a mac was. You can argue the merits of DRM and copyright of course, but ultimately that's not the same thing as "running arbitrary code." You can run the code and that code includes a check to make sure the platform is one that the developer approved of. If you find a way to remove that check it probably still runs.