4 ms·

> It's mind-boggling that the free market is not enough to regulate a gatekeeping monopoly into irrelevance. The Mac App Store is not a monopoly. Mac developer

by lapcat 4y ago

> It's mind-boggling that the free market is not enough to regulate a gatekeeping monopoly into irrelevance. The Mac App Store is not a monopoly. Mac developers can independently distribute their apps.

jojobas 4y ago
In other words, "can't you just right-click?" https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html
- lapcat 4y ago
  It's not clear why you're citing my own blog post back to me. As I mentioned, Mac developers can independently distribute their own apps, signed with a Developer ID certificate. It's annoying to be sure, but not a major hurdle for professional Mac developers, such as Panic.
  - jojobas 4y ago
    Didn't realize it's you. It's fascinating you made a 180 on the issue while it got worse since you wrote it. I could bet that in under 5 years Apple will refuse to "notarize" at least some software and prevent unsigned software from running altogether.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > It's fascinating you made a 180 on the issue How so?
      - jojobas 4y ago
        Your old text reads as if you consider this whole approach wrong and warn people against saying there's still a way to distribute software without consent from Apple. Now you're saying it's all good. Go figure.
        lapcat 4y ago
        The question of the blog post was whether it's viable for Mac developers to distribute apps without signing and notarizing them, and I argued that it wasn't: "This is why every Mac developer I know signs up for Developer ID and ships only signed, notarized apps. It would be financial suicide to do otherwise." I've been philosophically opposed to Gatekeeper since its introduction more than 10 years ago, and that hasn't changed. The mostly good news is that Apple mostly doesn't prevent non-malware developers from distributing their apps on the Mac. I'm aware of only 2 cases where Apple has intentionally abused its authority there: (1) Apple canceled the developer account of Epic Games after the famous trial. (2) Apple canceled the developer account of Kapeli after an allegation of App Store review fraud. However, the account was later restored, and Dash for Mac is currently signed and notarized. https://kapeli.com/dash https://kapeli.com/dash
        jojobas 4y ago
        "Mostly" isn't good enough. Nothing prevents Apple from refusing to certify anything on any grounds.
devwastaken 4y ago
Apple requires $100 year to have the base ability to sign applications. As of Ventura you cannot bypass gatekeeper without a signature for a number of popular solutions. Electron being one of them. Apple developer license is apart of the app store. This in effect means that apple and the app store are a monopoly. A monopoly is not defined by 100% control. It is defined by whom has the overwhelming control.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Apple requires $100 year to have the base ability to sign applications. Government regulators aren't going to get involved over $100. > As of Ventura you cannot bypass gatekeeper without a signature for a number of popular solutions. Electron being one of them. I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not sure you technically understand what you mean.
  - devwastaken 4y ago
    <https://developer.apple.com/developer-id/ https://developer.apple.com/developer-id/> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491> Mac Ventura only allows for "App store and identified developers". Meaning the application must be signed with an apple developer cert to go through gatekeeper.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > Mac Ventura only allows for "App store and identified developers". This has nothing to do with Ventura. It's been true for many years. Keep in mind that I am personally a professional Mac developer. You're out of your depth here.
- mike_hearn 4y ago
  > As of Ventura you cannot bypass gatekeeper without a signature for a number of popular solutions. Electron being one of them. You can do so the same way you always could. Perhaps you're mixing it up with ARM Macs requiring code to be signed by something? (it doesn't have to be by an Apple certificate). You can still run self-signed code on macOS even with Apple Silicon and the latest OS versions and there's no sign they'll ever change that. Our distribution tool Conveyor will self-sign apps for you out of the box and create a web page that tells users what to do [1], albeit we should make it less wordy. > Apple developer license is apart of the app store A Developer ID is separate from the app store, they're different certificate types. I distribute Mac software outside the store with one, no problem. [1] example: https://downloads.hydraulic.dev/eton-sample/selfsigned/download.html https://downloads.hydraulic.dev/eton-sample/selfsigned/downl...

by lapcat 4y ago

jojobas 4y ago

In other words, "can't you just right-click?" https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html

lapcat 4y ago
It's not clear why you're citing my own blog post back to me. As I mentioned, Mac developers can independently distribute their own apps, signed with a Developer ID certificate. It's annoying to be sure, but not a major hurdle for professional Mac developers, such as Panic.
- jojobas 4y ago
  Didn't realize it's you. It's fascinating you made a 180 on the issue while it got worse since you wrote it. I could bet that in under 5 years Apple will refuse to "notarize" at least some software and prevent unsigned software from running altogether.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > It's fascinating you made a 180 on the issue How so?
    - jojobas 4y ago
      Your old text reads as if you consider this whole approach wrong and warn people against saying there's still a way to distribute software without consent from Apple. Now you're saying it's all good. Go figure.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        The question of the blog post was whether it's viable for Mac developers to distribute apps without signing and notarizing them, and I argued that it wasn't: "This is why every Mac developer I know signs up for Developer ID and ships only signed, notarized apps. It would be financial suicide to do otherwise." I've been philosophically opposed to Gatekeeper since its introduction more than 10 years ago, and that hasn't changed. The mostly good news is that Apple mostly doesn't prevent non-malware developers from distributing their apps on the Mac. I'm aware of only 2 cases where Apple has intentionally abused its authority there: (1) Apple canceled the developer account of Epic Games after the famous trial. (2) Apple canceled the developer account of Kapeli after an allegation of App Store review fraud. However, the account was later restored, and Dash for Mac is currently signed and notarized. https://kapeli.com/dash https://kapeli.com/dash
        jojobas 4y ago
        "Mostly" isn't good enough. Nothing prevents Apple from refusing to certify anything on any grounds.

devwastaken 4y ago

Apple requires $100 year to have the base ability to sign applications. As of Ventura you cannot bypass gatekeeper without a signature for a number of popular solutions. Electron being one of them. Apple developer license is apart of the app store. This in effect means that apple and the app store are a monopoly. A monopoly is not defined by 100% control. It is defined by whom has the overwhelming control.

lapcat 4y ago
> Apple requires $100 year to have the base ability to sign applications. Government regulators aren't going to get involved over $100. > As of Ventura you cannot bypass gatekeeper without a signature for a number of popular solutions. Electron being one of them. I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not sure you technically understand what you mean.
- devwastaken 4y ago
  <https://developer.apple.com/developer-id/ https://developer.apple.com/developer-id/> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491> Mac Ventura only allows for "App store and identified developers". Meaning the application must be signed with an apple developer cert to go through gatekeeper.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Mac Ventura only allows for "App store and identified developers". This has nothing to do with Ventura. It's been true for many years. Keep in mind that I am personally a professional Mac developer. You're out of your depth here.
mike_hearn 4y ago
> As of Ventura you cannot bypass gatekeeper without a signature for a number of popular solutions. Electron being one of them. You can do so the same way you always could. Perhaps you're mixing it up with ARM Macs requiring code to be signed by something? (it doesn't have to be by an Apple certificate). You can still run self-signed code on macOS even with Apple Silicon and the latest OS versions and there's no sign they'll ever change that. Our distribution tool Conveyor will self-sign apps for you out of the box and create a web page that tells users what to do [1], albeit we should make it less wordy. > Apple developer license is apart of the app store A Developer ID is separate from the app store, they're different certificate types. I distribute Mac software outside the store with one, no problem. [1] example: https://downloads.hydraulic.dev/eton-sample/selfsigned/download.html https://downloads.hydraulic.dev/eton-sample/selfsigned/downl...