3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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.