6 ms·

I think perhaps notarization is OK, for example you have to pass requirements to publish on other closed platforms like games consoles. What I think is very und

I think perhaps notarization is OK, for example you have to pass requirements to publish on other closed platforms like games consoles. What I think is very underhanded is charging per install for 'core services' rather than per app review. It's not like the app has to be notarized/reviewed for every install.

rany_ 3y ago
I assume the notarization is there to enforce this, which is why I think it is way worse than the fee itself.
- samcat116 3y ago
  Notarization is a completely automated system to scan for malware. It has existed for many years
  - arlcode 3y ago
    How else are they gonna obligate developers to pay the core fee then. Once tooling catches up, in theory, developers don't have a contractual relationship with apple anymore, except to get notarized. The devices belong to the users apple sold the hardware and licensed the software to them not app developers. They could charge the users but obviously this would be a terrible idea. Getting notarized will either directly require payment of the platform fee or will force the use of the official tools which will mandate that.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      Nonprofits, governments etc don’t have to pay a fee, so in effect it means we will have the AppStore, and a few free, open-source alternatives. That is absolutely a win to the common people. And it’s not like other companies taken a hit - they can either stay on the AppStore and have their finances go through their “taxing”, or create an alternative store and find a proper monetizing strategy. They can calculate what makes sense, but it makes it hard for Facebook/google to exercise their network effect for creating a new app store at the expense of users.
  - trumpeta 3y ago
    no it says it includes “human review”
  - FateOfNations 3y ago
    The announcement indicates that notarization for iOS platforms will include human review. They are basically dividing the App Store review process in half, with the platform safety side (for all apps) and the content/quality side (only for App Store).
    - yreg 3y ago
      If they honestly do exactly that, then it's not bad at all. But a lot of rules could be hidden under safety reasons.
yreg 3y ago
>I think perhaps notarization is OK, for example you have to pass requirements to publish on other closed platforms like games consoles. In that sense, the old system is OK as well, no?
- kmlx 3y ago
  https://www.asymco.com/2023/09/04/the-2-trillion-economy/ https://www.asymco.com/2023/09/04/the-2-trillion-economy/ OK is an understatement.
squeaky-clean 3y ago
> for example you have to pass requirements to publish on other closed platforms like games consoles But those would be the requirements of those platforms. I can make and publish games for the Pico-8 console without any requirements. Could you imagine if Microsoft had the ability to veto any Pico-8 game I wanted to make?
dns_snek 3y ago
The entire point of this legislation is to open up the Apple's mobile platforms to competition. It's not (supposed to be) a closed platform. With notarization requirements, third party app stores are just an extension of Apple's app store with a different logo!
- bandergirl 3y ago
  I don’t agree. Anyone can notarize non-malicious apps at any time on the Mac already. Please look at what you can do with Mac apps before judging. I think the issue here is just the additional payment, not the notarization. That part is hopefully rejected as a non-solution to the issue.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    I guess as usual this will come down to porn. if those apps get rejected despite being non-malicious that shows how this "notarization" process truly is. To be honest, it's not even like I care that much about the additional payment. Scummy but expected. It's more that the current prices, similar to Unity, seem to pretty much punish any innovative idea that takes off, to a point where Apple will not just make the product unproftiable but bankrupt the developer in the process. Most mobile apps are free so people underestimate how quickly you can hit 1M. At least make it something like $0.05 at a million and ramp it up at 5m or 10m to these larger prices. by 10m downloads you are much more likely a larger business or have figured out a way to properly scale your app. oh and don't count updates, discouraging devs from maintaining their apps. Devs don't profit from an existing user updating, why should Apple?
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    I'm well aware of how the notarization process works on macOS. I considered supporting it for an open source project I was working on, but I abandoned the macOS version after I realized that I would have to pay Apple's annual $100 fee. Notarization could theoretically be used for "good", even though I strongly dispute its effectiveness. It only ensures that someone's card is on file to potentially aid in investigation after the damage has been done. In the case of malware, that card is likely to be stolen anyway. The more likely option is that Apple will start abusing notarization as a way to take down apps it finds objectionable in some way, even though they do exactly what they say on the tin.

rany_ 3y ago

I assume the notarization is there to enforce this, which is why I think it is way worse than the fee itself.

samcat116 3y ago
Notarization is a completely automated system to scan for malware. It has existed for many years
- arlcode 3y ago
  How else are they gonna obligate developers to pay the core fee then. Once tooling catches up, in theory, developers don't have a contractual relationship with apple anymore, except to get notarized. The devices belong to the users apple sold the hardware and licensed the software to them not app developers. They could charge the users but obviously this would be a terrible idea. Getting notarized will either directly require payment of the platform fee or will force the use of the official tools which will mandate that.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    Nonprofits, governments etc don’t have to pay a fee, so in effect it means we will have the AppStore, and a few free, open-source alternatives. That is absolutely a win to the common people. And it’s not like other companies taken a hit - they can either stay on the AppStore and have their finances go through their “taxing”, or create an alternative store and find a proper monetizing strategy. They can calculate what makes sense, but it makes it hard for Facebook/google to exercise their network effect for creating a new app store at the expense of users.
- trumpeta 3y ago
  no it says it includes “human review”
- FateOfNations 3y ago
  The announcement indicates that notarization for iOS platforms will include human review. They are basically dividing the App Store review process in half, with the platform safety side (for all apps) and the content/quality side (only for App Store).
  - yreg 3y ago
    If they honestly do exactly that, then it's not bad at all. But a lot of rules could be hidden under safety reasons.

yreg 3y ago

>I think perhaps notarization is OK, for example you have to pass requirements to publish on other closed platforms like games consoles. In that sense, the old system is OK as well, no?

kmlx 3y ago
https://www.asymco.com/2023/09/04/the-2-trillion-economy/ https://www.asymco.com/2023/09/04/the-2-trillion-economy/ OK is an understatement.

squeaky-clean 3y ago

> for example you have to pass requirements to publish on other closed platforms like games consoles But those would be the requirements of those platforms. I can make and publish games for the Pico-8 console without any requirements. Could you imagine if Microsoft had the ability to veto any Pico-8 game I wanted to make?

dns_snek 3y ago

The entire point of this legislation is to open up the Apple's mobile platforms to competition. It's not (supposed to be) a closed platform. With notarization requirements, third party app stores are just an extension of Apple's app store with a different logo!

bandergirl 3y ago
I don’t agree. Anyone can notarize non-malicious apps at any time on the Mac already. Please look at what you can do with Mac apps before judging. I think the issue here is just the additional payment, not the notarization. That part is hopefully rejected as a non-solution to the issue.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  I guess as usual this will come down to porn. if those apps get rejected despite being non-malicious that shows how this "notarization" process truly is. To be honest, it's not even like I care that much about the additional payment. Scummy but expected. It's more that the current prices, similar to Unity, seem to pretty much punish any innovative idea that takes off, to a point where Apple will not just make the product unproftiable but bankrupt the developer in the process. Most mobile apps are free so people underestimate how quickly you can hit 1M. At least make it something like $0.05 at a million and ramp it up at 5m or 10m to these larger prices. by 10m downloads you are much more likely a larger business or have figured out a way to properly scale your app. oh and don't count updates, discouraging devs from maintaining their apps. Devs don't profit from an existing user updating, why should Apple?
- dns_snek 3y ago
  I'm well aware of how the notarization process works on macOS. I considered supporting it for an open source project I was working on, but I abandoned the macOS version after I realized that I would have to pay Apple's annual $100 fee. Notarization could theoretically be used for "good", even though I strongly dispute its effectiveness. It only ensures that someone's card is on file to potentially aid in investigation after the damage has been done. In the case of malware, that card is likely to be stolen anyway. The more likely option is that Apple will start abusing notarization as a way to take down apps it finds objectionable in some way, even though they do exactly what they say on the tin.