9 ms·

The Anatomy of a macOS App

281 points by elashri 10mo ago

mitchellh 10mo ago
> while that shown in blue is the stapled notarisation ticket (optional) This is correct, but practically speaking non-notarized apps are pretty terrible to use for a user enough so that this isn't optional and you're going to pay your $99/yr Apple tax. (This only applies to distributed software, if you are only building and running apps for your own personal use, its not bad because macOS lets you do that without the scary warnings) For users who aren't aware of notarization, your app looks straight up broken. See screenshots in the Apple support site here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102445 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102445 For users who are aware, you used to be able to right click and "run" apps and nowadays you need to actually go all the way into system settings to allow it: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=saqachfa https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=saqachfa I'm generally a fan of what Apple does for security but I think notarization specifically for apps outside the App Store has been a net negative for all parties involved. I'd love to hear a refutation to that because I've tried to find concrete evidence that notarization has helped prevent real issues and haven't been able to yet.
- jclay 10mo ago
  I thought the macOS notarization process was annoying until we started shipping Windows releases. It’s basically pay to play to get in the good graces of Windows Defender. I think all-in it was over $1k upfront to get the various certs. The cert company has to do a pretty invasive verification process for both you and your company. Then — you are required to use a hardware token to sign the releases. This effectively means we have one team member who can publish a release currently. The cert company can lock your key as well for arbitrary reasons which prevents you from being able to make a release! Scary if the release you’re putting out is a security patch. I’ll take the macOS ecosystem any day of the week.
  - deltaknight 10mo ago
    The EV cert system is truly terrible on Windows. Worst of all, getting an EV cert isn’t even enough to remove the scary warnings popping up for users! For that you still need to convince windows defender that you’re not a bad actor by getting installs on a large number of devices, which of course is a chicken-and-egg problem for software with a small number of users. At least paying your dues to Apple guarantees a smooth user experience.
    - ryandrake 10mo ago
      Wow. I haven't written software for Windows in over a decade. I always thought Apple was alone in its invasive treatment of developers on their platform. Windows used to be "just post the exe on your web site, and you're good to go." I guess Microsoft has finally managed to aggressively insert themselves into the distribution process there, too. Sad to see.
      - deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
      - etbebl 10mo ago
        I get that if you're distributing software to the wider public, you have to make sure these scary alerts don't pop up regardless of platform. But as a savvy user, I think the situation is still better on Windows. As far as I've seen there's still always a (small) link in these popups (I think it's SmartScreen?) to run anyway - no need to dig into settings before even trying to run it.
        Archit3ch 10mo ago
        Are you sure? I had not used Windows for years and assumed "Run Anyway" would work. Last month, I tested running an unsigned (self-signed) .MSIX on a different Windows machine. It's a 9-step process to get through the warnings: https://www.advancedinstaller.com/install-test-certificate-from-msix.html https://www.advancedinstaller.com/install-test-certificate-f... Perhaps .exe is easier, but I wouldn't subject the wider public (or even power users) to that. So yeah, Azure Trusted Signing or EV certificate is the way to go on Windows.
  - dceddia 10mo ago
    The situation on Windows got remarkably better and cheaper recently-ish with the addition of Azure code signing. Instead of hundreds or thousands for a cert it’s $10/month, if you meet the requirements (I think the business must have existed for some number of years first, and some other things). If you go this route I highly recommend this article, because navigating through Azure to actually set it up is like getting through a maze. https://melatonin.dev/blog/code-signing-on-windows-with-azure-trusted-signing/ https://melatonin.dev/blog/code-signing-on-windows-with-azur...
    - jonathanlydall 10mo ago
      Thanks for the link, I see only available to basically US, Canada and EU though.
    - Razengan 10mo ago
      > it’s $10/month So $120 a year but no it's only Apple with a "tAx"
      - TimeBearingDown 10mo ago
        Millions of Windows power users are accustomed to bypassing SmartScreen. A macOS app distributed without a trusted signature will reach a far smaller audience, even of the proportionately smaller macOS user base, and that's largely due to deliberate design decisions by Apple in recent releases.
    - lwkl 10mo ago
      That's not easier and cheaper than before. That's how it's always been only now you can buy the cert through Azure. For an individual the Apple code signing process is a lot easier and more accessible since I couldn't buy a code signing certificate for Windows without being registered as a business.
      - dceddia 10mo ago
        > That's how it's always been only now you can buy the cert through Azure. Where can you get an EV cert for $120/year? Last time I checked, all the places were more expensive and then you also had to deal with a hardware token. Lest we talk past each other: it's true that it used to be sufficient to buy a non-EV cert for around the same money, where it didn't require a hardware token, and that was good enough... but they changed the rules in 2023.
  - TobbenTM 10mo ago
    You certainly don't need a hardware token, you can store it in any FIPS 140 Level 2+ stores. This includes stuff like Azure KeyVault and AWS KMS. Azure Trusted Signing is 100% the best choice, but if for whatever reason you cannot use it, you can still use your own cloud store and hook in the signing tools. I wrote an article on using AWS KMS earlier this year: https://moonbase.sh/articles/signing-windows-binaries-using-aws-kms/ https://moonbase.sh/articles/signing-windows-binaries-using-... TLDR: Doing this yourself requires a ~400-500$/year EV cert and miniscule cloud costs
    - jonathanlydall 10mo ago
      Can confirm this, we use Azure KeyVault and are able to have Azure Pipelines use it to sign our release builds. We’re (for the moment) a South African entity, so can’t use Azure Trusted Signing, but DigiCert has no issue with us using Azure KeyVault for our EV code signing certificate. I had ours renewed just this week as it happens. Cost something like USD 840 before tax, don’t have a choice though and in the grand scheme of things it’s not a huge expense for a company.
  - jezek2 10mo ago
    I solved it by putting a "How to install.rtf" file alongside the program. Another alternative would be to bundle this app: https://github.com/alienator88/Sentinel https://github.com/alienator88/Sentinel It allows to easily unlock it by drag'n'drop.
    - tyre 10mo ago
      What is the subset of users who are going to investigate and read an rtf file but don’t know how to approve an application via system settings (or google to do so)?
      - jezek2 10mo ago
        I would say quite a lot of users because even the previous simple method of right clicking wasn't that known even by power users. Lot of them just selected "allow applications from anyone" in the settings (most likely just temporarily). In one application I also offered an alternative by using a web app in case they were not comfortable with any of the option. Also it's presented in a .dmg file where you have two icons, the app and the "How to install". I would say that's quite inviting for investigation :)
  - Klonoar 10mo ago
    I have been trying to get people to realize that this is the same or worse for like a year now. It’s unfortunate it’s come to this but Apple is hardly the worst of the two now.
  - rxliuli 10mo ago
    That's right, there's a similar comparison between the iOS App Store and Android Play Store. Although the annual $99 fee is indeed expensive, the Play Store requires every app to find 12 users for 14 days of internal testing before submission for review, which is utterly incomprehensible, not to mention the constant warnings about inactive accounts potentially being disabled.
- TheDong 10mo ago
  > notarization has been a net negative for all parties involved Notarization made it significantly harder to cross-compile apps for macOS from linux, which means people have to buy a lot of macOS hardware to run in CI instead of just using their existing linux CI to build mac binaries. You also need to pay $99/year to notarize. As such, I believe it's resulted in profit for Apple, so at least one of the parties involved has had some benefit from this setup. Frankly I think Apple should keep going, developer licenses should cost $99 + 15% of your app's profit each year, and notarization should be a pro feature that requires a macbook pro or a mac pro to unlock.
- mrpippy 10mo ago
  The stapled ticket is optional beyond notarization itself. If you notarize but don’t staple the ticket, users may need an internet connection to check the notarization status.
- sholladay 10mo ago
  I’m only aware of two times that Apple has revoked certificates for apps distributed outside of the App Store. One was for Facebook’s Research App. The other was for Google’s Screenwise Meter. Both apps were basically spyware for young teens. In each case, Apple revoked the enterprise certificate for the company, which caused a lot of internal fallout beyond just the offending app, because internal tools were distributed the same way. Something may have changed, though, because I see Screenwise Meter listed on the App Store for iOS. https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-research-app-root-certificate/ https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-research-app-root-certi... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/google-screenwise-unwise-trade-all-your-privacy-cash https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/google-screenwise-unwi...
  - lapcat 10mo ago
    The article is about macOS apps, but you're talking about iOS apps. Apple revokes macOS Developer ID code signing certificates all the time, mostly for malware, but occasionally for goodware, e.g., Charlie Monroe and HP printer drivers. Also, infamously, Apple revoked the macOS Developer ID cert of Epic Games, as punishment for their iOS App Store dispute.
- internet2000 10mo ago
  Maybe half of the 3rd party apps I have on my applications folder right now are not notarized. It’s really not that big of a deal.
  - jonathanlydall 10mo ago
    It’s a friction point for potential customers, so we do it with our Electron based app, The USD 99 annual fee is almost inconsequential, the painful part was getting a DUNS number (we’re a South African entity) and then getting it to work in a completely automated manner on our build server. Fortunately, once set up it’s been almost no work since.
  - sneak 10mo ago
    It is a big deal. You can no longer just right click apps to run them, you have to take a trip to a subpanel of system settings, after clicking though two different dialogs that are designed to scare you into thinking something is wrong (one mentions malware by name). For normal users this might as well be impossible. Remember, your average user needs a shortcut to /Applications inside the .dmg image otherwise they won’t know where to drag the app to to install it.
- sneak 10mo ago
  The problem is not that it’s $99/year. The problem is that it requires strong ID, and if you are doing it as a company (ie if you don’t want Apple to publicize your ID name to everyone who uses your app) then you have to go through an invasive company verification process that you can fail for opaque reasons unrelated to fraud or anything bad. The system sucks. I’d love to be able to sign my legitimate apps with my legitimate company, but I don’t wish to put the name on my passport onto the screens of millions of people, and my company (around and operating for 20-ish years now) doesn’t pass the Apple verification for some reason. I also can’t use auto-enroll (DEP) MDM for this reason.
  - tensor 10mo ago
    I think the lack of any human to talk to is the worst part of modern tech. Especially for business, where your income may depend on it. It's beyond cruel to prevent people from operating with no explanation of why and no way to find out how to fix it.
  - bitwize 10mo ago
    Well, what can I say except that the 80s, with their little independent app vendors shipping floppy disks in little baggies, are long behind us. Computers are now commonplace enough, with all the attendant dangers, that platform vendors are demanding a bit of accountability if you want to ship for their platforms, and unfortunately accountability means money and paperwork. The platform vendors are well within their rights to do so. They have a right to protect their reputations, and when malicious or buggy software appears on their platform, their reputation suffers. Half or more of the blue screens on Windows in the late 90s and early 2000s for instance, were due to buggy third-party drivers, yet Microsoft caught the blame for Windows crashing. It took a new driver model, standards on how drivers are expected to behave, and signed drivers to bring this under control. The future is signed code with deep identity verification for every instruction that runs on a consumer device, from boot loader through to application code. Maybe web site JavaScript will be granted an exception (if it isn't JIT-compiled). This will be a good thing for most consumers. Until Nintendo cleaned out all the garbage and implemented strict controls on who may publish what on their console, the North American video game market was a ruin. The rest of computing is likely to follow suit, for similar reasons.
- jezek2 10mo ago
  In my case, as a developer of a programming language that can compile to all supported platforms from any platform the signing (and notarization) is simply incompatible with the process. Not only is such signing all about control (the Epic case is a great example of misuse and a reminder that anyone can be blocked by Apple) it is also anti-competitive to other programming languages. I treat each platform as open only when it allows running unsigned binaries in a reasonable way (or self-signed, though that already has some baggage of needing to maintain the key). When it doesn't I simply don't support such platform. Some closed platforms (iOS and Android[1]) can be still supported pretty well using PWAs because the apps are fullscreen and self-contained unlike the desktop. [1] depending on if Google will provide a reasonable way to run self-signed apps, but the trust that it will remain open in the future is already severely damaged
  - conradev 10mo ago
    The signing is definitely about control, as is all things with Apple, but there are security benefits. It's a pretty standard flow for dev tools to ad-hoc (self) sign binaries on macOS (either shelling out to codesign, or using a cross-platform tool like https://github.com/indygreg/apple-platform-rs https://github.com/indygreg/apple-platform-rs). Nix handles that for me, for example. It makes it easy for tools like Santa or Little Snitch to identify binaries, and gives the kernel/userspace a common language to chat process identity. You can configure similar for Linux: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/how-use-linux-kernels-integrity-measurement-architecture https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/how-use-linux-kernels-integri... But Apple's system is centralized. It would be nice if you could add your own root keys! They stay pretty close to standard X.509.
- saagarjha 10mo ago
  Apple’s Mac security team in general kind of sucks at their job. They are ineffectual at stopping real issues and make the flow for most users more annoying for little benefit.
pjmlp 10mo ago
As side note, NeXTSTEP bundle system was the inspiration for Java's JAR files.
- dana321 10mo ago
  jars are just zip files renamed
  - pjmlp 10mo ago
    Inspired by how NeXTSTEP bundles work. People keep missing Java's ideas due to OpenSTEP collaboration before Java came to be. https://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html https://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Objects_Everywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Objects_Everywhere
    - steve1977 10mo ago
      I guess there’s a reason that Cocoa was called Cocoa… it’s also a hot beverage like Java, just sweeter ;)
      - andrekandre 10mo ago
        also unlike java, cocoa doesn't cause jitters
  - kbolino 10mo ago
    JAR has additional structure to it, though it's mostly optional stuff, like metadata and code signing: https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/21/docs/specs/jar/jar.html https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/21/docs/specs/jar/jar...
    - LoganDark 10mo ago
      Don't forget to delete META-INF!
  - 10mo ago
13415 10mo ago
No wonder everyone is building web apps. Operating systems are doing their best to make themselves obsolete.
- mikecsh 10mo ago
  I don't follow - can you elaborate?
  - bigyabai 10mo ago
    If developers have to static-link all their libraries to ship a Mac-native app, you're already doing most of the work to ship a cross-platform web runtime like Electron. Therefore it's not super surprising that successful products like Discord/Slack/Spotify gave up on a good native experience decades ago.
    - dagmx 10mo ago
      Why do you believe you need to static link to ship a Mac native app? There’s no such requirement. Tons of Mac apps bundle dylibs within them.
    - kccqzy 10mo ago
      The article clearly states that Apple provides standardized locations for apps to store their dynamically linked libraries.
      - ux266478 10mo ago
        one of the weirdest and most off-putting parts of macos for me was that dyld isn't aware of that standardized location. a lot of curious oversights the more you pick at it.
        dagmx 10mo ago
        What do you mean? I can just tell the linker to link against something in the shared cache and it finds it. It’s been as simple as `-framework <FrameworkName>` I’ve never had to do extra work to find a system vendored dylib in my decades of supporting cross platform apps.
dana321 10mo ago
The old macos classic was a lot of fun, i remember using resedit on some apps at school.
mvkel 10mo ago
That first os screenshot made my heart sink; a reminder of how far we've fallen. How I wish our operating systems still looked like this. Utilitarian, useful. No rounded corners and bubbly icons, reducing the useful space more and more each year. The incredible quality of Mac hardware is the only thing keeping me from jumping to a thinkpad / omarchy setup.
- Wowfunhappy 10mo ago
  I'm no fan of modern macOS, but I don't think that screenshot is great. There's too many lines everywhere and too little color, making it unclear where to focus your eye. (What I am a fan of is Leopard-era Aqua, which is reasonably information dense but uses depth and color to help focus your attention.)
- astrange 10mo ago
  Rounded corners are a utilitarian feature. Human vision is based on edge detection and corners unnaturally activate it more than necessary. It's basically like being continually poked in the eye. https://folklore.org/Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.html https://folklore.org/Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.html
  - cachius 10mo ago
    The link tells the story how Bill Atkinson sped up drawing primitives on early Apple devices. It does not support the claim that corners are in any way special for human vision. I’m very skeptical on that. AFAIK motion is most easily perceptible.
    - astrange 10mo ago
      Ah well, the evidence for my claim is that I just told you. This particular claim is not a Steve Jobs story, but he would agree I think. I did tell a true and previously unreported Steve Jobs story on reddit the other day and was voted to -10 and someone told me I was off my meds. In conclusion, Steve Jobs is a land of contrasts. > AFAIK motion is most easily perceptible. That's how it works for predators, but you can see things that are still if you're focusing on them. It's important to see corners in real life because they actually can poke you. Like a paper cut.
Archit3ch 10mo ago
While this is the "standard" macOS App structure, it is not the only one that works. IIRC, you can put stuff in arbitrary subfolders as long as you configure the RPATHs correctly. This works and passes notarization. I came across libname.dylib in the nonstandard location AppName.App/Contents/Libraries . Not to be confused with /Library or the recommended /Frameworks location. However, there are basically no benefits compared to using the recommended directory structure, and none of the 100+ macOS apps installed in my system have a /Libraries directory.
- secretsatan 10mo ago
  AFAIK, and not technically relevant, but iOS is very strict on this when submitting to the app store, and they’re not at all clear about it either, i had some very confusing and frustrating errors with self built frameworks with dynamic libraries. You also seem to be forbidden to use .dylib and must use the .framework format. It’s picked up on submission automatically and not at review, but is a completely undocumented requirement.
classichasclass 10mo ago
A bit of a sharpshoot here, but Power Mac applications for classic Mac OS, including fat binaries, put the PPC executable code in the data fork. This was also true for CFM-68K binaries. Only old school 68K code went in CODE resources.
zombot 10mo ago
Seeing bureaucracy explode like with the last diagram is rarely a good sign. As if I needed even more reasons to not "upgrade" to macOS 26.
- saagarjha 10mo ago
  Oh no my app bundle has more folders in it what else will macOS Tahoe do to my computer
  - zombot 10mo ago
    Since those app bundle folders are merely the symptoms, this question isn't that unreasonable.
    - saagarjha 10mo ago
      Nope, it is. This is a shallow question with no understanding behind why the additional folders were added, which was to bring a lot of functionality that used to litter your entire computer into a place where it is tied to the app that installed it. So the complaint is like looking at a trash can in the park and going “ew this garbage is ugly the park is going downhill” when the reality before that can existed was people threw the litter all over the park.
saagarjha 10mo ago
> When running a command tool in macOS, its Mach-O executable is launched by launchd, whose purpose is to run code. That’s not what launchd’s main goal is and also not the path command line tools go through. They’re forked or spawned from your shell like any other UNIX system.
JanisErdmanis 10mo ago
I have quite a few gripes about the app structure while developing https://github.com/PeaceFounder/AppBundler.jl https://github.com/PeaceFounder/AppBundler.jl. The requirement (recommendation) to distribute shared libraries within the Frameworks folder, where each directory follows a strict structure, looks nice, but it’s a hassle to bundle the application that way. I am now using a Libraries folder to bypass this requirement, which appears during code signing. My biggest issue, though, is Apple code signing. It’s already enough that a signature is attached to every binary, which seems wasteful. Why would anyone consider it better than keeping hashes of each file in one place and attaching the signature to them? Then there are entitlements, which are attached to the launcher binary when signed. Why couldn’t these just be stored in `Info.plist` or a separate file, instead of requiring this process? And then there is notarisation, where at any point in the future, you might discover that your application bundle no longer passes, as requirements have become more stringent.
dSebastien 10mo ago
I've joined the Apple Developer program to be able to sign/notarize my Tauri app. And it's been three weeks that I'm failing to get the app notarized. I don't own a Mac so I'm using GitHub actions. Apparently the fact that notarization takes ages is very common the first time(s) an app is sent. I've spent nearly $100 on GitHub and my app still isn't notarized. I contacted support and they don't want to help because I'm not using a Mac and using a third party framework (Tauri), even though it's just using xcrun, Apple's tool... Also I've been unable to even use the notarization API to retrieve the submission logs and Apple didn't help for that either so far (they just disregarded my ticket). I feel powerless and abused. This is the worst DX/CX I've had in years. As a side note, authenticating against the notarization API is a nightmare. You get a PKCS8 that you have to use to create/sign a JWT and you're basically on your own... I had to build a little node program just to craft the JWT...
- rogerrogerr 10mo ago
  Dude, go buy a used Mac mini for $150, sign your stuff with it, and move on. We can talk all day about how this _shouldn’t_ be necessary, but you are tilting at windmills trying to get Apple signing to work without Apple hardware. You’ve definitely spent more of your time trying to make this work than if you’d just buy a cheap Mac mini.
- Klonoar 10mo ago
  Man, there are plenty of repos out there that sign and notarize on GitHub Actions. It’s not a unique nor unsolved problem.

281 points by elashri 10mo ago

> while that shown in blue is the stapled notarisation ticket (optional) This is correct, but practically speaking non-notarized apps are pretty terrible to use for a user enough so that this isn't optional and you're going to pay your $99/yr Apple tax. (This only applies to distributed software, if you are only building and running apps for your own personal use, its not bad because macOS lets you do that without the scary warnings) For users who aren't aware of notarization, your app looks straight up broken. See screenshots in the Apple support site here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102445 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102445 For users who are aware, you used to be able to right click and "run" apps and nowadays you need to actually go all the way into system settings to allow it: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=saqachfa https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=saqachfa I'm generally a fan of what Apple does for security but I think notarization specifically for apps outside the App Store has been a net negative for all parties involved. I'd love to hear a refutation to that because I've tried to find concrete evidence that notarization has helped prevent real issues and haven't been able to yet.

jclay 10mo ago
I thought the macOS notarization process was annoying until we started shipping Windows releases. It’s basically pay to play to get in the good graces of Windows Defender. I think all-in it was over $1k upfront to get the various certs. The cert company has to do a pretty invasive verification process for both you and your company. Then — you are required to use a hardware token to sign the releases. This effectively means we have one team member who can publish a release currently. The cert company can lock your key as well for arbitrary reasons which prevents you from being able to make a release! Scary if the release you’re putting out is a security patch. I’ll take the macOS ecosystem any day of the week.
- deltaknight 10mo ago
  The EV cert system is truly terrible on Windows. Worst of all, getting an EV cert isn’t even enough to remove the scary warnings popping up for users! For that you still need to convince windows defender that you’re not a bad actor by getting installs on a large number of devices, which of course is a chicken-and-egg problem for software with a small number of users. At least paying your dues to Apple guarantees a smooth user experience.
  - ryandrake 10mo ago
    Wow. I haven't written software for Windows in over a decade. I always thought Apple was alone in its invasive treatment of developers on their platform. Windows used to be "just post the exe on your web site, and you're good to go." I guess Microsoft has finally managed to aggressively insert themselves into the distribution process there, too. Sad to see.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - etbebl 10mo ago
      I get that if you're distributing software to the wider public, you have to make sure these scary alerts don't pop up regardless of platform. But as a savvy user, I think the situation is still better on Windows. As far as I've seen there's still always a (small) link in these popups (I think it's SmartScreen?) to run anyway - no need to dig into settings before even trying to run it.
      - Archit3ch 10mo ago
        Are you sure? I had not used Windows for years and assumed "Run Anyway" would work. Last month, I tested running an unsigned (self-signed) .MSIX on a different Windows machine. It's a 9-step process to get through the warnings: https://www.advancedinstaller.com/install-test-certificate-from-msix.html https://www.advancedinstaller.com/install-test-certificate-f... Perhaps .exe is easier, but I wouldn't subject the wider public (or even power users) to that. So yeah, Azure Trusted Signing or EV certificate is the way to go on Windows.
- dceddia 10mo ago
  The situation on Windows got remarkably better and cheaper recently-ish with the addition of Azure code signing. Instead of hundreds or thousands for a cert it’s $10/month, if you meet the requirements (I think the business must have existed for some number of years first, and some other things). If you go this route I highly recommend this article, because navigating through Azure to actually set it up is like getting through a maze. https://melatonin.dev/blog/code-signing-on-windows-with-azure-trusted-signing/ https://melatonin.dev/blog/code-signing-on-windows-with-azur...
  - jonathanlydall 10mo ago
    Thanks for the link, I see only available to basically US, Canada and EU though.
  - Razengan 10mo ago
    > it’s $10/month So $120 a year but no it's only Apple with a "tAx"
    - TimeBearingDown 10mo ago
      Millions of Windows power users are accustomed to bypassing SmartScreen. A macOS app distributed without a trusted signature will reach a far smaller audience, even of the proportionately smaller macOS user base, and that's largely due to deliberate design decisions by Apple in recent releases.
  - lwkl 10mo ago
    That's not easier and cheaper than before. That's how it's always been only now you can buy the cert through Azure. For an individual the Apple code signing process is a lot easier and more accessible since I couldn't buy a code signing certificate for Windows without being registered as a business.
    - dceddia 10mo ago
      > That's how it's always been only now you can buy the cert through Azure. Where can you get an EV cert for $120/year? Last time I checked, all the places were more expensive and then you also had to deal with a hardware token. Lest we talk past each other: it's true that it used to be sufficient to buy a non-EV cert for around the same money, where it didn't require a hardware token, and that was good enough... but they changed the rules in 2023.
- TobbenTM 10mo ago
  You certainly don't need a hardware token, you can store it in any FIPS 140 Level 2+ stores. This includes stuff like Azure KeyVault and AWS KMS. Azure Trusted Signing is 100% the best choice, but if for whatever reason you cannot use it, you can still use your own cloud store and hook in the signing tools. I wrote an article on using AWS KMS earlier this year: https://moonbase.sh/articles/signing-windows-binaries-using-aws-kms/ https://moonbase.sh/articles/signing-windows-binaries-using-... TLDR: Doing this yourself requires a ~400-500$/year EV cert and miniscule cloud costs
  - jonathanlydall 10mo ago
    Can confirm this, we use Azure KeyVault and are able to have Azure Pipelines use it to sign our release builds. We’re (for the moment) a South African entity, so can’t use Azure Trusted Signing, but DigiCert has no issue with us using Azure KeyVault for our EV code signing certificate. I had ours renewed just this week as it happens. Cost something like USD 840 before tax, don’t have a choice though and in the grand scheme of things it’s not a huge expense for a company.
- jezek2 10mo ago
  I solved it by putting a "How to install.rtf" file alongside the program. Another alternative would be to bundle this app: https://github.com/alienator88/Sentinel https://github.com/alienator88/Sentinel It allows to easily unlock it by drag'n'drop.
  - tyre 10mo ago
    What is the subset of users who are going to investigate and read an rtf file but don’t know how to approve an application via system settings (or google to do so)?
    - jezek2 10mo ago
      I would say quite a lot of users because even the previous simple method of right clicking wasn't that known even by power users. Lot of them just selected "allow applications from anyone" in the settings (most likely just temporarily). In one application I also offered an alternative by using a web app in case they were not comfortable with any of the option. Also it's presented in a .dmg file where you have two icons, the app and the "How to install". I would say that's quite inviting for investigation :)
- Klonoar 10mo ago
  I have been trying to get people to realize that this is the same or worse for like a year now. It’s unfortunate it’s come to this but Apple is hardly the worst of the two now.
- rxliuli 10mo ago
  That's right, there's a similar comparison between the iOS App Store and Android Play Store. Although the annual $99 fee is indeed expensive, the Play Store requires every app to find 12 users for 14 days of internal testing before submission for review, which is utterly incomprehensible, not to mention the constant warnings about inactive accounts potentially being disabled.
TheDong 10mo ago
> notarization has been a net negative for all parties involved Notarization made it significantly harder to cross-compile apps for macOS from linux, which means people have to buy a lot of macOS hardware to run in CI instead of just using their existing linux CI to build mac binaries. You also need to pay $99/year to notarize. As such, I believe it's resulted in profit for Apple, so at least one of the parties involved has had some benefit from this setup. Frankly I think Apple should keep going, developer licenses should cost $99 + 15% of your app's profit each year, and notarization should be a pro feature that requires a macbook pro or a mac pro to unlock.
mrpippy 10mo ago
The stapled ticket is optional beyond notarization itself. If you notarize but don’t staple the ticket, users may need an internet connection to check the notarization status.
sholladay 10mo ago
I’m only aware of two times that Apple has revoked certificates for apps distributed outside of the App Store. One was for Facebook’s Research App. The other was for Google’s Screenwise Meter. Both apps were basically spyware for young teens. In each case, Apple revoked the enterprise certificate for the company, which caused a lot of internal fallout beyond just the offending app, because internal tools were distributed the same way. Something may have changed, though, because I see Screenwise Meter listed on the App Store for iOS. https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-research-app-root-certificate/ https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-research-app-root-certi... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/google-screenwise-unwise-trade-all-your-privacy-cash https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/google-screenwise-unwi...
- lapcat 10mo ago
  The article is about macOS apps, but you're talking about iOS apps. Apple revokes macOS Developer ID code signing certificates all the time, mostly for malware, but occasionally for goodware, e.g., Charlie Monroe and HP printer drivers. Also, infamously, Apple revoked the macOS Developer ID cert of Epic Games, as punishment for their iOS App Store dispute.
internet2000 10mo ago
Maybe half of the 3rd party apps I have on my applications folder right now are not notarized. It’s really not that big of a deal.
- jonathanlydall 10mo ago
  It’s a friction point for potential customers, so we do it with our Electron based app, The USD 99 annual fee is almost inconsequential, the painful part was getting a DUNS number (we’re a South African entity) and then getting it to work in a completely automated manner on our build server. Fortunately, once set up it’s been almost no work since.
- sneak 10mo ago
  It is a big deal. You can no longer just right click apps to run them, you have to take a trip to a subpanel of system settings, after clicking though two different dialogs that are designed to scare you into thinking something is wrong (one mentions malware by name). For normal users this might as well be impossible. Remember, your average user needs a shortcut to /Applications inside the .dmg image otherwise they won’t know where to drag the app to to install it.
sneak 10mo ago
The problem is not that it’s $99/year. The problem is that it requires strong ID, and if you are doing it as a company (ie if you don’t want Apple to publicize your ID name to everyone who uses your app) then you have to go through an invasive company verification process that you can fail for opaque reasons unrelated to fraud or anything bad. The system sucks. I’d love to be able to sign my legitimate apps with my legitimate company, but I don’t wish to put the name on my passport onto the screens of millions of people, and my company (around and operating for 20-ish years now) doesn’t pass the Apple verification for some reason. I also can’t use auto-enroll (DEP) MDM for this reason.
- tensor 10mo ago
  I think the lack of any human to talk to is the worst part of modern tech. Especially for business, where your income may depend on it. It's beyond cruel to prevent people from operating with no explanation of why and no way to find out how to fix it.
- bitwize 10mo ago
  Well, what can I say except that the 80s, with their little independent app vendors shipping floppy disks in little baggies, are long behind us. Computers are now commonplace enough, with all the attendant dangers, that platform vendors are demanding a bit of accountability if you want to ship for their platforms, and unfortunately accountability means money and paperwork. The platform vendors are well within their rights to do so. They have a right to protect their reputations, and when malicious or buggy software appears on their platform, their reputation suffers. Half or more of the blue screens on Windows in the late 90s and early 2000s for instance, were due to buggy third-party drivers, yet Microsoft caught the blame for Windows crashing. It took a new driver model, standards on how drivers are expected to behave, and signed drivers to bring this under control. The future is signed code with deep identity verification for every instruction that runs on a consumer device, from boot loader through to application code. Maybe web site JavaScript will be granted an exception (if it isn't JIT-compiled). This will be a good thing for most consumers. Until Nintendo cleaned out all the garbage and implemented strict controls on who may publish what on their console, the North American video game market was a ruin. The rest of computing is likely to follow suit, for similar reasons.
jezek2 10mo ago
In my case, as a developer of a programming language that can compile to all supported platforms from any platform the signing (and notarization) is simply incompatible with the process. Not only is such signing all about control (the Epic case is a great example of misuse and a reminder that anyone can be blocked by Apple) it is also anti-competitive to other programming languages. I treat each platform as open only when it allows running unsigned binaries in a reasonable way (or self-signed, though that already has some baggage of needing to maintain the key). When it doesn't I simply don't support such platform. Some closed platforms (iOS and Android[1]) can be still supported pretty well using PWAs because the apps are fullscreen and self-contained unlike the desktop. [1] depending on if Google will provide a reasonable way to run self-signed apps, but the trust that it will remain open in the future is already severely damaged
- conradev 10mo ago
  The signing is definitely about control, as is all things with Apple, but there are security benefits. It's a pretty standard flow for dev tools to ad-hoc (self) sign binaries on macOS (either shelling out to codesign, or using a cross-platform tool like https://github.com/indygreg/apple-platform-rs https://github.com/indygreg/apple-platform-rs). Nix handles that for me, for example. It makes it easy for tools like Santa or Little Snitch to identify binaries, and gives the kernel/userspace a common language to chat process identity. You can configure similar for Linux: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/how-use-linux-kernels-integrity-measurement-architecture https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/how-use-linux-kernels-integri... But Apple's system is centralized. It would be nice if you could add your own root keys! They stay pretty close to standard X.509.
saagarjha 10mo ago
Apple’s Mac security team in general kind of sucks at their job. They are ineffectual at stopping real issues and make the flow for most users more annoying for little benefit.

pjmlp 10mo ago

As side note, NeXTSTEP bundle system was the inspiration for Java's JAR files.

dana321 10mo ago
jars are just zip files renamed
- pjmlp 10mo ago
  Inspired by how NeXTSTEP bundles work. People keep missing Java's ideas due to OpenSTEP collaboration before Java came to be. https://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html https://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Objects_Everywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Objects_Everywhere
  - steve1977 10mo ago
    I guess there’s a reason that Cocoa was called Cocoa… it’s also a hot beverage like Java, just sweeter ;)
    - andrekandre 10mo ago
      also unlike java, cocoa doesn't cause jitters
- kbolino 10mo ago
  JAR has additional structure to it, though it's mostly optional stuff, like metadata and code signing: https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/21/docs/specs/jar/jar.html https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/21/docs/specs/jar/jar...
  - LoganDark 10mo ago
    Don't forget to delete META-INF!
- 10mo ago

13415 10mo ago

No wonder everyone is building web apps. Operating systems are doing their best to make themselves obsolete.

mikecsh 10mo ago
I don't follow - can you elaborate?
- bigyabai 10mo ago
  If developers have to static-link all their libraries to ship a Mac-native app, you're already doing most of the work to ship a cross-platform web runtime like Electron. Therefore it's not super surprising that successful products like Discord/Slack/Spotify gave up on a good native experience decades ago.
  - dagmx 10mo ago
    Why do you believe you need to static link to ship a Mac native app? There’s no such requirement. Tons of Mac apps bundle dylibs within them.
  - kccqzy 10mo ago
    The article clearly states that Apple provides standardized locations for apps to store their dynamically linked libraries.
    - ux266478 10mo ago
      one of the weirdest and most off-putting parts of macos for me was that dyld isn't aware of that standardized location. a lot of curious oversights the more you pick at it.
      - dagmx 10mo ago
        What do you mean? I can just tell the linker to link against something in the shared cache and it finds it. It’s been as simple as `-framework <FrameworkName>` I’ve never had to do extra work to find a system vendored dylib in my decades of supporting cross platform apps.

dana321 10mo ago

The old macos classic was a lot of fun, i remember using resedit on some apps at school.

mvkel 10mo ago

That first os screenshot made my heart sink; a reminder of how far we've fallen. How I wish our operating systems still looked like this. Utilitarian, useful. No rounded corners and bubbly icons, reducing the useful space more and more each year. The incredible quality of Mac hardware is the only thing keeping me from jumping to a thinkpad / omarchy setup.

Wowfunhappy 10mo ago
I'm no fan of modern macOS, but I don't think that screenshot is great. There's too many lines everywhere and too little color, making it unclear where to focus your eye. (What I am a fan of is Leopard-era Aqua, which is reasonably information dense but uses depth and color to help focus your attention.)
astrange 10mo ago
Rounded corners are a utilitarian feature. Human vision is based on edge detection and corners unnaturally activate it more than necessary. It's basically like being continually poked in the eye. https://folklore.org/Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.html https://folklore.org/Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.html
- cachius 10mo ago
  The link tells the story how Bill Atkinson sped up drawing primitives on early Apple devices. It does not support the claim that corners are in any way special for human vision. I’m very skeptical on that. AFAIK motion is most easily perceptible.
  - astrange 10mo ago
    Ah well, the evidence for my claim is that I just told you. This particular claim is not a Steve Jobs story, but he would agree I think. I did tell a true and previously unreported Steve Jobs story on reddit the other day and was voted to -10 and someone told me I was off my meds. In conclusion, Steve Jobs is a land of contrasts. > AFAIK motion is most easily perceptible. That's how it works for predators, but you can see things that are still if you're focusing on them. It's important to see corners in real life because they actually can poke you. Like a paper cut.

Archit3ch 10mo ago

While this is the "standard" macOS App structure, it is not the only one that works. IIRC, you can put stuff in arbitrary subfolders as long as you configure the RPATHs correctly. This works and passes notarization. I came across libname.dylib in the nonstandard location AppName.App/Contents/Libraries . Not to be confused with /Library or the recommended /Frameworks location. However, there are basically no benefits compared to using the recommended directory structure, and none of the 100+ macOS apps installed in my system have a /Libraries directory.

secretsatan 10mo ago
AFAIK, and not technically relevant, but iOS is very strict on this when submitting to the app store, and they’re not at all clear about it either, i had some very confusing and frustrating errors with self built frameworks with dynamic libraries. You also seem to be forbidden to use .dylib and must use the .framework format. It’s picked up on submission automatically and not at review, but is a completely undocumented requirement.

classichasclass 10mo ago

A bit of a sharpshoot here, but Power Mac applications for classic Mac OS, including fat binaries, put the PPC executable code in the data fork. This was also true for CFM-68K binaries. Only old school 68K code went in CODE resources.

zombot 10mo ago

Seeing bureaucracy explode like with the last diagram is rarely a good sign. As if I needed even more reasons to not "upgrade" to macOS 26.

saagarjha 10mo ago
Oh no my app bundle has more folders in it what else will macOS Tahoe do to my computer
- zombot 10mo ago
  Since those app bundle folders are merely the symptoms, this question isn't that unreasonable.
  - saagarjha 10mo ago
    Nope, it is. This is a shallow question with no understanding behind why the additional folders were added, which was to bring a lot of functionality that used to litter your entire computer into a place where it is tied to the app that installed it. So the complaint is like looking at a trash can in the park and going “ew this garbage is ugly the park is going downhill” when the reality before that can existed was people threw the litter all over the park.

saagarjha 10mo ago

> When running a command tool in macOS, its Mach-O executable is launched by launchd, whose purpose is to run code. That’s not what launchd’s main goal is and also not the path command line tools go through. They’re forked or spawned from your shell like any other UNIX system.

JanisErdmanis 10mo ago

I have quite a few gripes about the app structure while developing https://github.com/PeaceFounder/AppBundler.jl https://github.com/PeaceFounder/AppBundler.jl. The requirement (recommendation) to distribute shared libraries within the Frameworks folder, where each directory follows a strict structure, looks nice, but it’s a hassle to bundle the application that way. I am now using a Libraries folder to bypass this requirement, which appears during code signing. My biggest issue, though, is Apple code signing. It’s already enough that a signature is attached to every binary, which seems wasteful. Why would anyone consider it better than keeping hashes of each file in one place and attaching the signature to them? Then there are entitlements, which are attached to the launcher binary when signed. Why couldn’t these just be stored in `Info.plist` or a separate file, instead of requiring this process? And then there is notarisation, where at any point in the future, you might discover that your application bundle no longer passes, as requirements have become more stringent.

dSebastien 10mo ago

I've joined the Apple Developer program to be able to sign/notarize my Tauri app. And it's been three weeks that I'm failing to get the app notarized. I don't own a Mac so I'm using GitHub actions. Apparently the fact that notarization takes ages is very common the first time(s) an app is sent. I've spent nearly $100 on GitHub and my app still isn't notarized. I contacted support and they don't want to help because I'm not using a Mac and using a third party framework (Tauri), even though it's just using xcrun, Apple's tool... Also I've been unable to even use the notarization API to retrieve the submission logs and Apple didn't help for that either so far (they just disregarded my ticket). I feel powerless and abused. This is the worst DX/CX I've had in years. As a side note, authenticating against the notarization API is a nightmare. You get a PKCS8 that you have to use to create/sign a JWT and you're basically on your own... I had to build a little node program just to craft the JWT...

rogerrogerr 10mo ago
Dude, go buy a used Mac mini for $150, sign your stuff with it, and move on. We can talk all day about how this _shouldn’t_ be necessary, but you are tilting at windmills trying to get Apple signing to work without Apple hardware. You’ve definitely spent more of your time trying to make this work than if you’d just buy a cheap Mac mini.
Klonoar 10mo ago
Man, there are plenty of repos out there that sign and notarize on GitHub Actions. It’s not a unique nor unsolved problem.