9 ms·

No, you only need to pay if you want to distribute apps through the App Store.

by donarb 11y ago

lultimouomo 11y ago
Is that right? As of Mavericks, OS X by default refuses to run applications that are not signed with a 99$/year Apple certificate.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  You can still run them you just have to go through system preferences to enable them.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  You can always right-click and select "Open".
  - chc 11y ago
    I can do that, but it's not reasonable to expect my users to do so. As it is, indie developers have to choose between paying rent to Apple and having most users unable to open their apps.
    - mynameisvlad 11y ago
      I mean, really, you're comparing paying rent with a $100/yr fee (which now allows you to sign apps across their platforms)? Really? I highly doubt most indie developers even have to make that choice. Finding the $100 a year is not the most impossible task in the world, even for a tiny indie developer. Plus, more than a few apps have added instructions on their download pages to show users how to get around Gatekeeper. They can clearly take the Gatekeeper hit, so you probably can too.
      - chc 11y ago
        I could afford $100 a month. Affordability is not the point. The point is that Apple will block your app from opening by default unless you pay them a recurring fee, and if not, you must incur additional support burden to teach users how to get around the problem. Yes, lots of apps do post instructions on how to get around it, but lots of apps do all sorts of user-unfriendly things. We Apple users used to make fun of Windows for the endless sea of pointless dialogs its users had to go through. Those apps could take the shitty-UI hit, mine probably could too, but it still sucks. A lot of people are intimidated just looking at instructions like that, and will just give up. I don't know about you, but I feel like that's a pretty terrible first-run experience for my app. I don't feel comfortable charging people for something they might not even be able to run. Would Apple be willing to put their own apps behind that kind of painwall?
        mynameisvlad 11y ago
        > I don't feel comfortable charging people for something they might not even be able to run. Honestly, if you're charging users, then there's absolutely no question about it, you get the membership. Your entire "expecting the user to do so" point completely goes out the window the second you said it's a paid app. If you have the revenue, then it's simply a cost of doing business in the Apple world. Plus, once again, you're being way overdramatic. "might not even be able to run" is taking it a bit too far. Your app will be able to run. If you don't trust your users enough to click twice, then maybe you need to learn to trust them more. It's not like it's a hard thing to do, and it only needs to happen once. Remember, this is Apple's OS, Apple's ecosystem, and Apple's SDKs. You play by their rules or not at all. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will probably always be (but never say never, look at Microsoft, they're doing things nobody would have ever expected). Yes, it sucks. Yes, it isn't fair. But as with all major companies, it never is. They will always have the upper hand because they're the ones providing the user base and all the tools necessary to get the apps out there and onto their machines. As long as you are developing for their platform, you have to play by their rules. Honestly, be happy they haven't moved the default to the much more restrictive "Mac App Store" yet. And to be fair, I see where Apple (and Microsoft, IIRC they have SmartScreen which does the same sort of thing but to a lesser extent) are coming from. I'm sure that it lowers the chance of accidentally executing viruses by quite a bit and also slowly is teaching users to think before they execute (especially if you have to right click and click Open).
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- mrsteveman1 11y ago
  I'll admit that the right-click workaround is a minor speedbump but it does work. And Developer ID certificates are valid much longer than a year, I believe mine expires in 2019. They aren't revoked if you stop paying for program membership, and the expiration applies to the signing operation, apps you've signed in the past will continue to work after the certificate expires.
  - pvieito 11y ago
    So technically, changing the time settings, you could continue signing code forever?
- s73v3r 11y ago
  That's complete and utter horse shit.
- gbanfalvi 11y ago
  certificate signing is free. always has been. it's the app store part that costs you.
mullen 11y ago
Personally, that is a total game changer for me. I have an app idea, to build a custom house management app for my wife and I. I really don't care to put it on the app store and I don't want to pay $99 for a two person app. Now I can make an app that only my wife and I will use.
- tdicola 11y ago
  You can do this today. Just download XCode and go to town. Or use any other programming language supported on OSX like Python, Go, etc. etc.
  - druidsbane 11y ago
    This is the first time you could install apps on your device without paying for a membership. Previously you could design and test through a simulator for free, now he can build and actually use his app without paying extra as he isn't distributing.
    - dijit 11y ago
      You can always distribute, but you can't submit to the mac app store. I used to run a multitude of OSX (xcode developed) applications for beta testing, and while not signed, they were indeed runable.
      - gambiting 11y ago
        I think you two are talking about different things. You could always distribute to OSX devices. However, now is the first time ever when you can run your app on an iOS device without a membership certificate from Apple. This is very good news.
- cm2187 11y ago
  I don't know if it is still the case but last time I checked you had to go through the app store to deploy an iOS app even if it is for personal use.

No, you only need to pay if you want to distribute apps through the App Store.

by donarb 11y ago

No, you only need to pay if you want to distribute apps through the App Store.

Is that right? As of Mavericks, OS X by default refuses to run applications that are not signed with a 99$/year Apple certificate.

Jtsummers 11y ago
You can still run them you just have to go through system preferences to enable them.
ceejayoz 11y ago
You can always right-click and select "Open".
- chc 11y ago
  I can do that, but it's not reasonable to expect my users to do so. As it is, indie developers have to choose between paying rent to Apple and having most users unable to open their apps.
  - mynameisvlad 11y ago
    I mean, really, you're comparing paying rent with a $100/yr fee (which now allows you to sign apps across their platforms)? Really? I highly doubt most indie developers even have to make that choice. Finding the $100 a year is not the most impossible task in the world, even for a tiny indie developer. Plus, more than a few apps have added instructions on their download pages to show users how to get around Gatekeeper. They can clearly take the Gatekeeper hit, so you probably can too.
    - chc 11y ago
      I could afford $100 a month. Affordability is not the point. The point is that Apple will block your app from opening by default unless you pay them a recurring fee, and if not, you must incur additional support burden to teach users how to get around the problem. Yes, lots of apps do post instructions on how to get around it, but lots of apps do all sorts of user-unfriendly things. We Apple users used to make fun of Windows for the endless sea of pointless dialogs its users had to go through. Those apps could take the shitty-UI hit, mine probably could too, but it still sucks. A lot of people are intimidated just looking at instructions like that, and will just give up. I don't know about you, but I feel like that's a pretty terrible first-run experience for my app. I don't feel comfortable charging people for something they might not even be able to run. Would Apple be willing to put their own apps behind that kind of painwall?
      - mynameisvlad 11y ago
        > I don't feel comfortable charging people for something they might not even be able to run. Honestly, if you're charging users, then there's absolutely no question about it, you get the membership. Your entire "expecting the user to do so" point completely goes out the window the second you said it's a paid app. If you have the revenue, then it's simply a cost of doing business in the Apple world. Plus, once again, you're being way overdramatic. "might not even be able to run" is taking it a bit too far. Your app will be able to run. If you don't trust your users enough to click twice, then maybe you need to learn to trust them more. It's not like it's a hard thing to do, and it only needs to happen once. Remember, this is Apple's OS, Apple's ecosystem, and Apple's SDKs. You play by their rules or not at all. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will probably always be (but never say never, look at Microsoft, they're doing things nobody would have ever expected). Yes, it sucks. Yes, it isn't fair. But as with all major companies, it never is. They will always have the upper hand because they're the ones providing the user base and all the tools necessary to get the apps out there and onto their machines. As long as you are developing for their platform, you have to play by their rules. Honestly, be happy they haven't moved the default to the much more restrictive "Mac App Store" yet. And to be fair, I see where Apple (and Microsoft, IIRC they have SmartScreen which does the same sort of thing but to a lesser extent) are coming from. I'm sure that it lowers the chance of accidentally executing viruses by quite a bit and also slowly is teaching users to think before they execute (especially if you have to right click and click Open).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
mrsteveman1 11y ago
I'll admit that the right-click workaround is a minor speedbump but it does work. And Developer ID certificates are valid much longer than a year, I believe mine expires in 2019. They aren't revoked if you stop paying for program membership, and the expiration applies to the signing operation, apps you've signed in the past will continue to work after the certificate expires.
- pvieito 11y ago
  So technically, changing the time settings, you could continue signing code forever?
s73v3r 11y ago
That's complete and utter horse shit.
gbanfalvi 11y ago
certificate signing is free. always has been. it's the app store part that costs you.

mullen 11y ago

Personally, that is a total game changer for me. I have an app idea, to build a custom house management app for my wife and I. I really don't care to put it on the app store and I don't want to pay $99 for a two person app. Now I can make an app that only my wife and I will use.

tdicola 11y ago
You can do this today. Just download XCode and go to town. Or use any other programming language supported on OSX like Python, Go, etc. etc.
- druidsbane 11y ago
  This is the first time you could install apps on your device without paying for a membership. Previously you could design and test through a simulator for free, now he can build and actually use his app without paying extra as he isn't distributing.
  - dijit 11y ago
    You can always distribute, but you can't submit to the mac app store. I used to run a multitude of OSX (xcode developed) applications for beta testing, and while not signed, they were indeed runable.
    - gambiting 11y ago
      I think you two are talking about different things. You could always distribute to OSX devices. However, now is the first time ever when you can run your app on an iOS device without a membership certificate from Apple. This is very good news.
cm2187 11y ago
I don't know if it is still the case but last time I checked you had to go through the app store to deploy an iOS app even if it is for personal use.