Apple Again Encouraging Mac Developers to Sign Up for Developer ID Ahead of OS X Mountain Lion

I'm very confused, someone please explain:

MacRumors said:

...Should the developer be found to behave maliciously, Apple will be able to revoke the Developer ID associated with that developer, preventing applications signed with the ID from running and causing further harm to users...

Click to expand...

So this system is designed to catch developers who:

- Voluntarily sign up, knowing full well Apple is monitoring them, and then...
- ... One day out of the blue, they "behave maliciously" and Apple will shut them down.

...???

If someone is going to "behave maliciously" they aren't going to sign up for this in the first place. The only thing this is going to protect against are developers who apparently have a screw loose and one day go off the deep end and start injecting malicious code into their programs?

I'm sorry, is my logic off here or does this whole system seem very useless?

What evs

Yeah, I got this this morning too. It would have done nothing to prevent the recent Java trojan, though. It's just another damn hoop to jump through.

I'm waiting for the day I need a chip implant in order to submit an app to the mothership.

I fully support this, but I have one MAJOR concern:

Will developers be able to sign apps with a free developer account?

My main concern is that signing will be limited to paid developer accounts, and this will create an unfair class structure where many small, independent developers, who create some of the best tools on OS X, many of them free or donationware, will have to keep forking over money just so they can become a part of the new, more secure OS X ecosystem.

I sincerely hope that is not what happens.

damage00 said:

I'm waiting for the day I need a chip implant in order to submit an app to the mothership.

Click to expand...

Just pray they don't "deactivate" it.

One step closer to making the Mac an entirely closed system with Apple being the gatekeeper of what you can install on a Mac.

applesith said:

One step closer to making the Mac an entirely closed system with Apple being the gatekeeper of what you can install on a Mac.

Click to expand...

No you are so far off the mark you're heading in the wrong direction. The Mac App store and the only way to install apps on a Mac would be what you describe.

Gatekeeper is an admission that Apple has no need or desire to prevent developers from selling their apps on their own.

Gatekeeper is nothing more than a Developer being able to vouch for the authenticity of his/her app. If that app was signed with malware they should be revoked.

Tron?

I think I remember the TRON movie following some of these same parallels.

Free and open computer landscape and then the MCP(gatekeeper) was installed and locked everything down?

Mr Fusion said:

I'm very confused, someone please explain:


So this system is designed to catch developers who:

- Voluntarily sign up, knowing full well Apple is monitoring them, and then...
- ... One day out of the blue, they "behave maliciously" and Apple will shut them down.

...???

If someone is going to "behave maliciously" they aren't going to sign up for this in the first place. The only thing this is going to protect against are developers who apparently have a screw loose and one day go off the deep end and start injecting malicious code into their programs?

I'm sorry, is my logic off here or does this whole system seem very useless?

Click to expand...

Apple's not monitoring. They simply have a switch that they can throw if they find that a developer signed an app with malware.

Your second point hits the meat of things. If a Developer doesn't want to get a Developer ID and sign their apps that what exactly does that say about this developers motives?

I suspect I will give developers about a year or so to get a Developer ID and then I will not allow any non signed apps on my Macs.

nuckinfutz said:

No you are so far off the mark you're heading in the wrong direction. The Mac App store and the only way to install apps on a Mac would be what you describe.

Gatekeeper is an admission that Apple has no need or desire to prevent developers from selling their apps on their own.

Gatekeeper is nothing more than a Developer being able to vouch for the authenticity of his/her app. If that app was signed with malware they should be revoked.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is how it looks today.

However this might only be the first step. With this in place they are two steps away from making it so only signed code would run and Apple could say they would only code sign apps sold in the app store.

nuckinfutz said:

Apple's not monitoring. They simply have a switch that they can throw if they find that a developer signed an app with malware.

Your second point hits the meat of things. If a Developer doesn't want to get a Developer ID and sign their apps that what exactly does that say about this developers motives?

I suspect I will give developers about a year or so to get a Developer ID and then I will not allow any non signed apps on my Macs.

Click to expand...

Or worse, some malicious developer tries to sneak malware using an imitator app like the fake flash updater.

Moonjumper said:

There are a few types of app that are not suitable for the Mac App Store, but users will want.

There is software that is too expensive for the store. Adobe Creative Suite, Maya and 3DS Max for example.

Also, apps that may be too adult in content. This will include some games.

Plus apps coming through another distribution sources such as Steam.

And then there is open source software that has licences that clash with the Mac App Store EULA.

All of these will include many trustworthy sources. It is good that Apple are allowing developers an alternative.

Click to expand...

I agree. You need an alternative. If you want your Mac with the full body condom, that is your choice. If you want to good bareback into the net, that is your choice too. I'd like to see something like this as an alternative on the iOS. My guess that starts when they start to loose market share.

lostngone said:

Yes, that is how it looks today.

However this might only be the first step. With this in place they are two steps away from making it so only signed code would run and Apple could say they would only code sign apps in the app store.

Click to expand...

lostngone

You can apply a slippery slope logical fallacy to anything and make it sound bad but at the end of the day we've got to go on what we know now which is

Devs sign their code or refuse to

This has three ramifications

On systems with Gatekeeper running the ones that didn't sign get blocked.
Those that did sign get safe passage

On systems not running Gatekeeper nothing changes.

Let's not make a tempest in a teacup.

nuckinfutz said:

lostngone

You can apply a slippery slope logical fallacy to anything and make it sound bad but at the end of the day we've got to go on what we know now which is

Devs sign their code or refuse to

Click to expand...

REALLY slippery slope??? We are already seeing this now from Apple.

What if I want to sell/run unsigned on an iOS device?

lostngone said:

REALLY slippery slope??? We are already seeing this now from Apple.

What if I want to sell/run unsigned on an iOS device?

Click to expand...

iOS apps are all signed by default and are curated. You are not seeing anything from Apple but a way for developers to prove the authenticity of their application and themselves as developers. Anything else you've extrapolated from this are creations within your own mind.

I am the Keymaster.

What I want to know is where Apple's icon design team went.

That icon is brutal. The shading looks all wrong, it looks flat and unfinished and untextured. The shadow on the floor is unrealistic (because the arch is curved at the top, it wouldn't cast a flat shadow unless the light source was directly above it, but then the shadow wouldn't extend behind the front of the wall).

Yes, I'm niggling about an icon. Compared to what we had before things like iTunes 10 and Launchpad rolled around (even iCloud is flawed- the anisotropy on their aluminum is all wrong), it's still crap.

What happened to the team who designed the Time Machine icon? The Safari icon? System Preferences? The Logic & Audio/MIDI icons? Etc. Those are nice icons. It worries me that: A) they're going totally monochrome in 10.7 (which to me demonstrates an aspect of laziness), and B) they actually think stuff like this is acceptable quality compared to what they've already done.

-SC

nuckinfutz said:

iOS apps are all signed by default and are curated. You are not seeing anything from Apple but a way for developers to prove the authenticity of their application and themselves as developers. Anything else you've extrapolated from this are creations within your own mind.

Click to expand...

You are so wrong.

You can only sell Apps that Apple LETS/WANTS you to sell.

Do I need to post a list of Apps Apple has denied.

I really do hope the Mac won't become like the iPhone/iPad App Store, limiting customers isn't the way to go...

lostngone said:

REALLY slippery slope??? We are already seeing this now from Apple.

What if I want to sell/run unsigned on an iOS device?

Click to expand...

Since when was the iOS an open platform where you can run any third party app? The answer is never. The comparison with the Mac Desktop platform is invalid - they are separate systems.

Apple has said many times that the MAS is not going to be the sole method of App distribution. They are not fools here.

pdjudd said:

The comparison with the Mac Desktop platform is invalid - they are separate systems.

Click to expand...

Yes, they separate systems now.

However, this is step in the direction of limiting what users can and can not load on the Desktop.

I got the email too!

lostngone said:

You are so wrong.

You can only sell Apps that Apple LETS/WANTS you to sell.

Do I need to post a list of Apps Apple has denied.

Click to expand...

For iOS it's been like this from day one with a curated store. This thread is about Gatekeeper which is Mac and has allowed multiple ways of app distribution. Let's not go off topic.

----------

lostngone said:

Yes, they separate systems now.

However, this is step in the direction of limiting what users can and can not load on the Desktop.

Click to expand...

I predict Apple will then kill us all and use our bodies for fertilizer. Then it is Gatekeeper and not nuclear weapons that will lead to the downfall of mankind. lol

if we're going down that slippery slope we may as well go the whole way right?

Tried to install the Google Talk plugin (needed for G+) on my developer's preview of ML.

Guess who doesn't have a developer id yet?

(Hint: starts with "G" and rhymes with "Moogle")

lostngone said:

However, this is step in the direction of limiting what users can and can not load on the Desktop.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. Apple had a system long ago called AtEase, which allowed only apps from a pre-approved source (an administrator) to be available to end users. Of course most people never used such a system at home and there were always ways around it. But the fact is, this is not a new thing here. Except Apple has explicitly said that what you think will happen is not. This is proving options to people where no options existed before.

ETA: For the sake of sanity, stop claiming chicken little scenarios without proof. Hard proof. No "it's possible to do this" or "look at X" real proof.

pdjudd said:

No it isn't. Apple had a system long ago called AtEase, which allowed only apps from a pre-approved source (an administrator) to be available to end users. Of course most people never used such a system at home and there were always ways around it. But the fact is, this is not a new thing here. Except Apple has explicitly said that what you think will happen is not. This is proving options to people where no options existed before.

ETA: For the sake of sanity, stop claiming chicken little scenarios without proof. Hard proof. No "it's possible to do this" or "look at X" real proof.

Click to expand...

You know when you see a financial ad and it says past performance is no guarantee of future performance. That applies to lots of stuff. Nobody can prove anything about the future because it has not been written yet. Did people learn nothing from Terminator 2.

PS : Feel free to post a link to where Apple provide a cast iron guarantee about this not happening.