Apple Asks Devs to Submit macOS Catalina Apps to Mac App Store, Reminds About Notarization Requirements

[MacRumors]

Ahead of the launch of macOS Catalina, which Apple says will "soon be available," Apple is asking developers to submit Mac apps compatible with Catalina to the Mac App Store.

Apple encourages developers to take advantage of macOS Catalina technologies like Sign in with Apple, Sidecar, Core ML 3, and Metal. Apple also highlights Mac Catalyst, designed to bring iPad apps to the Mac.

macOS Catalina will soon be available to hundreds of millions of users around the world. With macOS Catalina, your Mac apps can take advantage of Sign in with Apple, Sidecar, and the latest advances in Core ML 3, and Metal. And with Mac Catalyst, you can bring your iPad apps to Mac. Build your apps using Xcode 11, test them on a Mac computer running the macOS Catalina GM seed, and submit them for review.

Separately, for apps that are designed to be distributed outside of the Mac App Store, Apple has reminded developers of a new notarization requirement.

Apple is requiring apps that are distributed outside of the Mac App Store to be notarized by Apple to run on macOS Catalina. First introduced in macOS Mojave, the notarization process is aimed at protecting Mac users from malicious and harmful apps.

To further protect users on macOS Catalina, we're working with developers to make sure all software, whether distributed on the App Store or outside of it, is signed or notarized by Apple. This will give users more confidence that the software they download and run, no matter where they get it from, has been checked for known security issues.

In June, we announced that all Mac software distributed outside the Mac App Store must be notarized by Apple in order to run by default on macOS Catalina. Make sure to test all versions of your software on the macOS Catalina GM seed and submit it to Apple to be notarized.

For notarization, Apple offers trusted non Mac App Store developers Developer IDs that are required to allow the Gatekeeper function on macOS to install non Mac App Store apps.

Notarization is not required for apps that are distributed through the Mac App Store, and Apple recently relaxed its notarization rules, giving developers until January 2020 to comply.

Apple today released the golden master version of macOS Catalina to developers, which represents the final version of the software that will be provided to the public.

It's still not known when macOS Catalina will launch, but it could be as early as tomorrow based on previously leaked info from Apple's Danish site.

Article Link: Apple Asks Devs to Submit macOS Catalina Apps to Mac App Store, Reminds About Notarization Requirements

 

[bwillwall]

I have a feeling Apple won't be bragging about the adoption rate of this release in WWDC 2020. Sure it will eventually catch on, but me and many others are not ready to give up unsigned and 32 bit apps with our current use cases.

 

[schlitzz]

It’s going to be a generic release for 64bit computing, and that’s fine. Going from Catalina to Thousand Island, next year will be great. But MacOS Ranch, in about two years, should be able to handle that broccoli from Microsoft.

 

[Starfia]

Apple is requiring apps that are distributed outside of the Mac App Store to be notarized by Apple to run on macOS Catalina.

To be clear, that is "to run by default," yes? Users can still bypass Gatekeeper and run Mac apps from any source they like?

 

[Ritsuka]

Yes, notarization is required only if the app is signed with a Developer ID certificate. Unsigned app will still run like in 10.14.

 

[iMelhado]

It’s going to be a generic release for 64bit computing, and that’s fine. Going from Catalina to Thousand Island, next year will be great. But MacOS Ranch, in about two years, should be able to handle that broccoli from Microsoft.

Nah, I'm sure in about three years, MacOS Metro will handle that broccoli AND carrots from Microsoft.

 

[itsmeaustend]

Yes, notarization is required only if the app is signed with a Developer ID certificate. Unsigned app will still run like in 10.14.

Where do you see that? I couldn't find that anywhere in the article.

 

[Ritsuka]

Apple's documentation, Apple's wwdc sessions.

 

[Konigi]

Do we have an idea of what iPad apps will become available thanks to Project Catalyst? I'm really looking forward to see this! Probably the best feature of Catalina, and it's only the first step of many.

 

[Spock]

Yes, notarization is required only if the app is signed with a Developer ID certificate. Unsigned app will still run like in 10.14.

That a good thing, I don’t mind Apple gatekeeping my iOS devices but I like to have full control over what I install on my Mac. I like to have emulators and torrent software on my Mac and I’m sure they won’t sign those kinds of apps.

 

[ryanissamson]

That a good thing, I don’t mind Apple gatekeeping my iOS devices but I like to have full control over what I install on my Mac. I like to have emulators and torrent software on my Mac and I’m sure they won’t sign those kinds of apps.

sure they would, there are legitimate uses for both emulators and torrent apps.

 

[btrach144]

Apple asked devs to submit iOS 13 apps 9 days ahead of its release. Surely, we won’t have to wait till the end of October as some are suggesting.

 

[Johnny London]

Only question: Will JDownloader work?

 

[StellarVixen]

sudo spctl --master-disable

Sorry, Apple. I am not gonna accept you turning Mac OS into walled garden like iOS. The day that happens, I am moving to some Linux distro, regardless of how much I love the Mac. Enough is enough.


And, another thing. Many developers are not happy with you taking 30 percent of their earnings, plus paying 99 per year to be "registered". Stop milking us like cows! When is it enough for you, if ever???

 

[Heineken]

I have a feeling Apple won't be bragging about the adoption rate of this release in WWDC 2020. Sure it will eventually catch on, but me and many others are not ready to give up unsigned and 32 bit apps with our current use cases.

It’s ppc to intel nonsense all over gain. Any reputable developer is already 64 bit and there is no reason to not sign the app.

 

[jonnysods]

Just as long as I can run unsigned apps that I already have. Some of the apps aren’t supported and won’t be updated for this feature, but I can’t live without them. And Reminders in iOS is forcing me to use Catalina.

So much uncertainty with this release!

 

[robjulo]

Dozens of apps will eventually be sold .

 

[Aston441]

sudo spctl --master-disable

Sorry, Apple. I am not gonna accept you turning Mac OS into walled garden like iOS. The day that happens, I am moving to some Linux distro, regardless of how much I love the Mac. Enough is enough.


And, another thing. Many developers are not happy with you taking 30 percent of their earnings, plus paying 99 per year to be "registered". Stop milking us like cows! When is it enough for you, if ever???

I’ve already purchased a laptop and run exclusively Linux on it in anticipation of MacOS jumping the shark soon.

I was exclusively Linux from 2007-2011, when I picked up a MacBook Air and switched to mostly MacOS.

the switchover made sense then. Apple was becoming very developer and geek friendly then.

it’s making a lot less sense lately. They’re way to full of themselves now. Worse than Microsoft ever was

 

[jinnj]

sudo spctl --master-disable

Sorry, Apple. I am not gonna accept you turning Mac OS into walled garden like iOS. The day that happens, I am moving to some Linux distro, regardless of how much I love the Mac. Enough is enough.


And, another thing. Many developers are not happy with you taking 30 percent of their earnings, plus paying 99 per year to be "registered". Stop milking us like cows! When is it enough for you, if ever???

30% is still less than what retail stores take from devs. Or even Verizon's mobile app store from the early JME days. Steam takes 30% as well.

 

[zorinlynx]

Stop panicking, folks.

- You can still run unsigned apps. Right-click and "Open" when launching it for the first time.
- You can sign and notarize pretty much any app. Apple isn't banning things like emulators and torrent clients from being signed/notarized. These are rules for the App Store, not general distribution.

Remember that Macs are development machines. By definition you can run whatever code you like on a development machine because developers need to run arbitrary code.

The big disappointment with this release is losing 32-bit support. This is going to hurt mostly gaming, and gaming is already weak on MacOS.

 

[jinnj]

I’ve already purchased a laptop and run exclusively Linux on it in anticipation of MacOS jumping the shark soon.

I was exclusively Linux from 2007-2011, when I picked up a MacBook Air and switched to mostly MacOS.

the switchover made sense then. Apple was becoming very developer and geek friendly then.

it’s making a lot less sense lately. They’re way to full of themselves now. Worse than Microsoft ever was

Dude you're full of it. You are not affected by the App signing, if you can easily move to Linux that means your app was never meant OS X. For developers nothing has changed in the MacOS environment. You can still release unsigned apps (like many do). All of the dev tools have gotten better over time.

 

[Wonder Warthog]

It’s ppc to intel nonsense all over gain. Any reputable developer is already 64 bit and there is no reason to not sign the app.

You'd be surprised how many games are still 32 bit.
Even fairly new ones.
And smaller utilities that simply don't need the memory address space also don't really "need" to be 64-bit (well now they do, and use more RAM thanks, Apple).

 

[Heineken]

You'd be surprised how many games are still 32 bit.
Even fairly new ones.
And smaller utilities that simply don't need the memory address space also don't really "need" to be 64-bit (well now they do, and use more RAM thanks, Apple).

App being 64 bit doesn’t mean it needs twice the memory and when OS doesn’t need to load both 32 and 64 bit libraries you save on ram anyway.

 

[konqerror]

And smaller utilities that simply don't need the memory address space also don't really "need" to be 64-bit (well now they do, and use more RAM thanks, Apple).

Percentagewise, small utilities gain the most. My Windows computer has one application, OneDrive, that's 32 bit, taking 66 MB of private code. It's loading 42 MB of shared libraries. So it's got roughly a 60% memory overhead because it's 32 bit.

Additionally, you left out security. ASLR and DEP/NX are features that only work in 64 bit mode.

And, another thing. Many developers are not happy with you taking 30 percent of their earnings, plus paying 99 per year to be "registered". Stop milking us like cows! When is it enough for you, if ever???

Go to Microsoft then. The cheapest developer support package, MSDN, is $540/year, going up to $6,000/year. You want to code sign like Apple lets you? That's a $70/year. You want to write a driver? $400/year for an EV cert, which is non-bypassable, like Apple.

And all of the stores charge 30%. So you're paying the exact same percentage regardless of platform.

 

[bwillwall]

It’s ppc to intel nonsense all over gain. Any reputable developer is already 64 bit and there is no reason to not sign the app.

I even said in my message it will catch on eventually. Stop being so defensive. I use some apps that happen to be 32 bit and it's not worth updating to lose that support yet.