yeah, installing a giant app like xcode to compile a small app is a very reasonable distribution model.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
macOS Sequoia Makes It Harder to Override Gatekeeper Security
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah, installing a giant app like xcode to compile a small app is a very reasonable distribution model.
If it ever becomes necessary, you're right this will probably always be an option and still comes in under the price of a Windows license.
That’s absolutely not OK.
Time to push back against Apple. They’re trying to make MacOS as limited as iOS and I’m sick of it
Time to push back against Apple. They’re trying to make MacOS as limited as iOS and I’m sick of it
They have to pay $100 a year and own a Mac for that. Why should the developer of a free application do that?
They’ll just update it to include the new instructions. Then Apple will have an excuse to remove that too
There’s no such thing as 100% security. Even disabling un-notarized apps entirely will not result in a 100% secure MacOS
And I’m not OK with them removing my freedom to install any app I want
What makes you believe that? Apple don't need an excuse to remove anything from the OS, they can just do it. The fact that they haven't is evidence that it's not their goal. There are reasonable and plausible justifications for why Apple have moved this setting to the Settings app that don't involve malevolent plans to lock down macOS entirely.
You know why this stuff has to be added, right? Correct me if wrong, but any Linux distro that took off with the public / retail would likewise need to follow suit.
Oh piss off. If I downloaded an app that I want to install, I'm going to install it regardless of macOS's warning, because there are so many completely legitimate apps that are not signed. Not being signed is therefore not an indication of it being malware, so the warning is completely meaningless. It's like your car telling you "Are you sure you want to start the engine? You could get into an accident!" every time. Yes, I'm sure, and yes, I know. Asking isn't going to make me reconsider, it's just a waste of time.
Notorization does not require publication in the App Store, does not require meeting App Store rules (specifically, sandbox restrictions required by the App Store interfere with many categories of software), and does not require any form of revenue sharing.
The future they want is one where we cannot update/upgrade anything, there's minimal resale market (sorry perfectly good but password locked computer owner) and they get a cut from every software title we use. I've been a fanboy for 24 years, but I'm switching to linux PCs, for these reasons.
That's exactly what it's all about, and Apple and Google and Microsoft are all desperately hoping that they can shunt a gargantuan glut of used computers to recyclers before Linux devs figure out how to slay Cerberus.
You might be ignoring it in your mind but you legally accepted the agreement.
I totally agree!
Absolutely not. By not accepting the EULA you’re preventing yourself from using it. Now there are gray areas where I might agree with you such as you buy a game then they drastically change the EULA. At that point you’re either forced to agree with something you didn’t consider at the time of purchase or stop using the product.
You know at the time of sale that agreeing with the software EULA is required to use it. Do you really want to be forced to sign some crazy EULA at the time of purchase. It’s like I know websites have cookies. I don’t need to agree to it every time 🤦♂️
The culprit yet. Yes it’ll be like the cookie pop ups. At least this won’t affect USA buyers.
Again: there is no global legal consensus if “shrink-wrap” type are legally binding and enforceable.
Even if partially enforceable, unfair, unreasonable or unexpected clauses can still remain unenforceable.
To emphasise the point: clicking on “accept” does not mean I legally agree to anything or everything - particularly not if I’m forced to do it in order to use the software as intended and as it was purchased for.
If I buy a car, paid for it and upon pick-up from the dealership notice that the manufacturer put a sticker over the ignition lock cylinder stating “by inserting your key, you irrevocably agree to our licensing agreement here or there…”, do you believe that will be considered a legally valid agreement in every jurisdiction in the world?
PS: …or that I’d have to return the car to the manufacturer to get refunded?
Last edited:
Attachments
PS: coming back to an earlier post, and to a particular relevant question to the topic:
European Union law expressly allows for reverse engineering and decompilation of computer software for interoperability purposes of other (possibly competing) software - as a right that can’t be taken away by end user licensing agreement.
European Union law expressly allows for reverse engineering and decompilation of computer software for interoperability purposes of other (possibly competing) software - as a right that can’t be taken away by end user licensing agreement.
And it's even easier to install Linux in a VM on a Mac, which allows running almost any Linux app, even closed source binaries. But with all the freedom that using Linux allows, how many people actually download and install closed source Linux binaries, or binaries from anywhere other than the official OS distribution's package manager repository?
Sure they’re not going to send a police officer to your house to beat you down if you do something against the TOS so in that sense no it’s not enforceable. However, I think the point I’m making is when people complain… Oh nooo I can’t do this or oh no this isn’t fair that Apple does this to the operating system yeah that’s in the terms of service that you physically agreed to but mentally didn’t agree to.
I think that’s going with reverse engineering an app for example to make it work on macOS while the developer only made it work on Windows.
They’re not wrong. On a scale of less secure to more secure, there are other OS’s Apple makes that’s more secure. A couple of them actually.
I note the link doesn't mention "or corporations" at all, so your "headline" is a bit misleading. I definitely don't see how it justifies the unwavering confidence people seem to have in their prediction that Apple are sneakily working their way towards a locked-down macOS.
If they wanted to do that, what's stopping them from just doing it right now? Instead the claim is that they're wasting money and development time moving the bypass to the Settings app just so later they can remove it like they truly want. It doesn't really make sense to me on its face.
Last edited: