Sidebar Sidebar
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

I hope we always have just "one macOS", unlike the 10 flavours of Windows that consumers are forced to choose between.

But the idea of a "Simple Finder" still has merit. I wish Apple didn't abandon that approach to creating a safe experience for less-technical users, while inconveniencing the rest of us.

Is macOS losing its UNIX heritage? Let's hope not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland and rmadsen3
Oestreich Dieter said:
This is a GOOD thing. For experienced users like us, its a minor inconvenience, but for my parents and uncle....this is badly needed to protect themselves from installing something bad.
Click to expand...
There are better solutions for your "parents problem". Buy them an iPad with a keyboard or lock down the Mac with MDM or a disable administration rights for the user account. Problem solved.

I'm now convinced, that Apple's actual goal is to slowly kill software distribution outside of the Apple controlled App Store.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Galas, maxoakland, alvindarkness and 4 others
roadkill401 said:
so in other words, Apple wants everyone who writes free software for Mac to have to pay the $99+ yearly to make it just expensive for anyone wanting to write free stuff as a hobby or for the good of the community. If Apple really wanted to make a difference then it would have a free level of developer that allows for a small number of apps to be released for free. Like 10-15 free before you need to pay the $99
Click to expand...
It is free. You only pay if you want support and access to the store. I have had my account since college and have never paid a dime. I could log in today and download the developer builds for stuff if I wanted to.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Haha
Reactions: maxoakland, telecomm, Chuckeee and 1 other person
MilaM said:
There are better solutions for your "parents problem". Buy them an iPad with a keyboard or lock down the Mac with MDM or a disable administration rights for the user account. Problem solved.

I'm now convinced, that Apple's actual goal is to slowly kill software distribution outside of the Apple controlled App Store.
Click to expand...

Thought about this, but my parents want a large screen, not an iPad/laptop screen, and they want to not ever have to touch the screen, ever.

I ended up buying them a Asus Chromebox with a 24" monitor. Regular keyboard, mouse, webcam and it has a pointy cursor instead of the stupid iPad circle mouse cursor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MilaM
roadkill401 said:
so in other words, Apple wants everyone who writes free software for Mac to have to pay the $99+ yearly to make it just expensive for anyone wanting to write free stuff as a hobby or for the good of the community. If Apple really wanted to make a difference then it would have a free level of developer that allows for a small number of apps to be released for free. Like 10-15 free before you need to pay the $99
Click to expand...
Yep, had to move a few of my apps to the store too. Kind of annoying tbh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland, Shirasaki and splitpea
Speed38 said:
This is little more than an effort on the part of Apple to have all purchases of third-party software made at the App Store so that Apple gets its %30 cut.
Click to expand...

Naaa.. I already have the notification disabled in settings and don't care either way.
 
The_Gream said:
It is free. You only pay if you want support and access to the store. I have had my account since college and have never paid a dime. I could log in today and download the developer builds for stuff if I wanted to.
Click to expand...

There are different capabilities for the different levels: https://developer.apple.com/help/account/reference/supported-capabilities-macos

The free tier can't distribute applications: "Apple Developer: Apple ID holders who have agreed to the Apple Developer Agreement to access certain resources on the Apple Developer website. No cost is associated with this agreement and developers cannot distribute apps."
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland, telecomm, Shirasaki and 2 others
There’s literally ZERO reason for people to complain about this… if you’re “tech literate” (as so many put it here), you can take that minuscule extra step. If you’re not, it’s an added layer of protection. Whenever anything nefarious happens, the headlines aren’t “tech illiterate user does XYZ”, it’s “Apple Mac user gets scammed, etc.” and people cry about [unrelated and exaggerated]-$ amount company not protecting its users.
 
  • Angry
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland, Shirasaki, Chuckeee and 1 other person
jasnw said:
As soon as this starts impacting use of MacPorts and Homebrew and self-written software, this sort of Big Brother protection will move rapidly out of the "mildly annoying" bin into the "hell no" bin.
Click to expand...

Homebrew has a --no-quarantine flag that you can pass to disable Gatekeeper protection on whatever software you are installing. Hopefully that still works?
 
aidler said:
“Trusted Software” is an interesting term. I’m not sure why I should trust Apple on this. Lately, not only security but also economic and increasingly political reasons have been relevant for Apple when notarizing an App, hence giving it the “Trusted Software” label. “Trusted” for Apple does not necessarily mean it is in the customer's best interest.
Click to expand...
The funniest part is that signing a piece of software means nothing other than the developer has paid Apple $99. Do you think someone would pay Apple $99 so they can more easily get their malware onto their victims' computers? Versus the developer that works on a program in their free time for the good of other people who's not willing to pay Apple money to release something they already are spending their own time on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland, Shirasaki, splitpea and 4 others
This is getting close to everything being locked and controlled by Apple. You have to pay the Apple Tax even if you want to create and release free and open-source software for Mac. You must pay $99 to Apple if you want Mac users. This might be good for Apple's business but not so great for Apple users if no open-source alternative software would exist on Mac.

Windows and the web are better platforms for developers now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland, Shirasaki, splitpea and 2 others
!!! said:
Versus the developer that works on a program in their free time for the good of other people who's not willing to pay Apple money to release something they already are spending their own time on?
Click to expand...
This is what worries me the most. There are many small software projects that are maintained by volunteers. More often than not, macOS is just one of many release targets. If software distribution on macOS becomes even more annoying (we might not be there yet), then they will just drop macOS support altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland, alvindarkness, sos47 and 8 others
MAC-os RT for those that want it. Someone mentioned (versions of macOS) why not have a fully locked down approval only like Microsoft version RT? Would that be a bad thing? We all live in a fantasy of security where things are perfect but why not have a locked down version? Would switching security on the Os be that hard to build or add on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
skurdin said:
This is getting close to everything being locked and controlled by Apple. You have to pay the Apple Tax even if you want to create and release free and open-source software for Mac. You must pay $99 to Apple if you want Mac users. This might be good for Apple's business but not so great for Apple users if no open-source alternative software would exist on Mac.

Windows and the web are better platforms for developers now.
Click to expand...

Web-apps suck, end-of-story. Windows 10 is okay, but Windows 11 is absolutely horrible to use and I'd rather go back to ms-dos 6.22.

...And no, you don't have to pay $99, and anyone can install your app by disabling the check in settings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewOldStock
WarmWinterHat said:
...And no, you don't have to pay $99, and anyone can install your app by disabling the check in settings.
Click to expand...
No one will bother to go to settings and disable the check. They will be forced to think this software is not legit and not good for them just because the developer did not pay $99/year for an Apple certificate. They're selling air, nothing, just a key for $99/year for you to be available on a Mac. That's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland, Shirasaki and filchermcurr
I write a program that has proprietary code in it and I put it in the store who makes sure patents and software licenses are not abused? Does Apple gatekeepers check for that kind of thing? Or does it pass through checks and balance and people are able to down load it?
Just figuring out the gatekeeping part and how it works as some may not know about that in general and I know I dont as a end-user with TLDR`s..
=============
Sorry this is Lawyer speak in a way but there is some foreign country software moving around the world and different countries have different laws is why I ask. So bad software on your computer from the store is not apples fault?
Lawyers be all this is why im asking to sort it out. Protections do work both ways in some cases.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
NewOldStock said:
I write a program that has proprietary code in it and I put it in the store who makes sure patents and software licenses are not abused? Does Apple gatekeepers check for that kind of thing? Or does it pass through checks and balance and people are able to down load it?
Just figuring out the gatekeeping part and how it works as some may not know about that in general and I know I dont as a end-user with TLDR`s..
Click to expand...
You can do anything you want but don't forget to pay Apple $99/year. This might not be a big deal if you make money out of your software product, but free products wont be a thing in few years from now on a Mac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland, Shirasaki, splitpea and 2 others
I don't see a problem with putting more hoops to jump through for power users to open un-notarised apps.

However, I think we all remember how arbitrary Apple is with what gets and doesn't get notarised outside the App Store with iOS.

When you don't allow something on the App Store, but also refuse to notarise it (certain emulators on iOS for example), you're forcing people to circumvent all the security benefits you claim this brings. All you're doing is annoy users.

This is making Mac OS a less attractive dev target for open source development, too. Who would go through pain of putting some notarisation process into their GitHub pipeline on some virtualised Mac just so they can offer binaries?
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back