Notarization Required for Mac Apps Created With New Developer IDs Starting in macOS 10.14.5

[Stella]

Some of us use applications that are not and cannot be in the MAS, and depend on them for our day to day working lives. A locked down Mac OS will not be for the better, it will be an utter disaster and show stopper.

Add: What happens to the command line terminal and associated command line applications / tools that come with it? Homebrew? They go bye-bye too?

If this locking down is done properly, i think it will be for the better. I like having control over my computer but i dont think going to custom arm stuff and MAS exclusivity necessarily entails losing control and diversity in workflows.
<snip>

 

[Cosmosent]

I'm a BIG fan of the Notarization that AAPL has in-place.

It works well for my one & only Mac App.

 

[0924487]

They are not trying to protect anyone. They want to control the whole ecosystem. If an app does not fit well within their business model, they just ban it from the App Store, just like they have done in the past with iOS. Eventually they will start charging developers 30% of their apps revenue when the centralization of app distribution is complete. F**k them. Is my overpriced computer. I dont need Nanny Cook to tell me what I can or can't install on it.
[doublepost=1554831549][/doublepost]
But they cant
[doublepost=1554831895][/doublepost].

So Apple is now the government Great analogy. Only that they will charge developers 30 percent for "checking" for E. Coli.
[doublepost=1554832011][/doublepost]
Only 30 percent of their revenue. Just that.

You see macOS will be phased out soon. iOS will replace macOS as Apple unify the two systems. By then iOS ought to be more powerful and become a full-feature desktop class OS. The kernel is the same on both iOS and macOS and both can run on ARM. AppKit will be extended to replace UIKit when Apple end support for x86 x64 instruction sets.

 

[justperry]

If this locking down is done properly, i think it will be for the better. I like having control over my computer but i dont think going to custom arm stuff and MAS exclusivity necessarily entails losing control and diversity in workflows. You still have direct access to the file system and ability to create custom scripts and keyboard shortcuts and the like with a sophisticated windowing environment. What you mostly lose out with arm and mas is legacy support. Which is a huge pain in the ass. It means that you have to keep an old computer running an old version of mac os to use your old stuff, which is wholly ****. But thats very much the ideology apple operates under. Notarization is just a middle ground compromise between apples goal of futuristic clean integration and users current pragmatic desire to get work done

What about running former versions of OS X/macOS in a VM.

 

[Stella]

What about running former versions of OS X/macOS in a VM.

Depends if any decent VMs were allowed on MAS. Parallels, VMWare, VirtualBox are currently not.

 

[enriquium]

You see macOS will be phased out soon. iOS will replace macOS as Apple unify the two systems. By then iOS ought to be more powerful and become a full-feature desktop class OS. The kernel is the same on both iOS and macOS and both can run on ARM. AppKit will be extended to replace UIKit when Apple end support for x86 x64 instruction sets.

"You see macOS will be phased out soon." You dont know this for a fact. They have been pretty explicit in that this is not their intent. I dont know what you mean by "powerful". iOS is the most neutered, flavorless operating system there is (hence the everdropping sales of the iPad). Nobody wants that s**t as their main computing platform. On top of that, iOS is not a better operating system than Android, plus on my android phone I can install whatever I want. Being this the main reason why I got rid of my iPhone. Yes, there will be viruses and "dangers"... who cares? that is my choice because I bought the phone with my money. Tim Cook didn't give it to me as a present. They just want to have a stream of extra revenue by ripping off developers and taking a 30% of their money. That is why Netflix and Adobe are giving them the middle finger and stopped allowing sign up for subscriptions to be processed within the app.

 

[ravenstar]

Why not? They do that for their other products. By forcing the use of the MAS they guarantee more $$ since they get a slice of the sale.

If money is their sole motivation, they may do that, but I think they're more interested in building a reputation for a quality vetting process to bring more people to the platform. They don't have the influence in the PC OS market they have in the phone market, so they risk losing developers and therefore income to other platforms if they start taking away capabilities (unlike iOS where the App Store was an added opportunity.) They can build their reputation and that of their products without the ill will merely by doing exactly what they're claiming they're doing: Requiring apps to be notarized to be installed.

They'd be foolish not to do the calculation as to whether it would benefit the company, but I don't see the market tolerating the Mac being closed in that way.

 

[enriquium]

If money is their sole motivation, they may do that, but I think they're more interested in building a reputation for a quality vetting process to bring more people to the platform. They don't have the influence in the PC OS market they have in the phone market, so they risk losing developers and therefore income to other platforms if they start taking away capabilities (unlike iOS where the App Store was an added opportunity.) They can build their reputation and that of their products without the ill will merely by doing exactly what they're claiming they're doing: Requiring apps to be notarized to be installed.

They'd be foolish not to do the calculation as to whether it would benefit the company, but I don't see the market tolerating the Mac being closed in that way.

Right, like the calculation they made when they decided to go with the new POS keyboard "less noisy and magical"....BS. If they are building a reputation for quality, they are failing miserably. The iPad's frame bends, the keyboards in Macbooks fail at a staggering rate to the point of getting an apology from Apple (!!!!!). Displays on Macbooks fail and are irreparable bacause they want them to look pretty, not to actually work like they should. And now that sales are floundering across the board, they need another source of revenue. The company is following its footsteps back to the 80s. This time there is no Steve Jobs to save it.
[doublepost=1554841616][/doublepost]

This is certainly a vey dangerous slippery slope... Even if they don't force devs to distribute through the MacAppstore ( I don't think they will ), they might decide to start refusing to notarize apps or games for which they disagree with the content.

That is exactly what is going to happen. They had hopes that the ipad was the computing platform of the future. The iPad is crap as a primary computing device and people realized it, hence the sales drop. So, now they have to f**k around with the other succesful platform that is not an iphone. The Mac

 

[0924487]

"You see macOS will be phased out soon." You dont know this for a fact. They have been pretty explicit in that this is not their intent. I dont know what you mean by "powerful". iOS is the most neutered, flavorless operating system there is (hence the everdropping sales of the iPad). Nobody wants that s**t as their main computing platform. On top of that, iOS is not a better operating system than Android, plus on my android phone I can install whatever I want. Being this the main reason why I got rid of my iPhone. Yes, there will be viruses and "dangers"... who cares? that is my choice because I bought the phone with my money. Tim Cook didn't give it to me as a present. They just want to have a stream of extra revenue by ripping off developers and taking a 30% of their money. That is why Netflix and Adobe are giving them the middle finger and stopped allowing sign up for subscriptions to be processed within the app.

You know the limitations of iOS you meantioned above is not technical but rather business decisions. That is iOS is limiting not because it’s limiting piece of technology, but rather Apple currently asserts a lot of control over iOS and not as much on macOS. Yes, you can download pirated Apps on Android for free and they will run just fine. You can’t do that on iOS and that’s intentional, that’s why developers are more willing to make apps for iOS because more people are willing to pay for apps on iOS. It’s good for the ecosystem.

 

[Internet Enzyme]

What about running former versions of OS X/macOS in a VM.

Exactly

Depends if any decent VMs were allowed on MAS. Parallels, VMWare, VirtualBox are currently not.

One of the stipulations for me to say that they did the locking down “properly” would be to have the MAS become something more attractive for developers—the mac app store needs software like parallels, the adobe suite, bbedit, and microsoft office to be a proper single store solution. Those latter two are on the store already, so i think that most devs could be enticed to serving on the MAS exclusively. I feel like apple may have to set different rates for the MAS because mac apps are generally far more expensive than ios apps

 

[enriquium]

You know the limitations of iOS you meantioned above is not technical but rather business decisions. That is iOS is limiting not because it’s limiting piece of technology, but rather Apple currently asserts a lot of control over iOS and not as much on macOS. Yes, you can download pirated Apps on Android for free and they will run just fine. You can’t do that on iOS and that’s intentional, that’s why developers are more willing to make apps for iOS because more people are willing to pay for apps on iOS. It’s good for the ecosystem.

That is exactly my point. The limitations that apple inserts to the platform by being control freaks are unacceptable. I know that not letting me download whatever I want, in my phone is intentional. For them is not a bug, it is a feature that makes them money(yay!). But for users like me, it is a terrible bug. It certainly might be good for the iOS ecosystem given the iPhone (not the iPad) market position. The same can't be said about the Mac; its market position is not nearly as good. A developer will think twice before shelling out 30% of its income to Apple in exchange for listing it Apps in its walled "garden". No wonder Apple is being sued in the EU for monopolistic behavior. I really hope they lose.

 

[chris1958]

If Apple decides to produce only gadgets for stupid people, who have to be protected like children, than it is goodbye to Apple for me. Apple used to produce computers for pros. A lot of developers loved MacOS because it is a Unix-system with a better desktop and much better support for notebooks than Linux. Pros don't just want to consume, but want to adapt the machine to there needs. If necessary, we want to able to take risks. As adults we should know, what we are doing.

With this development, the most important thing about MacOS will be the number of supported emoticons.

 

[Stella]

This would require relaxing the rules for submission. Do you think Apple would do this?

Problem with your ‘properly’ clause is that it’s far reaching: Apple may as well not lock down the OS in the first place.

Mac OS is better unlocked, outside of any walled garden. Walled gardens on a desktop OS absolutely kills its usefulness and viabilty.

Exactly



One of the stipulations for me to say that they did the locking down “properly” would be to have the MAS become something more attractive for developers—the mac app store needs software like parallels, the adobe suite, bbedit, and microsoft office to be a proper single store solution. Those latter two are on the store already, so i think that most devs could be enticed to serving on the MAS exclusively. I feel like apple may have to set different rates for the MAS because mac apps are generally far more expensive than ios apps

 

[Babygotfont]

Sounds suspiciously like the last step before requiring Mac apps to be released through the App Store, just like iOS. Slippery slope!

you've hit the nail right on the head ... this collusion will not stand!

 

[ravenstar]

If Apple decides to produce only gadgets for stupid people, who have to be protected like children, than it is goodbye to Apple for me. Apple used to produce computers for pros. A lot of developers loved MacOS because it is a Unix-system with a better desktop and much better support for notebooks than Linux. Pros don't just want to consume, but want to adapt the machine to there needs. If necessary, we want to able to take risks. As adults we should know, what we are doing.

With this development, the most important thing about MacOS will be the number of supported emoticons.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to become a computer expert. There's a very large portion of the computing public that sees their computer as a tool to accomplish a task, not an end to itself, and to them being able to rely on someone else to be the expert makes sense. It doesn't make them "stupid" and they shouldn't be subjected to insults.

It absolutely makes sense from a business standpoint for Apple to offer this kind of service as there is almost certainly a demand for it. The popularity of iOS is a pretty clear indication that not everyone cares to live in the wild west of technology. As long as Apple offers "experts" a way to bypass the restrictions, as they have so far and I believe they'll continue to do, no need to get worked up over this enhancement which has value for many people.

As for the MAS, developers will flock there if the majority of customers start demanding it. I'm not sure that'll happen, but we'll have to see.

 

[Internet Enzyme]

This would require relaxing the rules for submission. Do you think Apple would do this?

Problem with your ‘properly’ clause is that it’s far reaching: Apple may as well not lock down the OS in the first place.

Mac OS is better unlocked, outside of any walled garden. Walled gardens on a desktop OS absolutely kills its usefulness and viabilty.

“Walled garden” is too a far reaching clause. There are really no viable OSes that dont rely on private apis or copy protected technologies and rights management schemes. All OSes are walled gardens, but to varying degrees. I think that having one unified store that acts like a payment processor such as Visa, simply providing a storefront with minimal over head and with A similar set of restrictions as notarized apps experience would be a perfectly viable solution for the future

 

[enriquium]

With this development, the most important thing about MacOS will be the number of supported emoticons.

hahaha yeah, exactly! That is what matters. You get an emoji making machine for $2,000. Just like the iPad, a Game Boy with big screen

 

[noraa]

Wouldn't have been too bad if it was just that. The fact that I have to redo that over and over again every 30 days is annoying.

Really you shouldn't ever have to completely disable Gatekeeper - right clicking on an application to open it tells macOS to trust the app moving forward, whether it's signed or not.
[doublepost=1554929609][/doublepost]

So therefore all users should be treated as such??

No, which is why there are ways to bypass Gatekeeper and/or completely disable it. Same with system integrity protection - enabled by default, but if you really want to/need to turn it off you can.

All this outcry here about Apple locking down macOS like iOS is just a bunch of FUD spread by the typical forum goers here who actively dislike Apple.

 

[enriquium]

Really you shouldn't ever have to completely disable Gatekeeper - right clicking on an application to open it tells macOS to trust the app moving forward, whether it's signed or not.
[doublepost=1554929609][/doublepost]

No, which is why there are ways to bypass Gatekeeper and/or completely disable it. Same with system integrity protection - enabled by default, but if you really want to/need to turn it off you can.

All this outcry here about Apple locking down macOS like iOS is just a bunch of FUD spread by the typical forum goers here who actively dislike Apple.

Dislike Apple? I have been an Apple user for the last 15 years. I really, really want to like them, but If this notarizing c**p thing is heading where I know is heading, then I will be a happy Windows user all over again. And yes, you should not have to jump so many hoops to install the app that you want on YOUR PROPERTY, YOUR COMPUTER.

 

[noraa]

Dislike Apple? I have been an Apple user for the last 15 years. I really, really want to like them, but If this notarizing c**p thing is heading where I know is heading, then I will be a happy Windows user all over again. And yes, you should not have to jump so many hoops to install the app that you want on YOUR PROPERTY, YOUR COMPUTER.

You know where it's going? Do you have a crystal ball you would like to share with the class?

And do you really consider "right-click -> open" to be a hoop to jump through (let alone multiple hoops)?

Also, Microsoft is pushing their own notarization type system using what they call "Smart Screen". If an app is from an unrecognized developer a warning will pop-up warning you as such. Is this also a slippery slope with an inevitable outcome to you as well?

 

[enriquium]

What class? Is this a class? Did I pass? Right Click ---> Open, my a$$. More like go to settings---> security> click the lock> enter password>>>allow app and then if you dont use it in 30 days, rinse and repeat. Typical APPLE BS. That is why their sales are stalling and they are now relying on ripping off content providers and developers. That is what my crystal balls say.

 

[AnonMac50]

Really you shouldn't ever have to completely disable Gatekeeper - right clicking on an application to open it tells macOS to trust the app moving forward, whether it's signed or not.
[doublepost=1554929609][/doublepost]

No, which is why there are ways to bypass Gatekeeper and/or completely disable it. Same with system integrity protection - enabled by default, but if you really want to/need to turn it off you can.

All this outcry here about Apple locking down macOS like iOS is just a bunch of FUD spread by the typical forum goers here who actively dislike Apple.

Doesn't always work as such, sometimes there are things that won't work even if you right click and select open. And sometime, you need to disable gatekeeper AND right-click to open.

Either way, if I'm given the option to disable it (going through terminal is not designed for basic users), I shouldn't expect to have to re-enable it every time. Why I need to (or want to) do it is irrelevant.

 

[noraa]

What class? Is this a class? Did I pass? Right Click ---> Open, my a$$. More like go to settings---> security> click the lock> enter password>>>allow app and then if you dont use it in 30 days, rinse and repeat. Typical APPLE BS. That is why their sales are stalling and they are now relying on ripping off content providers and developers. That is what my crystal balls say.

Hence, the terminal cmd to fully disable gatekeeper. You can even create a simple shell script to disable it if it re-enables; or even better, a cron job that runs every so often to keep it disabled.

Perhaps you consider these hoops to jump through, I look at it as Apple making sure the average user is secure without having to think too much about. Those that want to take the risk can, but you gotta work for it.

All I see here is a bunch of people gnashing their teeth because...well...because it's Macrumors and that's just what people do here.

 

[Stella]

By walled garden I’m referring to the iOS style walled garden.

I don’t really consider ‘private api’ to come under the umbrella of a ‘walled garden’

One unified store: and the owner gets to choose the acceptance criteria - ala MAS store ( which had all kinds of issues ).

One unified store as you suggest isn’t a great way to go and is unnecessary. Its open to all kinds of crap. Let developers sell their software how they wish, as is the case at the moment.

“Walled garden” is too a far reaching clause. There are really no viable OSes that dont rely on private apis or copy protected technologies and rights management schemes. All OSes are walled gardens, but to varying degrees. I think that having one unified store that acts like a payment processor such as Visa, simply providing a storefront with minimal over head and with A similar set of restrictions as notarized apps experience would be a perfectly viable solution for the future

 

[Sharewaredemon]

It's actually a secondary click. Which makes so much more sense than "right" click. Secondary clicks are activated by tapping two fingers on a trackpad (second, as in, one and two).