Apple introduces Developer ID ahead of Mountain Lion's Gatekeeper

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ktappe View Post


    Because have you seen the screenshots of what happens when a Mountain Lion user launches an unsigned app? The dialog box specifically says "You should delete this application." It is hostile towards unsigned apps and naive users will be (justifiably) scared away from non App Store apps. If Apple toned down the dialog box and stopped scaring the pants off of neophyte users, I'd back off of saying that Gatekeeper goes too far, but until then I will lean towards the side of this being a strike by Apple against FOSS. (I also agree with those who think it's unfair for Apple to be taking $99/yearly from altruistic developers just to get their apps signed.)





    Because have you seen the screenshots of what happens when a Mountain Lion user launches an unsigned app? The dialog box specifically says "You should delete this application." It is hostile towards unsigned apps and naive users will be (justifiably) scared away from non App Store apps.



    That is an outright falsehood.
  • Reply 42 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Bullshit! You clearly indicated that developers could not release apps unless they paid money. You even write, and I quote...

    Again, bullshit! There was nothing stopping him from continuing using other means to host the app. There was nothing stopping him from offering it for free. You've made all this up in order to spread FUD about Apple's developer program, their App Store and this intermediary option in ML that will protect users and help keep Mac from only getting app via Apple's Store.



    Before you blast Apple perhaps you want to check in with the developer to see why he decided to sell his app through the Mac App Store for a price. It sounds like he now has an option for making money for his effort whereas before he had none. Apple is evil¡



    Your emotional attachment to this subject is remarkable.

    You believe I am scheming to spread FUD about Apple? You somehow discern my dark secret motives? I'm "blasting" Apple? And all this because I think it's unfortunate that Apple charges an annual fee to freeware developers and that this is a disincentive for them? Because I think signed software will make freeware less accessible in the future, I must believe "Apple is evil?"

    It sounds to me like you are the conspiracy theorist and should, perhaps, get out more! Frankly you sound a bit unhinged.



    I don't "cherish" the app, but I have found it usefulI. I don't know this developer's motives and don't claim to. All I have is the e-mail he sent out when he joined Apple Developer. It seems obvious to me that he joined Apple Developer because it made his life easier. He offered this software for free for many years, clear back before system 7. When Apple started charging for basic membership in Apple Developer (they didn't used to do that,) he started charging for his app. It's still a good little timer app (I think it's called Big Ben Teatimer now) but it isn't freeware anymore.



    BTW, Apple is a corporation, not a person (you did know that, right?) So it's pretty weird of you to talk about Apple being "evil."
  • Reply 43 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ktappe View Post


    There is nothing "FUD" about pointing out how Gatekeeper specifically tells end-users to delete non-signed apps. If anything, it is Gatekeeper that is spreading FUD by claiming anything unsigned is malware. I get that Apple is being proactive against Trojans and virii, but instructing users to delete anything unsigned is definitely going too far the other way and smells of them trying to stop apps from getting onto OS X from any source but theirs. Follow the money.



    Now you're FUDding around unless you can show where Gatekeeper specifically "tells end-users to delete non-signed apps" or that "anything unsigned is malware.



    Here is what I've seen Gatekeeper say...


    PS: Latin pluralization is exchanging -us for -i, not -ii. But even viri isn't the plural of virus. It's quite simply viruses. Just as you can have multiple hiatuses in Haiti but you wouldn't have hiati in Haiti. There is a word viri but it's the plural men, for the Latin word vir meaning man.
  • Reply 44 of 98
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Actually, No.

    Only one of my statements is incorrect.

    "A fully curated environment on the desktop?"

    It's not a fully curated environment. (At least not yet, but it seems as though it could effectively lead to one.)

    Everything else is correct.



    What about the $99/yr requirement to get your app signed? Also incorrect.
  • Reply 45 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    When Apple started charging for basic membership in Apple Developer (they didn't used to do that,) he started charging for his app. It's still a good little timer app (I think it's called Big Ben Teatimer now) but it isn't freeware anymore.



    And as I've stated and posted links to it's still free to signup, get Xcode and distribute your Mac app. The fact that you still are denying this is remarkable.
  • Reply 46 of 98
    OMG... We finally get to see what Johnny Appleseed looks like, and all you guys can do is argue about the walled garden/paid dev program!!??
  • Reply 47 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    That was not his argument or his position in any sense. He's stated that it was not possible to create and distribute Mac apps without paying Apple.



    Thanks for reforming my argument for me. I never said that. I said Apple charges $99/year to use the Mac App Store. You just twisted it suit your own purposes.
  • Reply 48 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Thanks for reforming my argument for me. I never said that. I said Apple charges $99/year to use the Mac App Store. You just twisted it suit your own purposes.



    Bullshit! You clearly stated (and used an example) that it wasn't possible for developers to create, make and distribute apps without paying Apple.



    Even in the previous post you said Apple charges for the basic membership which called you out for lying on page 1 and now on page 2.
  • Reply 49 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post


    OMG... We finally get to see what Johnny Appleseed looks like, and all you guys can do is argue about the walled garden/paid dev program!!??



    I am exceedingly glad that this post exists.



    And I think that only his friends can call him Johnny.
  • Reply 50 of 98
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Now you're FUDding around unless you can show where Gatekeeper specifically "tells end-users to delete non-signed apps" or that "anything unsigned is malware.



    Here is what I've seen Gatekeeper say...



    ...



    Darned facts!



    Not to mention, Apple is giving developers lots of advance warning to either a) get their code signed as benefits users and legitimate developers alike and moves computing forward or b) worst case, simply get ready to tell their users how to bypass Gatekeeper and its messages when they install. (Users may learn to be suspicious of that advice—and they should be. Signed code IS safer, and people knowing that is not a bad thing.)



    Since Apple themselves is also informing people of how to bypass Gatekeeper (control-click being the simplest way, or one click on a checkbox), b) isn’t such a difficult undertaking. One line added to the installation instructions on the developer’s site or download repository.
  • Reply 51 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    And as I've stated and posted links to it's still free to signup, get Xcode and distribute your Mac app. The fact that you still are denying this is remarkable.



    I've not denied that one can create and distribute Mac apps on your own (but why bother with the facts?) I've posted links showing that the "free" membership does not allow you to distribute through the app store. You have to pay $99/year to distribute free software from the Mac App Store.

    The fact that you are still denying this what is remarkable.
  • Reply 52 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    I've not denied that one can create and distribute Mac apps on your own (but why bother with the facts?) I've posted links showing that the "free" membership does not allow you to distribute through the app store. You have to pay $99/year to distribute free software from the Mac App Store.

    The fact that you are still denying this what is remarkable.



    Your comment clearly was about all apps as your example show.
  • Reply 53 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Bullshit! You clearly stated (and used an example) that it wasn't possible for developers to create, make and distribute apps without paying Apple.



    Even in the previous post you said Apple charges for the basic membership which called you out for lying on page 1 and now on page 2.



    Without a doubt. There are clearly 2 issues here:



    1) Does Apple charge developers $99 to sign apps in the Gatekeeper world.



    2) Does Apple charge developers $99 to distribute apps through the App Store.



    For 1, the answer is no, you can get an ID and NOT have users get a 'Are you sure you want to run this app?' style message. If that's too much, then people can still run your apps, they just will see that default message unless they lower the security setting. It's not a mandatory walled garden at all.



    For 2, it sounds like whoever this developer being referred to is couldn't afford $99 to have Apple distribute his app but would like the convenience of the visibility / auto-updates / curation for free. Hey, you can distribute free apps that way, but you do have to pay $99 for the hosting and other parts of it + a 30% fee on paid software. Apparently that's not terribly unfair based on the popularity of the model. But the developer in question certainly could distribute for free elsewhere, so deal with it. Hosting the content costs money whether you want your own website or use the App Store. BFD.



    Now a more interesting question would be why you can't continue to have non-sandboxed apps in the App Store given that everything is signed and that Apple can pull the plug on malware by revoking the cert. If that's good enough for apps distributed outside, it does seem that it should still be legit inside. (Alternately it seems like it would be possible to grant full filesystem permissions while giving up network access permissions - it would prevent apps from grabbing and uploading stuff themselves, anyway...)



    But anyway, the original claim was that someone had to charge an outrageously high $0.99 for his software because Apple made him, and that's just a crock. They neither made him charge nor made him distribute through the App Store, and clearly that's not happening with Mountain Lion either. Write what you want and distribute it how you want, and if Apple adds a popup to protect users from totally unsigned apps by default, that's really not overreaching.
  • Reply 54 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Bullshit! You clearly stated (and used an example) that it wasn't possible for developers to create, make and distribute apps without paying Apple.



    Even in the previous post you said Apple charges for the basic membership which called you out for lying on page 1 and now on page 2.



    Maybe if you say it enough times, what you say will come true? Is that what you think?



    Again, the free membership doesn't include the right to distribute (even *free*) software via the Mac App Store. Do you deny this?

    Nor does it include software signing. Do you deny this? [Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I can't find any reference to it in the part of the AD website open to us "free membership" members.]



    (I predict you will either ignore this post, continue to respond that I am lying, FUDing, conspiring,etc., or most likely, you will go off again saying I said developers can't distribute software on their own outside of the Mac App Store. All the while forgetting that my original gripe is that I think Apple's insistence on charging $99/year to distribute freeware through the Mac App Store is a disincentive for freeware developers. What's it going to be?)
  • Reply 55 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Again, the free membership doesn't include the right to distribute (even *free*) software via the Mac App Store. Do you deny this?



    And this qualifier in bold was in your original comments. Nope.



    The great thing about an internet forum where you can quote other people's comments is they can't alter them after the fact. Good luck with that.
  • Reply 56 of 98
    As usual, some people will find things to whine and complain about. They tries to make them look like representing developers, publishers, writers etc. In reality these people do not understands the issues at hand and never ever did things they pretend to do.



    I can see one person who is persistently complaining about the Developer IDs and complaining that it prohibits Free Software from entering the Mac arena. While free software is welcome, refusing to pay the small fee raises question about seriousness of the developers. Really, if you can learn a programming language, buy a computer to program, have time to develope a program, you should be able to pay the $99 a year. Even if you do not willing to pay, you can distribute your program and some people will accept the chance and install your program. If you program is useful, people will talk about it and more people will choose to install it.



    Having a shelf space in a reputed store costs money because it costs the shop owner. I do not see why things will be different here.



    The Application signing process is available in Windows for quite some time and it has succeeded considerably in minimizing the effects of Virus and Malware. Why do we invite potential problems by disabling the signing checking process? So that viruses have an "open" gate to enter.



    Developing is not a hobby. You should take it seriously. Digital Signatures shows that you are serious about your programing.
  • Reply 57 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    And this qualifier in bold was in your original comments. Nope.



    The great thing about an internet forum where you can quote other people's comments is they can't alter them after the fact. Good luck with that.



    Hey you!

    Yes you, one who likes to hear himself talk.

    Did you read my very first post after you very first rant against me? Perhaps not, here it is:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Nipping in the bud is good.



    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "free" membership is simply pro forma. There is no benefit to it. Having a free membership does not allow you to distribute even very valuable and useful software via the Mac Store.



    BTW that was post number 7. Theree of those posts being mine, one the article, and one yours. That makes it effectively the third post of the thread (not including yours) and apparently you missed it. That is a great thing about internet forums!
  • Reply 58 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Hey you!

    Yes you, one who likes to hear himself talk.

    Did you read my very first post after you very first rant against me? Perhaps not, here it is:



    That's when you still believed that there was no point to not paying for the developer program and were required to use the Mac App Store, hence your comment about it being purely 'pro forma."



    Nice you excluded the next paragraph where you wrote "This is fine, but what incentive will developers who have made quality software available free to all have to continue their generous practice when they have to pay $100 every year?"



    Add that to the rest of your comments including your example how the developer was forced to sell in the Mac App Store -and- charge for the app your position in this thread is clear. You said "correct me if I'm wrong" and you were.
  • Reply 59 of 98
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,717member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrstep


    There are clearly 2 issues here:



    1) Does Apple charge developers $99 to sign apps in the Gatekeeper world.



    2) Does Apple charge developers $99 to distribute apps through the App Store.



    For 1, the answer is no, you can get an ID and NOT have users get a 'Are you sure you want to run this app?' style message.



    Can we please clear this up once and for all?



    - You can sign up for an Apple developer account for free. This will allow you to get access to developer tools and documentation so that you can create Mac applications. This won't allow you to get a developer ID so that you can sign your Mac applications. You can still distribute the applications you create, but once Mountain Lion comes out, users of your applications who upgrade will have to explicitly change their settings to allow your applications to continue running. While people love to point out how simple this is, it's only simple if you have taken the time to understand it. Most people won't and will simply fire off an irate email/call to technical support.



    - If you want to sign your Mac applications in order to avoid the headache of providing technical support for guiding everyone through this process, you must pay the $99 fee.
  • Reply 60 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    That's when you still believed that there was no point to not paying for the developer program and were required to use the Mac App Store, hence your comment about it being purely 'pro forma."



    Nice you excluded the next paragraph where you wrote "This is fine, but what incentive will developers who have made quality software available free to all have to continue their generous practice when they have to pay $100 every year?"



    Add that to the rest of your comments including your example how the developer was forced to sell in the Mac App Store -and- charge for the app your position in this thread is clear. You said "correct me if I'm wrong" and you were.



    I honestly think you might benefit from consulting a mental health professional. I wish only the best for you.
Sign In or Register to comment.