Apple introduces Developer ID ahead of Mountain Lion's Gatekeeper

245

Comments

  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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.



    Your logic still off. You're just running around screaming the sky is falling. If Apple's plan was to get everyone onto the Mac App Store then having signed apps that don't have to go through the Mac App Store would not have been an option. It's an option because Apple is focusing on selling more Macs (read:hardware) by offering more peace of mind by creating a more secure environment. There is no conspiracy here.
  • desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    And you're ignoring that he doesn't have to use the Mac App Store, because....?



    And so you're ignoring that he can't use the Mac App Store, to distribute useful freeware without paying an annual fee because....?



    And you think that's beneficial to Mac users because....?



    As I stated, the annual fee for freeware developers seems like a needless disincentive to me, but perhaps you think it's an excellent disincentive?
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desuserign View Post


    and so you're ignoring that he can't use the mac app store, to distribute useful freeware without paying an annual fee because....?



    And you think that's beneficial to mac users because....?



    As i stated, the annual fee for freeware developers seems like a needless disincentive to me, but perhaps you think it's an excellent disincentive?



    Nothing is requiring developers to use the Mac App Store. They can distribute freely just as they always have before the Mac App Store existed. This is not difficult stuff to understand unless you are trolling or backpedaling from your original statement. This developer you cherish so much is the one that chose to use the Mac App Store and choose to charge 99¢ for their app. This was not forced on them no matter what you want to believe.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,495member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    And so you're ignoring that he can't use the Mac App Store, to distribute useful freeware without paying an annual fee because?.?



    Because it's in no way different than owning and up-keeping your own website to host said freeware.



    The Mac App Store is, in every single way, a better way to go about doing this. It's your SEO. It's your advertising. Its your customer review system. Et cetera.



    Quote:

    And you think that's beneficial to Mac users because....?



    The reasons stated above. You TRUST the Mac App Store. You can see reviews there. You can see screenshots there. You can gauge opinions there.



    Quote:

    As I stated, the annual fee for freeware developers seems like a needless disincentive to me, but perhaps you think it's an excellent disincentive?



    No developer actually serious about his stuff would consider that a disincentive.
  • desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Your logic still off. You're just running around screaming the sky is falling. If Apple's plan was to get everyone onto the Mac App Store then having signed apps that don't have to go through the Mac App Store would not have been an option. It's an option because Apple is focusing on selling more Macs (read:hardware) by offering more peace of mind by creating a more secure environment. There is no conspiracy here.



    No conspiracy mentioned by me. In fact I admitted I misunderstood that there was an option to turn off Gatekeeper.



    I am merely pointing out that most users will not download software if a system warning comes up when they download it. This will effectively cut off these people from quality freeware unless the developer pays $99 every year. Perhaps it will create a bumper crop of cheap commercial software, but I can't see how this can possibly encourage the continued development of freeware.



    Seems perfectly logical to me.
  • desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Nothing is requiring developers to use the Mac App Store. They can distribute freely just as they always have before the Mac App Store existed. This is not difficult stuff to understand unless you are trolling or backpedaling from your original statement. This developer you cherish so much is the one that chose to use the Mac App Store and choose to charge 99¢ for their app. This was not forced on them no matter what you want to believe.



    Trolls use Bold and All Caps.

    What is difficult for you to understand?

    Not free ? $99/year

    Not a free membership ? no certificate, no distribution, etc. (which is fine, but don't call it "free.")

    Does not encourage Freeware ? "Distribute it yourself!"

    And "Smallest skill" claims "real" developers (the "Real Scotsman" logical fallacy) aren't put off by the $100/year fee when, in fact I have shown him one that was. (Is he representative? I doubt we can say.)
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,495member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    I am merely pointing out that most users will not download software if a system warning comes up when they download it.



    Sure they will. And they can just turn it off.



    Quote:

    This will effectively cut off these people from quality freeware unless the developer pays $99 every year.



    No, it won't. I don't see why any developer wouldn't jump at the chance to have his advertising, hosting, SEO, and website management taken off his hands for cheaper than what he's paying now.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Trolls use Bold and All Caps.



    No, they don't. You don't know many trolls here.



    Quote:

    What is difficult for you to understand?

    Not free — $99/year

    Not a free membership — no certificate, no distribution, etc. (which is fine, but don't call it "free.")

    Does not encourage Freeware — "Distribute it yourself!"



    Again, people would jump at the opportunity to pay less yearly to NOT run all that nonsense themselves.



    Quote:

    And "Smallest skill" claims "real" developers (the "Real Scotsman" logical fallacy) aren't put off by the $100/year fee when, in fact I have shown him one that was.



    Thanks for the ad-hom attack against a moderator. You're new to the arguing scene, aren't you? We didn't ever have a Smallest Skil, but we had a Shortest Skil. It didn't end well.
  • nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    I hope developers afraid of $99 a year, and ALSO afraid of any distribution method besides the Mac App Store, aren’t using a computer for development purposes.



    Because of they are, it cost more than the $99 even if they develop using only free software. Their electricity wasn’t free either.



    So nothing Apple can do will make it “free” to develop for the Mac App Store.



    What Apple does provide, for those who CHOOSE the benefits of the Mac App Store, is worth a lot more than $99: hosting, bandwidth, marketing, a great free update system that reaches all users, and—if they choose to charge—credit card processing.



    None of that would come free even without the Mac App Store, but I’m still glad the Mac App Store is optional. People may fear that the App Store’s ease of use is itself a problem: users will like it too much! Maybe so—things change, and I agree that progress can be scary. For now, the old way is not lost, and there are no signs of it ending. In fact, Gatekeeper is a clear sign from Apple that the old way WILL be officially supported.



    You could fear that Apple might do something different in future, different from their current actions and plans. Yes, they could. Anyone could do anything in future. But what we have now is their very GOOD plan, which developers and users alike are excited to see. Doing something good now is not a reason to be more afraid of something bad later. Nothing about Gatekeeper should increase anyone’s fear that computing is getting worse.
  • gustavgustav Posts: 803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    No conspiracy mentioned by me. In fact I admitted I misunderstood that there was an option to turn off Gatekeeper.



    I am merely pointing out that most users will not download software if a system warning comes up when they download it. This will effectively cut off these people from quality freeware unless the developer pays $99 every year.



    So what? That's the user's decision. By the way, how many users do you think will shun each and every unsigned app and still manage to find freeware on the Internet?
  • desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post


    I hope developers afraid of $99 a year, and ALSO afraid of any distribution method besides the Mac App Store aren?t using a computer for development purposes.



    Because of they are, it cost more than the $99 even if they develop using only free software. Their electricity wasn?t free either.



    So nothing Apple can do will make it ?free? to develop for the Mac App Store.



    What Apple does provide, for those who CHOOSE the benefits of the Mac App Store, is worth a lot more than $99: hosting, bandwidth, marketing, a great free update system that reaches all users, and?if they choose to charge?credit card processing.



    None of that would come free even without the Mac App Store.



    Yeah, the Mac App Store is great. That's why it would be really great if freeware developers could distribute through it for . . . Free!

    One question, why do you think someone offering freeware would need credit card hosting? (Just curious.)
  • welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,323member
    How do they vet developers? Seems like if they just issue the ID to anyone then some of those receiving will be criminals. If they "curate" does that means Apple has to evaluate and reverse engineer every piece of software? That hardly seems practical with highly complex software that could take a long time to analyze for nefarious features.



    Those of you who know, please explain how this will work.
  • nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Yeah, the Mac App Store is great. That's why it would be really great if freeware developers could distribute through it for . . . Free!

    One question, why do you think someone offering freeware would need credit card hosting? (Just curious.)



    I already said they didn’t.



    They do need all those other non-free services. And another expensive service that Apple throws in: the curation itself. That’s a big service, and it brings user trust. That trust, in turn, brings downloads.



    I agree, though, that giving something great away for free is better (for the recipient that is) than charging money!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post


    How do they vet developers? Seems like if they just issue the ID to anyone then some of those receiving will be criminals. If they "curate" does that means Apple has to evaluate and reverse engineer every piece of software? That hardly seems practical with highly complex software that could take a long time to analyze for nefarious features.



    Those of you who know, please explain how this will work.



    Good question. What you describe is more like the Mac App Store. But simply having an ID doesn’t go that far: nobody’s checking your app in advance.



    The way it works, then, is that Apple can revoke your certificate after the fact, stopping your signed app from running. So a signed app CAN still be malware (and maybe it will happen occasionally). But as soon as someone notices, and Apple finds out, they can pull the plug. So maybe a few dozen people are affected, not thousands. That, in turn, makes it not worth building malware in the first place—and most malware is for profit, not childish vandalism alone.



    For even great protection, Gatekeeper can be turned up to the third option—Mac App Store only—and some people will do that. But I like the middle option they’ve chosen for the default.
  • desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gustav View Post


    So what? That's the user's decision. By the way, how many users do you think will shun each and every unsigned app and still manage to find freeware on the Internet?



    I think most typical users will not find it because they will not look for it. I think most users prefer to avoid making decisions of this kind. I think as software certification becomes established, most users will only use software they get from the Mac App Store (which is my point.) I have no problem with software signing, I just think it will tend to suppress good freeware, or transform it into the kind of Adware we see on iOS. Is that good or bad? I haven't said, I've just said it discourages freeware.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Trolls use Bold and All Caps.

    What is difficult for you to understand?

    Not free — $99/year

    Not a free membership — no certificate, no distribution, etc. (which is fine, but don't call it "free.")

    Does not encourage Freeware — "Distribute it yourself!"

    And "Smallest skill" claims "real" developers (the "Real Scotsman" logical fallacy) aren't put off by the $100/year fee when, in fact I have shown him one that was. (Is he representative? I doubt we can say.)



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

    As an example, I for many years enjoyed a little freeware application called Tea Time [...] Unfortunately with the advent of the developer program, he could only make it available for $1.



    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¡
  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,115member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Hmm . . .

    A fully curated environment on the desktop?

    Seems like a bit of a solution in search of a problem, to me. I've not encountered malware or a virus on any of my Macs in at least 15 years.



    I don't even care for the $99 a year fee for developers. Seems to discourage development of freeware and OSSW, if you ask me. What good are computers if we can't even tinker with them if we want?



    And yet whenever I point out that game consoles like Xbox, Wii & PS3 are fully walled gardens with curated apps, the complainers don't see any problem with that.
  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,115member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Trolls use Bold and All Caps.



    Nope, has nothing to do with all caps, bold, italics or smileys.
  • macbook promacbook pro Posts: 1,605member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gmcalpin View Post


    From the article… "by using the free Digital ID system"…



    And in the (undoubtedly vain) hope that people will stop talking about a "fully curated" Mac OSX environment, I'm going to put this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope



    I don't concern myself with these "slippery slope" arguments which will be disrupted next week when Apple opens the "walled garden" on their highly successful iOS platform.
  • ktappektappe Posts: 668member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    And you're ignoring that he doesn't have to use the Mac App Store, because....?



    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.)
  • ktappektappe Posts: 668member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    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



    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.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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.)



    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.



    He even gave an example of a developer that chose to sell his app on the Mac App Store before Mountain Lion was even even released a preview. That means he was not scared into seeing his app for profit because of some dialogue box on an OS that won't be out for 7 months.
Sign In or Register to comment.