or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple introduces Developer ID ahead of Mountain Lion's Gatekeeper
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple introduces Developer ID ahead of Mountain Lion's Gatekeeper

post #1 of 99
Thread Starter 
In an email sent out on Monday, Apple invited developers to prepare their software for OS X Mountain Lion by joining the Developer ID program, which will allow for apps to run on a Mac or iOS device that is protected by the upcoming Gatekeeper anti-malware system.

When Apple's OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion launches this summer, it will feature the new Gatekeeper security system which requires that apps be certified through the Developer ID program to ensure seamless installation.

Gatekeeper is a new anti-malware feature that, according to Apple, will filter out malicious third-party applications and prevent OS X users from "unknowingly downloading and installing malicious software." To that end, the system implements a hierarchy of security that is based on digital certificates embedded in a software's code.

At its highest securty setting, Gatekeeper will only allow the installation of content from the Mac App Store, however the default setting also allows for third-party downloads from "identified developers" or those code writers who have signed up with the Digital ID program.

Gatekeeper works by verifying digital signatures that are generated by the Developer ID program after Apple checks the validity of an app and can be inserted into a program's code with Xcode 4.3.




By using the free Digital ID system, Mac developers can distribute their wares outside of the Mac App Store, and subsequently pass through Gatekeeper's security protocols.

Quote:
Mac OS X users will soon have the option of turning on Gatekeeper, a new Mac OS X security feature. When a user does this, the system provides an additional measure of safety: it blocks that user from opening newly-downloaded applications that are not Developer ID–signed. In this scenario, the same user is easily able to launch downloaded applications that are Developer ID–signed.

With Gatekeeper and Developer ID, Apple is looking to stop the growing number of Mac-targeted malware.

For users, the system is nearly invisible as warning messages only appear when an unsigned app attempts installation.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 99
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?
post #3 of 99
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with transparency and accountability. I just don't care for a totally locked down environment. A fully curated environment seems more sensible with the iPhone, and possibly with non-phone iOS devices. But for the Mac? Sorry I need more flexibility.
It will be interesting to see how this evolves.
post #4 of 99
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.

Its called nipping the problem in the bud

Quote:
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?

Most serious developers pay for the support. There is still a free membership and Xcode is still free

Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with transparency and accountability. I just don't care for a totally locked down environment. A fully curated environment seems more sensible with the iPhone, and possibly with non-phone iOS devices. But for the Mac? Sorry I need more flexibility.
It will be interesting to see how this evolves.

This is not a mandatory system. Nobody is locking down the OS - you can still install whatever you want and that is not going to change. Apple has said as much.
post #5 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

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?

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
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
post #6 of 99
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 follow how it's searching for a problem? Sounds to me like they are being proactive instead of reactive and meeting devs halfway by allowing signed apps that aren't controlled by the App Store.

You have to consider most 'PC' users aren't very computer literate so having some sort of barrier to protect them will make them more comfortable. This may even drive more sales if users feel more secure with installing 3rd-party apps.

Quote:
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?

Is the $99 only for using Apple's App Stores and for getting access to Betas, not for signing up for a free account and getting the latest stable builds of Xcode?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #7 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

It’s called nipping the problem in the bud


Most serious developers pay for the support. There is still a free membership and Xcode is still free


This is not a mandatory system. Nobody is locking down the OS - you can still install whatever you want and that is not going to change. Apple has said as much.

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.

Not mandatory, that's good. But with the default set to "signed software only" I doubt the average Joe will be downloading unsigned software. 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? Especially when most people will be afraid to download it?
post #8 of 99
Toggling on Gatekeeper gives even further reassurance that I won't unwillingly/unknowingly give a permission that exposes my computer to malicious intent. I am purely a personal user who has no business tinkering or playing under the hood. Everything Apple provides largely serves my needs, everything just works, and I invite these measures of quality assurance.

I also very much appreciate that people with the knowledge or desire have the option of disabling Gatekeeper and toying with whatever they please. -- Everyone's happy!
post #9 of 99
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

Free with your $100/year membership, no?

As I have said, it's fine for people who develop commercial software. But it seems like a bit of a thumb in the eye for freeware developers to have to pay $100/year (if that's the case, as it seems to me.)


[As an example, I for many years enjoyed a little freeware application called Tea Time, which was a simple timer done tastefully, with restraint, and made freely available by the author. Unfortunately with the advent of the developer program, he could only make it available for $1. I hope he's made some money off it, but I also think it's a shame he can no longer justify offering it for free.]
post #10 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

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.

The whole point is "the average Joe" doesn't know if they're downloading signed or unsigned software. This will prevent unsigned software from running. Did you even read the article?

The single, solitary benefit of the FREE ID is that people know your software is safe. No Mac App Store. Nothing else. It's FREE. Why should Apple also give you payment processing and hosting? That's what their 30% cut (plus the $100/year) is for.

That's why any developer who ISN'T distributing malware will just get a free ID.

EDIT: Hm. This seems different than how it was described previously. I am wrong. I guess it is for Mac Developer Program members only, after all.
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
post #11 of 99
deleted.
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
post #12 of 99
This is fantastic. It is going to make the PC/anti-virus software paradigm look absolutely ridiculous. This is the security we need to justify using Macs in the corporate world. My IT department won't support Macs and they tell me I can't support myself because it is a security risk. If my computer is set to only install signed software, the problem is solved.
post #13 of 99
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?

Every single statement in your post is incorrect. But hey, I guess that's the definition of concern-trolling.
post #14 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

[As an example, I for many years enjoyed a little freeware application called Tea Time, which was a simple timer done tastefully, with restraint, and made freely available by the author. Unfortunately with the advent of the developer program, he could only make it available for $1. I hope he's made some money off it, but I also think it's a shame he can no longer justify offering it for free.]

He chose to make it available for 99¢. There was nothing preventing him from distributing his app as he had done before.

As you should be well aware you can sign up for FREE and then distribute your Mac apps through the entire world without Apple taking a cent.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #15 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcalpin View Post

The whole point is "the average Joe" doesn't know if they're downloading signed or unsigned software. This will prevent unsigned software from running. Did you even read the article?

The single, solitary benefit of the FREE ID is that people know your software is safe. No Mac App Store. Nothing else. It's FREE. Why should Apple also give you payment processing and hosting? That's what their 30% cut (plus the $100/year) is for.

That's why any developer who ISN'T distributing malware will just get a free ID.

The key is *I have read the article* and *I have read the developer program agreements.*
But *I don't think you have.*
Show me a link that indicates there is a free developer membership that includes software certification and I'll stop saying otherwise. Freeware developers get 30% of nothing but still have to pay $99/year. Perhaps many of them are very altruistic and are happy to pay the $99 every year (more power to them!) but I think it's an unfortunate disincentive.


BTW, if you have a "free" Mac Developer ID and Password, you can verify what I am saying here:
https://developer.apple.com/programs...tribution.html
post #16 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

He chose to make it available for 99¢. There was nothing preventing him from distributing his app as he had done before.

As you should be well aware you can sign up for FREE and then distribute your Mac apps through the entire world without Apple taking a cent.

Of course he can. But as you are well aware, he can't offer it for free in the Mac App Store unless he pays $99 every year.

https://developer.apple.com/programs...tribution.html
post #17 of 99
The article mentions the "growing number of Mac-targeted viruses,” but then links to an article which correctly doesn’t mention viruses at all!

There are no successful real-world Mac Internet viruses (although in the labs and on LAN there have been some ineffective concepts that, in some strict technical sense, were viruses—for past versions of OS X, nothing current that I’m aware of).

There ARE Trojans for every platform—a Trojan is simply a lie and no platform can be completely safe, although Apple has gone impressively far in the direction of 100% safety! Already we have FAR fewer Trojans than Windows or Android, and for that we may be very happy. We can be further happy that things are about to get even better!

And we can have our cake and eat it too! No past method of writing/distributing software has been removed. No doors have closed. If you quake in terror that now it will be EASIER by default to install safe software than unsafe software, rest easy: checking the box to allow unsafe software is far easier than opening the disk image and installing the software. Anyone who can’t figure out how to do the former (which the developer can explain in one sentence before the download) will not make it through the latter anyway. And those folks need all the protection they can get!

Best of all, by default, Mountain Lion does allow non-App-Store apps—apps that nobody has ever had to review. That’s maximum freedom with minimum penalty: no cost to developers, no limits for users. Yet when a Trojan pops up, if signed as Mountain Lion expects (by default) Apple can kill it remotely. The ultimate compromise—and those who don’t like it are one click away from the Wild West they’re used to!
post #18 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

The key is *I have read the article* and *I have read the developer program agreements.*
But *I don't think you have.*
Show me a link that indicates there is a free developer membership that includes software certification and I'll stop saying otherwise. Freeware developers get 30% of nothing but still have to pay $99/year. Perhaps many of them are very altruistic and are happy to pay the $99 every year (more power to them!) but I think it's an unfortunate disincentive.


BTW, if you have a "free" Mac Developer ID and Password, you can verify what I am saying here:
https://developer.apple.com/programs...tribution.html

Dont move the goal posts. You stated:
Quote:
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."

Yet there is an open any Mac owner can choose so all apps are installable. Even if they pick on of the other two options a simple keyboard command will bypass it when installig.

You also stated:
Quote:
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?

Yet it's been proven to you that you do not need to pay anything in order to create your app in Xcode and then distribute via the web.

You also made an irrational jump to say that a developer who is now in the Mac App Store (assuming you meant Tea Timer) was forced to go there and charge for the app because Apple forced "curation" on him. That also isn't true. It sounds like you are the only looking for a problem in Apple's solution.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #19 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Of course he can. But as you are well aware, he can't offer it for free in the Mac App Store unless he pays $99 every year.

https://developer.apple.com/programs...tribution.html

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

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #20 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Every single statement in your post is incorrect. But hey, I guess that's the definition of concern-trolling.

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.
post #21 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

The article mentions the "growing number of Mac-targeted viruses, but then links to an article which correctly doesnt mention viruses at all!

There are no successful real-world Mac Internet viruses (although in the labs and on LAN there have been some ineffective concepts that, in some strict technical sense, were virusesfor past versions of OS X, nothing current that Im aware of).

There ARE Trojans for every platforma Trojan is simply a lie and no platform can be completely safe, although Apple has gone impressively far in the direction of 100% safety! Already we have FAR fewer Trojans than Windows or Android, and for that we may be very happy. We can be further happy that things are about to get even better!

And we can have our cake and eat it too! No past method of writing/distributing software has been removed. No doors have closed. If you quake in terror that now it will be EASIER by default to install safe software than unsafe software, rest easy: checking the box to allow unsafe software is far easier than opening the disk image and installing the software. Anyone who cant figure out how to do the former (which the developer can explain in one sentence before the download) will not make it through the latter anyway. And those folks need all the protection they can get!

Best of all, by default, Mountain Lion does allow non-App-Store appsapps that nobody has ever had to review. Thats maximum freedom with minimum penalty: no cost to developers, no limits for users. Yet when a Trojan pops up, if signed as Mountain Lion expects (by default) Apple can kill it remotely. The ultimate compromiseand those who dont like it are one click away from the Wild West theyre used to!

I didn't even get to that (too many uninformed wackos splashing fecal material on me from low places) but yes. As I said, I've not encountered a Mac virus in at least 15 years.
post #22 of 99
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.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #23 of 99
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?
post #24 of 99
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.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #25 of 99
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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #26 of 99
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.
post #27 of 99
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.)
post #28 of 99
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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #29 of 99
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.
post #30 of 99
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?
post #31 of 99
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 arent 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 wasnt 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, andif they choose to chargecredit 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.)
post #32 of 99
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.
post #33 of 99
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.
post #34 of 99
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.
post #35 of 99
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¡

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #36 of 99
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.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #37 of 99
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.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #38 of 99
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.
post #39 of 99
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.)
post #40 of 99
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple introduces Developer ID ahead of Mountain Lion's Gatekeeper