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 - Page 2

post #41 of 99
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.

"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 #42 of 99
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.
post #43 of 99
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."
post #44 of 99
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.

"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 #45 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.

What about the $99/yr requirement to get your app signed? Also incorrect.
post #46 of 99
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.

"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 #47 of 99
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've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
post #48 of 99
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.
post #49 of 99
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.

"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 #50 of 99
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.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #51 of 99
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.
post #52 of 99
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.
post #53 of 99
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.

"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 #54 of 99
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.
post #55 of 99
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?)
post #56 of 99
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.

"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 #57 of 99
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.
post #58 of 99
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!
post #59 of 99
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.

"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 #60 of 99
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
 
Reply
post #61 of 99
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.
post #62 of 99
Thank God! At least there is one person on this forum who knows their elbow from a tea kettle!
And also note that paying the annual fee is required to distribute through the Mac App Store.

Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

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.

- 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.
post #63 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

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.

From my testing it doesn't affect any apps that have updated using their own updater method. It also doesn't affect apps after they've been opened once. This is the message you get when you choose Control+click or right-click and then Open on the app:
“app_name.app” comes from an unidentified developer. Your security preferences are set to block installation of applications from unidentified developers.

Opening “app_name.app” will always allow it to run on this Mac. “app_name.app” is on the disk image “app_name.dmg”. Safari downloaded this disk image today at 11:59 PM from web.site.com.
[ Open ] [ Cancel ]
I can't test whether this occurs for all unsigned apps that are on your system after you update Lion to ML.


Quote:
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.

That's fine, nothing wrong with a little learning. I think Gatekeeper is considerably easier to comprehend over a phone for both the tech and customer than trying to explain why the app running in a DMG.

"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 #64 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

I honestly think you might benefit from consulting a mental health professional. I wish only the best for you.

DESuserIGN wrote: "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."

"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 #65 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

And also note that paying the annual fee is required to distribute through the Mac App Store.

Right. I was assuming that everyone knew that much already, but it never hurts to be as clear as possible.

I'm personally feeling a bit forced into paying the $99 fee, but given that you get high quality developer tools for free (unlike other platforms), I'm not complaining too much.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #66 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That's fine, nothing wrong with a little learning. I think Gatekeeper is considerably easier to comprehend over a phone for both the tech and customer than trying to explain why the app running in a DMG.

While it's not so bad for the first couple of times explaining it, it gets a bit tedious around a dozen times (i.e. you need to see it from the perspective of the small developer providing their own tech support).

As for .dmgs, there's also the option of .pkgs (which I prefer to use).
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #67 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

While it's not so bad for the first couple of times explaining it, it gets a bit tedious around a dozen times (i.e. you need to see it from the perspective of the small developer providing their own tech support).

I'm sure it will be but that will likely fade quickly and you can put a README.txt file in the DMG or, better yet, use a background image in the DMG that tells the user what to do the first time they open it. There are certainly solutions available.

That said, clearly Apple is pushing for singed apps but no one should expect anything less. They care about their bottom line and this means making the Mac more popular which means making it more appealing to users. A few people claiming the "sky is falling" because "it's a slippery slope" to "Fascism," Nazism" or Draconian law" are not going to affect what is good for Apple because it's good for the consumer.

Quote:
As for .dmgs, there's also the option of .pkgs (which I prefer to use).

PKGS can be worse as many don't like to go through an installer before running an app. I like the ZIP files and auto-uncompress into the app. It's clean but that may be a security issue and then you have your app placed in your Downloads folder.

"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 #68 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

PKGS can be worse as many don't like to go through an installer before running an app.

And some people don't like to have the OS decide what's safe to run and what isn't, but we're talking about what's easiest/best for the average computer user here.

Installers put things in the proper place (/Applications) so that the filesystem doesn't become a mess (but still give an option for a custom location), can be used to take care of setting the right permissions, add the necessary things to run on startup, add system preference items, incorporate signature verification at the installation stage (before the app is ever run). A much cleaner experience for the user, and way more flexibility for the developer.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #69 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

And some people don't like to have the OS decide what's safe to run and what isn't,

And those people can alter Gatekeeper's settings in 4 clicks.

Quote:
but we're talking about what's easiest/best for the average computer user here.

We are, which is why Gatekeeper is a good thing. Apple is focusing heavily on the Mac.

Apple will be moving to capture a lot of marketshare from the other PC vendors.

Quote:
Installers put things in the proper place (/Applications) so that the filesystem doesn't become a mess (but still give an option for a custom location), can be used to take care of setting the right permissions, add the necessary things to run on startup, add system preference items, incorporate signature verification at the installation stage (before the app is ever run). A much cleaner experience for the user, and way more flexibility for the developer.

No argument here on the pros of an installer package, but you didn't address the cons. If you want to address just the pros then the Mac App Store wins hands down because it does everything the installer package does except it does it with less steps on the part of the user.

"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 #70 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

No argument here on the pros of an installer package, but you didn't address the cons. If you want to address just the pros then the Mac App Store wins hands down because it does everything the installer package does except it does it with less steps on the part of the user.

Which, now that you have to pay $99 to sign regularly distributed apps, makes more sense. However, I don't like to needlessly drop support for pre-App Store versions of Mac OS X (I have plenty of old Macs kicking around which I put to use for various purposes). So for those (and for people who can't afford a new Mac), I still need to create installers.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #71 of 99
gonna kill people who need to use older Xcodes for older OSX versions to make a single version to run on all.. since they require newer Xcode versions to sign apps... uhhhg... making an older 10.4+ app would be impossible to sign.
post #72 of 99
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.

What? You make no sense. SolipsismX is simply saying that the payment of $99 to be a developer is not required to get a certificate. Or in other words, distributing Apple's signed software can be done for free. The $99 developer fee is required if you want to distribute the software through Apple, which isn't required to distribute OS X software. What part of this do you not understand?
post #73 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by doh123 View Post

gonna kill people who need to use older Xcodes for older OSX versions to make a single version to run on all.. since they require newer Xcode versions to sign apps... uhhhg... making an older 10.4+ app would be impossible to sign.

That is a sacrifice that Apple should be willing to force all developers to make. Old code has to have an end of service date. If you want to run an old machine and old software, then stick with what was available at the time you bought your machine.

My work still runs Exchanger server 2003 and it kills me to have to run Citrix or OWA email. The IT department is too lazy to troubleshoot a new exchange server and since MS keeps supporting a decade old software platform I have to deal with it. ugh.
post #74 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

Which, now that you have to pay $99 to sign regularly distributed apps, makes more sense. However, I don't like to needlessly drop support for pre-App Store versions of Mac OS X (I have plenty of old Macs kicking around which I put to use for various purposes). So for those (and for people who can't afford a new Mac), I still need to create installers.

No you don't. The certificate programis free. The $99 fee is to distribute through Apple, which isn't required. What part of free do you not understand?
post #75 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

That is a sacrifice that Apple should be willing to force all developers to make. Old code has to have an end of service date. If you want to run an old machine and old software, then stick with what was available at the time you bought your machine.

My work still runs Exchanger server 2003 and it kills me to have to run Citrix or OWA email. The IT department is too lazy to troubleshoot a new exchange server and since MS keeps supporting a decade old software platform I have to deal with it. ugh.

I'm not talking about old software. Its possible to make a single app that runs on 10.4, 10.5, 10.6 10.7 and 10.8 ... why should we be required to kill off 10.4 and 10.5 just so it only runs on 10.6+ which it already did in the first place?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

No you don't. The certificate programis free. The $99 fee is to distribute through Apple, which isn't required. What part of free do you not understand?

You say its free.. please prove it. With a free developer account I try to get to anything about it and it says its forbidden and I need to sign up with a $99/year plan to even view the pages about it... let alone register.
post #76 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by doh123 View Post

I'm not talking about old software. Its possible to make a single app that runs on 10.4, 10.5, 10.6 10.7 and 10.8 ... why should we be required to kill off 10.4 and 10.5 just so it only runs on 10.6+ which it already did in the first place?

Typically when a developer excludes older OSes it seems to be for one and/or two reasons: 1) Cost of supporting older OSes too high compared to profit, and 2) newer APIs that make your app modern and useful aren't available for older OSes.

Quote:
You say its free.. please prove it. With a free developer account I try to get to anything about it and it says its forbidden and I need to sign up with a $99/year plan to even view the pages about it... let alone register.

I'm not as confident as ash471 about the code signing being free for all as the documentation I've read has been fairly ambiguous, never specifically including or excluding the free developer account. That does lean one toward all accounts being included but they also talk about the Mac App Store without specifying.

If it's for free deve accounts then it won't be too much of a hurdle for malware devs to create a fake ID and then use Xocde to sign their app. When their app(s) get revoked it will only stop new apps from being installed and opened for the first time without the warning, not all previous run apps. IF you charge the $99 then this would limit that eventuality.

That said, devs can do this now and I don't think it's a problem so I'm leaning more toward ash471 being correct.

But I digress, You don't see any information about Developer IDs because it's all listed under Mountain Lion at this point. That means only those who have paid the $99 can get access to the developer betas, tools and documentation within that section. That may change, it may not. Apple added Gatekeeper to 10.7.3 but it's default is "Allow applications downloaded from: Anywhere" so it's a toss up. One thing is for certain is this information will be cropping up for the next 7 months before the OS is released which should be more than enough time to address everyone's concerns to the point they are common knowledge on tech forums.


PS: $10 says Apple changes accounting of Macs and future OSes are free like iOS updates.

"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 #77 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.

Well good for you, but in this day and age as more and more malware make their way on to OS X, it could become a huge problem for people not in the know. This merely allows Apple to offer another level of protection for those people who NEED it.


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?

Now sure how this discourages developers from writing free software? I have no problem writing free applications and utilities. I didn't pay Apple anything and I haven't subscribed to Apple's Developer Program either. Furthermore, people who "tinker" with their systems, will know of other methods to obtain software, so this is a non-issue you're worrying over.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #78 of 99
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.

You're kidding, right? A fully sandboxed system puts the Developer into a position of making all his bounds checking in a row, to optimize the application by leveragin the System APIs and to be able to easily track any malicious code injections due to their own poorly designed frameworks.

It's a win/win as the Developer gets feedback to fix their actions before it becomes a pattern and the Consumer for not getting their system from becoming a haven of crap.
post #79 of 99
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.

you have to pay $99 with a credit card. criminals hate paying in any form that makes it easy to trace them
post #80 of 99
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?

I don't believe anyone ever said that.

Quote:
I think Apple's insistence on charging $99/year to distribute freeware through the Mac App Store is a disincentive for freeware developers.

And you can certainly think that. You're wrong, though. We've shown you every single way in which you're wrong, and yet you still think this. That's fine. The argument seems to be over, though, so pressing the point beyond this without providing any proof is just silly.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
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