Especially when part of the investigation revolves around the competition aspect.
Nothing in Apple's response tackled the root issue. It can't, because Apple doesn't allow for competition at a store level.
Given the circumstances I think they would be better off not saying anything publicly.
I don’t believe Walmart allows competition at a store level either. As far as I’m aware they don’t allow just anyone to sell their wares there, bypassing the checkout lines without paying rent or other fees to do so. Am I wrong about this?
It would be so easy for Apple to allow notarised sideloading and all this would go away, with a popup explaining to the user that security can be breached much more easily without going through the App Store. The notarised apps could be disabled if they are malicious, but without having to comply with onerous App Store rules.
Notarized by whom? Apple or the third party app store company? And disabled by whom, Apple or the third party app store company?
Okay so you want Apple to notarize software that's sold ONLY on third party app stores and that those apps "do not have to comply with onerous app store rules." Makes no sense at all. Why would Apple sign any app that doesn't adhere to any of its app store rules?
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
By the way, does anyone work in the grocery business? Do you know how much grocery stores demand from brands for prime shelf space?
As debated ad nauseam, that is not remotely the same thing. There is not a limited amount of space on the App Store.
Do you know what a server farm and and database are? Do you know that application servers must be put in place to deliver the App Store? Of course it’s limited.
Hmm, if a state like AZ can create laws that apply only to businesses that sell more than a specified number of apps (1 million in the state in that case) and if a country can apply taxes only to businesses that have more than a specified amount of sale, as France recently applied to big tech, then why could a business not decide to charge for use of its APIs and programming interfaces used to build apps that run on its platform, only to businesses that sell more than some specified amount on its platform. After all, Apple, not the end user, owns the OS and all the code underlying its application development library.
So, sure, go ahead and use your own payment system for in-app purchases, after you pay 15% of your worldwide sales to Apple as royalties for use of its programming libraries. Game over.
It would be so easy for Apple to allow notarised sideloading and all this would go away, with a popup explaining to the user that security can be breached much more easily without going through the App Store. The notarised apps could be disabled if they are malicious, but without having to comply with onerous App Store rules.
Notarized by whom? Apple or the third party app store company? And disabled by whom, Apple or the third party app store company?
Okay so you want Apple to notarize software that's sold ONLY on third party app stores and that those apps "do not have to comply with onerous app store rules." Makes no sense at all. Why would Apple sign any app that doesn't adhere to any of its app store rules?
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
The idea doesn't promote safety if the apps have to be signed by Apple and the apps don't comply with any app store rules, as you stated. Moreover if Apple isn't the company that the app is submitted to, how would Apple have any valid information to know whether it can sign the app as being "safe"? It sounds like a perpetual motion patent application here.
I don't think Apple would agree to your idea to sign apps as being safe when Apple has no information about them.
Hmm, if a state like AZ can create laws that apply only to businesses that sell more than a specified number of apps (1 million in the state in that case) and if a country can apply taxes only to businesses that have more than a specified amount of sale, as France recently applied to big tech, then why could a business not decide to charge for use of its APIs and programming interfaces used to build apps that run on its platform, only to businesses that sell more than some specified amount on its platform. After all, Apple, not the end user, owns the OS and all the code underlying its application development library.
So, sure, go ahead and use your own payment system for in-app purchases, after you pay 15% of your worldwide sales to Apple as royalties for use of its programming libraries. Game over.
A very enlightened idea. And don't forget, it's not just the APIs, because many or most apps that are sold on the Apple App Store also communicate with Apple's online services to send and receive data. I can't imagine Apple would accept a situation where these apps use Apple's resources but don't have to pay a dime to do that, as some people have actually suggested here. But nobody has proposed an idea how Apple could collect payment from such apps.
It would be so easy for Apple to allow notarised sideloading and all this would go away, with a popup explaining to the user that security can be breached much more easily without going through the App Store. The notarised apps could be disabled if they are malicious, but without having to comply with onerous App Store rules.
Notarized by whom? Apple or the third party app store company? And disabled by whom, Apple or the third party app store company?
Okay so you want Apple to notarize software that's sold ONLY on third party app stores and that those apps "do not have to comply with onerous app store rules." Makes no sense at all. Why would Apple sign any app that doesn't adhere to any of its app store rules?
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
The idea doesn't promote safety if the apps have to be signed by Apple and the apps don't comply with any app store rules, as you stated. Moreover if Apple isn't the company that the app is submitted to, how would Apple have any valid information to know whether it can sign the app as being "safe"? It sounds like a perpetual motion patent application here.
I don't think Apple would agree to your idea to sign apps as being safe when Apple has no information about them.
You should probably read the link I provided and try and understand what notarization is before commenting any further because you seem very confused.
As I said, this is already in place for software developed for the Mac but not released through the Mac App Store. It is not anything to do with app store rules, but scans and validates the app as not containing malicious code based on a different set of criteria, and enables Apple to have a certificate-based kill switch over any such apps if problems later emerge.
It would be so easy for Apple to allow notarised sideloading and all this would go away, with a popup explaining to the user that security can be breached much more easily without going through the App Store. The notarised apps could be disabled if they are malicious, but without having to comply with onerous App Store rules.
Notarized by whom? Apple or the third party app store company? And disabled by whom, Apple or the third party app store company?
Okay so you want Apple to notarize software that's sold ONLY on third party app stores and that those apps "do not have to comply with onerous app store rules." Makes no sense at all. Why would Apple sign any app that doesn't adhere to any of its app store rules?
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
The idea doesn't promote safety if the apps have to be signed by Apple and the apps don't comply with any app store rules, as you stated. Moreover if Apple isn't the company that the app is submitted to, how would Apple have any valid information to know whether it can sign the app as being "safe"? It sounds like a perpetual motion patent application here.
I don't think Apple would agree to your idea to sign apps as being safe when Apple has no information about them.
You should probably read the link I provided and try and understand what notarization is before commenting any further because you seem very confused.
As I said, this is already in place for software developed for the Mac but not released through the Mac App Store. It is not anything to do with app store rules, but scans and validates the app as not containing malicious code based on a different set of criteria, and enables Apple to have a certificate-based kill switch over any such apps if problems later emerge.
The difference is it's not a mandatory feature for macOS, it's entirely optional. Go into your Settings and check. Whereas it's entirely mandatory for iOS. Users cannot disable it. I'm sorry, I thought you knew that. It's not equivalent, even though you said it's equivalent.
It would be so easy for Apple to allow notarised sideloading and all this would go away, with a popup explaining to the user that security can be breached much more easily without going through the App Store. The notarised apps could be disabled if they are malicious, but without having to comply with onerous App Store rules.
Notarized by whom? Apple or the third party app store company? And disabled by whom, Apple or the third party app store company?
Okay so you want Apple to notarize software that's sold ONLY on third party app stores and that those apps "do not have to comply with onerous app store rules." Makes no sense at all. Why would Apple sign any app that doesn't adhere to any of its app store rules?
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
The idea doesn't promote safety if the apps have to be signed by Apple and the apps don't comply with any app store rules, as you stated. Moreover if Apple isn't the company that the app is submitted to, how would Apple have any valid information to know whether it can sign the app as being "safe"? It sounds like a perpetual motion patent application here.
I don't think Apple would agree to your idea to sign apps as being safe when Apple has no information about them.
You should probably read the link I provided and try and understand what notarization is before commenting any further because you seem very confused.
As I said, this is already in place for software developed for the Mac but not released through the Mac App Store. It is not anything to do with app store rules, but scans and validates the app as not containing malicious code based on a different set of criteria, and enables Apple to have a certificate-based kill switch over any such apps if problems later emerge.
The difference is it's not a mandatory feature for macOS, it's entirely optional. Go into your Settings and check. Whereas it's entirely mandatory for iOS. Users cannot disable it. I'm sorry, I thought you knew that. It's not equivalent, even though you said it's equivalent.
Of course it's mandatory in iOS, since you can't sell software outside of the App Store in iOS. We were discussing the possibility of notarization should Apple ever allow software to be sold outside of the App Store. As well as reading the link you might want to read back in this conversation tree because you seem to have lost touch with what it is about.
It would be so easy for Apple to allow notarised sideloading and all this would go away, with a popup explaining to the user that security can be breached much more easily without going through the App Store. The notarised apps could be disabled if they are malicious, but without having to comply with onerous App Store rules.
Notarized by whom? Apple or the third party app store company? And disabled by whom, Apple or the third party app store company?
Okay so you want Apple to notarize software that's sold ONLY on third party app stores and that those apps "do not have to comply with onerous app store rules." Makes no sense at all. Why would Apple sign any app that doesn't adhere to any of its app store rules?
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
The idea doesn't promote safety if the apps have to be signed by Apple and the apps don't comply with any app store rules, as you stated. Moreover if Apple isn't the company that the app is submitted to, how would Apple have any valid information to know whether it can sign the app as being "safe"? It sounds like a perpetual motion patent application here.
I don't think Apple would agree to your idea to sign apps as being safe when Apple has no information about them.
You should probably read the link I provided and try and understand what notarization is before commenting any further because you seem very confused.
As I said, this is already in place for software developed for the Mac but not released through the Mac App Store. It is not anything to do with app store rules, but scans and validates the app as not containing malicious code based on a different set of criteria, and enables Apple to have a certificate-based kill switch over any such apps if problems later emerge.
The difference is it's not a mandatory feature for macOS, it's entirely optional. Go into your Settings and check. Whereas it's entirely mandatory for iOS. Users cannot disable it. I'm sorry, I thought you knew that. It's not equivalent, even though you said it's equivalent.
Of course it's mandatory in iOS, since you can't sell software outside of the App Store in iOS. We were discussing the possibility of notarization should Apple ever allow software to be sold outside of the App Store. As well as reading the link you might want to read back in this conversation tree because you seem to have lost touch with what it is about.
I was trying to discuss how Apple would deal with notarizing apps on other app stores, and I asked you questions about that, but you just ignored my questions and raised a red herring about macOS's different system. Please consider going back and reread my question to you, if you think you are able to answer it.
If Apple are innocent they will be found so. If they broke the rules they will be dealt with accordingly.
Do you have any idea how many lawfully convicted but innocent individuals are languishing in prison because of corrupt law enforcement, corrupt prosecutors, corrupt witnesses, incompetent defense lawyers? Hmmm?
To say that Apple will be judged fairly and clearly based on evidence is about as naive as it gets. There are political agendas at play in all of these cases.
By the way, does anyone work in the grocery business? Do you know how much grocery stores demand from brands for prime shelf space?
I live in the U.K. where they will be judged fairly in cases like this so I don't recognise your complaint I'm afraid. It's not like in the US where you can buy your way out of situations and investigations.
Perhaps you should also entertain the possibility of Apple actually being guilty, but looking at the flawed analogy you've provided I don't see how that would ever happen.
It would be so easy for Apple to allow notarised sideloading and all this would go away, with a popup explaining to the user that security can be breached much more easily without going through the App Store. The notarised apps could be disabled if they are malicious, but without having to comply with onerous App Store rules.
Notarized by whom? Apple or the third party app store company? And disabled by whom, Apple or the third party app store company?
Okay so you want Apple to notarize software that's sold ONLY on third party app stores and that those apps "do not have to comply with onerous app store rules." Makes no sense at all. Why would Apple sign any app that doesn't adhere to any of its app store rules?
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
The idea doesn't promote safety if the apps have to be signed by Apple and the apps don't comply with any app store rules, as you stated. Moreover if Apple isn't the company that the app is submitted to, how would Apple have any valid information to know whether it can sign the app as being "safe"? It sounds like a perpetual motion patent application here.
I don't think Apple would agree to your idea to sign apps as being safe when Apple has no information about them.
You should probably read the link I provided and try and understand what notarization is before commenting any further because you seem very confused.
As I said, this is already in place for software developed for the Mac but not released through the Mac App Store. It is not anything to do with app store rules, but scans and validates the app as not containing malicious code based on a different set of criteria, and enables Apple to have a certificate-based kill switch over any such apps if problems later emerge.
The difference is it's not a mandatory feature for macOS, it's entirely optional. Go into your Settings and check. Whereas it's entirely mandatory for iOS. Users cannot disable it. I'm sorry, I thought you knew that. It's not equivalent, even though you said it's equivalent.
Of course it's mandatory in iOS, since you can't sell software outside of the App Store in iOS. We were discussing the possibility of notarization should Apple ever allow software to be sold outside of the App Store. As well as reading the link you might want to read back in this conversation tree because you seem to have lost touch with what it is about.
I was trying to discuss how Apple would deal with notarizing apps on other app stores, and I asked you questions about that, but you just ignored my questions and raised a red herring about macOS's different system. Please consider going back and reread my question to you, if you think you are able to answer it.
The question is already answered, I dealt with it in my first reply: "Apple, obviously". Developers submit apps to Apple for notarization, Apple notarizes them (or not, as the case may be), and then the developer sells it themselves or through a third party app store. Exactly the same as it works on the Mac.
And then it's a separate decision whether iOS would block all non-notarised apps. It seems like a sensible suggestion for compromise.
It would be so easy for Apple to allow notarised sideloading and all this would go away, with a popup explaining to the user that security can be breached much more easily without going through the App Store. The notarised apps could be disabled if they are malicious, but without having to comply with onerous App Store rules.
Notarized by whom? Apple or the third party app store company? And disabled by whom, Apple or the third party app store company?
Okay so you want Apple to notarize software that's sold ONLY on third party app stores and that those apps "do not have to comply with onerous app store rules." Makes no sense at all. Why would Apple sign any app that doesn't adhere to any of its app store rules?
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
The idea doesn't promote safety if the apps have to be signed by Apple and the apps don't comply with any app store rules, as you stated. Moreover if Apple isn't the company that the app is submitted to, how would Apple have any valid information to know whether it can sign the app as being "safe"? It sounds like a perpetual motion patent application here.
I don't think Apple would agree to your idea to sign apps as being safe when Apple has no information about them.
You should probably read the link I provided and try and understand what notarization is before commenting any further because you seem very confused.
As I said, this is already in place for software developed for the Mac but not released through the Mac App Store. It is not anything to do with app store rules, but scans and validates the app as not containing malicious code based on a different set of criteria, and enables Apple to have a certificate-based kill switch over any such apps if problems later emerge.
The difference is it's not a mandatory feature for macOS, it's entirely optional. Go into your Settings and check. Whereas it's entirely mandatory for iOS. Users cannot disable it. I'm sorry, I thought you knew that. It's not equivalent, even though you said it's equivalent.
Of course it's mandatory in iOS, since you can't sell software outside of the App Store in iOS. We were discussing the possibility of notarization should Apple ever allow software to be sold outside of the App Store. As well as reading the link you might want to read back in this conversation tree because you seem to have lost touch with what it is about.
I was trying to discuss how Apple would deal with notarizing apps on other app stores, and I asked you questions about that, but you just ignored my questions and raised a red herring about macOS's different system. Please consider going back and reread my question to you, if you think you are able to answer it.
The question is already answered, I dealt with it in my first reply: "Apple, obviously". Developers submit apps to Apple for notarization, Apple notarizes them (or not, as the case may be), and then the developer sells it themselves or through a third party app store. Exactly the same as it works on the Mac.
And then it's a separate decision whether iOS would block all non-notarised apps. It seems like a sensible suggestion for compromise.
After you said that I asked a question which you ignored. "Why would Apple sign any app that doesn't adhere to any of its app store rules?" You never answered that. The Mac comparison is a red herring, as its optional, not mandatory, for users. So your comparison to Macs is irrelevant.
It would be so easy for Apple to allow notarised sideloading and all this would go away, with a popup explaining to the user that security can be breached much more easily without going through the App Store. The notarised apps could be disabled if they are malicious, but without having to comply with onerous App Store rules.
Notarized by whom? Apple or the third party app store company? And disabled by whom, Apple or the third party app store company?
Okay so you want Apple to notarize software that's sold ONLY on third party app stores and that those apps "do not have to comply with onerous app store rules." Makes no sense at all. Why would Apple sign any app that doesn't adhere to any of its app store rules?
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
The idea doesn't promote safety if the apps have to be signed by Apple and the apps don't comply with any app store rules, as you stated. Moreover if Apple isn't the company that the app is submitted to, how would Apple have any valid information to know whether it can sign the app as being "safe"? It sounds like a perpetual motion patent application here.
I don't think Apple would agree to your idea to sign apps as being safe when Apple has no information about them.
You should probably read the link I provided and try and understand what notarization is before commenting any further because you seem very confused.
As I said, this is already in place for software developed for the Mac but not released through the Mac App Store. It is not anything to do with app store rules, but scans and validates the app as not containing malicious code based on a different set of criteria, and enables Apple to have a certificate-based kill switch over any such apps if problems later emerge.
The difference is it's not a mandatory feature for macOS, it's entirely optional. Go into your Settings and check. Whereas it's entirely mandatory for iOS. Users cannot disable it. I'm sorry, I thought you knew that. It's not equivalent, even though you said it's equivalent.
Of course it's mandatory in iOS, since you can't sell software outside of the App Store in iOS. We were discussing the possibility of notarization should Apple ever allow software to be sold outside of the App Store. As well as reading the link you might want to read back in this conversation tree because you seem to have lost touch with what it is about.
I was trying to discuss how Apple would deal with notarizing apps on other app stores, and I asked you questions about that, but you just ignored my questions and raised a red herring about macOS's different system. Please consider going back and reread my question to you, if you think you are able to answer it.
The question is already answered, I dealt with it in my first reply: "Apple, obviously". Developers submit apps to Apple for notarization, Apple notarizes them (or not, as the case may be), and then the developer sells it themselves or through a third party app store. Exactly the same as it works on the Mac.
And then it's a separate decision whether iOS would block all non-notarized apps. It seems like a sensible suggestion for compromise.
After you said that I asked a question which you ignored. "Why would Apple sign any app that doesn't adhere to any of its app store rules?" You never answered that. The Mac comparison is a red herring, as its optional, not mandatory, for users. So your comparison to Macs is irrelevant.
I absolutely did answer that, and you replied to my answer. For the avoidance of any doubt, the answer was:
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
If you object to the Mac comparison then just leave that bit out and consider the stated reason:
it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
So that's twice you've claimed I ignored your questions when I actually gave you very direct answers. Noted.
I also don't see why you'd think the optional state of notarization on the Mac has any significance at all. I even bring it up in that post you just replied to: "And then it's a separate decision whether iOS would block all non-notarized apps". Maybe they will, maybe they won't, maybe we'll never get apps outside of the app store at all; it's all hypothetical. I think if non-App Store apps are ever a thing then notarization probably would be mandatory, but again, it's not particularly relevant either way, we're just talking about how notarization of apps sold outside of the app store could work for iOS.
Especially when part of the investigation revolves around the competition aspect.
Nothing in Apple's response tackled the root issue. It can't, because Apple doesn't allow for competition at a store level.
Given the circumstances I think they would be better off not saying anything publicly.
I don’t believe Walmart allows competition at a store level either. As far as I’m aware they don’t allow just anyone to sell their wares there, bypassing the checkout lines without paying rent or other fees to do so. Am I wrong about this?
That's right.
However, it's irrelevant.
These investigations aren't so much about competition within the store but competition from other stores (supposing the complaint are found to have a base).
Your implied analogy would make more sense if there was just one giant mall to shop at but all the stores within it were the same. On top of that, you would have to pay to enter the mall.
I absolutely did answer that, and you replied to my answer. For the avoidance of any doubt, the answer was:
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
That's not an answer because signing those apps provides no security for the reasons I provided. Apple has no information about the app, so there's no reason to sign it. What does Apple have, the NAME of the app? They don't have much more than that. They submission was made to the third party app store, and at no point did you say the third party app store has to submit any data back to Apple to get the notarization. If you explain what information has to be sent to Apple, THEN you would be answering my question.
I absolutely did answer that, and you replied to my answer. For the avoidance of any doubt, the answer was:
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
That's not an answer because signing those apps provides no security for the reasons I provided. Apple has no information about the app, so there's no reason to sign it. What does Apple have, the NAME of the app? They don't have much more than that. They submission was made to the third party app store, and at no point did you say the third party app store has to submit any data back to Apple to get the notarization. If you explain what information has to be sent to Apple, THEN you would be answering my question.
What?
The developer sends the app to Apple. Notarization is code review, and Apple has all the information they need about the app. How on earth do you suppose Apple would check for malicious code without having the code? I'll post the link again because you clearly didn't even click it last time: Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution | Apple Developer Documentation
I've already said all of this, but you aren't reading properly, even when I repeat myself:
The question is already answered, I dealt with it in my first reply: "Apple, obviously". Developers submit apps to Apple for notarization, Apple notarizes them (or not, as the case may be), and then the developer sells it themselves or through a third party app store.
Honestly dude, put a minute of effort into understanding what notarization is, it'll save both of us a lot of time.
Especially when part of the investigation revolves around the competition aspect.
Nothing in Apple's response tackled the root issue. It can't, because Apple doesn't allow for competition at a store level.
Given the circumstances I think they would be better off not saying anything publicly.
Do you really believe the nonsense you continuously spew? There is competition at the store level. It's called "Android", and Android has more users than the iPhone. It also has the most problems with security and malware since Android lets people do exactly what you harp about. Precisely why people use iOS to get away from all that garbage.
But then, you know that... so just better to shove that crap Apple's way right?
I absolutely did answer that, and you replied to my answer. For the avoidance of any doubt, the answer was:
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
That's not an answer because signing those apps provides no security for the reasons I provided. Apple has no information about the app, so there's no reason to sign it. What does Apple have, the NAME of the app? They don't have much more than that. They submission was made to the third party app store, and at no point did you say the third party app store has to submit any data back to Apple to get the notarization. If you explain what information has to be sent to Apple, THEN you would be answering my question.
What?
The developer sends the app to Apple. Notarization is code review, and Apple has all the information they need about the app. How on earth do you suppose Apple would check for malicious code without having the code? I'll post the link again because you clearly didn't even click it last time: Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution | Apple Developer Documentation
I've already said all of this, but you aren't reading properly, even when I repeat myself:
The question is already answered, I dealt with it in my first reply: "Apple, obviously". Developers submit apps to Apple for notarization, Apple notarizes them (or not, as the case may be), and then the developer sells it themselves or through a third party app store.
Honestly dude, put a minute of effort into understanding what notarization is, it'll save both of us a lot of time.
That page says "Notarization requires Xcode 10 or later" but iOS apps don't have to be written with Xcode. So this idea won't work. I thought you were talking about the revocation feature that works in iOS, which doesn't require notarization, so for that, I do apologize. But your idea doesn't workbecause Xcode isn't mandatory for iOS apps. For your idea to work, all developers would have to convert their code to Xcode, and that would probably be anti-competitive and illegal.
I absolutely did answer that, and you replied to my answer. For the avoidance of any doubt, the answer was:
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
That's not an answer because signing those apps provides no security for the reasons I provided. Apple has no information about the app, so there's no reason to sign it. What does Apple have, the NAME of the app? They don't have much more than that. They submission was made to the third party app store, and at no point did you say the third party app store has to submit any data back to Apple to get the notarization. If you explain what information has to be sent to Apple, THEN you would be answering my question.
What?
The developer sends the app to Apple. Notarization is code review, and Apple has all the information they need about the app. How on earth do you suppose Apple would check for malicious code without having the code? I'll post the link again because you clearly didn't even click it last time: Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution | Apple Developer Documentation
I've already said all of this, but you aren't reading properly, even when I repeat myself:
The question is already answered, I dealt with it in my first reply: "Apple, obviously". Developers submit apps to Apple for notarization, Apple notarizes them (or not, as the case may be), and then the developer sells it themselves or through a third party app store.
Honestly dude, put a minute of effort into understanding what notarization is, it'll save both of us a lot of time.
That page says "Notarization requires Xcode 10 or later" but iOS apps don't have to be written with Xcode. So this idea won't work. I thought you were talking about the revocation feature that works in iOS, which doesn't require notarization, so for that, I do apologize. But your idea doesn't workbecause Xcode isn't mandatory for iOS apps. For your idea to work, all developers would have to convert their code to Xcode, and that would probably be anti-competitive and illegal.
Starting April 2021, all iOS and iPadOS apps submitted to the App Store must be built with Xcode 12 and the iOS 14 SDK.
So even if notarisation requires Xcode, that's no worse than it will be from next month. And I haven't heard of anti-competitive challenge to that decision from Apple so far.
Also, other packages used for writing iOS apps still use the Xcode toolchain to build the final app, which is the only real requirement. Apple can't tell if you used Xcode as the IDE, and I doubt they care. So in practice all apps are written with Xcode in the way that counts and would be accepted for notarization under the rules as written.
And that doesn't include the possibility of notarization being optional for install (I doubt it would be, but it's possible).
Comments
I don't think Apple would agree to your idea to sign apps as being safe when Apple has no information about them.
As I said, this is already in place for software developed for the Mac but not released through the Mac App Store. It is not anything to do with app store rules, but scans and validates the app as not containing malicious code based on a different set of criteria, and enables Apple to have a certificate-based kill switch over any such apps if problems later emerge.
And then it's a separate decision whether iOS would block all non-notarised apps. It seems like a sensible suggestion for compromise.
If you object to the Mac comparison then just leave that bit out and consider the stated reason:
So that's twice you've claimed I ignored your questions when I actually gave you very direct answers. Noted.
I also don't see why you'd think the optional state of notarization on the Mac has any significance at all. I even bring it up in that post you just replied to: "And then it's a separate decision whether iOS would block all non-notarized apps". Maybe they will, maybe they won't, maybe we'll never get apps outside of the app store at all; it's all hypothetical. I think if non-App Store apps are ever a thing then notarization probably would be mandatory, but again, it's not particularly relevant either way, we're just talking about how notarization of apps sold outside of the app store could work for iOS.
However, it's irrelevant.
These investigations aren't so much about competition within the store but competition from other stores (supposing the complaint are found to have a base).
Your implied analogy would make more sense if there was just one giant mall to shop at but all the stores within it were the same. On top of that, you would have to pay to enter the mall.
The developer sends the app to Apple. Notarization is code review, and Apple has all the information they need about the app. How on earth do you suppose Apple would check for malicious code without having the code? I'll post the link again because you clearly didn't even click it last time: Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution | Apple Developer Documentation
I've already said all of this, but you aren't reading properly, even when I repeat myself:
Honestly dude, put a minute of effort into understanding what notarization is, it'll save both of us a lot of time.
Also, other packages used for writing iOS apps still use the Xcode toolchain to build the final app, which is the only real requirement. Apple can't tell if you used Xcode as the IDE, and I doubt they care. So in practice all apps are written with Xcode in the way that counts and would be accepted for notarization under the rules as written.
And that doesn't include the possibility of notarization being optional for install (I doubt it would be, but it's possible).