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.
I didn't know Xcode was going to be mandatory. Good point. In that case, I'll have to consider notarization as a valid solution. Are you saying that iOS developers currently have to submit their source code to Apple, or is this just an idea you are suggesting. And you are also saying that if developers were to submit their programs to third party app stores, they would still have to also submit their code to Apple for notarization (or would the third party app store pass the code to Apple, along with the submission details for the app?) If this were to pass, developers would be kind of upset that they would have to wait for BOTH the third party app store and the first party app store to conduct their independent reviews. And Apple would be upset because they would have separate Guidelines for apps that came directly to them, vs apps that came from third party app stores. I just don't think this would be acceptable to Apple.
P.S. If I knew how to write text in blue, as you did, I would do that all the time.
And I haven't heard of anti-competitive challenge to that decision from Apple so far.
I'm usually 100% on Apple's side, but forcing all developers to switch development tools to be able to work on iOS sounds anti-competitive to me. If it had been this way from the start, I wouldn't say that. But making this change seems very pushy.
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.
I didn't know Xcode was going to be mandatory. Good point. In that case, I'll have to consider notarization as a valid solution. Are you saying that iOS developers currently have to submit their source code to Apple, or is this just an idea you are suggesting. And you are also saying that if developers were to submit their programs to third party app stores, they would still have to also submit their code to Apple for notarization (or would the third party app store pass the code to Apple, along with the submission details for the app?) If this were to pass, developers would be kind of upset that they would have to wait for BOTH the third party app store and the first party app store to conduct their independent reviews. And Apple would be upset because they would have separate Guidelines for apps that came directly to them, vs apps that came from third party app stores. I just don't think this would be acceptable to Apple.
P.S. If I knew how to write text in blue, as you did, I would do that all the time.
And again, this is all already in place on the Mac, and there is no significant anger or upset over it. Notarization is quick, easy, and provides benefits to developers as well as Apple.
I did read the page, briefly, but it's about macOS. I thought the entire article was about the iOS App Store. I just went back to the original article and it didn't say macOS or iOS by name, although it did mention iPhones, so maybe that's why I thought this was all about the iOS App Store. Is this the source of our entire debate today? That would be a shame.
I did read the page, briefly, but it's about macOS. I thought the entire article was about the iOS App Store. I just went back to the original article and it didn't say macOS or iOS by name, although it did mention iPhones, so maybe that's why I thought this was all about the iOS App Store. Is this the source of our entire debate today? That would be a shame.
Of course the developer documentation is about macOS, notarization for iOS doesn't exist as a standalone thing, the entire conversation has been about what if it was. And if it was then the supposition is that it'd work in the same or a similar way to how it does on the Mac, so basically everything in that article would apply.
I've had enough, I've tried so hard to be patient but this has been exhausting. I don't expect everyone to know what notarization is, but if you're going to wade into a debate about it you should at least make an effort to understand the basics, and especially before declaring that it makes no sense, or pre-empting that Apple or developers would be unhappy with a solution that they're already actively using and happy with.
I did read the page, briefly, but it's about macOS. I thought the entire article was about the iOS App Store. I just went back to the original article and it didn't say macOS or iOS by name, although it did mention iPhones, so maybe that's why I thought this was all about the iOS App Store. Is this the source of our entire debate today? That would be a shame.
Of course the developer documentation is about macOS, notarization for iOS doesn't exist as a standalone thing, the entire conversation has been about what if it was. And if it was then the supposition is that it'd work in the same or a similar way to how it does on the Mac, so basically everything in that article would apply.
I've had enough, I've tried so hard to be patient but this has been exhausting. I don't expect everyone to know what notarization is, but if you're going to wade into a debate about it you should at least make an effort to understand the basics, and especially before declaring that it makes no sense, or pre-empting that Apple or developers would be unhappy with a solution that they're already actively using and happy with.
Okay, we can agree to disagree. But I will note that you still didn't try to answer my questions 20 minutes ago, which were, "are you also saying that if developers were to submit their programs to third party app stores, they would still have to also submit their code to Apple for notarization (or would the third party app store pass the code to Apple, along with the submission details for the app?) If this were to pass, developers would be kind of upset that they would have to wait for BOTH the third party app store and the first party app store to conduct their independent reviews. And Apple would be upset because they would have separate Guidelines for apps that came directly to them, vs apps that came from third party app stores. I just don't think this would be acceptable to Apple."
I did read the page, briefly, but it's about macOS. I thought the entire article was about the iOS App Store. I just went back to the original article and it didn't say macOS or iOS by name, although it did mention iPhones, so maybe that's why I thought this was all about the iOS App Store. Is this the source of our entire debate today? That would be a shame.
Of course the developer documentation is about macOS, notarization for iOS doesn't exist as a standalone thing, the entire conversation has been about what if it was. And if it was then the supposition is that it'd work in the same or a similar way to how it does on the Mac, so basically everything in that article would apply.
I've had enough, I've tried so hard to be patient but this has been exhausting. I don't expect everyone to know what notarization is, but if you're going to wade into a debate about it you should at least make an effort to understand the basics, and especially before declaring that it makes no sense, or pre-empting that Apple or developers would be unhappy with a solution that they're already actively using and happy with.
Okay, we can agree to disagree. But I will note that you still didn't try to answer my questions 20 minutes ago, which were, "are you also saying that if developers were to submit their programs to third party app stores, they would still have to also submit their code to Apple for notarization (or would the third party app store pass the code to Apple, along with the submission details for the app?) If this were to pass, developers would be kind of upset that they would have to wait for BOTH the third party app store and the first party app store to conduct their independent reviews. And Apple would be upset because they would have separate Guidelines for apps that came directly to them, vs apps that came from third party app stores. I just don't think this would be acceptable to Apple."
I don't agree to disagree, you are quite simply wrong and you still don't know what notarization is or how it works. That's fine, no shame in it at all, but it is very frustrating that you persist as if you do.
I didn't answer your questions because they are answered on the Apple developer page that I linked you to THREE times, and repeatedly requested that you read. And again, this process is ALREADY being used for Mac apps, with no fuss. Apple created the notarization process for Mac apps and neither Apple nor developers are upset with the situation because it provides benefits to them both. So your thoughts aren't born out by actual reality.
Please just read up on notarization and how it works, preferably before I kill myself.
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?
Apple notarises third party non-Mac App store apps - ones that don't comply with Mac App store rules, so where's the difference here?
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.
If it is so limited, then Apple best start charging for all those free, ad-supported apps. But they don't. Well that's inconvenient. But either way sideloaded apps wouldn't be hosted by Apple, so lkrupp and your points are moot.
I did read the page, briefly, but it's about macOS. I thought the entire article was about the iOS App Store. I just went back to the original article and it didn't say macOS or iOS by name, although it did mention iPhones, so maybe that's why I thought this was all about the iOS App Store. Is this the source of our entire debate today? That would be a shame.
Of course the developer documentation is about macOS, notarization for iOS doesn't exist as a standalone thing, the entire conversation has been about what if it was. And if it was then the supposition is that it'd work in the same or a similar way to how it does on the Mac, so basically everything in that article would apply.
I've had enough, I've tried so hard to be patient but this has been exhausting. I don't expect everyone to know what notarization is, but if you're going to wade into a debate about it you should at least make an effort to understand the basics, and especially before declaring that it makes no sense, or pre-empting that Apple or developers would be unhappy with a solution that they're already actively using and happy with.
Okay, we can agree to disagree. But I will note that you still didn't try to answer my questions 20 minutes ago, which were, "are you also saying that if developers were to submit their programs to third party app stores, they would still have to also submit their code to Apple for notarization (or would the third party app store pass the code to Apple, along with the submission details for the app?) If this were to pass, developers would be kind of upset that they would have to wait for BOTH the third party app store and the first party app store to conduct their independent reviews. And Apple would be upset because they would have separate Guidelines for apps that came directly to them, vs apps that came from third party app stores. I just don't think this would be acceptable to Apple."
I don't agree to disagree, you are quite simply wrong and you still don't know what notarization is or how it works. That's fine, no shame in it at all, but it is very frustrating that you persist as if you do.
I didn't answer your questions because they are answered on the Apple developer page that I linked you to THREE times, and repeatedly requested that you read. And again, this process is ALREADY being used for Mac apps, with no fuss. Apple created the notarization process for Mac apps and neither Apple nor developers are upset with the situation because it provides benefits to them both. So your thoughts aren't born out by actual reality.
Please just read up on notarization and how it works, preferably before I kill myself.
LOL. I am sure you know this already, but reminding it anyway - you don't need to fight all the battles. You can choose to ignore battles that are not worth fighting.
I got this advice from GatorGuy once in this forum and I am grateful for that.
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.
What in the world are you babbling about? It's exactly the same thing. This isn't a question of available retail space...it's a question of ownership. Apple owns the store and is entitled to make money from it as long as it's not abusing it's privileges. As far as I can see what they charge is completely within the realm of what other companies (Google) and other industries (game consoles) charge. People like you make it sound like the App Store just popped out of a genie's bottle and Apple is just looking to make a quick buck. Breaking news: the App Store has cost Apple billions in equipment and man-hours to develop and maintain. If Wendy's claimed that McDonald's was a monopoly and demanded the right to sell its burgers in McD's locations for free they would laughed out of court. But in this moronic world all the big developers feel like they're entitled to make more just because. GTFOH with that nonsense. They EU should spend more time asking users how they feel about the App Store...I think we're all happy with the way it works and don't really want any bureaucratic a-holes breaking it.
I did read the page, briefly, but it's about macOS. I thought the entire article was about the iOS App Store. I just went back to the original article and it didn't say macOS or iOS by name, although it did mention iPhones, so maybe that's why I thought this was all about the iOS App Store. Is this the source of our entire debate today? That would be a shame.
Of course the developer documentation is about macOS, notarization for iOS doesn't exist as a standalone thing, the entire conversation has been about what if it was. And if it was then the supposition is that it'd work in the same or a similar way to how it does on the Mac, so basically everything in that article would apply.
I've had enough, I've tried so hard to be patient but this has been exhausting. I don't expect everyone to know what notarization is, but if you're going to wade into a debate about it you should at least make an effort to understand the basics, and especially before declaring that it makes no sense, or pre-empting that Apple or developers would be unhappy with a solution that they're already actively using and happy with.
Okay, we can agree to disagree. But I will note that you still didn't try to answer my questions 20 minutes ago, which were, "are you also saying that if developers were to submit their programs to third party app stores, they would still have to also submit their code to Apple for notarization (or would the third party app store pass the code to Apple, along with the submission details for the app?) If this were to pass, developers would be kind of upset that they would have to wait for BOTH the third party app store and the first party app store to conduct their independent reviews. And Apple would be upset because they would have separate Guidelines for apps that came directly to them, vs apps that came from third party app stores. I just don't think this would be acceptable to Apple."
I don't agree to disagree, you are quite simply wrong and you still don't know what notarization is or how it works. That's fine, no shame in it at all, but it is very frustrating that you persist as if you do.
I didn't answer your questions because they are answered on the Apple developer page that I linked you to THREE times, and repeatedly requested that you read. And again, this process is ALREADY being used for Mac apps, with no fuss. Apple created the notarization process for Mac apps and neither Apple nor developers are upset with the situation because it provides benefits to them both. So your thoughts aren't born out by actual reality.
Please just read up on notarization and how it works, preferably before I kill myself.
Okay, I've read it. Notarization doesn't do much, I've learned. As you said, it provides a certificate based kill switch, but this is a feature that Apple has never used, so this feature has so far been completely useless. Are you sure third party app stores would even want Apple to provide this utterly useless service since it causes delays to the process of getting apps onto the store? Don't you think Epic would want to be able to sign its own apps' code? I don't think we have a complete list of what Notarization actually does. If any part of it involves validating that the app complies with Apple's App Store Guidelines, then there would have to be two separate Notarization processes, one for Apple's stores, and one for the other stores. It sounds like Apple could hold this process as a sword of Damocles over apps on third party app stores and the stores themselves. If Epic wins, I think they are going to start arguing that this whole Notarization process is now obsolete, because it causes them nothing but grief and the certification based kill switch has never even been used. So reading this document more throughly has done nothing to alleviate my concerns.
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.
What in the world are you babbling about? It's exactly the same thing. This isn't a question of available retail space...it's a question of ownership. Apple owns the store and is entitled to make money from it as long as it's not abusing it's privileges. As far as I can see what they charge is completely within the realm of what other companies (Google) and other industries (game consoles) charge. People like you make it sound like the App Store just popped out of a genie's bottle and Apple is just looking to make a quick buck. Breaking news: the App Store has cost Apple billions in equipment and man-hours to develop and maintain. If Wendy's claimed that McDonald's was a monopoly and demanded the right to sell its burgers in McD's locations for free they would laughed out of court. But in this moronic world all the big developers feel like they're entitled to make more just because. GTFOH with that nonsense. They EU should spend more time asking users how they feel about the App Store...I think we're all happy with the way it works and don't really want any bureaucratic a-holes breaking it.
True, but this is a never-ending circle of people trying to force their preferences upon Apple and its customers even though they already have exactly what they want with Android, which has an even larger market share.
I did read the page, briefly, but it's about macOS. I thought the entire article was about the iOS App Store. I just went back to the original article and it didn't say macOS or iOS by name, although it did mention iPhones, so maybe that's why I thought this was all about the iOS App Store. Is this the source of our entire debate today? That would be a shame.
Of course the developer documentation is about macOS, notarization for iOS doesn't exist as a standalone thing, the entire conversation has been about what if it was. And if it was then the supposition is that it'd work in the same or a similar way to how it does on the Mac, so basically everything in that article would apply.
I've had enough, I've tried so hard to be patient but this has been exhausting. I don't expect everyone to know what notarization is, but if you're going to wade into a debate about it you should at least make an effort to understand the basics, and especially before declaring that it makes no sense, or pre-empting that Apple or developers would be unhappy with a solution that they're already actively using and happy with.
Okay, we can agree to disagree. But I will note that you still didn't try to answer my questions 20 minutes ago, which were, "are you also saying that if developers were to submit their programs to third party app stores, they would still have to also submit their code to Apple for notarization (or would the third party app store pass the code to Apple, along with the submission details for the app?) If this were to pass, developers would be kind of upset that they would have to wait for BOTH the third party app store and the first party app store to conduct their independent reviews. And Apple would be upset because they would have separate Guidelines for apps that came directly to them, vs apps that came from third party app stores. I just don't think this would be acceptable to Apple."
I don't agree to disagree, you are quite simply wrong and you still don't know what notarization is or how it works. That's fine, no shame in it at all, but it is very frustrating that you persist as if you do.
I didn't answer your questions because they are answered on the Apple developer page that I linked you to THREE times, and repeatedly requested that you read. And again, this process is ALREADY being used for Mac apps, with no fuss. Apple created the notarization process for Mac apps and neither Apple nor developers are upset with the situation because it provides benefits to them both. So your thoughts aren't born out by actual reality.
Please just read up on notarization and how it works, preferably before I kill myself.
Okay, I've read it. Notarization doesn't do much, I've learned. As you said, it provides a certificate based kill switch, but this is a feature that Apple has never used, so this feature has so far been completely useless. Are you sure third party app stores would even want Apple to provide this utterly useless service since it causes delays to the process of getting apps onto the store? Don't you think Epic would want to be able to sign its own apps' code? I don't think we have a complete list of what Notarization actually does. If any part of it involves validating that the app complies with Apple's App Store Guidelines, then there would have to be two separate Notarization processes, one for Apple's stores, and one for the other stores. It sounds like Apple could hold this process as a sword of Damocles over apps on third party app stores and the stores themselves. If Epic wins, I think they are going to start arguing that this whole Notarization process is now obsolete, because it causes them nothing but grief and the certification based kill switch has never even been used. So reading this document more throughly has done nothing to alleviate my concerns.
The feature isn't the kill switch, it's the secure time stamping and the sweep for malicious code and the (not complete, but not insignificant either) reassurance for users. It rarely takes more than an hour, usually just 5 minutes or so, and can be automated in a build process. The "delay" is insignificant, if it's even noticeable. Epic can code review and sign certificates as well if they want, there wouldn't be a conflict. Notarization has nothing to do with Apple's App Store guidelines as I have told you before. Apps sold through the App Store do not have a separate notarization process, it's integrated with app submission, but would probably plug in to the same automated service, in the same way as it does for the Mac.
I don't even know what your "concerns" are, you've been throwing crap at the wall for three pages with no justifiable cause, or angle. As mentioned many times, this is the way app signing works for Mac apps sold outside of the store, so it's a tried and tested system. Not perfect of course, nothing ever is.
I don't think anyone ever suggested that introducing notarisation would eliminate all other concerns about third party app stores or side-loading apps, just that if Apple do go down this general route then it's a likely direction.
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?
Yes, I read it but you clearly don't.
Android is not relevant here.
If it were, you would be right in what you say, but if that were the case, don't you think all of the current investigations into Apple would never got off the ground in the first place?
Clearly there is more here than simply 'Android'. Can you see that? It doesn't matter which way the final decisions actually go. The simple fact that these investigations got off the ground and have been on going for so long now should tell you that 'Android' is irrelevant in the investigations into Apple.
But as you throw that in without thought, can't you see that Google is also being investigated? Although it isn't in exactly the same situation with regards to app stores as Apple, because on Android you can install other app stores. I have two on my phone.
Both Google and Apple have competition investigations hanging over their heads but they aren't necessarily for exactly the same reasons.
And as for security on Android app stores, what do you know about that?
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 don’t believe it’s entirely irrelevant. But let’s use an iMAX movie theater analogy. You do pay to enter the theater, you cannot use the theater’s iMAX projectors to show your own iMAX movies without making such an agreement/arrangement with the theater management, you aren’t allowed to bring in your own food and you aren’t allowed to sell food, again, without making an agreement/arrangement with the theater management. The theater owns the means to play that which it is constructed to provide, in this case, iMAX movies. Just as Apple owns iOS, the means to play [run] iOS apps.
In either case, what is the legal or moral argument that should allow third parties who have not paid to create the infrastructure to use it without cost or agreement/arrangement with its owners?
Let’s begin with the argument on the iMAX theater subject. And then we can see if we can apply that to Apple and iOS.
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.
I think you win this argument. So let’s now speak about the ramifications. An app developer wishes to bypass Apple’s App Store so that they need to pay zero to Apple to run apps on iOS devices. So the app developer instead submits his iOS app to a third-party App Store and makes whatever arrangement that store requires for distribution of the app. Maybe it’s an open source, free to distribute App Store. How nice, the app developer gets a free ride. Just one more obstacle....
The third party App Store, or the app developer, now submits the app to Apple for notarization. Apple says, “cool, nice app. Please sign this agreement to use Apple’s libraries for running apps on iOS, which, despite the fact your end users own their iPhones and iPads, do not have any ownership of their operating system; iOS. Along with your app submission, please provide audited statements of your global revenues, and a check for advance payment on 15% of your global revenues, which is our fee to large software vendors for use of the iOS application programming libraries your app will be calling out to in order to actually function on iOS. That’s our code licensing fee. We await your deposit.”
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 don’t believe it’s entirely irrelevant. But let’s use an iMAX movie theater analogy. You do pay to enter the theater, you cannot use the theater’s iMAX projectors to show your own iMAX movies without making such an agreement/arrangement with the theater management, you aren’t allowed to bring in your own food and you aren’t allowed to sell food, again, without making an agreement/arrangement with the theater management. The theater owns the means to play that which is constructed to provide, in this case, iMAX movies. Just as Apple owns iOS, the means to play [run] iOS apps.
In either case, what is the legal or moral argument that should allow third parties who have not paid to create the infrastructure to use it without cost or agreement/arrangement with its owners?
Let’s begin with the argument on the iMAX theater subject. And then we can see if we can apply that to Apple and iOS.
It's not the same, and some of what you just said is actually illegal in some countries. For example, it is not legal for movie theatres in Spain to forbid you from taking your own food in with you. Even if there is a big sign saying it's forbidden. I know that may be the case in the US but it isn't the case here.
Just like a bar or restaurant here cannot prevent you from using their toilets if you need to use them. It doesn't matter if there is a big sign saying 'for customers only'.
Depending on where the investigations are being carried out, conclusions may vary.
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?
This is irrevelant. There is competition in grocery stores. Consumers are free to walk out of one store and into another to try and find the products they seek. They are also free to do so without incurring costs.
Compare that to what these investigations are looking into. First, you had to pay a hefty sum to even get on the platform. You could argue that you are getting more than an App Store but that is irrelevant too. Then, when you go looking for apps, there is only one store and the owner of that store demands a specific cut of the developer's and your business. This would be a non-issue if other stores existed, but they don't, so competition is non-existent and that is a problem.
How big of problem will be known through the conclusions of the investigations but right now, what you are stating has no relevance to what is being investigated. It's not really about how much (or little, depending on your viewpoint) Apple charges for a slot on the shelf. It's about all the shelves belonging to the same store.
But Apple do not charge for "shelf" space in their App Store. it doesn't matter if their "shelf" space might be unlimited. Apple charges a commission to have apps on their "shelves". If you don't know the difference, then you better look it up.
75% of the apps in the Apple App Store are free. For these apps, there's no charge for taking up "shelf" space in the Apple App Store. Apple charges a commission and if the developer don't make money from selling the app or from in-app sales, they don't have to pay Apple for taking up "shelf" space . But if any of Apple iOS customers buy something, they will pay a 15 or 30% commission . If the developer prices his app according, they don't lose money.
That is not the same as charging for "shelf" space. Supermarket will charge for prime location shelf space, even if the products on it don't sell. Supermarket do not work on a commission basis. If Apple were to charge a fee for the "shelf" space in the App Store like a supermarket, there's a chance that the developer business venture might lose money, if they don't make enough sales. If a developer loses money from having their apps in Apple or Google app stores, it's their own fault. Neither of them charge a fee for having an app on their "shelf" space. They both charge a commission.
And the equivelant "store" here is not the Apple App Store in iOS, it's the iDevice. If you can't imagine that. Trying thinking of the iDevice as Disneyland. When one buy a ticket to get into Disneyland, they can only shop at the stores that Disney owns or stores that Disney allows to be there. Disney do not have to allow any stores other than their own, inside Disneyland. Every store in there that are not own by Disney, pays Disney rent and a commission to sell their products inside Disneyland. Disney has the right to control Disneyland like Apple has with their iDevices. The consumers that buy a ticket to Disneyland are like the consumers that buy an iDevice. If a consumer pay for a ticket to get into Disneyland, they can not complain about not being able to ride the "Kingda Ka" roller coaster once inside. If they wanted to do that, they should have went to Six Flags.
Apple do not sell iOS. iOS customers are consumers that purchased or uses an iDevice. iOS main purpose is being the OS than runs on their iDevices. iOS is not a public marketplace, flea market or open to the general public. iOS is Apple's IP. they own it. It's their "Disneyland".
Consumers makes the choice to purchase an iDeice all the time, even though they know that they can only shop for apps on the "shelve" in the Apple App Store. It's like choosing to shop at a Costco. One do not expect to find a Best Buy inside a Costco, competing with Costco for electronic purchases from Costco's own paying members, when they shop at a Costco. If people wanted more options than what iOS offers, they have the choice to buy an Android device. That's when the choice should have been made. One can't complain about not having a choice of where to purchase apps from, after they bought an iDevice.
As for the cost of switching to Android, that's a moot point. The average consumer buy a new mobile device every 2 to 4 years. There is no cost associated with switching then. Consumers make the switch, both ways, all the time, when it's time to buy a new mobile device. Plus, if you are on your second or more iDevice, you can't complain about Apple App Store policies. You're one that bought an iDevice again, even though you knew that Apple App Store been operating the same since it was introduce. There is no excuse for bitching about how you can't download apps from the internet, after your second purchase of an iDevice.
And as for all the cost of re-purchasing your apps, if you had to switch, that's a moot point also. If a person with a Honda sedan switched to a Toyota minivan because he needed to carry more passengers, does he get to bitch about how all the accessories and extra parts he bought for his Honda, can no longer be use with his Toyota? Can a person bitch about how their PC software needs to be re-purchased, if they were to switch to a Mac? Can an X-Box owner bitch about how all his X-Box games will no longer run, if they were to switch to a PlayStation? Should Microsoft be force to allow PlayStation games to work in their X-Boxes because it would be too expensive for X-Box owners to switch to a Playstation, in order to play a game only available for PlayStations? .
Comments
P.S. If I knew how to write text in blue, as you did, I would do that all the time.
I'm usually 100% on Apple's side, but forcing all developers to switch development tools to be able to work on iOS sounds anti-competitive to me. If it had been this way from the start, I wouldn't say that. But making this change seems very pushy.
And please please please can you just read the damn Apple Developer page about notarization instead of asking me incessant questions that Apple themselves answer very clearly. For the third time: Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution | Apple Developer Documentation
And again, this is all already in place on the Mac, and there is no significant anger or upset over it. Notarization is quick, easy, and provides benefits to developers as well as Apple.
I've had enough, I've tried so hard to be patient but this has been exhausting. I don't expect everyone to know what notarization is, but if you're going to wade into a debate about it you should at least make an effort to understand the basics, and especially before declaring that it makes no sense, or pre-empting that Apple or developers would be unhappy with a solution that they're already actively using and happy with.
I didn't answer your questions because they are answered on the Apple developer page that I linked you to THREE times, and repeatedly requested that you read. And again, this process is ALREADY being used for Mac apps, with no fuss. Apple created the notarization process for Mac apps and neither Apple nor developers are upset with the situation because it provides benefits to them both. So your thoughts aren't born out by actual reality.
Please just read up on notarization and how it works, preferably before I kill myself.
I got this advice from GatorGuy once in this forum and I am grateful for that.
It rarely takes more than an hour, usually just 5 minutes or so, and can be automated in a build process. The "delay" is insignificant, if it's even noticeable.
Epic can code review and sign certificates as well if they want, there wouldn't be a conflict.
Notarization has nothing to do with Apple's App Store guidelines as I have told you before.
Apps sold through the App Store do not have a separate notarization process, it's integrated with app submission, but would probably plug in to the same automated service, in the same way as it does for the Mac.
I don't even know what your "concerns" are, you've been throwing crap at the wall for three pages with no justifiable cause, or angle. As mentioned many times, this is the way app signing works for Mac apps sold outside of the store, so it's a tried and tested system. Not perfect of course, nothing ever is.
I don't think anyone ever suggested that introducing notarisation would eliminate all other concerns about third party app stores or side-loading apps, just that if Apple do go down this general route then it's a likely direction.
Android is not relevant here.
If it were, you would be right in what you say, but if that were the case, don't you think all of the current investigations into Apple would never got off the ground in the first place?
Clearly there is more here than simply 'Android'. Can you see that? It doesn't matter which way the final decisions actually go. The simple fact that these investigations got off the ground and have been on going for so long now should tell you that 'Android' is irrelevant in the investigations into Apple.
But as you throw that in without thought, can't you see that Google is also being investigated? Although it isn't in exactly the same situation with regards to app stores as Apple, because on Android you can install other app stores. I have two on my phone.
Both Google and Apple have competition investigations hanging over their heads but they aren't necessarily for exactly the same reasons.
And as for security on Android app stores, what do you know about that?
This is the other app store I have on my phone:
https://consumer.huawei.com/en/press/news/2020/how-does-huawei-appgallery-protect-user-privacy-and-security/
In either case, what is the legal or moral argument that should allow third parties who have not paid to create the infrastructure to use it without cost or agreement/arrangement with its owners?
Let’s begin with the argument on the iMAX theater subject. And then we can see if we can apply that to Apple and iOS.
The third party App Store, or the app developer, now submits the app to Apple for notarization. Apple says, “cool, nice app. Please sign this agreement to use Apple’s libraries for running apps on iOS, which, despite the fact your end users own their iPhones and iPads, do not have any ownership of their operating system; iOS. Along with your app submission, please provide audited statements of your global revenues, and a check for advance payment on 15% of your global revenues, which is our fee to large software vendors for use of the iOS application programming libraries your app will be calling out to in order to actually function on iOS. That’s our code licensing fee. We await your deposit.”
Just like a bar or restaurant here cannot prevent you from using their toilets if you need to use them. It doesn't matter if there is a big sign saying 'for customers only'.
Depending on where the investigations are being carried out, conclusions may vary.
75% of the apps in the Apple App Store are free. For these apps, there's no charge for taking up "shelf" space in the Apple App Store. Apple charges a commission and if the developer don't make money from selling the app or from in-app sales, they don't have to pay Apple for taking up "shelf" space . But if any of Apple iOS customers buy something, they will pay a 15 or 30% commission . If the developer prices his app according, they don't lose money.
That is not the same as charging for "shelf" space. Supermarket will charge for prime location shelf space, even if the products on it don't sell. Supermarket do not work on a commission basis. If Apple were to charge a fee for the "shelf" space in the App Store like a supermarket, there's a chance that the developer business venture might lose money, if they don't make enough sales. If a developer loses money from having their apps in Apple or Google app stores, it's their own fault. Neither of them charge a fee for having an app on their "shelf" space. They both charge a commission.
And the equivelant "store" here is not the Apple App Store in iOS, it's the iDevice. If you can't imagine that. Trying thinking of the iDevice as Disneyland. When one buy a ticket to get into Disneyland, they can only shop at the stores that Disney owns or stores that Disney allows to be there. Disney do not have to allow any stores other than their own, inside Disneyland. Every store in there that are not own by Disney, pays Disney rent and a commission to sell their products inside Disneyland. Disney has the right to control Disneyland like Apple has with their iDevices. The consumers that buy a ticket to Disneyland are like the consumers that buy an iDevice. If a consumer pay for a ticket to get into Disneyland, they can not complain about not being able to ride the "Kingda Ka" roller coaster once inside. If they wanted to do that, they should have went to Six Flags.
Apple do not sell iOS. iOS customers are consumers that purchased or uses an iDevice. iOS main purpose is being the OS than runs on their iDevices. iOS is not a public marketplace, flea market or open to the general public. iOS is Apple's IP. they own it. It's their "Disneyland".
Consumers makes the choice to purchase an iDeice all the time, even though they know that they can only shop for apps on the "shelve" in the Apple App Store. It's like choosing to shop at a Costco. One do not expect to find a Best Buy inside a Costco, competing with Costco for electronic purchases from Costco's own paying members, when they shop at a Costco. If people wanted more options than what iOS offers, they have the choice to buy an Android device. That's when the choice should have been made. One can't complain about not having a choice of where to purchase apps from, after they bought an iDevice.
As for the cost of switching to Android, that's a moot point. The average consumer buy a new mobile device every 2 to 4 years. There is no cost associated with switching then. Consumers make the switch, both ways, all the time, when it's time to buy a new mobile device. Plus, if you are on your second or more iDevice, you can't complain about Apple App Store policies. You're one that bought an iDevice again, even though you knew that Apple App Store been operating the same since it was introduce. There is no excuse for bitching about how you can't download apps from the internet, after your second purchase of an iDevice.
And as for all the cost of re-purchasing your apps, if you had to switch, that's a moot point also. If a person with a Honda sedan switched to a Toyota minivan because he needed to carry more passengers, does he get to bitch about how all the accessories and extra parts he bought for his Honda, can no longer be use with his Toyota? Can a person bitch about how their PC software needs to be re-purchased, if they were to switch to a Mac? Can an X-Box owner bitch about how all his X-Box games will no longer run, if they were to switch to a PlayStation? Should Microsoft be force to allow PlayStation games to work in their X-Boxes because it would be too expensive for X-Box owners to switch to a Playstation, in order to play a game only available for PlayStations? .