This seems like a positive for users. Notarized apps are signed apps that have been evaluated (albeit simply) for malicious code. If an app is notarized, the code executing is from who it says it is, and at least has been given a once over. That's appealing to me as a user, and I'm willing to ask the developer to exchange a little convenience for that assurance.
I realize a lot of this stuff is annoying for developers. And yes, a fair bit of this stuff is clearly intended to discourage developers from choosing to distribute outside the iOS App store.
> I've never understood how developers think Apple is on their side...
> ...I just can't understand how they have so many supporters.
Apple built a platform that a lot of people make their living from. They made something appealing to users and allowed developers to sell to those users.
There are a lot of developers who look at the iPhone as just another Von Neumann machine: I should be able to do whatever I like, however I like and Apple shouldn't be part of the picture after they sold the phone to the user. Apple (and some users, and some developers) don't view it that way.
> There are a lot of developers who look at the iPhone as just another Von Neumann machine: I should be able to do whatever I like, however I like and Apple shouldn't be part of the picture after they sold the phone to the user.
I don’t view the iPhone as a Von Neumann machine: I view it as a product that I bought.
Out of all of the physical goods in my home, I am hard-pressed to think of any that require an exclusive ongoing relationship with the original manufacturer.
The piano tuner makes a living because companies design and manufacture pianos, but I do not see anyone arguing that he ought to pay fees to the designer because they “allowed” him to sell me that service.
> If an app is notarized, the code executing is from who it says it is, and at least has been given a once over. That's appealing to me as a user, and I'm willing to ask the developer to exchange a little convenience for that assurance.
I don’t have a problem with identity verification and code signing. It’s the gatekeeping that I don’t agree with. I think it damages the low end of the market because it makes it too difficult for small developers to build and sell custom line of business apps.
All of the enterprise ish methods for deploying custom apps are pretty burdensome in the small business space and it’s risky to develop an app without being able to guarantee it can be deployed and used long term.
I’ve written tiny, one-off apps for small businesses that are more than 10 years old and still being used. That’s virtually impossible to do in the iOS ecosystem.
This seems like a positive for users. Notarized apps are signed apps that have been evaluated (albeit simply) for malicious code. If an app is notarized, the code executing is from who it says it is, and at least has been given a once over. That's appealing to me as a user, and I'm willing to ask the developer to exchange a little convenience for that assurance.
I realize a lot of this stuff is annoying for developers. And yes, a fair bit of this stuff is clearly intended to discourage developers from choosing to distribute outside the iOS App store.
> I've never understood how developers think Apple is on their side... > ...I just can't understand how they have so many supporters.
Apple built a platform that a lot of people make their living from. They made something appealing to users and allowed developers to sell to those users.
There are a lot of developers who look at the iPhone as just another Von Neumann machine: I should be able to do whatever I like, however I like and Apple shouldn't be part of the picture after they sold the phone to the user. Apple (and some users, and some developers) don't view it that way.