We've heard the warnings about the rise of "proprietary computing", where all experiences in computers need to be approved by the policies of hardware and software manufacturers.
I feel it's getting worse as we get pushed more and more to vertically integrated platforms (Pixel, iPhone, Surface, game consoles, Kindle+Fire etc). We still have Linux, thankfully - at least as long as hardware manufacturers let it run on their computers.
> at least as long as hardware manufacturers let it run on their computers.
Linux is thankfully totally emancipated from this now. There is no longer an exclusive x86 hegemony of desktop computing - its fringe for now, but ARM, Power, and RISC-V exist as alternative options with currently purchasable hardware that can run several Linux distros today.
If Intel / AMD did anything to try to lock platform exclusivity on their consumer offerings to Windows there is an escape hatch. And it also doesn't really align with their business interests to help Microsoft on that - they just want to sell hardware and both employ substantial development teams to support their hardware under Linux already. AMD just got a bunch of money from me this year upgrading to their latest platforms all for their ongoing commitment to Linux support.
Pixels are one of the few phones with custom firmware loading explicitly enabled and exposed by Google. Sideloading apps is also 1 switch away. It could be even better, but I really don't think it belongs in the same category as iPhone and have consoles.
In a way, it's fortunate that hardware performance improvements have all but ground to a halt; according to online benchmarks, the CPU in my nearly 7 year old (3rd gen Intel M series) Thinkpad is only something like 50% slower than the most recent comparable models. (This is partly because after 3rd gen, they all switched to U-series CPUs, which were significantly slower.) This way, even if approved-OS-only hardware suddenly becomes the universal norm in the same way that chiclet keyboards did around then, I imagine I will still be set for a long time.
(Just imagine using a computer from 1993 in 2000, for comparison...)
A lot of people here are fixating on the $100/year fee -- and don't get me wrong, that's a problem -- but ignoring another significant part of the blog post: the fact that Apple is demanding what amounts to a non-trivial amount of creative control over the visual appearance of games that can be distributed on macOS/iOS. Just like the other restrictions on user freedom, this is a ratchet that will only get tighter as time goes on.
What would happen to indie filmmaking if every TV and movie projector threw up a scary warning screen, requiring a cumbersome manual override, before playing anything that wasn't certified by the MPAA?
If you develop webapps, would you be OK with not being able to get a trusted SSL certificate unless an anonymous reviewer at Mozilla was satisfied with your UI?
>Apple is demanding what amounts to a non-trivial amount of creative control over the visual appearance of games that can be distributed on macOS/iOS
Apple is intolerably paternalistic in how it tells people how to use their hardware and it is continuously puzzling to me how much positive press it still gets in particularly in communities like HN, which have the 'hacker' part right in the name.
I'm not the biggest fan of windows but at least windows has, for the most part, left me alone and let me install software on my machine, same for Linux obviously. Not even Google and Android tell me what apks to run on my phone other than giving me a warning.
I'm a little confused. Do they exert creative control over things that are submitted for notarization? I was under the impression that only apps submitted for the App store are "reviewed", while notarization is a fully automated process that only does a basic malware check. I do think that charging $100 for access to notarization is preposterous, but it's not the same as having to submit to App Store guidelines.
An indie movie can't install ransomware on your TV. An eBook can't corrupt your Kindle to spy on you.†
That doesn't override the need for free expression. Software is art, and no one should have the ability to ban a piece of art. However, it makes sense to design systems which take these risks into account.
So by default, Macs are shipped in a "safe mode" that only runs vetted software, and anyone who wants to run less-safe code—and accepts the risk—can type four words into a Terminal window and go along their way.
I really don't think a single Terminal command is too much to ask—it doesn't take long, and it's a good litmus test. If you can't open a Terminal window, you probably don't understand the risks involved in running untrusted code.
-----
† Outside of extreme scenarios involving zero day exploits.
>If you develop webapps, would you be OK with not being able to get a trusted SSL certificate unless an anonymous reviewer at Mozilla was satisfied with your UI?
Have you ever used the Google Search Console? Your website is indexed well only if you fix the issues that they find with your site.
I was recently told that my buttons were too close together when on a mobile device....
> A lot of people here are fixating on the $100/year fee -- and don't get me wrong, that's a problem
How much should you have to pay for unlimited bandwidth, hosting, downloads, user ratings, reviews, feedback, crash logs, showing up in searches, the chance to get featured, and other features like CloudKit etc.?
> Apple is demanding what amounts to a non-trivial amount of creative control over the visual appearance of games
Where did you get that from?
How is that different from Steam, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony not allowing certain types of content on their platforms? For example, you can't show explicit pornography in your game and expect it to be approved anywhere.
As for not allowing "blue screens of death, simulated error, glitch art, brokeness" that TFA complains about:
Have you seen those "YOUR PC IS INFECTED BY 42 VIRUSES!! CLICK HERE TO CLEAN SYSTEM32! PERMANENT HARD DISK DELETION IN 2 SECONDS!!!" ads?
What if apps start doing that for fun then charge in-app purchases to clean the in-game viruses?
Would you want the job of being an arbiter over whether something like that is malicious deception which preys upon user naïveté, or just a cute quirky joke?
This article mixes up a lot of issues and is not very coherent. Here are some important clarifications:
1. You can run any unsigned or unnotarized software from any developer by right-clicking the app, selecting "Open", and then click the "open" button in the scary warning. It's really simple. I wish people would stop pretending like it was really hard to run unsigned software.
2. Apple does not "curate" or "review" software distributed outside the Mac app store. The notarisation process runs some automated malware checks, and that's it. The goal is to block malware, not to limit the content you put on your computer.
3. Notarisation takes less than ten minutes. It's easy to automate it, and you can also do it manually if you want. You can staple the notarisation ticket to the app, but you don't have to. MacOS will look up the ticket via a webservice if you don't staple it. The documentation sucks, but that's the only bad thing you can say about it.
4. Apple does review stuff you submit to the Mac app store, but fortunately it's entirely optional to submit stuff to the Mac app store, there's nothing stopping you from releasing software outside the app store without any review.
5. Apple did end support for 32bit apps, which sucks, and I don't have anything good to say about that.
I would also argue that the "quirkiness" of what the OP is attempting to do that makes it such a difficult edge case is unnecessary too. For example, their simplest example of two executables that generate files that the user has to manually share between two folders is still completely do-able if the author just simplified the execution. If it's really just a game, and nothing more, then they should be able to just make it 1 executable that opens its own sandbox where there are 2 fake executables inside of it that do whatever they need to do to make the game work. There's literally no reason, other than the gimmick and novelty, for this game to have to run as 2 separate executables that actually play and have access to your documents folder (or whatever folder on the drive the "game" happens under).
It reminds me a lot of the uproar on Windows when shortcuts were indistinguishable to an application from the actual folder. When MS changed this so that the end result was the same but the applications were also aware of whether they followed a shortcut or not, there was a bit of outcry because it broke a few apps that relied on the file system not knowing the difference. In other words, these apps built their entire functionality around an unintended bug and then cried foul when that bug was fixed.
In this case, at least, the author just seems upset because they can't continue to create things that are immediately abandoned afterwards. They've become reliant on being able to constantly create new work.
You do need to get a paid developer account though and Apple has announced that in the next version of MacOS bypassing notarization is going to get more difficult.
The article addresses your first item directly and doesn't actually say what what your second one claims it says. It's not clear to me how three and four are responsive to the article. You might be able to clarify your clarifications if you give it a closer re-read.
All good responses, if I had to add one gripe about Apple's direction (re: 32-bit kill off), I'd add the Metal Only drivers post-High Sierra. I bought my MacBook Pro specifically for eGPU and my preferred GPUs are from Nvidia (using a GTX 1080). There was some degree of finagling to get it to work, but it could be done.
And then the update after High Sierra happened and killed it outright. And as much as I'd rather boot into macOS for non-gaming items, because my monitor hooks into the eGPU, I boot into Windows for anything asides Xcode which is pretty heavy. Could stick to High Sierra, but that isn't exactly an option.
It truly is a shame that we couldn't just be allowed to change a flag or confirm a prompt to maintain business as usual. As such, this may be my last Apple branded PC and will just use it as a build machine in the future whenever I inevitably upgrade.
Maybe Nvidia and Apple will work together on metal drivers, but quite frankly, it is the edgiest of edge cases so I imagine the chances of that are minuscule. That isn't to say I don't somewhat understand their reasoning: they basically appear to be scaling back numbers of areas they can't safeguard or require support (non-metal drivers and 32-bit respectively). But at that point it seems like provide something that users can do to bypass it.
Regarding the 32-bit thing, wouldn't it be in any game developers interest to create additional x-bit options to rebuild the game in higher bit systems? I would want my game to be amenable to historical preservation, which is the reason I do my own engines in lower level languages.
>You can run any unsigned or unnotarized software from any developer by right-clicking the app, selecting "Open", and then click the "open" button in the scary warning. It's really simple.
If I had to do this every time to run an app, I'd throw my PC out of the window. How are you people OK with that?
As a developer mainly on MacOS I feel the author's pain. There's also some legitimate gripes about Apple locking down their platform in a way that is ultimately hostile to users down the road.
As a user I say suck it up. Notarization and 1st party QA will make users lives so much easier. I have yet to see people run into serious issues with either that weren't doing things that entitlements/signing were designed to prevent.
The $100/year dev license kinda sucks if you just want to hack around and distribute code, but it also goes a long way to stopping people from creating spam accounts and evading bans. But it's a pretty trivial burden, if you're distributing software professionally and can't cough up $100 in revenue in a year... maybe try your hand at something else or just go the amateur route?
I also don't get complaining about obsoleting 32 bit. Use obsolete software on an obsolete OS in a VM like the rest of us, we all hate supporting things until the end of time.
But how do you even go the amateur route? You still won't be able to distribute what you make.
A big part of my childhood was making games, and sharing them on shareware sites in the mid 90s. It sucks that kids today aren't going to be able to do that. There was no way I could afford $100 as a 10 year old.
Or just drop Apple and macOS. Even for an application like Krita, for creative people, macOS is a laughably small platform, with a very small user-base, bringing in next to nothing money-wise, nothing contribution-wise, and it tries to force everyone to use proprietary libraries like Metal, instead of properly supporting OpenGL and Vulkan.
From an effort-to-income perspective, macOS isn't worth it.
Notarization will not last. In 2 ou 3 years max, they play the card of security again and will stop the notarization program. Why do you believe they want to bring MacOS and iOS together through same processor family and same developement api ? They want to bring iOS business model to MacOS.
It seems to me that Apple is shooting itself in the foot very hard with moves like this. At the end of the day, developers are creating value for your platform. If you treat them like shit, they will leave.
A lot of teenagers who are learning to program right now are definitely not going to be able to pay $100 a year to distribute toy programs they're making for fun. Heck, a lot of adults developers won't pay that. Apple has just made Linux significantly more appealing for all of these people.
I own a MacBook Air at home (and a Linux desktop). I know this will definitely motivate me to go back to a Linux laptop for my next purchase. This move isn't just hostile to users, it's hostile to developers, hostile to the people creating value for the platform.
I develop about a half a dozen open source utilities, and own Macs. I read the writing on the wall and switched to Linux as my daily driver, because once you're locked in to a closed platform, it's easier to pay the toll than it is switch.
Apple won't court developers until they start losing apps.
I think we're in a very, very narrow window of time where Apple is not popular enough that dropping them means apps are severely limiting user reach, but is still trying to push itself as a platform where creative things can happen -- a tool for graphic professionals.
I'm cautiously supportive of this move, even though I use a Mac occasionally.
1. You can ask your users to manually allow Krita to run without notarization.
2. Instead of dropping macOS support, why not charge Mac users? Since you've already paid the developer fee, why not move Krita to the Mac App Store? Tell users that it's a cost of supporting Catalina.
3. You could continue to offer an un-notarized legacy version for free.
Abandoning your Mac users is more likely to just make them move to other apps.
If you feel your userbase is not techie enough to know how to manually run un-notarized apps, they probably won’t be able to switch operating systems just to use your app either.
This was heartbreaking to read. I don't understand how anyone can defend not being able to run software on their own devices, unless it was approved by Apple.
I agree with the sentiment expressed in this article, but notarization is not the hill I'd want to die on.
Want to play experimental itch.io games? Open a Terminal and type:
sudo spctl --master-disable
It takes all of five seconds, and it's permanent. It might take less technical users a bit longer, but entering text into a Terminal window really isn't difficult, and technophobes aren't using itch.io.
Some people will say this is a bad solution because it makes your computer less secure, but, like, you can't have it both ways. Either you allow experimental software and accept the risks involved, or you don't. Maybe don't play experimental games on the same machine you use for important work.
I hope we can all agree that notarization is pretty valuable to users. Macs are a mass market product and most users are not technical.
Also to create software for Apple devises you need... an Apple device. Isn’t the cost of the device a bigger burden than the $100/yr dev program license?
I don’t understand. I keep seeing developers complain about the $100/year developer fee but I also keep seeing strong indications that’s not required for notarization.
Some developers here forget that there are game developers that make free stuff, hobby games, This developers often get requests to also package for Linux and Mac because the engine used is cross platform. So this people won't afford to buy a Macbook and pay 100$ yearly for one possible user that would like to try his free game.
I also see users asking for 32 Windows version of the games, there are still a lot of people running old computers and have bad internet connection and there is no good reason not to package some basic game app for them if it is possible.
Every Macbook/Mac Pro should come with a free developer account that remains active as long as the purchaser of the machine is using the laptop. Doing so would further distinguish “pro” from non-pro machines, would make notarization less like an annual tax, and would thus encourage rather than discourage such malware-free certifications.
That said, I agree with the article’s author that devs should be free to distribute whatever they want without warnings and without having to update annually. Not every piece of software gets maintained but it can still be useful, especially for artistic works. Let the App Store be the place where Apple certifies safety and leave the rest to the user.
Much like charities know that the best source of donations is previous donors, Apple knows that the best source of revenue previous customers who've already shown a willingness to open their wallets to pay extra for the Apple experience.
This article reminded me of the other major reason I've left OS X, other than five years of shitty Mac hardware which has been covered to death: shitty Mac software. Apple's software has always been on the lowest levels of quality, however, this generally excluded OS X. It's clear to me that Apple intends to remedy that and has already started so with this system protection bullshit that prevents running programs and resets itself on upgrades and possibly at other times randomly (I assume it does so just to fuck with users and show them who's the real boss and owner of their computer).
The author of this piece is 100% correct: none of these changes have anything to do with security. It's all about control. Apple, like most companies, just wants to control everything, whether relevant or not. The end goal is to control exactly what software is ran on their platforms, as clearly evidenced by the linked articles. I highly doubt that we'll be able to run any non-Apple approved tools in a year or two. They are turning OS X into iOS and have already renamed it macOS to let people know it's just going to be a walled garden of shit. The only reason to ever purchase an Apple computer was OS X. Now that OS X is turning into a shitty version of iOS, that last reason is gone. And that's before we get into the garbage hardware. I simply don't understand why anyone would want to support this platform going into the future. It's a platform that stands for censorship. Every component on the platform is designed around it. It's no longer a general purpose computing platform. In the future, it will be even less of one. All in the name of "security" and "privacy." Yup, save the children. But plenty of smart people fall for such stupidity.
Developers have been worshiping mobile OSs for more than a decade. This is the endgame, and don't say we haven't been warned about it. We 've been burned by walled gardens way too many times to have an excuse. Phones are much less free platforms than desktops. If developers desert phones, people will follow.
I've been in love with OSX/macOS since I switched during the Vista fiasco but I feel it's a sinking ship these days.
I recently was looking to get a new machine for music production and ended up building an Ryzen PC with Windows 10. It cost me the same as an i7 Mini but it is many times more powerful, expandable, and silent. Thank god I moved away from Logic years ago.
Windows is not as pleasant to use as macOS, but it's just as stable. A lot of software seems to run better there (eg: Firefox, Chrome).
For dev work I will keep using my iMac and 2014 MBP with Mojave, at least for the foreseeable future. Unless something dramatic happens at Apple I will most likely end up moving to Windows or Linux in a couple of years when these machines die.
Dumb question - as a dev on OSX (not yet migrated to Catalina), I compile and run my own code all the time. I also install a ton of binaries, like the Rust installation manager.
Would I see any issue here? I suspect everything I write or "install" via curl/bash/etc will be fine. Eg, if it's a downloaded binary in my $PATH, I expect it to continue to work.
So if that's the case.. why is Apple being so harsh about all of this? I feel like malware will just move to curl scripts and all Apple succeeded at was making normal Apps more difficult to develop.
I imagine some might argue that users will be somewhat informed, and will know not to run stuff in a Terminal. Cool.... but, how many times have we seen non-technical folks run stuff in the Windows command prompt? They can be walked through a malware installation process a thousand times over.
So is Apple going to lock the entire platform down? Are they going to limit my ability to run binaries? My own and others? Because if they don't, this all feels pointless. And if they do, i'l _be forced_ to switch to Linux.
I don't like you these days Apple. What is wrong with you.
I kind of blame UX and bad incentives for this. Most of these attempts at curating installation all started as well intended means of keeping malware out of the OS. If you think it’s bad today, you forgot what it was like 20 years ago.
However, the evolution of platform protection slowed down as it became clear this was an amazing revenue generator. Incentives became blurred. A new type of malware showed up aimed purely at collecting your data, and our protections haven’t kept up, because that’s no longer the goal.
Companies are in the business of making money. Once they find out they can make more money by not supporting your use case, they will toss you to the curb.
At this point, Apple does this by being a nearly completely consumer focused company. If you aren't the average consumer, they are going to toss you to the curb someday.
This is both the most compelling and poetic argument in the article, and the most wrong:
> ”Apple’s vision involves us constantly updating work, constantly adding to our games, constantly paying to exist here, even when some of this stuff is done. Often when a game is done, it’s done. Games aren’t a service. It’s like asking for a director to keep updating a movie, or for a musician to keep changing their song so it can keep running.
Decisions like this erase our history.”
On the contrary, you chose an ephemeral medium for your art. That choice, like making sandcastles, has consequences.
[+] [-] danielrpa|6 years ago|reply
I feel it's getting worse as we get pushed more and more to vertically integrated platforms (Pixel, iPhone, Surface, game consoles, Kindle+Fire etc). We still have Linux, thankfully - at least as long as hardware manufacturers let it run on their computers.
https://boingboing.net/2011/12/27/the-coming-war-on-general-...
[+] [-] zanny|6 years ago|reply
Linux is thankfully totally emancipated from this now. There is no longer an exclusive x86 hegemony of desktop computing - its fringe for now, but ARM, Power, and RISC-V exist as alternative options with currently purchasable hardware that can run several Linux distros today.
If Intel / AMD did anything to try to lock platform exclusivity on their consumer offerings to Windows there is an escape hatch. And it also doesn't really align with their business interests to help Microsoft on that - they just want to sell hardware and both employ substantial development teams to support their hardware under Linux already. AMD just got a bunch of money from me this year upgrading to their latest platforms all for their ongoing commitment to Linux support.
[+] [-] viraptor|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 4bpp|6 years ago|reply
(Just imagine using a computer from 1993 in 2000, for comparison...)
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] josteink|6 years ago|reply
As a ThinkPading Linux-user I’m looking at all these other people and wondering wth they’re up to on their increasingly leased computer platforms.
Whatever that is, I want nothing of it.
[+] [-] teraflop|6 years ago|reply
What would happen to indie filmmaking if every TV and movie projector threw up a scary warning screen, requiring a cumbersome manual override, before playing anything that wasn't certified by the MPAA?
If you develop webapps, would you be OK with not being able to get a trusted SSL certificate unless an anonymous reviewer at Mozilla was satisfied with your UI?
[+] [-] Barrin92|6 years ago|reply
Apple is intolerably paternalistic in how it tells people how to use their hardware and it is continuously puzzling to me how much positive press it still gets in particularly in communities like HN, which have the 'hacker' part right in the name.
I'm not the biggest fan of windows but at least windows has, for the most part, left me alone and let me install software on my machine, same for Linux obviously. Not even Google and Android tell me what apks to run on my phone other than giving me a warning.
[+] [-] goerz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Wowfunhappy|6 years ago|reply
That doesn't override the need for free expression. Software is art, and no one should have the ability to ban a piece of art. However, it makes sense to design systems which take these risks into account.
So by default, Macs are shipped in a "safe mode" that only runs vetted software, and anyone who wants to run less-safe code—and accepts the risk—can type four words into a Terminal window and go along their way.
I really don't think a single Terminal command is too much to ask—it doesn't take long, and it's a good litmus test. If you can't open a Terminal window, you probably don't understand the risks involved in running untrusted code.
-----
† Outside of extreme scenarios involving zero day exploits.
[+] [-] olah_1|6 years ago|reply
Have you ever used the Google Search Console? Your website is indexed well only if you fix the issues that they find with your site.
I was recently told that my buttons were too close together when on a mobile device....
[+] [-] Razengan|6 years ago|reply
How much should you have to pay for unlimited bandwidth, hosting, downloads, user ratings, reviews, feedback, crash logs, showing up in searches, the chance to get featured, and other features like CloudKit etc.?
> Apple is demanding what amounts to a non-trivial amount of creative control over the visual appearance of games
Where did you get that from?
How is that different from Steam, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony not allowing certain types of content on their platforms? For example, you can't show explicit pornography in your game and expect it to be approved anywhere.
As for not allowing "blue screens of death, simulated error, glitch art, brokeness" that TFA complains about:
Have you seen those "YOUR PC IS INFECTED BY 42 VIRUSES!! CLICK HERE TO CLEAN SYSTEM32! PERMANENT HARD DISK DELETION IN 2 SECONDS!!!" ads?
What if apps start doing that for fun then charge in-app purchases to clean the in-game viruses?
Would you want the job of being an arbiter over whether something like that is malicious deception which preys upon user naïveté, or just a cute quirky joke?
[+] [-] jakobegger|6 years ago|reply
1. You can run any unsigned or unnotarized software from any developer by right-clicking the app, selecting "Open", and then click the "open" button in the scary warning. It's really simple. I wish people would stop pretending like it was really hard to run unsigned software.
2. Apple does not "curate" or "review" software distributed outside the Mac app store. The notarisation process runs some automated malware checks, and that's it. The goal is to block malware, not to limit the content you put on your computer.
3. Notarisation takes less than ten minutes. It's easy to automate it, and you can also do it manually if you want. You can staple the notarisation ticket to the app, but you don't have to. MacOS will look up the ticket via a webservice if you don't staple it. The documentation sucks, but that's the only bad thing you can say about it.
4. Apple does review stuff you submit to the Mac app store, but fortunately it's entirely optional to submit stuff to the Mac app store, there's nothing stopping you from releasing software outside the app store without any review.
5. Apple did end support for 32bit apps, which sucks, and I don't have anything good to say about that.
[+] [-] dkonofalski|6 years ago|reply
It reminds me a lot of the uproar on Windows when shortcuts were indistinguishable to an application from the actual folder. When MS changed this so that the end result was the same but the applications were also aware of whether they followed a shortcut or not, there was a bit of outcry because it broke a few apps that relied on the file system not knowing the difference. In other words, these apps built their entire functionality around an unintended bug and then cried foul when that bug was fixed.
In this case, at least, the author just seems upset because they can't continue to create things that are immediately abandoned afterwards. They've become reliant on being able to constantly create new work.
[+] [-] tinus_hn|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pvg|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsgo|6 years ago|reply
And then the update after High Sierra happened and killed it outright. And as much as I'd rather boot into macOS for non-gaming items, because my monitor hooks into the eGPU, I boot into Windows for anything asides Xcode which is pretty heavy. Could stick to High Sierra, but that isn't exactly an option.
It truly is a shame that we couldn't just be allowed to change a flag or confirm a prompt to maintain business as usual. As such, this may be my last Apple branded PC and will just use it as a build machine in the future whenever I inevitably upgrade.
Maybe Nvidia and Apple will work together on metal drivers, but quite frankly, it is the edgiest of edge cases so I imagine the chances of that are minuscule. That isn't to say I don't somewhat understand their reasoning: they basically appear to be scaling back numbers of areas they can't safeguard or require support (non-metal drivers and 32-bit respectively). But at that point it seems like provide something that users can do to bypass it.
[+] [-] sloopy543|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Grue3|6 years ago|reply
If I had to do this every time to run an app, I'd throw my PC out of the window. How are you people OK with that?
[+] [-] unlinked_dll|6 years ago|reply
As a user I say suck it up. Notarization and 1st party QA will make users lives so much easier. I have yet to see people run into serious issues with either that weren't doing things that entitlements/signing were designed to prevent.
The $100/year dev license kinda sucks if you just want to hack around and distribute code, but it also goes a long way to stopping people from creating spam accounts and evading bans. But it's a pretty trivial burden, if you're distributing software professionally and can't cough up $100 in revenue in a year... maybe try your hand at something else or just go the amateur route?
I also don't get complaining about obsoleting 32 bit. Use obsolete software on an obsolete OS in a VM like the rest of us, we all hate supporting things until the end of time.
[+] [-] cortesoft|6 years ago|reply
But how do you even go the amateur route? You still won't be able to distribute what you make.
A big part of my childhood was making games, and sharing them on shareware sites in the mid 90s. It sucks that kids today aren't going to be able to do that. There was no way I could afford $100 as a 10 year old.
[+] [-] boudewijnrempt|6 years ago|reply
From an effort-to-income perspective, macOS isn't worth it.
[+] [-] pergadad|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] viraptor|6 years ago|reply
You mean like games released last year which require heavy GPU usage? That's neither obsolete, nor a great experience.
[+] [-] w1nst0nsm1th|6 years ago|reply
How is it not that obvious ?
[+] [-] codesushi42|6 years ago|reply
As a user, what does $100 a year even accomplish? It is nothing more than a racket.
[+] [-] boudewijnrempt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tachyonbeam|6 years ago|reply
A lot of teenagers who are learning to program right now are definitely not going to be able to pay $100 a year to distribute toy programs they're making for fun. Heck, a lot of adults developers won't pay that. Apple has just made Linux significantly more appealing for all of these people.
I own a MacBook Air at home (and a Linux desktop). I know this will definitely motivate me to go back to a Linux laptop for my next purchase. This move isn't just hostile to users, it's hostile to developers, hostile to the people creating value for the platform.
[+] [-] heavyset_go|6 years ago|reply
I've unfortunately come to the same conclusion.
[+] [-] q3k|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Wowfunhappy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danShumway|6 years ago|reply
I think we're in a very, very narrow window of time where Apple is not popular enough that dropping them means apps are severely limiting user reach, but is still trying to push itself as a platform where creative things can happen -- a tool for graphic professionals.
I'm cautiously supportive of this move, even though I use a Mac occasionally.
[+] [-] Svoka|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Razengan|6 years ago|reply
2. Instead of dropping macOS support, why not charge Mac users? Since you've already paid the developer fee, why not move Krita to the Mac App Store? Tell users that it's a cost of supporting Catalina.
3. You could continue to offer an un-notarized legacy version for free.
Abandoning your Mac users is more likely to just make them move to other apps.
If you feel your userbase is not techie enough to know how to manually run un-notarized apps, they probably won’t be able to switch operating systems just to use your app either.
[+] [-] dessant|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Wowfunhappy|6 years ago|reply
Want to play experimental itch.io games? Open a Terminal and type:
It takes all of five seconds, and it's permanent. It might take less technical users a bit longer, but entering text into a Terminal window really isn't difficult, and technophobes aren't using itch.io.Some people will say this is a bad solution because it makes your computer less secure, but, like, you can't have it both ways. Either you allow experimental software and accept the risks involved, or you don't. Maybe don't play experimental games on the same machine you use for important work.
[+] [-] athirnuaimi|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] macintux|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simion314|6 years ago|reply
I also see users asking for 32 Windows version of the games, there are still a lot of people running old computers and have bad internet connection and there is no good reason not to package some basic game app for them if it is possible.
[+] [-] xylophoner|6 years ago|reply
That said, I agree with the article’s author that devs should be free to distribute whatever they want without warnings and without having to update annually. Not every piece of software gets maintained but it can still be useful, especially for artistic works. Let the App Store be the place where Apple certifies safety and leave the rest to the user.
[+] [-] sukilot|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mnm1|6 years ago|reply
The author of this piece is 100% correct: none of these changes have anything to do with security. It's all about control. Apple, like most companies, just wants to control everything, whether relevant or not. The end goal is to control exactly what software is ran on their platforms, as clearly evidenced by the linked articles. I highly doubt that we'll be able to run any non-Apple approved tools in a year or two. They are turning OS X into iOS and have already renamed it macOS to let people know it's just going to be a walled garden of shit. The only reason to ever purchase an Apple computer was OS X. Now that OS X is turning into a shitty version of iOS, that last reason is gone. And that's before we get into the garbage hardware. I simply don't understand why anyone would want to support this platform going into the future. It's a platform that stands for censorship. Every component on the platform is designed around it. It's no longer a general purpose computing platform. In the future, it will be even less of one. All in the name of "security" and "privacy." Yup, save the children. But plenty of smart people fall for such stupidity.
[+] [-] Razengan|6 years ago|reply
→» Users CAN run un-notarized apps if they WANT TO. «←
You just have to make us trust you as a developer.
[+] [-] buboard|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pier25|6 years ago|reply
I recently was looking to get a new machine for music production and ended up building an Ryzen PC with Windows 10. It cost me the same as an i7 Mini but it is many times more powerful, expandable, and silent. Thank god I moved away from Logic years ago.
Windows is not as pleasant to use as macOS, but it's just as stable. A lot of software seems to run better there (eg: Firefox, Chrome).
For dev work I will keep using my iMac and 2014 MBP with Mojave, at least for the foreseeable future. Unless something dramatic happens at Apple I will most likely end up moving to Windows or Linux in a couple of years when these machines die.
[+] [-] asdkhadsj|6 years ago|reply
Would I see any issue here? I suspect everything I write or "install" via curl/bash/etc will be fine. Eg, if it's a downloaded binary in my $PATH, I expect it to continue to work.
So if that's the case.. why is Apple being so harsh about all of this? I feel like malware will just move to curl scripts and all Apple succeeded at was making normal Apps more difficult to develop.
I imagine some might argue that users will be somewhat informed, and will know not to run stuff in a Terminal. Cool.... but, how many times have we seen non-technical folks run stuff in the Windows command prompt? They can be walked through a malware installation process a thousand times over.
So is Apple going to lock the entire platform down? Are they going to limit my ability to run binaries? My own and others? Because if they don't, this all feels pointless. And if they do, i'l _be forced_ to switch to Linux.
I don't like you these days Apple. What is wrong with you.
[+] [-] madrox|6 years ago|reply
However, the evolution of platform protection slowed down as it became clear this was an amazing revenue generator. Incentives became blurred. A new type of malware showed up aimed purely at collecting your data, and our protections haven’t kept up, because that’s no longer the goal.
[+] [-] bcrosby95|6 years ago|reply
At this point, Apple does this by being a nearly completely consumer focused company. If you aren't the average consumer, they are going to toss you to the curb someday.
[+] [-] mariopt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Terretta|6 years ago|reply
> ”Apple’s vision involves us constantly updating work, constantly adding to our games, constantly paying to exist here, even when some of this stuff is done. Often when a game is done, it’s done. Games aren’t a service. It’s like asking for a director to keep updating a movie, or for a musician to keep changing their song so it can keep running. Decisions like this erase our history.”
On the contrary, you chose an ephemeral medium for your art. That choice, like making sandcastles, has consequences.