[bandergirl]

I don’t agree. Anyone can notarize non-malicious apps at any time on the Mac already. Please look at what you can do with Mac apps before judging.

I think the issue here is just the additional payment, not the notarization. That part is hopefully rejected as a non-solution to the issue.

[dns_snek]

I'm well aware of how the notarization process works on macOS. I considered supporting it for an open source project I was working on, but I abandoned the macOS version after I realized that I would have to pay Apple's annual $100 fee.

Notarization could theoretically be used for "good", even though I strongly dispute its effectiveness. It only ensures that someone's card is on file to potentially aid in investigation after the damage has been done. In the case of malware, that card is likely to be stolen anyway.

The more likely option is that Apple will start abusing notarization as a way to take down apps it finds objectionable in some way, even though they do exactly what they say on the tin.

[johnnyanmac]

I guess as usual this will come down to porn. if those apps get rejected despite being non-malicious that shows how this "notarization" process truly is.

To be honest, it's not even like I care that much about the additional payment. Scummy but expected. It's more that the current prices, similar to Unity, seem to pretty much punish any innovative idea that takes off, to a point where Apple will not just make the product unproftiable but bankrupt the developer in the process. Most mobile apps are free so people underestimate how quickly you can hit 1M. At least make it something like $0.05 at a million and ramp it up at 5m or 10m to these larger prices. by 10m downloads you are much more likely a larger business or have figured out a way to properly scale your app.

oh and don't count updates, discouraging devs from maintaining their apps. Devs don't profit from an existing user updating, why should Apple?