It appears to me that Apple is trying to repeat the Communist approach of a centrally planned economy - a central institution is deciding about what is best for all, under the pretext to make life better (more secure) for everybody…
What failed miserably for communism will fail for Apple. If they continue to create administrative hurdles to the free personal use of ones computer, then even the dumbest fanboy will eventually understand that the glorious times of Apple computers are over now.
It once was a quality of Apple computers that you didnt have to answer to dialog-boxes all the time, you did not have to know or decide something, in order to use an iMac. And now they follow the Windows Vista approach, pretending that everything would become more secure.
It is getting more and more expensive, but not better than the competition.
My next mobile device might well be a Huawei P20 Pro.
And I make more money with services around Linux webservers, Wordpress and WooCommerce open source software nowadays, than with Mac software. Apple destroyed the software business, not Open Source.
[quote=410713:@Christoph De Vocht]Open source/free software… dont get me started. I HATE it, it has no added value whatsoever. It destroys the software market. No-one should give software for free and there is absolutely no reason not to ask some money for your hard work.
[/quote]
Open source very important in academic scientific endeavors… the type of things that are important to do but the software is not money makers for those doing the research, and of it cost money would be huge hindrance.
“Free” has its advantages… how many people on this forum has offered up free software that allowed others to add value to their projects… and I’m not talking about “how to solutions”, but full complete custom control classes…
And most of those have been “open source”, allowing those solutions to be customized as required.
[quote=410713:@Christoph De Vocht]Open source/free software… dont get me started. I HATE it, it has no added value whatsoever. It destroys the software market. No-one should give software for free and there is absolutely no reason not to ask some money for your hard work.
In the meantime I had luck with uploading a .pkg but still get the runtime error.[/quote]
I run an open source Xojo app. The GitHub repo contains EVERYTHING except the private keys I need for things like OAuth and update signing. Requires no plugins either. Any Xojo user, new or old, that wants to see how an entire app is built can take a look. Want to know how I handle preferences? Updates? The API with my server? Database? Installer scripts? Doesnt matter, its all there for somebody to learn from.
I do collect a small amount in donations through one-time uses, as well as some through Patreon. Its not much, but enough to cover my server costs. I do it as a hobby. I also dont want to deal with many of the business aspects of selling software.
Heres the thing though… I could sell licenses to an open source app. Thanks to public key cryptography, I can retain the ability to generate licenses even when all the source is known. Sure, you could take the project and compile it with a different public key, or remove the check entirely. But that thats not significant enough that Id worry about.
Open source has its place. I wish more things were open.
@Edward Palmer The cost to notarize as many apps as you like is only $100 per year. Thats only $8.34 in donations per month. For my open source app, thats probably the smallest of my expenses. I havent done it yet, but I will soon. Im not willing to call my app 1.0 until signed.
My point is, even for open source, the cost is very small. Easily worth it, in my opinion.
[quote=410723:@Thom McGrath]@Edward Palmer The cost to notarize as many apps as you like is only $100 per year. Thats only $8.34 in donations per month. For my open source app, thats probably the smallest of my expenses. I havent done it yet, but I will soon. Im not willing to call my app 1.0 until signed.
My point is, even for open source, the cost is very small. Easily worth it, in my opinion.[/quote]
@Thom McGrath, I understand that the donations needed would be nearly insignificant when you look at it that way. And I agree, it’s the smallest of the expenses I have for development. However, for reasons too complex and too sensitive to discuss here, donations are not an option unless I fork the project. I’m considering that, but I’m trying to avoid it.
Yes, I know. I was more thinking in the line of ‘devs’ who release apps for free. I really do not get it why. Any dev should ask money for the hard labor put into it. I don’t see any value not doing so. It just destroys the software market.
[quote=410719:@Christoph De Vocht]OK, I agree. Open Source can have it’s advantages. True.
But free software isn’t. Period. :)[/quote]
LOL. It’s pretty hypocritical to say that and create software using a Open source/free Compiler
ROFL. LLVM, SQLITE, and others, are not made by elves, if you really think that free software has not advantages nor understand it, DONT USE IT (Xojo for example)
On topic, Yes, apple wants more slaves, to tell them what can they have in “their” machines. iOS whas born that way, and MacOS is on the path to become the same insanity. I never understand mac people, just overpriced pretty stuff that is not really yours because the company decide what you can do and dont with the hardware you paid for.
Before you start a flame about the evil communist Apple enslaving the sheeple and how dare anyone not bow before the free software and Holy Stallman who is its Prophet
The post on Apple site states: “in an upcoming release of macOS, Gatekeeper will require Developer IDsigned software to be notarized by Apple”. The app notarizing is going to be the requirement for signed apps. Nothing in the post indicates it will no longer be possible to run unsigned apps, unless you want to make the slippery slope argument that it MAY happen someday. Don’t panic, people.
[quote=410770:@Krzysztof Mitko]Before you start a flame about the evil communist Apple enslaving the sheeple and how dare anyone not bow before the free software and Holy Stallman who is its Prophet
The post on Apple site states: “in an upcoming release of macOS, Gatekeeper will require Developer IDsigned software to be notarized by Apple”. The app notarizing is going to be the requirement for signed apps. Nothing in the post indicates it will no longer be possible to run unsigned apps, unless you want to make the slippery slope argument that it MAY happen someday. Don’t panic, people.[/quote]
Thats a very good point. Its so obvious now. What this is saying is if your app is signed with a developer id certificate, you must have it notarized too. The ability to run unsigned software is not going to change.
Gatekeeper already shows warning and refuses to run unsigned apps unless manually accepted by a person with administrator account - if you can live with that now, notarization won’t affect you. If I understand correctly, the notarization is going to affect only MacOS developers who 1) can’t distribute unsigned apps because users are discouraged by warnings; and 2) can’t/won’t use MAS to distribute their signed apps.
[quote=410841:@Oliver Osswald]There are to many signs to ignore. Apples direction is pretty obvious. Personal computing is, how they say, deprecated…
If you think that now we are fine and Apple will now stop turning the Mac into some kind of iPad, then you must be blind.[/quote]
I made an iOS App for a school, free to download and use, where the students use their Control No. and a Unique code to access the app and se their grades (This was for privacy and security). It took MONTHS to be aproved by apple because they said that maybe I was selling the codes to use the app, and it was against their rules to make profit outside the apple store.
So, that is their plan for MacOS, to steal proffit from developpers, eliminating all the distribution options and force them to sell apps and in app content through them.
