alt Hacker NewsThis looks cool enough, but it’s starting to drive me crazy how people are in such a rush to put out their macOS apps they can’t be bothered to get a developer account and run a one line command. It’s not hard.
I used to be sympathetic to complaints about not wanting to pay the developer account fee. But when you’re vibe coding, you’re probably paying a good chunk of change to your LLM supplier of choice every month, and the yearly developer account fee seems minor in comparison
Also, it’s just such a bad security precedent. This page describes the error you get as “the typical macOS Gatekeeper warning”, as though it were just another piece of corporate silliness, like clicking through a EULA.
Replies
> as though it were just another piece of corporate silliness,
It IS another piece of corporate silliness. Though silliness is an extremely charitable word for what it really is
Cheering on the loss of autonomy and control over our own computers under the guise of 'silliness' is disgusting
If you don't want your name, address, phone number on public display you need to either set up a company or set up some forwarding. If you set up a company, you'll need to get a DUNS number. If you haven't done it before and don't know about the secret shortcut way to do that, it is very annoying to get one.
Anyway, I don't see a problem with getting it out the door. People can just choose not to install it if they don't like it. I mean that's the whole idea of being early anyway, isn't it? Don't like a crappy bodged together UI? Don't like a lack of support? Don't like an unsigned app? You can wait until it has those things according to your preferences. In the meantime, the creator gets real users and feedback ASAP.
Gatekeeper and notarization are not silliness. They exist for a reason. I thought it would be a good idea to release the app during development when I am sure that it works correctly and then maybe get some feedback from early users.
The truth is that Gatekeeper should go the way of the devil.
It is my machine and I paid for it, why does the OS care about what I do with it? The only thing this leads to is making sure your customers grow into good little lemmings.
The fewer apps make me depend on proprietary app stores the better. Just make it a homebrew cask and you're good to go. If I were to develop macOS apps (vibed or not, whatever) I wouldn't want to pay Apple either nor jump through KYC and review hoops.
Totally agree. There are significantly more new apps being released. I've been visiting the /r/macapps subreddit and they're having trouble filtering new submissions. I generally like the direction that they're taking https://www.reddit.com/r/macapps/comments/1ryaeex/rmacapps_m...
Even though it's more troublesome to submit apps to App Store, it's one signal that the app is not a malware.
Gatekeeper is a travesty and assault on user freedom. Apple should not be in charge of what you run on your computer, at all. Any exception to this should be opt in. If a user wants to insert a third party between themselves and a programmer they can elect to do that.
Let’s not forget when Apple’s certificate server was down and suddenly you couldn’t launch apps on macOS, to say nothing of the abuse of user rights.
> they can’t be bothered to get a developer account and run a one line command
I applaud that they didn't kowtow to Apple's attempt to exercise control over their app and extort money from them. Why should we accede to policies that are designed to exploit us developers?
We developers add the real value to a platform. Don't believe me? Look up on how popular Sailfish OS or Windows Mobile OS is and why they failed or struggle. Apple should be grateful to this developer that they seek to add value to their platform instead of trying to figure out money grubbing ways on how to control and exploit them. (Of course, ultimately it is the users of the platform who are exploited - all charges by Apple are ultimately bore by them when they purchase an app through the App Store).
It's just sad that whether you are a user or a developer, Apple Fanbois would rather (ignorantly) place Apple's interest over their own consumer rights.
> and the yearly developer account fee seems minor in comparison
Do you not realize that spending money on other useful services makes it harder, not easier, to waste on dev fees?
Except it is just another piece of corporate silliness.
Why don’t you purchase your own developer account and sign it yourself if you trust it? Or are you saying them paying Apple $100/yr in perpetuity is what will make you trust it?
Perhaps the feeling is (at least sometimes, if not here) mutual. Some free software developers make apps for themselves and don't particularly want users (and least of all non-technical users that they'll be expected to support). They may not be interested in participating in Apple's system of obstructing software installation, especially if they just write their software for themselves.
I've never ended up with undesired software on my system except for under two circumstances: either (a) it's installed by the OS vendor, or (b) some proprietary indie software I used got bought by a shady company who now wants to spy on me and sell my data. Systems like Gatekeeper don't protect against either.
> Also, it’s just such a bad security precedent. This page describes the error you get as “the typical macOS Gatekeeper warning”, as though it were just another piece of corporate silliness, like clicking through a EULA.
It mostly is another piece of corporate silliness. For most people it rarely does something useful. But I agree; if you're courting normie users you should just pony up and get your code signed and notarized. Otherwise just tell people that if they don't already know what Gatekeeper is and understand the risks of bypassing it as well as how to do so, your software isn't for them.