Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

What red tape?

Your app is signed and that's it. Not App Store review, just signed by a bot. The rest is all just discussing things like copy protection, where to host, etc.



Plus signing up and paying for a developer ID. While it’s easy to minimize all of this, it’s still red tape and it’s extra work one has to do.


You sign up for github, hackernews etc too.

It's a little bit of extra work, which is in your build scripts anyway. And it protects against some attacks.

To me it just sounds like bitching against Apple.. some old, same old


> You sign up for github, hackernews etc too.

but it doesn't cost a cent


So does a domain name, so did an SSL certificate, so does any payment provider, so do many many other things. Heck.. so is facebook, so is whatsapp. When it's about those "we" like to complain that there should be a paid version instead of a free version. It's just a load of bs.

The article is not even about distributing free applications. It's about paid applications.


Distributing an OSS app requires neither a domain name nor an SSL certificate. And even if you shell out for these, they cost me vastly less than an Apple developer subscription. For somebody who develops OSS just for fun in their spare time, doesn’t make (nor expects to make) any money from it, and would rather spend time and other resources on interesting stuff, the 100 USD fee is essentially a no-go. I don’t mind paying for my hobby but (1) I’ve got more than one hobbies and I’m not rich, and (2) I’d like to perceive that the money I spend actually gives me something. For my purposes, an Apple developer subscription doesn’t feel like it is.


If you are distributing an OSS app, put it in HomeBrew. Done

There are thousands of OSS apps available on the Mac. None of them are signed. This includes many GUI apps like iTerm.

Most people who use OSS apps are already going to have HomeBrew regardless.


> "100 USD fee is essentially a no-go."

I simply fail to understand why people are so privileged to think $100 is no-go. Its not one time fee. Its yearly fee. and $100 is probably half of 1 month salary in many Asian countries.

> "Distributing an OSS app requires neither a domain name nor an SSL certificate"

One can just release app on homebrew or even github release and guess what they don't need domain name or certs. Yes github/homebrew paid that cost but OSS dev doesn't have to pay that much cost to release the opensource app.


I don't understand. of course it's a problem that DNS costs money, and of course it was a big problem than SSL cost money.


>> Plus signing up and paying for a developer ID.

Signing your app and distributing it outside of the Mac app store does not require a paid developer ID.


Yes it does if you want to be allowed by Gatekeeper.

What’s the point of Gatekeeper if getting a new certificate is free? Once your malware is blacklisted you could just use the next one at no cost.


That's moving the goalposts. The point was that signing and distributing an app outside of the App Store does not require a paid developer account, not that it would play nice with Gatekeeper. You can still option-click and run the installer even if it is not notarized.

Note that I will concede that it is extremely stupid and greedy of Apple to require a paid account for notarizing apps, particularly free apps, because it is in their best interest if more applications would be notarized, and they are not particularly hurt for cash either. It's inexplicable TBO. But that doesn't mean you cannot install signed but non-notarized apps without a paid developer account.


I think OP is including iOS in their scentiment.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: