Subscribe to
Posts
Comments
NSLog(); Header Image

Gatekeeper and Mac OS X Development

News is just now coming out about Gatekeeper in Mountain Lion (OS X 10.8). It sounds like a reasonable compromise, but my concern is that this is a stepping stone towards Apple locking down Mac development even further. A quote about sacrificing liberties for a little protection and deserving neither springs to mind.

Still, I'm not opposed to the idea of Developer IDs and making that the default setting in Gatekeeper, particularly if I can choose that setting and still launch and run code that isn't signed simply by confirming that I'd like to do so.

But I will say that Apple needs to:

  • Ensure that Developer IDs are relatively easy to obtain.
  • Are targeted at the specific group or individual, so that someone can't obtain an ID, found to be distributing malware, and then easily obtain a different ID.
  • NOT fool around with saying what is or isn't malware. A broad definition should be provided and rigorously adhered to, because porn or political apps or apps that "have enough competition already" are not necessarily malware. Imagine how lousy it would be for someone's competitor to allege malware and have Apple take action?
  • Do a better job than they've done with the iOS App Store.
  • NOT go beyond this stage. I will not appreciate having developers feel "squeezed" into the Mac App Store.

Those are my concerns. I hope this is a good thing, and I'm giving Apple the benefit of the doubt here. Famous last words, right?

P.S. Analyzr Pro and Analyzr Student are niche apps that cost $59 and $299-$599. We regularly offer coupons and discounts, etc. We like knowing who our customers are simply so that we can provide great support (we don't even email them). As such, we're not keen to put our apps in the Mac App Store and would resent any pressure to do so. Getting a Developer ID, however, represents no pressure to do so, again so long as it's easy, inexpensive, and fairly handled.

2 Responses to "Gatekeeper and Mac OS X Development"

  1. What concerns me about Gatekeeper and these new policies is the reports of App Store-only APIs. So, either developers enter the app store and neuter their apps (due to the sandboxing) in order to gain access to those APIs, or they do without those APIs.

  2. Daniel said on February 26, 2012:

    What concerns me about Gatekeeper and these new policies is the reports of App Store-only APIs. So, either developers enter the app store and neuter their apps (due to the sandboxing) in order to gain access to those APIs, or they do without those APIs.

    Only thing in Mountain Lion that I know of which is App Store-only is support for iOS-style push notifications (local notifications are available to all apps). And that makes sense, as push notifications go through Apple's servers, so it makes a certain amount of sense to tie that to the app store.

    I haven't gone digging around in the developer seed too much (and even if I had, I wouldn't be able to say anything here) but from what I've read on Mac news sites, the push notification thing is the only API tied to the app store.


Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply to Daniel

Please abide by the comment policy. Valid HTML includes: <blockquote><p>, <em>, <strong>, <ul>, <ol>, and <a href>. Please use the "Quote Me" functionality to quote comments.