Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 134 posts

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#41

Post by AnthonyMouse »

pmontra wrote: post #36
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that get them to waive the fee? If your app is open source and they wanted it that bad they could just build it themselves, or develop their own replacement for it, and anybody else can pound sand. They have you over a barrel and they know it.

So let's Apple port, build and distribute open source for MacOS. I have no problem with that. Yet I bet it would cost Apple more than the money they do from the license they sell to OS developers.

But they're not going to do that for your project, only the ones they actually care about. In fact they already do this. Your macOS comes with bash (the old one because they don't like the new license) and a slew of other open source software. The whole thing is built on top of BSD. So they take what they want and then make you pay them for anything else.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#42

Post by eptcyka »

machello13 wrote: post #25
rowanG077 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply not true. Many OS developers are working in lower income countries. Or aren't even employed yet because they are in school. Your assessment only works for working developers in high income countries. And even then requiring 99 dollars is insane.

Insane is a bit of a strong word — it seems like a reasonable way to ensure that the world isn't flooded with incredibly low-effort apps. I know, I know — the world is already full of those, but I imagine it would be a lot worse if people didn't have to put down $99. Also, the $99 is the blanket cost to be an Apple Developer, including access to the App Store, technical support, etc. and it seems like a reasonable fe…

The app store is full of low effort apps, and the 99$ entry fee really doesn't matter. I think it still is a "Apple greedy". If I were to operate a personal fleet of devices, I wouldn't be able to build my own software once and run it on the fleet. I'd have to build it everywhere. If Microsoft were to do the same thing, people certainly wouldn't be trying to rationalize it as anything else but the money grab that it is.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#43

Post by snazz »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #32
jmull wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about. Meanwhile, there is good value. (The developer resources Apple provides are not free.) You can argue that Apple should provide developer resources at no cost, but that just means someone else is paying for them or you will pay them in some other way... or do without. I think at this point in the tech boom we c…

> The developer resources Apple provides are not free. So then why is the charge for signing and not for developer tools? That way if I wanted to I could use somebody else's tools instead of paying Apple. > I think at this point in the tech boom we can all understand that when a company gives you stuff of value at no cost there are significant tradeoffs and paybacks. Which is why I paid so much for my copy of gcc. Wa…

Apple gives away Xcode and allows people to sign apps for their own iOS devices for free (although they must resign those apps every week). This is intended to allow students and other non-professional developers to learn to code and experiment with Apple developer tools without paying any money.

Of course, Apple spends huge amounts of money on developer infrastructure (Xcode, LLVM, and Swift, for example). Since each additional copy of a piece of software does not incur additional costs for the developer, Apple can subsidize the development of developer tools using the $99 fee taken from (generally) professional developers who wish to publish their apps on the App Store or take advantage of notarization on macOS.

Many major open-source projects are largely developed by employees of large technology companies and foundations with significant budgets. The Linux kernel's largest committers oftentimes work at companies like Red Hat and Intel. Just because you get a given piece of open-source software for free does not mean that its development was done by volunteers in their free time.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#44

Post by jmull »

acallaghan wrote: post #37
jmull wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about. Meanwhile, there is good value. (The developer resources Apple provides are not free.) You can argue that Apple should provide developer resources at no cost, but that just means someone else is paying for them or you will pay them in some other way... or do without. I think at this point in the tech boom we c…

Apple are a multi-trillion dollar company, they don't need more money

That doesn't change the fact that developer resources cost money that has to be paid for somehow.

If Apple doesn't charge developers, they could, e.g., pay for it through more margin on device sales, which means Apple customers are paying for it. That sounds nice for developers, but that's going to cause the developer resources to lose developer focus. Developer resources will be treated as marketing expenses and the scope and character of them will reflect this.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#45

Post by pmontra »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #41
pmontra wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let's Apple port, build and distribute open source for MacOS. I have no problem with that. Yet I bet it would cost Apple more than the money they do from the license they sell to OS developers.

But they're not going to do that for your project, only the ones they actually care about. In fact they already do this. Your macOS comes with bash (the old one because they don't like the new license) and a slew of other open source software. The whole thing is built on top of BSD. So they take what they want and then make you pay them for anything else.

No problem with MacOS having only the open source programs Apple care about. In that scenario if Apple want that developers keep buying their hardware they'll have care about a lot of software or hope that everybody will be happy to work in a Linux VM, possibly with a Linux desktop. Imagine a Mac with no docker, no GNU userland and dev tools (if they're a thing on MacOS), no vim, no Node, no Python, etc.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#46

Post by AnthonyMouse »

snazz wrote: post #43
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The developer resources Apple provides are not free. So then why is the charge for signing and not for developer tools? That way if I wanted to I could use somebody else's tools instead of paying Apple. > I think at this point in the tech boom we can all understand that when a company gives you stuff of value at no cost there are significant tradeoffs and paybacks. Which is why I paid so much for my copy of gcc. Wa…

Apple gives away Xcode and allows people to sign apps for their own iOS devices for free (although they must resign those apps every week). This is intended to allow students and other non-professional developers to learn to code and experiment with Apple developer tools without paying any money. Of course, Apple spends huge amounts of money on developer infrastructure (Xcode, LLVM, and Swift, for example). Since eac…

> Of course, Apple spends huge amounts of money on developer infrastructure (Xcode, LLVM, and Swift, for example).

So then why do I have to pay them if I'm using emacs and gcc and C++?

> Just because you get a given piece of open-source software for free does not mean that its development was done by volunteers in their free time.

Yet, in many cases, that's exactly what happened. And even when it isn't, if it's distributed under a free software license then it keeps them from screwing you over because any adverse changes can be reverted.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#48

Post by jmull »

9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #40
jmull wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about. Meanwhile, there is good value. (The developer resources Apple provides are not free.) You can argue that Apple should provide developer resources at no cost, but that just means someone else is paying for them or you will pay them in some other way... or do without. I think at this point in the tech boom we c…

The world is bigger than the US, Im from a fairly wealthy part of the world on average - - eastern Europe but I can't afford it or buy their products just so I can use their tooling. Probably people living in poorer parts of the world are laughing even harder.

Right. Since you pretty much need at least one Mac in the first place, $99/year isn't really that burdensome in comparison.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#49

Post by cornstalks »

pmontra wrote: post #22
dgellow wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you thing that open source developers are fine with that? What are their other choices? Apple doesn’t care.

The choice is don't build for MacOS. In the long run Apple won't be happy with that and maybe they'll waive the fee.

> In the long run Apple won't be happy with that and maybe they'll waive the fee.

I think you greatly overestimate how much Apple cares about this.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#50

Post by Juliate »

Someone1234 wrote: post #29
jmull wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about. Meanwhile, there is good value. (The developer resources Apple provides are not free.) You can argue that Apple should provide developer resources at no cost, but that just means someone else is paying for them or you will pay them in some other way... or do without. I think at this point in the tech boom we c…

> $99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about Huh? Some Open Source/Free software have a $0 budget.

The resources, time and hardware implicated in the production of open source software, when all added up represent far more than US$99, in terms of value.

You may say that a FLOSS project has no bank account, but it does not have $0 budget (unless it has no value, and is produced with nothing of value, by noone whose time has value).

Post reply on HN