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

51–60 of 134 posts

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#51

Post by AnthonyMouse »

pmontra wrote: post #45
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is that supposed to help all the small time developers that are trying to get started on a side project and want to distribute it to their 200 existing customers who Apple doesn't care about at all?

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#52

Post by _qulr »

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…

> Also, the $99 is the blanket cost to be an Apple Developer, including access to the App Store, technical support, etc.

This is actually the problem. If an open source developer doesn't want access to the App Store, technical support, etc., they still have to pay for those things.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#53

Post by namanaggarwal »

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…

> Apple gives away Xcode and allows people to sign apps for their own iOS devices for free

Yes they do, to entice developers to build apps for their phones which they sell for a premium. Remember Ballmer (different company, similar context) .. Developers, developers, developers...

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#54

Post by _qulr »

Juliate wrote: post #50
Someone1234 wrote: post #29

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 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).

You don't pay the developer fee with "value", you pay it with legal currency. Which requires a bank account or credit card.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#55

Post by jmull »

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.

Software development typically requires at least a computer (a Mac for MacOS and iOS development), internet service, and electricity.

Dwarfing those, though, is the significant time software development takes. For OSS, the time is donated, whether by individuals or by corporate sponsors who sometimes dedicate employee hours to projects of particular value to them. But in either case the donator has to be in a position to afford it, which typically means significant income from other means.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#56

Post by _qulr »

jmull wrote: post #44
acallaghan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're taking the current Apple developer program as an eternal truth, when in fact it has changed significantly over time.

Before the App Store, you could develop for the Mac completely free. There was a developer program, which was much more expensive than $99 per year, but it was mainly concerned with WWDC and pre-release builds. There was even a hardware discount for developers, which was very popular, and effectively made the developer program pay for itself in many cases.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#57

Post by Razengan »

dessant wrote: post #6

It's astonishing that the developer community is fine with requiring open source projects to pay $99/yr for notarization to run on macOS. Malware authors will happily pay the developer account fees, as seen here, while open source projects are seriously hindered. It should be possible to verify developers and distribute open source apps without a cost on macOS.

> It's astonishing that the developer community is fine with requiring open source projects to pay $99/yr for notarization to run on macOS.

There is NO "requirement" for notarization. This FUD keeps getting perpetuated, but you can publish macOS software without paying $99 year.

> It should be possible to verify developers and distribute open source apps without a cost on macOS.

The cost is convincing your users to trust you and allow your unsigned app to bypass Gatekeeper.

I've seen some tools do just that, explaining that they cannot afford the notarization fee.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#59

Post by pmontra »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #51
pmontra wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is that supposed to help all the small time developers that are trying to get started on a side project and want to distribute it to their 200 existing customers who Apple doesn't care about at all?

They're not the developers I was thinking about. I was thinking about the kind of open source projects that are installed by 100k-100M people.

Misunderstanding sorted out, let's see. If I wanted to reach 200 customers on MacOS (real or leads) probably I can invest 0.5 USD per customer and see if I end up making some money because one of them hires me to do anything.

Re: Apple Accidentally Approved Malware to Run on macOS

#60

Post by gamegod »

Razengan wrote: post #57
dessant wrote: post #6

It's astonishing that the developer community is fine with requiring open source projects to pay $99/yr for notarization to run on macOS. Malware authors will happily pay the developer account fees, as seen here, while open source projects are seriously hindered. It should be possible to verify developers and distribute open source apps without a cost on macOS.

> It's astonishing that the developer community is fine with requiring open source projects to pay $99/yr for notarization to run on macOS. There is NO "requirement" for notarization. This FUD keeps getting perpetuated, but you can publish macOS software without paying $99 year. > It should be possible to verify developers and distribute open source apps without a cost on macOS. The cost is convincing your users to t…

When did this change? You need to codesign/notarize your application lest users get the super scary warning that tells them to move it to trash when they try to run it. Apple literally tells your users your app is garbage unless you pay for this. Definition of a shakedown.
Post reply on HN