> what do you actually want?

Give me the ability to choose what I trust. “You can either trust Apple and nobody else, even yourself, or you can trust literally everybody” is obviously not a good faith implementation of this. Apple excels at steering the narrative with false conflation and false dichotomy, I’d also remind you of the came-and-went secure boot debate, which Apple successfully steered into Apple owns the encryption keys vs no encryption, and people just kind of forgot to ask, wait, why can’t I have the keys to my device?

Rather than just having the options "Done" and "Move to Bin", give me an option to actually run it without having to manually go into System Settings each and every time without disabling security features?

The added friction feels more like a way to force developers to pay Apple an annual fee for distributing rather than for my safety. Not saying it doesn't help with safety, just that it's more weighed to the former.

> what do you actually want?

I want to be able to right-click on an app and choose "Open" to run the program with an authentication dialog. You used to be able to do this, but Apple removed it in favor of an incredibly annoying process of having to go into System Settings every time.

I do not think this is the right way. The right way would be for Apple to allow for a free Developer ID for distribution if the app is free and has no in-app purchases.

This provides IMO all-around goodwill while still adhering to good release practices.

10 seconds or 30 seconds, it's just too much friction to ask end users to do. I actually develop on a Mac, but I've written off Apple as a target system for hobby/open source projects. Between quarantine, code signing, and notarizing (which requires $99 a year), it's just not worth it. Good for Apple users if they like this shit--I'm just not going to bother with distributing to the platform anymore.

macOS is slowly getting like Windows, where, on a fresh install you have to go through and turn off all sorts of unwanted software just to have a sane environment where you, the user, are actually controlling your computer.

> what do you actually want?

To make gatekeeper happy without paying a large amount of money and own Apple hardware (same thing).

> what do you actually want?

A UI option would make sense. That is what most users are comfortable with.

> Any user who does not like Gatekeeper can turn it off on their machine in ten seconds by running this in a Terminal

For now. Enjoy it while it lasts.

> The user decides what code is allowed to run on their machines.

Apparently Apple disagrees, Apple decides. Typical users aren’t going to find their hidden 5 step process to enable non-blessed apps and obviously they know that. Gatekeeper is an appropriate name considering the user themselves are on the outside of the gate. It’s the culimination of everything Stallman and the FSF warned everyone about for decades. By its logic we should install police officers in our living rooms for safety.

> Pick one, you obviously can’t have both!

Obviously you can, and you actually could earlier where you could click a bypass button for a specific app without any of this terminal nonsense

> turn it off on their machine in ten seconds

You forgot to add the time to learn that it's possible and to find the right command

> So maybe it takes 30 seconds instead of ten seconds. That’s mildly more annoying, but still doesn’t really seem like a big deal to me.

That's because you keep ignoring the actual effort/cost even after you've learned your first simplistic estimate was a mistake

> but then, like, what do you actually want?

As an author of some homebrewed Go software in the past and trying to distribute in all 3 big OSes, I completely understand the blog post author's points. The problem is not Gatekeeper per see, it is just the combination of things that makes everything infuriating:

- I could justify going for the whole "Apple Developer Program" even with all the bullshit things you need to do to get certified if this was a one time payment like in Google Play Store. But it is yearly. Like the author, I would probably get 0 (or close to 0) dollars in recurrent revenue for those apps, I could justify a one time payment but a yearly one is ridiculous, it is not like Apple needs this money to be profitable (they probably get a much higher margins on selling things on Apple Store)

- Gatekeeper UX is infuriating. The equivalent on Windows (SmartScreen, as the author also cited) is still basically the same as Gatekeeper as far I understand (e.g., you need to have a valid certificate on your app or SmartScreen will deny the app execution until you clear the safety bit). But SmartScreen, different from Gatekeeper, has an actual good UX, as the error messages are clear and actionable (and also don't require a command line command to bypass)

- The author was still in a more "happy path" than me since their app seems to be a CLI only app. In this case just removing the quarantine bit with `xattr` works fine. In my case I was trying to distribute a desktop app, and I needed some special permissions to show notifications. This means I need to package my app in a proper `.app` bundle, include the required XML requesting the permissions and I am now required to sign the app. And since I am required to sign my app, I either pay the yearly payment fee to Apple to get a certificate to sign my app or I ask the users to resign the app with a self-signed certificate before launching

So really, I don't want that much actually. I can definitely handle all bullshit Apple wants, but I want at least a cheaper way to develop apps in their ecossystem. Maybe a new basic certification program that you have a one time fee and you can sign your apps but not notarize them. That way Gatekeeper would still complain, but at least my app would work without resign.

Or limit notarization to X amount of users (non-stabled notarized apps talks with Apple servers during the app first run, so they could just limit the amount of allowed tickets to X amount of users). If my app ever pass X amount of users, I will gladly pay the Apple tax, but 99USD/year for something that I will never see it back is too much.

Edit: BTW, I know, maybe 99USD/year doesn't seem too much for some. But Apple also doesn't do any regional pricing as far I know, and 99USD/year is crazy expensive in the country where I come from for example.

Edit 2: I am sure things are better nowadays with Claude/ChatGPT, but also trying to understand how to do the correct thing for your app is very difficult, especially if you're not using Xcode, since Apple assumes you're using it so all documentation refers to Xcode.

If you want to take the risk and install some unsigned software on your machine, go ahead, but don't blame Apple, who is gatekeeping for the entire ecosystem for making the decision to keep the restrictions in place so that the other 2.5 billion users don't fall victims to malware defenselessly. Also, as a rule of thumb in cybersecurity, never underestimate human flaws or overestimate your ability to overcome them. Even the most brilliant experts cannot possibly know everything and make zero mistakes, let alone "the users" you are talking about. It is pure illusion that "the users" know exactly what's running on their machine under the hood. We should be thankful that Apple is willing to hold the lines and go this far to tighten security up when nobody forces them to. It is probably one of the best thing coming out of Jobs' relentless push for privacy and security on the iPhone.

[dead]

This is not the developer choosing what software can run on their computer, this is Apple choosing for you and then you having to go disable protections (with what implications?) to then be able to choose what software you run.

This has more to do with putting up a scary dialog for normies than it does protecting anyone. A non-technical user isn't going to go bypass this in the terminal, they're going to run back to the App Store where Apple can collect that sweet 30% and analytics.