Protecting the user from things they don’t realize are apps or new apps on general is important.
But the amount of overreach in gatekeeper to try and make the failed Mac App Store profitable and milk $90 a year at the expense of apps users want to run is egregious.
I personally think $90 per year is reasonable and not 'milking' - I don't think it's large enough to suspect Apple making bank on this, but does represent a certain level of commitment from a dev and prevents users from spamming developer accounts.
The only scenario in which I think it's excessive is broke student devs, not sure if there's a scheme to waive the fee for them.
Not allowing regular folks to run unsigned apps is something I also agree with -though I would love if Apple allowed us to trust third-party root certs so that apps would be both signed and free of Apple's control.
I find it hard to believe that charging people is the only way to stop people people from making multiple/spam accounts. It seems like it's just the easiest and most profitable. And, if it is the only option, then why does an account that has been paying Apple $90 a year for a decade still need to keep paying them: it's seems unlikely to be a spam account at that point.
>Not allowing regular folks to run unsigned apps is something I also agree with -though I would love if Apple allowed us to trust third-party root certs so that apps would be both signed and free of Apple's control.
Rolling up the ladder much? Most who can program nowadays in one form or another owe the learning experience to the fact we could write and run unsigned apps without nannery measures like Gatekeeper.
I flat out refuse henceforth the do anything that encourages mind share on fundamentally anti-user, gatekept platforms.
The reason you can go anywhere on the internet and trust at least that the website you're viewing is in the form the creator intended is that HTTPS exists - which requires that a trusted entity has issued a cert that proves the domain is indeed held by the person and what goes on in that domain hasn't been tampered with externally.
That is the default on the internet, and even enforced. I'm merely saying that for average users (or power users even, who understand the risks) the default should be that the same guarantees apply to desktop apps as well (especially considering those usually have far more access).
HTTPS shows that such a world where people live with this restriction is possible and practical, and far from the jackbooted tyranny you describe.
But the amount of overreach in gatekeeper to try and make the failed Mac App Store profitable and milk $90 a year at the expense of apps users want to run is egregious.