It is still convenient enough for me to run software I want that isn't signed, but sufficiently obtuse that neither of my parents have figured it out. Given they are both prone to running any executable that any website tells them to download and run, this feature has probably save me several dozen hours of fixing their computers.
New versions of mac os introducing new restrictions.
Doesn't take a genius to see that their end goal is to make mac os as restrictive as ios.
When that happens, will it still be the right spot for you?
Apple moved their focus from the professional market who were willing to pay premium for productivity with better UX/Hardware/Software, to people paying just the premium .
It is a lifestyle brand now, people money because it is Apple, not because there is real value they gain for the higher cost.
Depending on what you work with, Windows or Linux is by far better option today. MS listens to developers (eventually), WSL , professional support, a lot of graphical professional grade applications all make it attractive. Linux is lot more flexible, works with less friction makes it easy to work with containers servers etc,
If you really need Apple hardware dual boot or flash a sensible OS .
Oh come now, there are millions and millions of professionals using macOS to do work every single day.
This is basically a slippery slope fallacy. Today they're making it marginally hard, what might they do tomorrow?!?
There are many reasons to prefer macOS to Linux or Windows. The Apple ecosystem works extraordinarily well together. There is nothing that you can buy, not with all the money in the world, that matches the seamlessness of owning an Apple Watch, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, and a macOS device. You can't do it with Linux, Windows, Android, or anything else. It doesn't exist.
I prefer macOS for development work, and for basically any kind of work. I loathe the Windows UI/UX and Linux is far too often a second (or third) class citizen. There is nothing that I have needed to do that I have been unable to do because of macOS. Not once.
Not to mention... if you want to write software for macOS, iPadOS, WatchOS, or iOS you must own at least one Mac.
"The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences." [1]
I don't see any claim of unintended consequences here.
They've been making it marginally harder for years and years and have consistantly announced features that tend towards making it more like iOS.
It is a fallacy when you're signaling the world a roadmap to slide down the slope ?
Speaking for myself, every time I've used a Mac for work it's because I had to, being that it was what the employer issued.
Could I have made a stink to be issued something else? Sure, but that is trading problems for problems. Have I used worse OSs? Yes, but that doesn't mean I should be grateful for what I find negative about the Mac OS.
I'm not going to be buying myself a Mac as I'm more productive using a different OS, but it's fine if millions of others do. Just factor in that there's employers with IT decisions out there too.
There was one short term gig [small start up needed short term help, I was available] and they wanted//needed me to bring my own laptop for work. "Fine by me, is it OK that my laptop runs off of Linux?" It was fine. Everyone was happy. If similar would happen more often that'd be great, but I'm going to cooperate otherwise within reason.
Right, and how many of those are using macOS because they're "forced" to, as a sibling suggests, or simply by force of habit?
Moving from macOS to Linux or Windows (or from any one OS to any other, really) does require some time. It's not necessarily difficult, but it still takes time. Time that the same professionals might find is better spent on their actual professional work.
It could be argued it's a boil the frog situation, but for me that means the incentives to change the OS aren't quite there yet. Maybe if MacOS 10.17 goes too far with restricting what people can run on it, there could be more people switching. But remember, many of those "professionals" are not programmers, they use standard "enterprise" software, like Adobe or whatever. I bet most of those people have no idea what a terminal is. They would probably not even notice such restrictions are in place.
I don’t want to move to Windows or Linux. The time sink is irrelevant. I am a software engineer and I PREFER macOS. So do my coworkers. So do many, but not all, of my friends. So does my spouse.
Many of you replying here just seem completely unable to grasp that other people exist, with other thoughts and opinions.
As someone who never bought any Apple products, I find it harder and harder to see why I would buy one. I have friends who are quite invested Apple owners who say they will most likely not buy Apple again because of the way the product has changed for the worse (in their eyes).
No. My line in the sand is Apple locking down macOS so that I cannot install applications outside of the Mac App Store. These "restrictions" that seem to annoy other people do not bother me. At that point I would just migrate over to Linux and maintain a Mac for any remaining Apple specific dev.
I'm not sure exactly where the line is on mobile. I don't feel restricted by the iOS ecosystem, but I do understand that others might. If there became a time where I wanted to abandon iOS then I would likely just go without a phone or get a flip phone. I refuse to use Android or any product developed by Google.
Right, because you know why each and every one of the billions of users do what they do, and of course, none of them would be doing something by choice, because how could anyone possibly like something you do not?
Of course people may choose MacOS. I've been using it for a very long time and hopefully that won't change anytime soon. But that doesn't mean that everybody who uses MacOS does so by choice.
We’re probably not doing that anymore
I can't remember the last time I ran an unsigned GUI app as part of my development workflow.
"To each their own" is the key principle we're missing I think, personally my encounters with Windows have been by far the most frustrating and unproductive interactions with an OS, but some people wouldn't ever step their toes out of Microsoft land. I'm not sure how much of my dislike for Windows is because I'm simply too set in my *nix ways and how much is genuine bugginess and UI obtuseness as well.
On the downside, Linux still doesn't have an advanced GUI Git app and other cool stuff like Paw.
Wait, have you seen them ? Can you link the source for this claim ?
> seamlessness of owning an Apple Watch, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, and a macOS device.
Why do you need this seamlessness ? Is your attention span so short that you forget what you were doing after the first error pops up ?
For me, the "seamlessness" opened new possibilities of use. What I really love is being able to use the phone from my computer. I don't have to have it handy.
Examples :
1. Call and take calls directly from the computer. Extremely practical with corded headphones I use for listening to music. Could I just get my headphones off and grab the phone? Of course. If I noticed the phone ringing.
2. Handle messages from the computer. I don't send and receive messages that often, but for some random 2FA over SMS this is just so practical. Could I grab the phone and read the code? Yeah, but if the computer does it automatically it's much nicer.
3. The Handoff feature, for example when I'm on the bus, start reading some article on some website. When I get home / at the office, I can open the page on the computer. Couldn't I copy the URL and type it in? Of course, but it's clearly a pain.
4. Internet sharing: just activate it from the computer, don't have to copy the password, etc by handling the phone. As above, I could of course do this by hand, but it's much more practical.
Maybe all this could be set up somehow with Linux / Windows and maybe with android too. I honestly don't know - my windows PC can't even get internet sharing via usb out of the box (didn't care enough about this to look into it more). It works fine on Linux though.
It's not a question of having a short attention span or of doing something very difficult. It's just having tools that work for you and getting out of your way. After all, that's why we use machines (which computers are): to automate things.
1. If I don't notice my phone ringing it's because I don't want to notice it ringing. If I'm waiting for a phone call I will check my phone often or not use headphones.
2. Is being aware of where your phone is and typing off the code from it really so challenging for you ? I don't know about you but I spend maybe 1-2 minutes per day on punching in 2FA codes and most of the time I don't even realize I'm doing it.
3. DM link to yourself on twitter or any other platform. There is also sync for chrome so you can sync stuff as you want, but to be honest whenever I am reading something on the bus the link is still where I found it when I get home. Somebody sent it to me ? Open messages on computer. Found it after searching google ? Make the same search on PC.
4. I don't understand what is complicated about this. I swipe down on my phone and press icon for hotspot. My computer connects.
It's really interesting that Apple users speak about how everything is so smooth yet they don't want to "fumble around with the phone", seems like an oxymoron for me.
Seamless means I can call or text from any of my devices. Switch a phone call audio from my laptop, to my phone, to my AirPods. Go for a run and stream music from my watch directly to my AirPods, without my phone. Unlock my laptop with my watch. Confirm a password from the keychain with my watch. Pull up a browser tab from my phone. Share a clipboard between all my devices with zero setup. On and on and on.
Are you seriously asking why one would want a system to be more seamless? Less cognitive overhead = more productivity, period.
My 2013 Macbook Pro is also still the best laptop I have ever used (I also have a 2017 Macbook Pro for work and I have to admit that the newer models rightfully earn their bad reputation).
If Apple continues to head in this direction, I think the right move is to migrate to Linux. Windows is a huge step back, as far as I'm concerned.
Note: I'm not a mac hater. I have 2, one I use every day and love it. I also have a PC I use every day. I still found the comparison videos enlightening.
You are right, for the price of a 16" MBP with 64 GB RAM and 1 TB SSD, I could buy a maxed out Lenovo X1E with 2 SSDs, so I could dual boot windows and Linux (I use Photoshop / Lightroom for personal photography but can't stand Windows otherwise). Oh, and I'd probably have more than enough left to go on a trip somewhere and actually use the mobile part of the laptop.
So yes, on pure performance numbers, I completely agree. However, that's really not the whole story. Not everybody needs absolute maximum performance. I wouldn't still be happy with my 7 yo mac if I did.
I use my laptop every day for (hopefully) years and years. So I care about other things. First and most important of all, the touchpad. I've tried Lenovo (T series), Dell XPS and HP Elitebook models. They all absolutely suck compared to a mbp. A friend has a 2-3 yo Dell XPS. The palmrest plastic is all sticky, the screen is wobbly the touchpad is a nightmare (sometimes it clicks on its own). I have an HP from work I sometimes use. The junction between the palm rest and the body isn't level, so after a few hours of working on it my wrists are raw from rubbing on the body. The same laptop has a power light right in front of the screen that is blinding. I had to cover it with a piece of aluminum foil to be able to work in the evening. These kinds of annoyances make it worth it for me to spend the extra cash on a mbp that will just get out of my way and let me work.
You mention the worse touch pad, and I agree, it took me a week to adjust... but on the other hand, the keyboard of the ThinkPad is so much better, in fact it might be the best keyboard I have ever used (not only on a laptop, and I have used mechanical keyboards).
Also, KDE/Kubuntu seems to have progressed so far over the past 10 years (since I used it last) that it feels better than Mac OS to me currently.
The only pain point remains my photography workflow, which I still haven't migrated and for that I still use the MBP... If I manage to migrate that, I don't think I'm going back to the Apple ecosystem soon.
Currently I feel much more productive at my programming workflow than with the MBP. Doing mostly TypeScript, OCaml and Rust development. And that for about 1/3 of the cost.
Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition - OLED 4K Touch 60Hz - Quadro RTX 5000 - Mercury
Intel Core i7-10875H
Windows 10 Pro
15.6" 60Hz OLED 4K Touch
Quadro RTX 5000
32GB RAM, 1TB SSD
16-inch MacBook Pro - Space Gray 2.4GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz 64GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory AMD Radeon Pro 5500M with 8GB of GDDR6 memory 1TB SSD storage
$3,899.00
Different enough that certain pro workflows (e.g GPU rendering) would be feasible on that machine that are not on the MacBook
AMD is currently running circles around Intel and won't be that easy to beat, especially because they have much lower prices.
My 2019 XPS 15 went through eight at-home repair visits after hardware failures within four months. Can honestly say I’ve never used a less reliable machine- and every unit I’ve ever touched has had some of the worst coil wine issues I’ve ever encountered in any computer.
“Very similar” doesn’t really count for much.
Running an MBP now, but if sticking with Windows was important I'd have chosen a ThinkPad.
Build quality is amazing, keyboard is great, screen is awesome (4k, hdr, touch).
It has the exact amount of ports my son needs, it can run games and it's weight is good to take it to the school.
But I have never had a laptop that gave me as much trouble with Linux. I bought two of them over the course of a couple of years, and both the one that shipped with Windows and the one that shipped with Ubuntu had CONSTANT hardware compat issues.
This was a while ago (after the reboot of the line), so the build quality and compatibility may each have gotten better/worse.
The trackpad feels like it's from 2012. The speakers are very bad. The fans are constantly whirring. It misses on all the details, while also making it harder to do my job.
It’s sad because the XPS is beautiful, but these same issues plague every Dell, HP, and basically non-Apple laptop. Even the most premium lineup (Envy, XPS, etc.)
How many years and fancy designs will it take before PC OEMs actually develop an excellent trackpad, not use tinfoil speakers, and use silent fans?
I wonder why not use Linux at that point tho?
Leaps and bounds ahead of where things were at 4 years ago.
Libinput, while less fully featured than synaptics, seems to have a better physics model for the trackpad pointer translation. It still doesn't have fractional scrolling though, every scroll is still a discrete increment.
Gestures on trackpad for recent (libinput) Linux. It runs xdotool to stuff the keyboard buffer with keystrokes when it sees certain gestures. E.g. three finger swipe left and right do Alt-Left and Alt-Right, which have the effect of Back and Forward in the browser and some other browsing apps (e.g. IntelliJ). Four-finger swipe left and right switches desktop on my machine. It's one more finger than Mac but probably required not to conflict with two finger scroll.
Continuous: pinch zoom, rotate, swipe between pages, swipe between virtual desktops, swipe between fullscreen apps, show notification center, show all windows on current desktop ("Mission Control"), show all application windows ("App Exposé"), show Launchpad, show desktop
Discrete: browser back/forward I guess?
Linux desktop has so many hidden problems, especially on laptops, you're definitely better off going the Windows route, unless your time is free.
For what an OS should do, Linux does it far better, and Windows does it terribly with its ancient nt kernel.
Then it comes down to usability for end user, gnome gets out of the way, and allows pretty good customization. MacOs is pretty mediocre and restrictive. And Windows is again pretty bad.
Then it comes to software availability, which is a bit a chicken and egg issue that I don't find too much value in. If the software availability restricts you, then you got to do what you got to do, with the options available.
Then it comes to value for hardware. And here, oh my how things have changed in the past 5-10 years. If you don't buy a mac for the software availability, or for some other restriction, you are literally making a terrible purchase. You get a far worse computer for more than twice the cost. This is no exaggeration. Upgrading components when buying is somewhere between twice and ten times more expensive than the equivalent components.
I laughed. A lot. The whole thread is full of people noting the level of hardware and software polish on offer from Apple but unavailable elsewhere, and the seamlessness of working in a MacOS + iOS + WatchOS world and how nice that is, and your takeaway is that we're all dumbasses making the wrong choice.
Peak HN right there, boyo.
People who do not see the value love to say this, but it doesn't make it true.
Today I use a system76, I have used various thinkpads over last few years , I would recommend thinkpad any day over similar priced Apple .
I don’t see value for the cost anymore .
Not everyone is. I have absolutely no interest in going to an environment where I can't run native Office, or a decent mail client, etc. And I have less interest in putting up with the garbage fire that is Windows.
I don’t need native MS office, with sharepoint and google there is really limited value to run a desktop version .
Perhaps if you are professional publishing there maybe a need, for vast majority of regular office users who are just doing documents / presentations and spreadsheets for limited consumption , there is no real need for native office. The collaborative features online are lot more valuable
One of the reasons I originally choose OS X was exactly office , it was valid 5-10 years back , I needed to be able to talk to developers and management/customers OSX fit that perfectly , it gave the best of both worlds , today using Linux if I download to file to Libreoffice sure the formatting still gets messed up ,however not once in sharepoint has it happened to me and only rarely in google docs
Pre office 2016 , Apple versions of office had all kind of kinks which made it just as annoying to work with sometimes you were forced to keep mentioning your were on Apple version of Office
Everyone ‘s needs are different, if your workflow does not have suitable alternatives you need it sure .
My point is with average hardware and increasingly locked down OS the alternatives keep becoming more attractive .
Don’t get me wrong OS X was/is still great . first time I did OS X upgrade 10-12 years back I was amazed , it did everything on its own , the files I had opened back exactly it felt out of the world ! compared to windows back then you had to format your disk reinstall all your apps and copy your files back .
The application install/uninstall is great no messy over abused Registry needing you to reinstall the OS every 6 months. The UX is still great .
However the other OSes have caught up and Apple is no longer ahead of the curve enough to warrant the effort
Or you just buy apple stock and keep using Apple ? That way you are just helping yourself.
I've been hearing that for the past decade. With the exception of some reasonably deprecated technologies (32-bit support, etc...), to this day I'm able to run essentially all of the software on my Mac that I did back in 2010.
If and when Apple does prohibit the running of third party apps, I'll switch to another platform. Until then, this is all just FUD.
So yes, you can run the same software (mostly) as in 2010 knowing the workarounds. But as a consumer you are probably missing out on new, great software because developers wont pay the apple tax to make their stuff available. So you're already affected. It's not FUD, you're just not seeing the issue.
What "great software they're missing out of"? Who knows? That's my point! It increases the burden to distribute software for Macs, so as a consumer one's missing out on what could have been. My guess is lots of small open source software won't make easy to install distributions for Mac.
Apple doesn't really care that you can run it by using a bunch of workarounds if they have 99.9% control over all software distribution.
Come on. It’s literally five mouse clicks.
Why does it even matter if it's a usability nightmare if the user wants it they should be able to install it if it's open source.
> Why does it even matter if it's a usability nightmare if the user wants it they should be able to install it if it's open source
Sure. And users are able to install it... it's just a little hidden. My point is if you can't even figure that out then you probably can't figure out most OSS either. Most.
Being so dismissive of the user's wants is just Apple fanboyism.
I will agree that many OSS desktop applications don't have the most modern UI and are not as visually appealing as some paid-for apps. But in terms of usability, "beautiful" apps can be just as if not more frustrating than dated-looking ones.
There's especially often a lazy route to perceived usability that consists in just not providing many features. Of course, it's easy to create an easy to use application if it doesn't do all that much (like $20 mail clients that can't even do GPG - no thanks, I'll switch back to ugly, but perfectly usable Thunderbird).
still the real concern many have is, with the switch to ARM based processors will MacOS effectively inherit the restrictions of iOS
Apple had been transitioning to 64-bit for over a decade when they finally dropped 32-bit support. That transition period is more than reasonable.
What makes me sad is there is nowhere to switch to seamlessly.
The writing has been on the wall since gatekeeper was introduced, but we stayed because there is just no better option. Some options are viable, but require sacrificing a decent chunk of the comfort we have now. It's the eternal waiting for the "year of desktop linux" except we moved the goalpost to laptop linux, battery performance, commercial third party support etc.
The funny thing being that people who didn't have these frictions already switched and will say "just do it, it's easy". But we won't have a choice anyway.
And people like you and me can turn it off.
It's not at all clear that Apple will remove the ability to run unsigned binaries. As of now, it's FUD. That's all.
And, moreover, it's mostly FUD in places like this from people who hate Apple anyway.
Issues are on the implementation, with for instance the network calls on every command run if for any reason the CLI is not whitelisted.
Also I am not against iOS either, I just need an alternative for the tools that don’t fit the model, and that role is currently filled by macos. The more macos is iOSified, the less it fills that role.
I mean, sure, it might happen. But hasn't happened yet.
I do wish they would just bundle up all of the safety-guards under a single toggle - put it in the recovery UI for maximum obscurity - to make this stuff as convenient for developers as possible. But I take the fact that they don't to be a shortcoming of product development, not malice.
By definition there will always be something out there that can't be developed on a locked-down platform. So there will always be an open platform, even if Apple decided one day (again, unlikely I think) to recuse themselves from that market.
This whole "issue" is just Apple trying to get people to put their software in the Mac App Store. Maybe a day will come where Apple try and lock down macOS to the level that they have locked down iOS... but I just don't see it happening. Apple will always need developers to develop software for Apple products.
Maybe they will drop a nuclear bomb on themselves. Anything is theoretically possible.
I don’t see that. I see them trying to protect average users from malware, something they have done a pretty decent job of.
It’s the job of a gui shell (finder/explorer) to discern user intent and do the thing it thinks the user wants. This is that happening. Users don’t want to run malware.
I’ve not seen anything that suggests that Apple wants to remove the ability of people to run arbitrary programs. Indeed, it is essential for developers to run novel binaries.
People like Gruber coined the term "App Console" to try and justify locked down iOS yet we're also told how powerful iPads are and how they're computers.
Why is it ok for the iPads to be locked down "App Consoles", if that's ok shouldn't it also be fine to lock down Macs and force everything through the App Store and make sure Apple gets a cut from say Creative Cloud subscriptions and Alberton Live installations?
I personally don't agree with any of it but I'd like to try and understand why people think one is ok but also not the other.
The iPad is by definition a more limited environment in that it IS locked down and heavily sandboxed. What you get from that is a hyperportable tool that pretty much Just Works All The Time without the need to worry about security or administration.
There are absolutely things you can't do there. For any advanced user, it's unlikely to provide a sufficient computing environment in and of itself -- but there are lots of folks for whom a nice iPad is entirely enough. My 80 year old mother only rarely touches her laptop nowadays (realistically, it exists for the version of Quicken she likes + the need to write embroidery patterns to flash drives for use with her INSANELY complicated sewing machine).
This is good.
But you trade some things away by setting the dials in that way (high portability & battery, high security) -- obviously, there's less direct user control, and less ability to customize, and outside environments like Pythonista I don't think there's any way to write code on it you could use on it.
But that's fine, because if the iPad doesn't meet your need as a primary, you probably have a regular computer on your desk, too. A Mac works just like computers have worked for 40 years -- you own the machine, down to the metal, and can do anything you want with it. This freedom comes at a cost (increased risk of crashes or malware infection), and may not represent the dominant mode of computing for regular humans going forward. That's fine. Not everybody needs that.
So the distinction is actually really simple: They're different products, positioned to address different user stories. Why shouldn't they have different approaches to lockdown/security/customization?
I mean, car makers have several models available, too, with often very very different capabilities and functions. That's also ok.
Well, there is no Mac ransomware, right?
Apple's new linker automatically adds an ad-hoc signature to ensure people building outside Xcode don't experience any disruptions as part of this new requirement.
This requirement does not change GateKeeper or Notarization.
More details here: https://eclecticlight.co/2019/07/09/understanding-signature-...
Yes, it's just an initial check. But is it necessary? What exactly is the use case basis for Apple transmitting and logging data on every application you run on an operating system you have a consumer guarantee of zero-tampering post-sale.
So, let's work this out: How easy is it to not upgrade macOS, retain consistent performance as usual, and not lose support if the userbase remains unsatisfied with Apple's change to an exchanged good? By my understanding, as with Windows 10, Apple will eventually require you to upgrade. If you're upgrading to a system that maintains the same performance and does not introduce express limitations to the product post-sale, that's great! Go for it, live merry. However, in this case, the userbase has zero clarification on both co-owned data transmission and a remote check that appears to trigger a constraint on workflow. There's no use case basis that makes sense for doing this, because Apple has established guarantees for decades prior to this new process that claim macOS is not susceptible to malware. So, it begs the question: Was Apple violating consumer protections by making false guarantees, or is Apple violating consumer protections by limiting the function and utility of the product post-sale?
That's what people are asking right now. We don't care about the nuance of the check. We care about the basic characteristics of, and more importantly the legitimacy of any use case for this check, given promises made to consumers at a prior time of purchase.
macOS is, in fact, susceptible to malware. (A notable example hit HN just the other day [1].) I don't think Apple has ever literally claimed that it isn't susceptible, though they may have sort of hinted at it (especially at the height of the "Get a Mac" campaign). To be fair, there has not been very much macOS malware then or now, though it's questionable how much that has to do with macOS's design as opposed to factors like the size of the target userbase.
The broader point though, is that Apple has established the belief that macOS is not susceptible to malware. That's why people don't "need" a virus scanner running in the background.
And this belief is widespread enough that it warrants questioning the basis of a use case for this check: Why does macOS need to send my data to a remote server upon initial load of each application to verify it with Apple's whitelist (approve-list? what's the right term these days?), if the operating system's existing protection has to date fulfilled the implied guarantee by CEO, Tim Cook, and former CEO, Steve Jobs, of zero or limited, but otherwise insignificant, exposure risk to malware?
So, what follows next?
Hence the slope.
Also so the os doesn't have to repeatedly rescan apps, etc.
All major Linux distros for example still have no viable way of creating signed programs or anything like Gatekeeper.
When a piece of (signed) malware becomes even moderately sucesful, Apple shuts down all its installation vectors by banning every dev account that's ever signed it. If nothing else this makes it harder to develop malware that spreads rapidly through the App store, forcing bad actors to invest a lot more work into finding 0-days.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...
> You can only notarize apps that you sign with a Developer ID certificate. If you use any other certificate — like a Mac App Distribution certificate, or a self-signed certificate — notarization fails with the following message: "The binary is not signed with a valid Developer ID certificate."
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...
https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/technotes/tn2206...
However my impression is also that it's mostly non Mac users who are concerned with this, so it seems unlikely that Apple will have much incentive to reverse course unless they screw up and go a few steps too far too soon and create a bigger outcry. Even that would probably just delay the process.
Nothing has really changed in this article though. You can still run software just as before.
Can anyone confirm if I am recalling this correctly?
But I almost never see anyone pointing out this is the equivalent of think of the children applied to software distribution.
While indeed this kind of control reduces the chance less informed users run random code downloaded from sketchy sites. I think it does little to actually curb malware, since all you have to do to pass the bar is pay 100 dollars to apple.
I believe this is Apples attempt to fully control the software distribution business for macs the way they do for iphones. Eventually mandating that all software comes through their store, uses their payment provider, etc.
Out of curiosity, how often do your parents encounter the dialog in the article?
But in the Windows days every time I'd visit, they'd say there computer was "fucked" and had been put away until I could look at it.
It's shocking, it's worse than Windows (sad fact: Mac has more malware/adware than Windows since the last 3 years).
Of course you can't see that if you're not on Mac or if you have an adblocker. Ads detect the browser and specifically target Safari. Safari removed support for extensions last year, dropping all adblockers, it's wide open to targeting.
Safari has ad-blockers. It also has extensions. Just google it.
They rely on declarative blocking and/or system-wide interception (ie, you run them as an entirely separate app outside of Safari). The majority of them are not going to be able to handle things like CNAME unmasking or page source rewrites[1]. The declarative blocking API in Safari isn't built to support those kinds of features.
[0] https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158
[1] The exception to this being maybe AdGuard when you run it system-wide? I vaguely remember reading that it sets itself as a MITM for all of your web traffic at an OS level, which allows it to do page-source rewrites. I could be wrong about that though.
> Safari removed support for extensions last year, dropping all adblockers, it's wide open to targeting.
This is not true. There’s a dedicated section in the Mac App Store for Safari extensions, including ad blocking extensions:
The issue is not whether expert users can run unsigned software, the issue is whether unsigned software will even be written and distributed by developers. Perhaps some free software, but it's not a viable way to distribute paid software.
Currently most desktop management structures try to do it backwards by taking an OS, i.e. macOS or Windows, and then trying to glue restrictions on top of it which always leaves holes or undesired side-effects.
The best 'middle of the road' so far seems to be active monitoring with Apple's or Microsoft's native management tools or with stuff like OSQuery; it also tends to be less intrusive for people that are convinced they are 'better than average' (nobody is) and don't need to have an MDM babysitting them.
But even then, there will always be people thinking their personal preference definitely means the big bad corp did it wrong or their personal need is more important than trying to do something about the constant barrage or crap any machine faces during its lifetime.
For the home user, all bets are off.
I know the complaints remain that not enough apps are in the Microsoft Store, especially compared to iPadOS and Chrome OS if you include Android apps, but it is comparable to Chrome OS without Android support and still seems like an "alright, not terrible" third choice.
Personally I'd prefer family to be on iOS than MacOS, there's even less rope to hang yourself with there.
To make my app visible to the main app, I place a "cookie" in the main app's directory (not my design), which is done by the installer script. Without this, the main app will never find my app. And the user can't launch me until he sees me in the list of available plugins. Vicious circle.