I came here just to post this exact snippet. Does this seem at all ominous to anyone else? Perhaps I'm overreacting.
The "No unsigned code default" has been coming for a while in mainstream computing, thanks to most users ability to blindly click anything attached to a random e-mail or downloaded from their favourite wallpaper site. Out of the options ("App Store Only" or some other signature system), I think they chose the right one. As long as the opt out is there, not only do I not have a problem with this, I'd suggest it's a positive step forward. The only change I'd want is to remove or massively reduce the cost of getting a developer certificate.
Apple is probably making the right decision for its users, but I still feel there is something we're losing here.
Calm down.
Not at all, for several reasons. First, defaults are powerful things. The vast majority of users never change them, or even become aware that they can be changed. This remains true even if you throw an unskippable dialog box right up in their face -- lots of people will just blindly click "OK" to accept whatever the default in the dialog box is, without stopping to consider the alternatives. The result is that default settings tend to become "the new normal," even when they're sub-optimal.
(Example: why did IE6 rule the Web for a decade, despite being demonstrably inferior to the alternatives for most of that time? Because for nearly all users, it was the default.)
This seems especially true in the case of this particular preference, for two reasons. First, it's a technical question ("what's 'unsigned code?'"), which means many users will avoid changing it for fear that they don't fully understand the consequences of doing so. Second, it involves security, and users have been trained that in questions of security departing from "standard operating procedure" puts them at risk, so others will avoid changing it for fear that doing so will expose them to new vulnerabilities.
In other words, it's not unreasonable to expect that offering unsigned code will quickly become an infeasible strategy for OS X developers, even if users still have the option to accept such code. The option may be there, but those developers will find themselves marginalized simply for being something other than the default.
Overnight they'd lose many thousands evangelists and unpaid tech support staff (ever help a family member with their Mac?).
Like with iOS? Hackers will be annoyed, but Apple doesn't care about them when there are more than enough developers who are either in it for the money or who agree with Apple's position.
However, from Apple's perspective, if there are "enough" developers who can't or won't leave (because they develop Mac software or iOS software or both), Apple might not care if you do.
And it's not like the signing process is particularly onerous -- it won't represent even the slightest barrier or inconvenience to shareware, freeware or open source app distribution.