It’s undeniable that a whole class of ARM software was prevented from even being conceived because it has to pass the App Store’s Byzantine set of rules.
On the other hand, I see so many software developers vehemently refuse to notarize their Mac versions. Notarization is far less egregious and it pains me to see so many straight up refuse to even consider it as an alternative to the iron grip of the App Store.
I tried notarizing, but gave up after 2 weeks of trying. I used to offer an app that wrapped an entirely java-based (shipped with its own JavaSE JRE) app within an Apple Script launcher. I used to be able to sign it, but the notarization tool simply won't accept my app's bundle. So had to drop it
Please consider shipping it unnotarized. I'd always rather have the option to allow an app through Gatekeeper than to not have a Mac version be available at all.
At the moment I have settled to publishing a version that only works on Apple Silicon devices (via iOS compatibility where I use translated bytecode). I will think hard about this, perhaps I will end up doing as you suggested :-)
Really? I find this hard to believe, because if this was true, why doesn’t Android have a bunch of unique apps that couldn’t exist on iPhone?
Yes, Android does have some apps that can’t exist on iPhone, but I wouldn’t say that most people find them compelling or care about them. Those that do already have Android.
Most iOS users just don't know how much better it is on Android.
As a developer, I can make apps for my own device without telling (or paying) anybody and use old devices like somebody else might use a Raspberry Pi.
I can use real Firefox with real uBlock Origin.
I can get free apps from Amazon App Store. I can get verified secure open source apps from F-Droid.
I can use separate restricted accounts on my for kids and guests.
I can use a separate launcher experience for driving without needing to purchase a head unit.
I can watch videos (including the "GIFs with sound" that proliferate on Reddit) with the sound off and on-device generated captions. I can copy text from arbitrary screens, even if that text is in a picture.
I can route all my calls through Google Voice or any other calling service. I can open map links in any mapping app I like.
I can use emulators and native apps for game streaming services.
I can have my photos automatically upload in the background.
I can update my browser engine and a lot of other "system software" without a reboot.
I can use headphones without ever charging them. I can unlock my phone while wearing a mask.
I can filter notifications the same way I filter my mail.
Using iOS would be a massive productivity drain as well as an entertainment drain and security loss. Most of the people I have demonstrated these things to have found one or more of these abilities compelling enough to have switched.
I used Android for a few years. Then I used iOS for a few years (iPhone and iPad). I switched back to Android two years ago.
I liked a lot of things about iOS. Apps for Android tablets are still largely terrible and there is some bizarre behavior around SPens and multi-touch that I don't understand. But I could never go back.
The biggest benefit is I have all my files automatically synced between my phone, tablet and laptop. I never have to manually push something to the right app, then figure out how to get that on my Windows laptop. It's just there. Whether it's emulator save files or ebooks or documents or photos or anything else.
It's hard to pin down a single use-case, because there are so many situations where it turns out to be useful.
Maybe I wrote a document on my laptop, which I don't have on me and I forgot to send it. I always have my phone, so I'm in never in a position where I don't have access to that document and can't complete that task.
Maybe I have to wipe my phone or I get locked out of it, and I don't have to worry about losing anything and I don't have to put in any extra effort into backing things up (with the risk of forgetting something).
Not to mention various IDEs and a lot of specialized tools basically compiled from a Linux distro. Still it's far from ideal given that everything needs to be compiled against the bastardized Bionic c library using the wonky at best Android NDK. Not to mention issues the Termux project uncovered where newly introduced "security" features prevent you from running binaries that were not installed from an APK (breaking many Linux distro chrome usecases and IDEs).
In short, a proper mobile Linux distro is needed, as Android is already far from perfect and getting worse. Hopefully some of the projects spawned around and related to PinePhone can cover that over time. :)
That said, I mistook your comment as disdaining Android users - not saying that they were a market you were not interested in, which is more reasonable and I should've understood that initially.
I make a free mac utility and would be fine with notarizing it if it wasn't $100 a year. I don't want to pay $100 a year to give away something for free. And the message that pops up telling users to "contact the developer" because "the app needs to be updated" is just infuriating. To me it feels like Apple asking users of unnotarized apps to bug developers into paying Apple that $100 a year.
> I see so many software developers vehemently refuse to notarize their Mac versions.
Good, I'm glad I'm not the only one who does this.
> Notarization is far less egregious and it pains me to see so many straight up refuse to even consider it as an alternative to the iron grip of the App Store.
Notarization requires developers to pay Apple $100 every year if they want to notarize their software.
As a non-Mac developer, what does it mean to notarize a piece of software? Is that something you need to do in order to be able to run a piece of software these days?
I see. That's a pretty developer-hostile measure. Luckily, I don't intend to ever ship any software to Macs, so it's not a problem to me. If I did want to ship a Mac version of any tool I'd write, I'd pretty hesitant to jump through Apple's hoops, so I can understand why developers don't want to notarize their stuff.
The goal of the system is to authenticate which developer made a given piece of software, to be able to track the spread of malware. An option is always given for a user to opt-out.
> Gatekeeper can be totally disabled via sudo spctl --master-disable.
If you had to do this on Linux to run software that wasn't notarized by Red Hat, HN posters would write about how unfriendly and developer hostile Linux is.
On the other hand, I see so many software developers vehemently refuse to notarize their Mac versions. Notarization is far less egregious and it pains me to see so many straight up refuse to even consider it as an alternative to the iron grip of the App Store.