Catalina: Apple turns macOS into a closed platform; many audio-devs warned from the upgrade

[Urs]

The users are able to run software at their own risk.

Yes. As a developer, you can ask your users to commit to a risk. I think that's exactly what Apple tries to avoid. I think their move is particularly motivated by the rise of malware on their system, and they're acting on it.

[elxsound]

A 99$ *required* for any plugin development on Mac is still 99$ too much for every small dev of free software. On Windows it's not required.

Hmmm, so as a poor developer I have to use Eclipse or whatever and some kind of weird workflow with a tool chain that might be supported or not on Windows (a paid-for operating system) so I can distribute installers that some browsers won't even download. I'd rather go Linux then.

Do you overread Markus' posts by accident or what is going on here? Must say i'm more then surprised.

He's not commenting on Markus's posts, he's commenting on the post of the guy he quoted.

That was the point Einstein.

Then I don't understand the relevance of your comment on Urs' post.

Then if you don't understand, why should I understand the relevance of your post!

[Forgotten]

Hmmm, so as a poor developer I have to use Eclipse or whatever and some kind of weird workflow with a tool chain that might be supported or not on Windows (a paid-for operating system) so I can distribute installers that some browsers won't even download. I'd rather go Linux then.

Do you overread Markus' posts by accident or what is going on here? Must say i'm more then surprised.

He's not commenting on Markus's posts, he's commenting on the post of the guy he quoted.

That was the point Einstein.

Then I don't understand the relevance of your comment on Urs' post.

Then if you don't understand, why should I understand the relevance of your post!

My first post or my second post?

[elxsound]

Do you overread Markus' posts by accident or what is going on here? Must say i'm more then surprised.

He's not commenting on Markus's posts, he's commenting on the post of the guy he quoted.

That was the point Einstein.

Then I don't understand the relevance of your comment on Urs' post.

Then if you don't understand, why should I understand the relevance of your post!

My first post or my second post?

I don't know. Maybe your next post.

[Urs]

(man, I remember when I started out and Metrowerks cost me a full month's salary, and that was years before I sold a single piece of software...)

[Forgotten]

He's not commenting on Markus's posts, he's commenting on the post of the guy he quoted.

That was the point Einstein.

Then I don't understand the relevance of your comment on Urs' post.

Then if you don't understand, why should I understand the relevance of your post!

My first post or my second post?

I don't know. Maybe your next post.

I'll give it a lot of thought before I make it then.

*Edit*
Turns out my next post was about Dr Who sticking a light bulb up his bum. Who would have known?

[elxsound]

(man, I remember when I started out and Metrowerks cost me a full month's salary, and that was years before I sold a single piece of software...)

CodeWarrior? Was this an annual price?

[JCJR]

(man, I remember when I started out and Metrowerks cost me a full month's salary, and that was years before I sold a single piece of software...)

I enjoyed Metrowerks. And Lightspeed C and Lightspeed Pascal before that. And that good ole Consulair 68k Assembler!

Hell I'm not picky I liked FFortran 5 punch card programming on IBM360 and 6502/6510 asm on C64. Just don't like current Mac programming. They took all the fun out somehow. My opinion only.

[mladi]

Nevermind. I get it. Windows is an open system, and while Apple can at any time raise the price to 999$ (why not $99999 while we're at it? That's roughly what Sony asks for, right?), Microsoft will never do that and they'll never ever, ever make code signing mandatory or deprecate any ancient subroutine.

So u-he are fine with Apple' recent rulings and OS changes? Nothing to worry about from your side? If so then the idea suggests itself that u-he prefer a closed system.

[Urs]

(man, I remember when I started out and Metrowerks cost me a full month's salary, and that was years before I sold a single piece of software...)

CodeWarrior? Was this an annual price?

Nah, that was a proper license without a time limit. Can't remember if I ever went for a paid upgrade. A month or two after I sold my first plug-in I switched to the predecessor of XCode though (Project Builder).

[elxsound]

That was the point Einstein.

Then I don't understand the relevance of your comment on Urs' post.

Then if you don't understand, why should I understand the relevance of your post!

My first post or my second post?

I don't know. Maybe your next post.

I'll give it a lot of thought before I make it then.

Go for the purple belt.

[Urs]

Nevermind. I get it. Windows is an open system, and while Apple can at any time raise the price to 999$ (why not $99999 while we're at it? That's roughly what Sony asks for, right?), Microsoft will never do that and they'll never ever, ever make code signing mandatory or deprecate any ancient subroutine.

So u-he are fine with Apple' recent rulings and OS changes? Nothing to worry about from your side? If so then the idea suggests itself that u-he prefer a closed system.

Look, I'm not much for all-the-outrage and wild speculation. I'm just used to the concept that, if you claim "facts", you need to be bullet proof. If only one argument turns out to be false, the whole thing falls apart. Which it then did.

I find notarisation a nuissance, but I appreciate the necessity to code sign. I also think 32bit needs to be put to rest. We made a plan for that and communicated it.

[mystran]

A 99$ *required* for any plugin development on Mac is still 99$ too much for every small dev of free software. On Windows it's not required.

Hmmm, so as a poor developer I have to use Eclipse or whatever and some kind of weird workflow with a tool chain that might be supported or not on Windows (a paid-for operating system) so I can distribute installers that some browsers won't even download. I'd rather go Linux then.

As long as your annual revenue is below 1 million USD and your organisation has less than 250 PCs, you can use Visual Studio Community Edition for free, which (unlike the old stripped-down Express Editions) is basically just the normal Visual Studio with a different license.

Now, I realise that the revenue limit isn't that high in the grand scheme of things, but I still find it hard to believe that many "small devs of free software" actually go over that.

[Markus Krause]

The users are able to run software at their own risk.

Yes. As a developer, you can ask your users to commit to a risk. I think that's exactly what Apple tries to avoid. I think their move is particularly motivated by the rise of malware on their system, and they're acting on it.

I agree with this. But it has the side effect that they can completely control now what (legit) software is distributed on their platform

[Urs]

The users are able to run software at their own risk.

Yes. As a developer, you can ask your users to commit to a risk. I think that's exactly what Apple tries to avoid. I think their move is particularly motivated by the rise of malware on their system, and they're acting on it.

I agree with this. But it has the side effect that they can completely control now what (legit) software is distributed on their platform

I can come up with examples where I wouldn't mind sanctions. I also don't see a technical limit for MS to do the same (Defender...). But I can't see why they would sanction us. They sure had the means before, had they wanted to.