Apple's "notarisation" – Blocking Software Freedom of Developers and Users

Nobody else would bother. That’s why meme language repositories continuously lead to hacks and vulnerabilities.

Which is exactly as it should be

I actually don't have (much) of an issue with walled garden approaches as long as the wall has a gate that is easily opened, give me an OS level toggle with a warning of "Here be dragons" and I can live with it - it's not ideal but it's not a terrible trade off.

It's something Android has had previously (but they seem to be trying to lock that gate) and iOS less so.

and the purported purpose of notarization is "blessing" trustworthy software.

We also can't count on every person being able to check every single thing they do: how do you check if some food or drug you get is good or not? you can't really, you have to trust someone who knows.

A phone/tablet is a tool, with very intense usage, and huge privacy value, not an engineer's toy.

The key thing here is that the Apple App Store and third party app stores must be on an level playing field to compete on.

Microsoft will upload these executables to the cloud by default if you use their antivirus engine ("sample collection").

In a way, Microsoft is building the same "notarisarion database", but it's doing so after executables have been released rather than before it. Many vendors and developers will likely add their executables to that "database" by simply running it on a test system.

On the other hand, SmartScreen can be disabled pretty easily, whereas macOS doesn't offer a button to disable notarisarion.

In practice though they use it to turn the screws on various API compliance topics, and I'm not sure how effective it is realistically in terms of preventing malware exploits.

How would this be measured?

Since no one has pointed it out here, it seems obvious to me that the purpose of the notarization system is mainly to have the code signatures of software so that Apple can remotely disable any malware from running. (Kind of unsavory to some, but probably important in today's world, e.g., with Apple's reach with non-technical users especially?)

Not sure how anyone external to Apple would measure the effectiveness of the system (i.e., without knowing what has been disabled and why).

There's a lot of unsubstantiated rumors in this comment thread, e.g., that notarization on macOS has been deliberately used to block software that isn't malware on macOS. I haven't seen a concrete example of that though?

I don't know, I sometimes contemplated sticking sharpened pencils in my eyes for light relief whilst trying to renew my code signing certificates.

On macOS you have to resolved to various tricks to be able to run stuff you have decided you want to run, for whatever reason.

Absolute freedom does not exist.

Etc.

Not only are all of these functions and corresponding permissions completely standard for all kinds of applications, they belong to the core of what any system that calls itself an "operating system" should deliver to developers and end users.

You have to trust native apps, as it always was the case. You can't just install random apps. You can delegate the trust to a curated lists of apps that you trust.

Or you can just use the web apps, but then you have to trust them too (so they don't misuse information about you or your data for example). But then it can't integrate with anything and many features are simply not available.

As for your example, a photo editor could need a network connection when it contains collaborative features. Or an auto-update system. Or downloading of assets on demand. Or cloud AI feature. Or list of add-ons to install. Or for license checks. Or online help/docs. Or whatever.