Apple's "notarisation" – blocking software freedom of developers and users

User Safety vs. Software Freedom

• Major split between those prioritizing protection of non-technical users (e.g., “parents/grandparents”) and those prioritizing device owner control.
• Pro-notarization side: most users are vulnerable to scams and malware; centralized review is analogous to food/drug regulation; some explicitly don’t want sideloading to exist so relatives can’t be socially engineered into installing fake apps.
• Anti-notarization side: adults should be allowed to make their own choices; “think of the parents/children” is seen as a pretext to justify corporate control; restricting freedom for the least competent users is framed as paternalistic and harmful to human dignity.

What Notarization Actually Is (and iOS vs macOS)

• Several comments note widespread confusion: the submitted article is about iOS notarization, which is described as manual review with fewer rules than full App Store review.
• On macOS, notarization is said to be an automated static analysis / malware scan plus code-signing checks, not a “complete review”.
• Some argue Apple is using notarization (especially on iOS) for de facto editorial control, pointing to emulator cases like UTM; others insist notarization is meant only for malware and API conformance, not content policy.

Apple’s Control, DMA, and “Alternative” App Stores

• One camp argues the EU DMA is about competition between app stores, not end‑user freedom; requiring all stores to distribute only notarized apps is acceptable if Apple is subject to the same rule.
• Critics counter that if all alternative stores can only ship what Apple would approve, they’re not real alternatives, and Apple’s control should end once the device is sold.
• Debate centers on whether notarization is “strictly necessary and proportionate” security under DMA, or a gatekeeping mechanism the DMA was meant to curb.

Comparisons with Windows and Other Platforms

• Windows code signing and SmartScreen are cited as a looser analogue:
  • You can still easily run unsigned or unknown binaries after a warning and can dial security down.
  • Microsoft’s reputation checking is viewed as mostly automated and not used to throttle disfavored apps.
• Key difference raised: on macOS/iOS, notarization requires Apple’s online service; offline self-signing is not enough for broad distribution.

Developer Experience and Costs

• Multiple developers describe notarization (especially first-time or iOS cases) as slow, brittle, and painful to integrate into CI/CD.
• The annual Apple developer fee and the friction of explaining workarounds have led some to stop shipping binaries for hobby/OSS tools.
• Others say macOS notarization is fast and predictable in practice, but note that iOS notarization can be much slower and more opaque.

Trust, Sandboxing, and Alternatives

• Some suggest the real solution is strong OS-level sandboxing and user-controlled permissions (e.g., network/file access), not centralized corporate veto power.
• Others argue useful native apps inherently need broad access and that, in practice, users must trust either app authors, platform vendors, or both.
• There is cynicism toward “trusting big vendors” (Oracle, Microsoft, Apple) and acknowledgement that existing app stores are already full of scams, dark patterns, and privacy abuses despite gatekeeping.