The Anatomy of a macOS App

> while that shown in blue is the stapled notarisation ticket (optional)

This is correct, but practically speaking non-notarized apps are pretty terrible to use for a user enough so that this isn't optional and you're going to pay your $99/yr Apple tax.

(This only applies to distributed software, if you are only building and running apps for your own personal use, its not bad because macOS lets you do that without the scary warnings)

For users who aren't aware of notarization, your app looks straight up broken. See screenshots in the Apple support site here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102445

For users who are aware, you used to be able to right click and "run" apps and nowadays you need to actually go all the way into system settings to allow it: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=saqachfa

I'm generally a fan of what Apple does for security but I think notarization specifically for apps outside the App Store has been a net negative for all parties involved. I'd love to hear a refutation to that because I've tried to find concrete evidence that notarization has helped prevent real issues and haven't been able to yet.

I’m only aware of two times that Apple has revoked certificates for apps distributed outside of the App Store. One was for Facebook’s Research App. The other was for Google’s Screenwise Meter. Both apps were basically spyware for young teens.

In each case, Apple revoked the enterprise certificate for the company, which caused a lot of internal fallout beyond just the offending app, because internal tools were distributed the same way.

Something may have changed, though, because I see Screenwise Meter listed on the App Store for iOS.

https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-research-app-root-certi...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/google-screenwise-unwi...