[dkonofalski]

This is not anti-consumer behavior. Consumers are, overall, protected when they can verify the source of an application or extension on their computers. Their freedom may be limited but it's not a black-and-white "this is anti-consumer".

[cma]

Some signatures are invalidated due to business disputes on entirely different platforms (Epic dispute on iOS, signatures invalidated, or threatened to be before court order prevented it, on OS X, for no security reason).

[dkonofalski]

Epic violated the Terms of Use for their developer agreement which applies to all platforms. They knew that and they violated it willingly. The court order only prevented it temporarily to reduce the damages that may be incurred and until a determination was made in the initial case.

That is not anti-consumer.

[exoji2e]

Well even if Epic are the bad guys by violating the ToU willingly, it still impacts the user. As a user I don't want my apps (which I depend on) to stop working, because of a business disagreement.

Revoking signatures and disabling the apps on user devices to protect your business model is definitely anti-consumer in my book.

You could easily see Apple revoking signatures because of DMCA claims. Even faulty ones, like the claim RIAA made against youtube-dl on GitHub.

[dkonofalski]

Of course it impacts the user... And if Epic was found doing something illegal and was shut down or bankrupted, that would also impact the user. Your over-simplification that it's a "business disagreement" is disingenuous and incomplete. The signature revocation system you're claiming is simply to "protect their business model" is the same system that allows Apple to immediately shut down any malware that makes its way into the App Store inadvertently. It's the same system that's been used in the past to protect users from private key leaks.

The only anti-consumer behavior in your situation came from Epic who knowingly violated the rules as a PR stunt.

[zapzupnz]

> The only anti-consumer behavior in your situation came from Epic who knowingly violated the rules as a PR stunt.

Exactly. Never forget, it was Epic who threw their users under the bus, not Apple.

Epic expected you to be a soldier in their fight. They expected you to make a sacrifice you were not willing to make.

That's entirely on Epic.

[exoji2e]

I was not claiming the revocation system only has the purpose of protecting Apple's business model, but its one of the purposes.

Even though I agree that in the Epic case, most of the blame lies with Epic, I still have a problem with Apple: the signature revocation system is used for more things than removing malware. I think it is user hostile and anti consumer to disable installed apps on other grounds, because the users might be dependent on them.

I'd like to be able to run programs and apps on my machine that are not Apple-approved.

[zapzupnz]

> I'd like to be able to run programs and apps on my machine that are not Apple-approved.

I thought you could anyway. You would right-click the app in Finder and choose Open — from then on, it would continue to open.

Or is that a different mechanism?

[cma]

Apple promised it would only be used for security related stuff on desktop. I wouldn't want my desktop audio project to break because the VSTs were unsigned due to an iOS app business dispute. That's anti-consumer.

[dkonofalski]

I agree that it's anti-consumer. I disagree that it's Apple that's being anti-consumer. The company developing the app would be anti-consumer for knowingly violating the Terms of Use to try and pull a PR stunt.