[themacguffinman]

Does the free and open source Wireguard need to be a popular VPN app? One benefit of being more popular is that they get more contributions, but given that they barely get enough contributions to fix macOS-specific bugs as it is, it's not clear that the benefit outweighs the costs.

Apple and Apple users respond to tangible consequences; appeasement doesn't seem to be working, and it doesn't seem to be benefiting the project either. Like OP said, it's magnanimous of the developer to do this but I don't think "users demand it" is a great justification, nor is it quite in the spirit of open source.

[tasn]

Why build it in the first place if you don't want people to use it? Also, a lot of VPN services are moving to WireGuard, they will hopefully contribute to WireGuard development in the future. You can't really do cost/benefit assessment based on current contribution values. If you did that, no startup will ever start, and no open source project will ever be created, as upon creation the usage is almost always zero.

[themacguffinman]

Windows & Linux users will still be able to use it. Most popular VPN services seem to develop their own custom desktop clients (they do this for OpenVPN); they will definitely contribute to Wireguard, but I'm not sure that they will contribute much to the desktop-specific parts of the "official" apps.

Edit: I should add that there is another cost/benefit assessment here: if Wireguard developers continue to appease Apple, Apple will continue to make life difficult for them as there will be no pressure for it to behave better.

[thw0rted]

You can't just look at the clients, you have to consider a VPN protocol holistically. Do you think that most VPN installations are going to run two different gateways side-by-side so that they can provide Protocol X for Platforms A and B, and Protocol Y for Platforms C and D? (Even worse: X for just Platform A, and Y for literally every other user.)