Since we're here I have a suggestion to offer. When submitting your mobile app to the App Store there is a checkbox/option somewhere asking you to if you want to distribute the app to Mac as well. DO NOT do that. If enough people do that we'll end up having a Mac app store walled garden powerful enough to extract its 30% tax.
After Authy discontinued their Mac app, there was a several month period where I could install the iOS app on my Mac laptop to keep using it anyway.
It stopped being installable a few weeks ago, presumably because they unchecked this box. (I bit the bullet and started paying for 1password and using it for my TOTP needs, btw)
As a MacOS user, if you have only an iOS app and not a MacOS app, why not allow Macs to run it too? You're suggesting that if enough people allow iOS apps to be installed on Mac, MacOS will stop allowing you install apps from anything but the app store? That seems unlikely to me. If you have a Mac app and choose not to distribute it via app store, that's fine though.
Also: Apples Password stuff has some TOTP stuff build in.
(Personally I'm a little bit depressed about the iOS-apps-on-Mac stuff - they are never good, not as Mac Apps not in general. I'd like to live in a world with better desktop apps.)
Yeah, I totally understand not wanting to deal with any extra support overhead of enabling the Mac app.
But this also seems like harmful advice if someone is trying to grow their app user base. I'm far more likely to purchase iOS apps that have Mac apps. Depending on the app, it's just far more valuable to me, and I'll prioritize what I buy based on this, e.g. if it's a note taking app, it needs to have a Mac version.
The day Apple stops allowing people to install their own apps outside of the App Store is the day I and many other people stop using Apple products as daily drivers. Apple is aware of this, and already under scrutiny from regulators.
I personally started using 2FAS. It’s a wonderful little app with push notifications and autofill, it really is the nicest little 2FA App I’ve used thus far
Even worse, a lack of software and market penetration on the Mac App Store is the only thing stopping Apple from disabling non-App-Store applications on Macs like they do on iOS. They've already implemented the technical side of it under the guise of "security."
I see your point but also note that they have already done something similar with the M1. Pre-DMA and Epic lawsuit, I could potentially see them drop support for installing apps outside their app store. All they would really need is Adobe to agree and the rest would just have to follow, similar in some ways to the ARM transition. (With the notable difference being that one was free for developers aside from the cost of porting their software.) I don't expect that to happen now though.
I meant that they made developers make changes to their apps. The obvious difference is that this change will cost the developers more money. The point was that developers didn't simply abandon Apple when they switched to ARM. I guess this point may be obvious now but IIRC there was a lot of discussion around if Apple would be able to make developers make native ARM versions of their apps or if they would just abandon MacOS (although perhaps I am remembering wrong here). The point is that they made "every mac out there unusable" to an certain extent, (although obviously there was a Rosetta 2) and it didn't matter because developers followed Apple's direction and made them usable again by making ARM versions of their software.
Macs would become unusable because so much software doesn't come from the App Store. If they can get enough market penetration through other means first, that wouldn't be a problem. It would break all kinds of development processes, but Apple doesn't care about developers. They'd work out some kludge and do it anyway.
Why? Their whole "Pro" line is targeting developers. How many enterprises/startups would have to switch away from macs if they cannot be used by their devs any more?
They'd still be usable by devs. We'd get VS code on the App Store and some kind of iOS-style ability to run unsigned binaries on some limited number of computers with an Apple Developer subscription.
As for why Apple doesn't care about devs, I don't know, but they are not afraid of massive, breaking changes. Remember a few years ago when they permanently deleted the entire MacOS game back catalog by removing 32-bit support?
They've gone further than that, they're now trying to make independent app developers look incompetent and shady by falsely claiming that the app is "damaged" [1][2] and the only way to get around it is to run some scary-looking commands in the terminal [3].
So what's the alternative then? Because when developers uncheck this box I have to go through the trouble of decrypting the IPA and sideloading it, and I usually just end up not bothering to use the app at all.
I don't follow. How does withholding apps from the Mac App Store make it stronger, and what do you mean by "powerful enough to extract its 30% tax"? Legit question, I just don't get what you're saying, no argument.
If it were "when you submit your app for notarization, there's a checkbox to distribute it through the App Store", then that would be valid. But the Mac App Store doesn't become "more powerful" just for having a crapload of iOS apps you can install from it on your Mac and run through Catalyst. It would become "more powerful" if fewer Mac apps were distributed by other channels.
That checkbox does absolutely nothing for or against that. You are advocating for developers to reduce their own reach, and users to lose a minor piece of utility, for zero gain.
Are you sure? Apple argued that but the actual designation seems to ignore any attempt at OS breakdowns for the store itself but I’m not 100% sure of that
I'm sure there are very rare exceptions, but if it's a simple product and it only takes 2 weeks to build it, it probably won't add that much value. If it does, the market is, or will be, saturated with competitors due to the low barrier to entry.
As someone else said the company types you mentioned all are tech oriented and probably have devs who have internal processes already developed or in process of being developed if it's something they need.
Even if you tell your idea 99% of people won't do anything with it. If they do yours could still be implemented better and beat them or you could still beat them to market, or there could be a big enough market everyone can fit.
E.g there are like 10 uptime monitoring apps on indiehackers doing >3k mrr. Very simple function, tons of profitable competitors.
My advice is just say what it is you want to build and get actual feedback on the whole concept, you might even uncover better features by getting insight. Don't be afraid of people stealing your ideas. Ideas are a dime a dozen, successful startups are 1 attempt out of 99.
Assuming the round circle was built of stones, plants growing over stones tend to develop stronger, more entangled roots. These plants become hardy than similar species of plants growing nearby over loose soil. Rock crevices also tend to accumulate water which these plants should be able to use when other adjoining plants are dying. I think this is the reason why the circle became apparent during this drought.
Considering the wording, I'd expect the plants simply shoot their roots as deep and wide as they can, since those above stone can't sink theirs as far as the others they get less access to water and nutrient and thus mature slower for lack of resources. So they're still green while the others are already past that point.
Just to add some context: 'sandbox' will make the iframe load in a unique origin and also disable scripts (along with disabling bunch of other things). This will prevent these attacks.
There's also ' frame-src' for content security policies, which lets you control what is allowed in the iframe's src. Even with these guards in place, you generally should not let user content drive an iframe's src
