“To me Gatekeeper is about total control. So they don’t “force” you into the Mac App Store, fine, but the fact that they are effectively forcing all developers to having a Developer ID is in effect giving Apple a kill-switch to your software. If in the end they decide that you are doing something they don’t want, or maybe they say you are infringing on one of their patents or software products… zap! problem solved, your application can’t run on an Mac.

That’s something to be worried about. If Apple themselves got out of the software business, that might be one thing, but Apple has a long history of “taking” ideas from other developers and claiming them as their own.

Personally, I think Snow Leopard is looking better every day. You get the App Store, but you don’t get the Gatekeeper.

P.S. I would much rather and still continue to buy directly from developers rather than the Mac App Store if it is available.”

But what “David” and “MusterKnabe” said are just completely spot on. Especially “Musterknabe”, because I see that as being a glaring issue. Wanting to back up my legally purchased DVDs and Blu-rays with an app that rips protection, and allows me to make a backup of my legal purchase and make a mobile version of it for my computer and phone? Well, I don’t think it’s hard to see how somehow there would be a reason for these types of software not being allowed eventually. Same as what was said about perfectly legal things like Bittorrent clients, they will also be nonexistent, at least in any normal form, on this new Mac Gatekeeper environment, at least that is absolutely how I see it’s going to be.

I just personally think this is seriously akin to other recent things that were either implemented, or were tried to be put in place, but user protest stopped them. I think a lot of the time stuff that everyone can identify with, like wanting to stop piracy and wanting to keep your computer safe. Is being used as a fear inducing guise, for these freedom removing systems and policies to get put in place. And I guess it makes some people comfortable to just label those of us who view it this way as being paranoid, fear-mongering, conspiracy theory-laden, etc. But I simply don’t view it that way at all. Certainly that stuff exists, but in cases like these there are just too many past and present signs pointing to underlying themes that these things like Gatekeeper are really going to stand for, or are being used to lubricate the process, and make it a lot easier to implement want they really want like making Mac’s, Mac App Store-only, and removing apps they consider undesirable or competing, from user’s computers. I see you’ve posed the question many times that if that was the case “Well why would they waste the time with all of this and spend time and resources, and not just simply all of sudden one day say hey it’s closed off now and it’s just Mac App Store apps only, or only apps we Apple approve?”. Of course that’s not verbatim what you said, but that is the gist of it.

I think I just gave the best answer for that, or I’ll try to now. With what I think there ultimate goal is, as I’ve stated above, at completely controlling what is and isn’t allowed on Mac computers one day, it just makes no sense for them to do what you pose as being the reason why they won’t advance Gatekeeper to something much more nefarious and closed. I mean if they said tomorrow that all Mac computers were now just allowed to run Mac App Store apps only, or only Apple approved apps only, you’d have a tremendous uproar, and people would protest, boycott, stop supporting Apple, developers would stop developing for Apple, people wouldn’t buy new Apple computers and possibly other products. But why cause a sudden image damaging commotion, when you can work slowly, and subversively, and still get to your objective. While I think combating malware is a great thing, I just think it’s side-effect of what they truly are trying to do. If they get people used to the idea of having to have their apps approved by Apple, to have them be allowed to run on their computers, even with giving an “opt-out” option currently. It will make it so much easier to slide right in to their step of what they wanted to accomplish from the beginning. I mean it’s just classic battle tactics and strategy. If you know you can’t accomplish your goal with upfront actions, you can wait it out and slip in the back door. So to me, if you see this for I what I believe it to truly be, well then asking “Why wouldn’t they just up say tomorrow that they are making Mac’s App Store-only, if that’s their ultimate goal”, well it just makes sense that you would take the path of less friction and less negative publicity. Once people are accustomed to seeing Gatekeeper do it’s thing and with the idea of having to have all their apps signed and whatnot. It will be so much easier for Apple to advance that to something, what I would consider, much, much, much worse. And they don’t even have to label in a negative way, it could be shaped in a such a way that you’ll just assume that it’s another step in helping to protect your computer from malware and the like, because like I said, you’ve already accepted and become accustomed to having Gatekeeper. I’m not saying people who are informed and knowledgeable here wouldn’t really see it for what it truly was if they made that nefarious leap. But by then it would be too late is the biggest point I’m trying to make.

I respect lots of opinions on this and I’m huge Apple supporter. But I’m always at the end of the day going to put open systems and more freedoms above my love for Apple. And I just hope everybody who views this as benign or okay enough to sit and watch what happens, will take their current high opinion of Apple, and take a step back and consider what this could mean. I’ve looked at it from as many sides as I can, and this just stinks of another form of DRM in my book. And those letters are worse than any four letter word to me. I mean you can’t find a single DVD/Blu-ray ripping application in the Mac App Store right now. What’s to stop them from not allowing it on your computer completely, if they advance to the level of taking away the ability for users to opt-out of something like Gatekeeper? That’s just one example of many different kinds of software that I could see come under fire.

But thanks for explaining this in more detail author. I appreciate it.

p.s. Sorry in advance for any typos, I’m currently sick and just don’t have the energy to check for them right now.

People can predict the end all they want, but I really don’t see that in this scenario. Is Apple jockeying for more control? Certainly. Is that what your average everyday users want? I would say yes. If I’m putting my (fairly computer illiterate and prone to viruses) father on Mac, I’d like more rigidness on what can be run because he doesn’t know better and I’d rather not babysit. I WANT Apple to revoke programs he installs that turn out infected with malware. I see a positive for the users, for Apple, and 3rd party devs so long as Apple keeps their commitment to them

That’s something to be worried about. If Apple themselves got out of the software business, that might be one thing, but Apple has a long history of “taking” ideas from other developers and claiming them as their own.

Personally, I think Snow Leopard is looking better every day. You get the App Store, but you don’t get the Gatekeeper.

P.S. I would much rather and still continue to buy directly from developers rather than the Mac App Store if it is available.

I refuse to use the MAS (as do many others), because I find its restrictions quite… Orwellian. That, unfortunately, prevents me from supporting some developers, but that’s their loss, not mine.