Eh. I think it’s fair if Apple doesn’t want to publish something on their app store.

I just wish they weren’t so obstinate about people installing from other sources without signing/notarization. I understand it from a security standpoint but it’s also nakedly self-serving.

I’m glad that they’re fine with signing in this case.

This is another reason why one shouldn't become dependent on those giant companies. Just as Microsoft recently stated, you'll have to pay for GitHub CoPilot soon on a token basis. Apple controls access to its software ecosystem too.

A company called “MITM LLC” which hijacks pastes in other apps.

I have no idea what they’re thinking. Insanity.

Add it to the antitrust pile.

Microsoft was almost broken up over not allowing third party programs to use certain APIs. Apple abuses their dominant position to suppress competition.

Time to turn Linux into a platform where you can upload into a store whatever the fuck you want. And see these behemots burn.

I guess this app can still be installed locally? It's just that it can't be distributed to others due to signing requirements?

Edit: Ah, it's in the article, this is about AppStore distribution. Walled gardens are going to walled garden.

[dead]

I am still not certain I understand exactly what Apple's reviewer meant by 2.4.5 in my case. My working assumption is that the concern is about an app reaching into every other app on the system to inject text, but I never got a perfectly clear explanation. (Or maybe I'm too dense to understand it.)

If anyone here has more direct experience with this guideline, especially from the App Store review side, I would like to hear it. I would rather understand the policy than just guess at it.

[dead]

[dead]