robenkleene

Notarization Review Guidelines (a subset of the App Review Guidelines).

Just noting I was wrong, Notarization Review Guidelines are referenced here https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/managing-...

I think notarization is just a more automated way to do this approach, e.g., otherwise Apple has to hunt down all the permutations of the binary themselves. It seems like it just simplifies the process? (It makes it a white list not a black list, so it's certainly more aggressive.)

Notarization is the same for macOS and iOS AFAIK.

Assuming the basic facts are straight, the the linked story explicitly proves this is false:

UTM says Apple refused to notarize the app because of the violation of rule 4.7, as that is included in Notarization Review Guidelines. However, the App Review Guidelines page disagrees. It does not annotate rule 4.7 as being part of the Notarization Review Guidelines. Indeed, if you select the “Show Notarization Review Guidelines Only” toggle, rule 4.7 is greyed out as not being applicable.

Rule 4.7 is App Review Guidelines for iOS, so this would be a case of failing notarization for iOS App Review Guidelines, which means the policies (and implementation) are different between platforms.

(Of course there's no such thing as "Notarization Review Guidelines" so maybe this whole story is suspect, but rule 4.7 is the App Review Guidelines rule that prohibits emulators.)

Yeah, don't disagree with any of that, but I'm looking for explicit evidence that that is true (right now it sounds like it's just an assumption)? E.g., either examples of apps failing notarization due to API calls, or Apple explicitly saying that they analyze API calls. Without that it sounds like we're just guessing?

In practice though they use it to turn the screws on various API compliance topics

Do you have an example of this on macOS?

doesn’t seem to have been offering any extra protection.

How would this be measured?

Since no one has pointed it out here, it seems obvious to me that the purpose of the notarization system is mainly to have the code signatures of software so that Apple can remotely disable any malware from running. (Kind of unsavory to some, but probably important in today's world, e.g., with Apple's reach with non-technical users especially?)

Not sure how anyone external to Apple would measure the effectiveness of the system (i.e., without knowing what has been disabled and why).

There's a lot of unsubstantiated rumors in this comment thread, e.g., that notarization on macOS has been deliberately used to block software that isn't malware on macOS. I haven't seen a concrete example of that though?

Note this is an iPhone app (noting because this thread seems to mainly be about macOS).

I went through the comment there, all of those look like the most likely explanation is just bugs in the notarization system.

detects use of unsanctioned API calls

Is there a concrete example of this? We know this isn't blanket policy, because of a recent story (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45376977) that contradicts it. I can't find a reference to any macOS app failing notarization due to API calls.

My point was mainly that the keyboard (efficient use is difficult to learn) vs mouse (arguably easier to learn) is just one example of why the current desktop metaphor won over something I'd say is designed for heavy keyboard use (even if usable without it).

This comparison of the mouse and keyboard seems to have programmer tunnel vision. Anything involving layout, graphs, media editing (audio, video, image), 3D modeling, and drawing I think we can all agree are better served by the mouse (in tandem with the keyboard). It's really the mouse and keyboard together that's made the computer such a successful creative medium. Programming seems to me like a bit of anomaly in that it's one of the few creative tasks that doesn't benefit greatly from a mouse.

There's a ton of comments here saying the keyboard is more ergonomic than the mouse, I've never heard that before and it feels wrong on its face (it's called repetitive strain injury, using multiple forms of input should helpful).

But generally, please if you believe this provide some kind of source.

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification, I see art and technology as more like a dance where it's unclear who's leading who.

E.g., quick high-level examples: Photograph invented led to Impressionism, Andy Warhol's entire oeuvre. Today one of the most talked about artists is Beeple (technology-forward in distribution medium, tooling, and even practice techniques [e.g., "dailies"]).

Music is probably where this is the most profound, take the trajectories of Miles Davis and the Beatles, both started their career with a fledgling recording industry, ended it record in sophisticated studios using instruments and studio techniques that didn't exist a mere 5-10 years earlier.

In electronic music this is even more pronounced, e.g., Native Instrument's Massive synth facilitating dubstep is a nice clean example, but if you've followed electronic music overall the connection is obvious. E.g., what dates most pre-2000s era music is that today musicians use DAWs whereas before it was less powerful hardware devices that had a more specific sound (and other arrangement and composition limitations).

This actually feeds into one of the points you made: Being successful at art (or anything really) has a lot to do with how excited and motivated you are to pursue it. It's easier to be excited if you feel like you're exploring new territory, ripe with untapped potential, and that's historically often been unlocked by technology. Whereas if you keep comparing your solos to John Coltrane when you're learning the saxophone, that's going to be demoralizing and you'll feel like you'll never get there so why bother trying. There's also diminishing returns, e.g., that music territory has been so thoroughly explored now, so the ROI on developing that specific skill (playing jazz at that level) has been reduced, because so much of that artistic space has already been explored.

If you tie that all back to the art itself, I'd assume today that we already have saxophone soloist who are more technically skilled than John Coltrane, e.g., the music theory is better understood, and we've had decades of iteration to improve practice techniques (there are tons of books and studies on this subject now). But you can't replicate the sheer excitement that those musicians must have felt as they unlocked new music possibilities by iterating on music theory (a form of technology), and recording as a new medium to share and learn from.

To be clear, most of what you've said I'd agree with, but I'd add more nuance like: Leverage technology to make the act of creation as exciting for you as possible, but the main goal of the excitement is to keep yourself practicing and improving. And also look for untapped potential (e.g., a specific example that's relevant today, I think GPU-based rendering is still under-explored today Beeple has been able to leverage this in his art, but I think the big barrier of entry [probably ~$10,000+ for hardware/software over the course of a career] means there's untapped potential there.

E.g., Daft Punk on well-tread territory due to the accessibility of technology https://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/9277-the-yea...:

Technology has made music accessible in a philosophically interesting way, which is great. But on the other hand, when everybody has the ability to make magic, it's like there's no more magic—if the audience can just do it themselves, why are they going to bother?

Notably; the engineers I respect the most, and the ones making things that I enjoy using, none of them use vscode.

Curious what they use?

Or is your point that the previously desktop-only software suites now have web-based counterparts, and the latter aren’t catering to power users anymore?

Yes this. More specifically collaborative software (e.g., with features like live-collaborative editing) tend to be less capable than non-collaborative software.

These are not 1-for-1 comparisons though (Figma vs. Canva), I didn't mean to imply they were. E.g., Canva isn't emphasizing collaboration. But office suite software does also have a lower barrier of entry than creative software, which I think Canva's strategy should probably capitalize on. E.g., the market has already been split for pro vs prosumer/casual, I think Canva strategy will probably be to emphasize this split short term, which would mean focusing on ease of use at the expense of complex features (and then consider the more technically complicated led shift to collaborative web-based versions later, leveraging what they've learned so far).

Do you mind getting more specific about what you disagree with around the comparison / characterization of "office suite software"? I can't tell what you're disagreeing with. E.g., it sounds like you're saying I don't think office suite software is powerful, which I don't think I said? (And I don't believe, e.g., I think Excel is one of the most powerful applications there is). I do think the most popular web-based office suite software (e.g., the Google suite) is less powerful than the more desktop-orientated competitors (there's an obvious reason for this, web-based software facilitates collaboration, and complex features hinder collaboration, so they're in natural opposition).

But I definitely struggle with the comparison between power users and casual users. Like I wouldn't characterize designers that use Figma as casual users, it's that the needs of software designers have changed so much, and those changes mean treating design software more like office suite software make sense.

I guess the comparison of casual users and power users is more apt when comparing the Adobe suite and Affinity suite. And, e.g., Final Cut Pro X and CapCut are evidence of a wider industry trend towards serving that market. I wouldn't necessarily say that's to the detriment of power users though, it seems like there's software to serve both markets now?

I'm not sure what part of this you think I'd disagree with, if just looking at the microcosm of Sketch to Figma. In other words, the ease of sharing and collaborating via a URL I think is the underlying reason office suite software has become successful.

But I suspect you're arguing against the wider arch of the point I'm making (that design no longer requiring as sophisticated features helped facilitate the transition to the web-based software). If I have that right, I suggest making sure that your hypothesis about motivations behind the market transitions also incorporates the transition from Photoshop to Sketch. Because that transition (which preceded the transition to Figma) made every problem you're describing worse. Which means for example that you can't attribute the transition from Photoshop to Sketch to Figma just to the URL.

This is analysis is spot on.

I made the same argument about Figma (that what made Figma successful is that design software had started to be used more like office suite software) in my overview of the historical transitions in creative software https://blog.robenkleene.com/2023/06/19/software-transitions...:

In the section on Photoshop to Sketch, we discussed an underappreciated factor in Sketch’s, and by extension, Figma’s, success: That flat design shifted the category of design software from professional creative software to something more akin to an office suite app (presentation software, like Google Slides, being the closest sibling). By the time work was starting on Figma in 2012, office suite software had already been long available and popular on the web, Google Docs was first released in 2006. This explains why no other application has been able to follow in Figma’s footsteps by bringing creative software to the web: Figma didn’t blaze a trail for other professional creative software to move to the web, instead Sketch blazed a trail for design software to become office suite software, a category that was already successful on the web.

Regarding this, I'm curious how big this market is really. E.g., for me, working on software, I almost never see design work from folks that aren't professional designers (and if I do, they use Figma already, not the Creative Suite). But I'd be curious to hear other folks impressions, even just anecdotally:

To explain what I mean: Let’s say you’re a company that subscribes to Adobe Creative Cloud. You might buy it for one department—like your video team, or your web team, or your print team. But there are a lot of other people in your office, and they need design too. They need to build social posts and presentations and email signatures and graphical work that your $150,000-per-year senior designer doesn’t have the time for.

For this example:

we have somebody who has somehow obtained a "weird" video file

Why are you arriving at the conclusion that this requires complex software, rather than just a simple UI that says "Drop video file here" and "Fix It" below? E.g., instead of your conclusion "stick to your walled-garden-padded-room reality where somebody else gives you a video file that works", another possibility is the simple UI I described? That seemed to me the point of the post.

Taking the case of Photoshop vs. Gimp - I don't think the problem is complexity, lol. It's having to relearn everything once you're used to photoshop. (Conversely, I've never shelled out for Adobe products, and now don't want to have to relearn how to edit images in photoshop or illustrator)

I don't think this comparison is really accurate, Adobe's suite is designed for professionals that are working in the program for hours daily (e.g., ~1000 hours annually for a creative professional). There are probably some power users of The GIMP that hit similar numbers, but Creative Cloud has ~35-40 million subscribers, these are entirely different programs for entirely different classes of users.

burnstsushi provides the canonic answer here of course.

But as a quick thought shortcut, I think of `ripgrep` as a search that gives similar semantics to project-wide search in a code editor or IDE. E.g., most editors will inspect a project and already ignore files that usually should be ignored (e.g., third-party dependencies, build artifacts, source control metadata like `.git/`).

Those semantics are also almost always what I want when performing a search from the command line, so `ripgrep` is what I use most of the time.

Thanks for sharing! I'd consider all those things true for Emacs/Vim bindings as well? (Just curious if you'd disagree with that assessment.)

Thanks for sharing! (And to be clear, that's totally a great reason!) I wasn't familiar with these bindings and was curious to hear more about them, both the history and the subjective preference for them are both interesting to me.

This useful, but it also seems like a very comparable feature set to editors like Emacs and Vim. So I'd still love to hear from someone who has the background to do a direct comparison, especially if they prefer WordStar.

So many of those classic TUIs adopted WordStar’s sacred keystrokes.

What are the WordStar bindings and what do you like about them?

I have a general interest in the history of how these patterns emerge and what the benefits of them are relative to each other.

macOS does this too (if I'm following correctly), you can see it in the "The Apple Menu in macOS Ventura" screenshot on this Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_menu#/media/File:Apple_m... it's done for both application keyboard shortcuts, as well as system shortcuts (as in this example).

For completion, system shortcuts are also available in `System Settings > Keyboard > Keyboard Shortcuts...` (where they can also be changed). (Although I don't think that's 100% comprehensive, e.g., I don't think `⌘⇥` for the application switcher is listed there.)

Yeah, I understand this perspective.

But just once, I'd love to hear someone reply to this and say they really love something like OneNote, and list out why they think it's a "higher quality" piece of software than Apple Notes. Personally, while I observe a lot of bugs in Apple's software, really that's true of all the (GUI in particular) software I use. If I go across all the software I use, Apple's offerings are almost universally on the top end by the metrics I'd measure for quality compared to similar offerings (e.g., something like OneNote is directly comparable to Apple Notes, whereas a custom built notes app that doesn't sync across devices most certainly is not). Apple's apps are usually well-designed, performant, bug free (relatively speaking, there are always bugs in software, but if I put, say, OmniFocus and Reminders next to each other [two apps that have the same purpose that I use every day, Reminders overall has less bugs than OmniFocus]), and they're mostly consistent with each other.

Putting all that together, the breadth of Apple's software offerings, and they're consistent high quality relative to similar offerings from other companies, makes Apple seem to me like the best company in the world today at making GUI software! Which doesn't mean they're perfect, and doesn't mean they can't do better, but is still super impressive.

Got it, yeah that's a very valid use case for a setup like that. But I'm not sure there's much that's OS dependent to support a setup like that? E.g., I could do the same on macOS (e.g., on macOS a wrapper `Web Browser.app` could be made that launches Safari in the Dock [with the Safari icon, or any other, if that's desirable]).

I don't mind corporate branding in general, e.g., if a company makes a great app, why shouldn't they be allow to put their name on it (in an appropriate place)? (And I do think great apps should have more memorable names than "Photo Editor".) (And I'm not sure I get the connection branding has to "Freedom of Choice"?)

But, to your point, even I'll admit the fact that the Photoshop is called "Adobe Photoshop 2025" is annoying lol.

I'm always mystified reading these kinds of posts on HN because it literally always starts out as "macOS is an OS for babies" and turns out to mean "macOS doesn't have a tiling window manager". Like, cmon man, who cares.

The tiling window manager thing is epidemic on Hacker News, and I think the explanation is two fold: Hacker News obviously leans towards programmers, programmers in general don't like the mouse, tiling window managers, as a general rule, are about avoiding needing to manage windows with the mouse.

The problem with that viewpoint, to me, is that, programming is literally the only complex modern computing task I can think of that isn't mouse-centric. E.g., if you're doing CAD, spreadsheet work, media editing, 3D, audio editing, all of those tasks are mouse-centric and the tiling thing just feels silly to me in that context (like I'm going to put Cinema 4D in a tile?). So it solves a problem I don't have (managing, what, my IDE and terminal windows? this isn't even something I think about) and makes seems like it would make things I think are hard today, even harder (arranging the Cinema 4D Redshift material graph, render preview, object manager, and geometry view where I can see the important parts of each all at the same time, which I do by arranging overlapping windows carefully).

What's a better rich-text notes app than Apple Notes? (E.g., excluding the plain-text options like Obsidian, which are really a different beast.)