58 comments

[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 68.5 ms ] thread
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.

This is what happens when you run an OS controlled by some random big corporation. I dont mean that it's the person's fault, but just that you should not rely on Apple. they allow you to use your computer, but on their terms.

Install some GNU/Linux distro and you can do whatever you want.

Centralized package repositories like the one provided by canonical have similar limitations to the Mac App Store, you need to get your app reviewed, you need to push updates to each platform where you distribute your app and in exchange you get visibility.

I'd argue that installing and updating apps on MacOS is simpler than on Linux distros because most apps have built-in auto-updates (or you can just drag the app to the applications folder) instead of having to rely on snap / apt / insert your package manager which may a lot of outdated and unmaintained packages and apps.

No surprises here, Google has also been restricting access to its accessibility API.
I don't want random apps to paste potentially dangerous things into other apps. Its understandable.

Imagine a banking app, and for example an IBAN field.

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.

(comment deleted)
SpaceGremlin (mac alternative to WinDirStat) has a similar thing, where some features only work in the independent "SpaceGremlinPro" version downloaded from their site. However, they do some cool stuff with licensing - you can point it to the app store paid/installed version, and it detects the license and unlocks.

If you're worried about people not trusting payment to you, might be worth seeing if you could implement this, so anyone who bought on the app store can still access the full feature set. Cuts you out 30% like, but better than nothing maybe.

Isn’t it like 15% up to the first or second million in sales?
> If you're worried about people not trusting payment to you, might be worth seeing if you could implement this, so anyone who bought on the app store can still access the full feature set. Cuts you out 30% like, but better than nothing maybe.

In other words, Apple is abusing their position by defining overly broad permissions so that they can deny them and pressure people to fork over more cash to them.

In Apple’s defense, your company name is MITM. Man In The Middle certainly falls on one side of the perception line, don’t you think?
Of course, one might construe Apple as an MITM in the relationship between the user an and the software vendor.
(comment deleted)
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.

I recently built a similar app, and so hit the same limitations – I wasn't too upset on Mac, happy to distribute without the App Store (though it's a shame).

Where I was more frustrated was how much this limited the potential usability of the iPhone app. Because of app store restrictions it is a far worse app ... though like in your example, still useful to a degree.

I can only hope they use the new CEO as an opportunity to seriously re-evaluate their entire approach to how they work with developers, though I'm not actually expecting them to. If anything, with the increase in apps being created via AI tools I worry they will go the other way.

Exactly. On iOS, it completely limits the market for a good dictation app with your keyboard, because iOS just doesn't allow you to.
Easy, don't make apps for devices which are only leased to people.

Make apps for device, which are 100% owned by people.

What API are you using? I have a sandboxed app on the Mac Store that synthesizes CGEvents to simulate arbitrary keyboard actions on behalf of the user. It needs accessibility permission, of course.
Some non apple apps get access to accessibility APIs. What gives?

This API is sensitive. I imagine Apple is particularly stringent as to how the access is justified. Not how it uses it but how the reason for using it is explained.

It's not like someone tests the app and all api calls to deem them reasonable or not.

Oof, thats rough. I'll still start facing those issues, just got accepted into the apple's dev program. I predict a ton of rejections coming my way.
Quick question, I assume you're getting caught by the CGEvent(PostEvent)...but I want to be sure. AX API has been gimped for over a decade so you'd have never made it into the app store that way. Just making certain, in case you have another path. It doesn't appear CGEvent is a universal approval anymore either though.

Have fought similar demons lately, feel your pain.

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.

As someone who also experience pains in their hands after a couple of hours of typing... I started to use the great open source app called ghost-pepper [1] that i found on github and has been my daily driver (its like superwhisrp but oss/free and local) the maintainer is really nice and replies to DMs really quickly too.

[1] https://github.com/matthartman/ghost-pepper

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.
macOS already has a dictation feature that does this exact thing, albeit in real time. I use it extensively.

OP’s description in the linked article doesn’t say much more than this, so what am I missing with this particular app?

Apple's own dictation is quite limited, doesn't handle multiple languages very well, and many open source dictation models simply do better.
Time to turn Linux into a platform where you can upload into a store whatever the fuck you want. And see these behemots burn.
Accessibility things should be more useful than to just narrow accessibility uses only. Wheelchair ramps help move heavy objects. The accessibility API makes it possible to introspect all of the keyboard shortcuts an app provides for another app to list them.

Screw Apple and their persnickety, controlling myopia.

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

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