Regular distributions of Xcode are now available exclusively from the OS X App Store, but (like many, I expect) my App Store account and developer accounts use different Apple IDs. All my previous installations of Xcode have used my developer account, and I also wonder if there are critical parts of the Xcode configuration (e.g. provisioning profiles, etc.) that rely on Xcode having been installed using the developer Apple ID.
Are there any undesirable consequences to simply installing Xcode from the App Store using my personal account? Or, should I (can I, must I) log in to the App Store using my developer Apple ID instead?
You can use whatever Apple ID you want to download Xcode from the Mac App Store. There's nothing special about what it downloads. You'll need to log in to the developer portal though to download beta versions.
You can download Xcode (and lots of other stuff) from Apple's developer downloads website.
I very much doubt, therefore, that it matters whether you got it from the Mac App Store or not.
Related
Is it necessary to notarize app before uploading to Apple App Store? I come across some article says that notarization is needed for non-app store distribution, while apple will run notarization before approving an app store version.
Anyone can confirm?
The reason I ask this question is because I notarized the app for outside Mac App Store distribution and it works fine. For the Mac app store build, I can upload and distribute it and it works fine on Mac, only have issue on Catalina(beta) when user try to open, see attached pic. Wonder if it's related to notarization.
Update: the issue was not due to notarization, but due to code signing. One of the node binary is not signed before uploading to MAS, maybe Catalina has a more strict rule checking it.
No, it's not required. Apps downloaded from the app store are not notarized. You can verify it using spctl command.
spctl -a -v /Applications/Pages.app
/Applications/Pages.app: accepted
source=Mac App Store
Gatekeeper will check notarization only if the app is downloaded from outside the App Store.
From Safely open apps on your Mac
When you install Mac apps, plug-ins, and installer packages from
outside the App Store, macOS checks the Developer ID signature and
notarization status to verify that the software is from an identified
developer and that it has not been altered.
Notarization is only required for distribution outside the Mac App Store. See Distribute outside the Mac App Store (macOS), which says:
In some cases, you may want to distribute an app outside of the Mac App Store [...] Users gain additional assurance if your Developer ID-signed app is also notarized by Apple.
The macOS User Guide has this to say:
App Store: [...] All the developers of apps in the Mac App Store are identified by Apple, and each app is reviewed before it’s accepted
App Store and identified developers: [...] Identified developers are registered with Apple and can optionally upload their apps to Apple for a security check. If problems occur with an app, Apple can revoke its authorization.
I want to distribute my Mac App on both Mac App Store and my own website. The Mac App Store app will be signed via the Mac App Distribution certificate from Apple and the Website version will be signed via the Developer ID Application certificate. The website version will be distributed as a simple MyAppName.zip file that lets the user unpack MyAppName.app to where ever the user wishes. My app is a document based app that creates documents with extension .mydoc
I have two options to implement such a scenario.
First, and my preferred method is to have same bundle identifier for both apps. If a user tries to install from MAS first and then website; Will both apps live on my Mac without any issues? If a user installs the website version first, and then tries to install from MAS, how will MAS behave? How is it decided that which app will open my document by default?
Second, I use different bundle identifier for the apps on MAS and my website. Essentially they are different apps and I don't like this because it is confusing for a user because the apps look and behave exactly the same. In this case, how is it decided which one of the apps will open my document by default?
If a user tries to install from MAS first and then website; Will both apps live on my Mac without any issues? Answer: YES
If a user installs the website version first, and then tries to install from MAS, how will MAS behave? Answer: MAS will ask user that there already exists a version and if it should be kept.
How is it decided that which app will open my document by default? Answer:
Launch Services documentation says the the behavior is not determinate. So either one will open.
Second, I use different bundle identifier for the apps on MAS and my website. Essentially they are different apps and I don't like this because it is confusing for a user because the apps look and behave exactly the same. In this case, how is it decided which one of the apps will open my document by default? Answer:
Launch Services documentation says the the behavior is not determinate. So either one will open.
I'm a newbie in OSX Development. I built an application in which will be distributed outside the Mac App Store. I have all the other certificates and keys working except for the Developer ID (App and Installer) for production.
I know that this may sound stupid, but for what it's worth, I just wanna make sure.
Will my app still be considered Developer ID - signed if I exported it as a Mac Installer Package instead of selecting Export Developer ID-signed Application, when I install it to its destination devices? Will it be successfully installed or be rejected with GateKeeper-enabled devices?
I have been scratching my head for this since for some weird reason, I cannot add a new Distribution Developer-ID from the Dev Center. I was able to add a Developer ID earlier this week however, I ran into some issues with my private keys. As per suggested by Apple and many other developers, I revoked all the Developer IDs and private keys to start fresh. The problem now is that I can't add any new Developer ID (Distribution). I cannot add in both Dev Center and by requesting through Xcode 5.0.1. I'm stuck.
I have submitted a Bug Report to Apple, but who knows when they'll be able to resolve it.
So now, temporarily, since I don't have any choice (I guess), I'll use the Mac Installer Package, but the question is, will it work?
Any help would be very, very much appreciated.
I've done this recently and have created a third Xcode project configuration to Debug and Release called Archive, which is a copy of Release except the app is signed using the Mac App Distribution / Third Party Mac App Developer and, confusingly there is a third name used for this same certificate.
I then changed the Archive scheme to use the Archive configuration to build.
Before doing this I had errors on some Macs when signing with my Developer ID, in some cases they claimed the app was corrupted, and in other cases I got gatekeeper blocking the app, forcing me to override it in System Preferences > Security & Privacy.
I personally use xcodebuild (from Jenkins) to build the app for distribution to testers, which I package in a .dmg so they only need to drag it to /Applications or ~/Applications and I do all that using a script within the Jenkins configuration. Your experience may differ to mine if you are using the Xcode app instead.
I have a Cocoa Mac App that I don't know if it will on the Mac AppStore.
The application is still in development, and I want few persons to be able to launch it on their devices while the app gets new features.
The situation is the following :
I have a Mac Developer Certificate
Devices are registered in the Mac Member Center.
Every time they launch the app, GateKeeper complain the app doesn't come from the Mac AppStore, nor is provided by a identified developer, no matter if I sign the app or not.
So I tried to sign it and a provisioning profile is embedded into the app. If I don't sign it nothing embedded.
I should mention that the app has a Spotlight importer and QuickLook generator bundled into it.
I didn't find any clear explanation on how to resolve this issue in the Apple documentation, and most (if not all) blog posts, or articles on the Internet are about iPhone apps, not Mac ones (the process/requirements seems to be different on the two platforms).
The documentation is unclear on if all testers should be team members (which seems crazy because some of them aren't developers and don't have Xcode installed).
Can someone provide a clear step-by-step explanation on how to do that ?
Or maybe a article/blog post link or tips ?
Edit :
Here are screenshots of the app bundle structure and plug-in structure :
Everything seems to be right.
The way I obtained that is : I didn't set "Code Signing Identity" build setting, but rather archived the app, and exported it specifying code signing identity at that time.
Edit :
More and more curious, when I run codesign command in the terminal, codesign -vvv MyApp.app, the output tends to suggests that all is rightly done :
MyApp.app: valid on disk
MyApp.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement
Interpreting this question as essentially:
"how do I beta test Mac App Store apps" ?
Apple hasn't yet published an official workflow in the App Distribution Guide, but the following process works:
Tester sends "System Information utility > Hardware tab > Hardware UUID" to developer
Developer updates dev provisioning profile to include the hardware UUID
Developer uses Xcode Organizer Archives tab, Distribute > "Save as Mac Application", then select the updated development signing identity.
Developer sends newly built app to the tester
Note: The development identities have yellow caution ! icons during the re-signing process but they can still be used.
Not only does this avoid the GateKeeper prompt, but the development provisioning profile is also needed for any store technologies you might be using to work during testing, e.g. iCloud, GameCenter, etc.
Scenario
I want to release an app for Mac OS X, but not on the AppStore. The app runs on 10.6 - 10.8 and up.
Problem
Apple requires all apps for Mac OS X 10.8+ to be signed by the developer to get past Gatekeeper. And unless I tell each user to temporarily disable and re-enable gatekeeper just for my app, according to this document and the Mountain Lion change log... my app won't be allowed to run.
From the wording on Apple's website, it sounds like I'll have to pay the $99.00 a year for the certificate. However, I do not want to pay the $99 - I'm not publishing to the AppStore!
Question
Is there any way I can get around paying the $99 for distribution on 10.8+? I know my app will work on 10.6 and 10.7, but according to Apple it won't be allowed to run on 10.8 without the certificate. Is that true? How can I distribute on 10.8+ (preferably a DMG) without a $99 distribution certificate? Thanks in advance!
Edit #1
DMG files are not authenticated by Gatekepper, only the app itself is.
OS X Lion 10.7.5+ also has Gatekeeper * angry face *
Apple currently provides no way to get around Gatekeeper without paying the $99 / year membership fee. To me, this seems unfair because it squishes out the smaller developers (but that's a discussion for elsewhere).
For a rather cumbersome workaround, one can include a ReadMe or note on the download page for their software to explain to users that they need to right click your app and then click 'Open' and then click confirm to run it. I have also found through experimenting that Gatekeeper does not run security checks on DMG files or the installation of files, only the execution / running of Apps. So one could include some kind of note in their DMG installer that told the user exactly how to install and run the app.
Hopefully Apple will provide a workaround for developers (possibly a cheaper solution for a limited membership) that distribute freeware and open source software.
You don't need to purchase membership. Just get a code signing certificate from any agency and sign your app with it. Then it will bypass the Gatekeeper check. Gatekeeper only checks whether the app is from identified developer or not.