Indeed, App stores must sign the software on their platform to deploy, and offline binaries now require a valid registered Developer Account signed code in order to easily run. A bodged on ecosystem like Brew doesn't practically count here, as a signed-check block is functionally also preventing most users running unapproved code. It is marketed as a security feature, which is why it sounds odd to people inside the ecosystem.
"Is there even meaningful overlap between these two things?"
If one wants to target every platform, than people are ultimately forced to use a Mac with a Developer Account subscription. Accordingly, there is no practical guarantee your project will reach market (app store rejections are common)... or worse... some dimwit chooses a platform ecosystem specific language to really double-down on a bad investment.
Hence, my opinion on the answer to the threads question: "Why did Borland ignore the Macintosh market?"
> App stores must sign the software on their platform to deploy
This is true, or rather "developers must sign software in order to sell it on the App Store" is true, and I believe this is what you meant.
That's attestation. It isn't DRM.
> offline binaries now require a valid registered Developer Account signed code in order to easily run
"Easily" here means one click. "Not easily", then, is three clicks. The dialog boxes tell you exactly what to do. This is needed the first time you open a program, after which it just opens.
> A bodged on ecosystem like Brew doesn't practically count here
Why don't Homebrew, Mac Ports, and Nix, count here? Practically, I mean.
> as a signed-check block is functionally also preventing most users running unapproved code
This just isn't true though, it isn't even in the same neighborhood as the truth. Most users are, in fact, able to: read a dialog which says "go to Privacy and Security", go to Privacy and Security, and click the button which lets them run unsigned code.
> forced to use a Mac with a Developer Account subscription
Yes, it's true, you do need to have a Mac (or borrow one, cloud code signing does exist) and pay $99 a month, to sign code. Or you can just release it. Weren't we talking about Digital Rights Management? I thought you were going to explain how code attestation is DRM. I haven't seen you do that yet, did you want to?
> there is no practical guarantee your project will reach market (app store rejections are common)
You can just sell software for the Mac. The App Store is completely optional. The checks involved in the attestation process are quite minimal and focus on whether your program is malware. Failing that, you can sell your mal^H^H^H software directly, and users will have to endure three clicks, instead of one, to open it for the first time.
True, but only if the validation code is vulnerable to an unpatchable vulnerability discovered in Apple M1, M2 and M3 chips. Otherwise your hardware, drivers, and or software likely still needs approved by Apple.
"> Why don't Homebrew, Mac Ports, and Nix, count here? Practically, I mean."
Generally, most users will never touch CLI, and the ones that do often know how to deal with nag-ware in the OS.
"This just isn't true though, "
Right, you try to publish some kernel level driver that touches the hardware signatures. These modern machines will usually brick into a lock-screen on most platforms now. Thus, no one will be developing 3rd party hardware/drivers/Software/Firmware inside that box. You must pay Apple to play... even to replace many broken components.
"> The checks involved in the attestation process are quite minimal and focus on whether your program is malware"
Arguably, modern Win11 and MacOS are already technically Malware collecting user telemetry, content, and metadata... in my opinion they arrive broken out of the box. Perhaps you are arguing some corporation is ethically superior to regular thieves. =3
Do you realize that Borland were out of business by the time code signing for basically any platform became a thing most anyone was vaguely concerned with?
"Is there even meaningful overlap between these two things?"
If one wants to target every platform, than people are ultimately forced to use a Mac with a Developer Account subscription. Accordingly, there is no practical guarantee your project will reach market (app store rejections are common)... or worse... some dimwit chooses a platform ecosystem specific language to really double-down on a bad investment.
Hence, my opinion on the answer to the threads question: "Why did Borland ignore the Macintosh market?"
Have a nice day =3