Title: Apple's Outdated and Restrictive Certificate Signing Process: A Barrier to Innovation Introduction In the dynamic field of mobile app development, the agility and freedom offered to developers can significantly dictate the pace of innovation and user satisfaction. Apple's certificate signing process, a legacy from an earlier era of computing, starkly contrasts with more modern approaches, particularly Android's Keystore system. This article delves into the cumbersome nature of Apple's approach, arguing that its outdated and proprietary methods hinder the development process and stifle innovation. The Burdensome Nature of Apple's Certificate Signing Proprietary Restrictions: Apple's certificate signing is not just a process; it's a gatekeeper. By forcing developers to go through its own system to obtain certificates, Apple maintains a tight grip on what gets published and updated. This closed ecosystem approach reflects a dated philosophy in an age where flexibility and openness are key drivers of technological advancement. Complex and Time-Consuming: The process to acquire and maintain a valid certificate for app signing is notoriously intricate and bureaucratic. Developers must navigate a maze of procedures including certificate requests, renewals, and provisioning profiles. Each step is a potential roadblock, delaying urgent updates and bug fixes, which can be crucial for user retention and satisfaction. Lack of Autonomy: Apple's centralized control means every application must be signed under the stringent watch of its guidelines. This lack of autonomy not only slows down the release cycle but also curbs developers' creative processes, as they must often compromise on innovative features to meet Apple's strict approval standards. Comparing Android’s Keystore System Developer-Friendly: In stark contrast, Android’s Keystore system empowers developers by allowing them to manage their cryptographic keys independently. This system supports a more intuitive setup where keys can be generated and stored within the Android environment, bypassing the need for any external approval. Speed and Flexibility: Android developers can use the same key across multiple applications and decide their expiration terms, which can be set to never expire. This flexibility facilitates a quicker development process, enabling developers to push updates and new features with minimal delay. The Impact on the Developer Ecosystem Innovation Stifling: Apple's outdated certificate signing process does not just affect the technical side of app development but also impacts the broader ecosystem. It places unnecessary hurdles in front of developers, particularly small developers who may lack the resources to frequently manage certificate renewals and navigate Apple’s rigorous approval process. Market Response: The market has shown a preference for platforms that offer more freedom and less bureaucratic interference. Android's growing market share in many regions can be partially attributed to its more developer-friendly environment, which directly contrasts with Apple's tightly controlled ecosystem. Conclusion Apple’s certificate signing method, while ensuring a secure environment, is an archaic relic in today’s fast-paced tech world. It binds developers with outdated, proprietary chains that hinder rapid development and innovation. As the technological landscape evolves towards more open and flexible systems, Apple’s restrictive practices could potentially alienate developers and erode its competitive edge. For Apple to maintain its relevance and appeal among the developer community, a significant overhaul of its certificate signing process is not just beneficial—it's necessary.

I am developing and distributing an XCFramework, and I want to ensure that it remains valid for as long as possible. I have some questions regarding certificate expiration and revocation: I understand that if an XCFramework is signed with a timestamp, it remains valid even after the signing certificate expires. However, if the signing certificate is revoked, the XCFramework immediately becomes unusable. As far as I know, Apple allows a maximum of two active distribution certificates at the same time. I assume that once a certificate expires, it will eventually need to be revoked in order to issue a third certificate. Is this correct? If an expired certificate is later revoked, will the XCFrameworks signed with that certificate also become invalid, even though they were timestamped? I want to ensure that released XCFrameworks remain valid for as long as possible. What is the best approach to achieve this? If anyone has insights or official documentation references on how to manage signing certificates for long-term XCFramework validity, I would appreciate your guidance. Thank you!

i was complete my program, and export a mac app already it work ok in my macmini, but if i want send it to app store, that i have no way now i still do not know how to make this app perfect like, when i use pyinstaller to build this app, is there any info or elements need make with? i can sign my app now, even i use codesign -dvvv my.app to check the sign, it is also ok, there no any feedback said it anything wrong. so, any master know fix app sign or any infoplist please tech me... help

The mentioned way of setting up complications does not work. We can't create the identifier according to the guideline mentioned in the WWDC session. https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10049/?time=1021 Timestamp: 17:04 Error: An attribute in the provided entity has invalid value An App ID with Identifier '.watchkitapp.complication' is not available. Please enter a different string. To clarify - the non masked identifier is not used on another property inside our dev program. Without creating the identifier our tests result in not working push notifications. Error message while testing: discarded as application was not registered. Is the way mentioned in the WWDC session still valid? BR

Hey everyone, I was granted access to Family Controls (Distribution) for my main App ID The entitlement is visible and enabled in the App ID configuration. I’ve successfully created and used a provisioning profile that injects com.apple.developer.family-controls for the main app. ✅ However, the issue is with an extension target under the same parent App ID and all others Despite enabling the Family Controls (Development) capability in this extension’s App ID config, every new provisioning profile I generate for the extension fails to include the entitlement. I’ve confirmed this by: • Dumping the .mobileprovision with security cms -D → no sign of com.apple.developer.family-controls • Recreating the profile multiple times (Development and Distribution) • Ensuring the entitlement is toggled on in the portal • Validating the parent app profile does include it ⸻ ❗Question: Is there a known issue where Family Controls doesn’t get injected into extension App IDs even after team approval? Or is there an extra step I need to take to get this entitlement injected properly into provisioning profiles for app extensions?

I am distributing a macOS application outside the App Store using Developer ID and need to provide provisioning profiles to customers for installation during the package installation process. I have two questions: How can I package and provide the provisioning profile(s) so that the customer can install them easily during the application installation process? Are there any best practices or tools that could simplify this step? In my case, there are multiple provisioning profiles. Should I instruct the customer to install each profile individually, or is there a way to combine them and have them installed all at once? Any guidance on the best practices for this process would be greatly appreciated.

You can now easily request access to managed capabilities for your App IDs directly from the new Capability Requests tab in Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles > Identifiers. With this update, view available capabilities in one convenient location, check the status of your requested capabilities, and see any notes from Apple related to your requests. Learn more about capability requests.

I have 14 total devices, from way back. I am currently in a financial bind and can't renew just yet. BUT I am at past my time to reset the device list back to zero. But the screen to do that is behind the paid account. Catch 22 Can we fix it? As it stands I must email tech support, but this is a bug so I posted

I tried to create a new IOS provisioning profile and re-apply it to the app using Xcode to build it, but I got into trouble. The build is good, but it bounces when running the app. I would appreciate it if you could let me know what to do.