> You need a $100 developer subscription per developer

I believe it’s standard practice to have just one developer account for signing and submission to the store. Other developers can self-sign the app for local testing and tools like Xcode are free to use.

This model should be done more. Develop the product in the open, offer a fully functional open source version, and then offer a paid version on commercial app stores.

This can bring in some extra revenue for the project, plus covers the app store dev work.

I bet a bunch of users would buy it just to support the dev team. Plus I would argue an app store purchase (one click) can be done faster/easier than any donation flow I have seen for an open-source project.

Just something to think about.

Great to see! We need more OSS software available in the mac store. For some people, thats the only place they download programs.

great news, we love to see it

this makes me think -- is there room in the world for some sort of foundation/conservancy that takes reputable desktop app projects under its wing, provides funding, version control hosting, whatever... and then, crucially, offers to sign releases with its identity so windows and macos users don't get the popup of doom? and then maybe fast track publishing to app stores on top of that? is that kind of codesigning identity sharing a tos violation?

i overflow my hands counting the projects i can name that are solid, polished, etc, but in the era of gatekeeper and friends inevitably present pretty brutal friction to typical end-users because the dev can't justify shelling out for apple developer or whatever.

i mean yes broad financing of free software efforts would have a similar effect but yknow. projects like drawing apps and media players are pretty broad-use. hell, blender has a foundation with corporate donors. but what about the more obscure stuff that doesn't create its own entire ecosystem but nonetheless improves the lives of users within its niche? maybe we could make it fashionable for wealthier techies to adopt those projects as patrons in the old sense or something

> Krita is a professional FREE and open source painting program. It is made by artists that want to see affordable art tools for everyone.

- concept art

- texture and matte painters

- illustrations and comics

I still don't understand why Let's Encrypt (or another similar entity) can't offer code signing certificates, even if they aren't EV.

FaceTime with an employee for two minutes with a picture of your government issued ID.

This was supposed to be a product announcement, I guess, but 90% of it was spent bitching.

Instead of telling me what Krita is, why I should use it, and how exciting it’s now available on the Mac App Store, we get complaints and lectures. (You don't need to tell us that it costs more on the Mac App Store and complain about it; just set the price to what you need it to be, maybe have some tact and say something like "Each app store's pricing reflects their unique costs and revenue sharing model")

I realize this is an open-source project and not a commercial product, but if the goal is to spread the word and grow the user community, this style of bitterness won't do it.