The argument from the article is that in non-Apple ecosystem, the ongoing fee is 0, which is smaller than all 3 of your listed examples. Also, as opposed to "simple command-line build scripts", in non-Apple ecosystem, there is no script required to release versions. I don't see the argument weakened, but rather strengthened.
If Windows also required code signing as a deterrent to malware being distributed, we'd see similar prices (depending on the code signing reseller, currently cheapest is $59/year for 3 years). Instead, we have a huge third-party antivirus market that only deals with malware after the fact. Notarization is Apple's approach to pre-screening applications and will certainly be constantly improving its detection.
Your argument is based on an unstated framing assumption:
“A cheaper and simpler process is better for developers and users, and therefore the absence of both cost and complexity is universally the best solution, without regard for any other factors.”
That is not a widely agreed-upon assumption. Since the post relies on this same assumption-by-framing approach, its arguments are weakened by their dependence on an unstated assumption. Answering my questions would force that assumption to be considered openly - and potentially challenged.
Is it better for users that Apple is doing this, regardless of the extra cost and time it assigns to developers?
That’s the question that should be being asked here. Unfortunately, it is not.
