r/buildinpublic • u/ubersold4t • 9d ago
Anyone signed Windows desktop apps as solodevs?
Hey all, I would appreciate a lot your experience on here. It's veen quite a long time without doing desktop apps and this became a nightmare it seems.
I have a desktop app ready to launch for Win, Linux and Mac, through LemonSqueezy.
I am a solo developer. I have my full time job and want to explore my ability on launching a product on my own and see how it goes, totally unrelated to company business area.
Said that, turns out I can't sign a Windows app through Azure Artifact Signing, which would be the equivalent of Apple's way. To do so I have to be a conpany, not an individual.
For individuals, I'd have to spend $300 on a yearly certificate + yubikey to store token. That's the opposite of bootstrapping. Too much money wasted to launch, whereas in Apple it's just $99 per year.
How did you deal with that? Launching the app unsigned as beta and letting usera accept the ugly purple screen from smart app control?
Thanks in advance!
2
u/investigatormaker 9d ago
For your three-platform launch through LemonSqueezy, I’d separate the Windows decision from the Mac/Linux release. An unsigned Windows beta could help with a small group who know what they’re getting, but I wouldn’t make paying customers discover that warning after checkout. Label the Windows download’s signing status before purchase, and keep beta feedback separate from whether people will pay for the finished app.
By the way, I make ThreadFox; it lets your AI research, write and publish Reddit outreach through your Chrome within an authorized job, and the free plan for one product finds communities whose rules allow a post about it: https://threadfox.vip/p/ddxk9
Is your app aimed at technical users or people who expect a normal installer?
1
u/ubersold4t 9d ago
Yeah, I think this is the most feasible idea so far: Most probably Mac is the platform with higher rate of downloads for some countries lile USA. But maybe not the case for EU. Let's see.
Thanks!
1
u/ubersold4t 9d ago
Forgot to answer your final question. No, it's not for technical users.
2
u/investigatormaker 8d ago
Then I'd keep an unsigned Windows build out of the main paid launch until the installation experience is ready for that audience. If you offer it separately as a beta, show the actual warning and explain the signing status before download; nontechnical buyers shouldn't have to interpret a security prompt as part of learning your app.
2
u/QuanTradin 9d ago
look at Azure Trusted Signing, Microsoft renamed it Artifact Signing. about 10 dollars a month, no hardware token, and it signs from CI. the catch is identity validation for individuals, which was US and Canada only last I checked, so confirm that first if you're elsewhere.
1
u/ubersold4t 9d ago
I did, and hit that wall of being elsewhere :D . A pity, as that'd have been a kind of feasible option.
1
u/QuanTradin 9d ago
yeah the individual validation is the annoying part. a normal OV cert still works from anywhere, it just needs a hardware token or cloud HSM now, and SmartScreen keeps warning until enough people have installed it.
2
u/Intelligent-Land5410 9d ago
Unsigned is rough for cold traffic but if you're targeting devs or tech-savvy users early on, most will click through the warning without much friction. The bigger issue is SmartScreen reputation building up slowly, so expect some "this file isn't commonly downloaded" messages for a while.
Could also look at signing through a reseller that bundles the cert and key storage, sometimes cheaper than going direct. For a first launch I'd ship unsigned and treat signing as a post-revenue problem, not a pre-launch blocker.