It’s a $22 paid app. Of course it’s not going to be open sourced.

I think there are some open source macOS apps that provide code but sell binaries on the App Store, no?

Yes, but it was sold to an acquirer by the original author.

Making it open source would have interfered with the author’s profit goal. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to make profit from your work and protect the source.

Likewise, you’re free to avoid software that isn’t open source. However, it’s useless to make these demands that someone should have open sourced their work when that clearly wasn’t in the best interests of their goals.

I know at least of Textual. Open source but you can buy a pre-built binary for $10. Compiling it yourself was fairly easy when I tried it out once though.

https://github.com/Codeux-Software/Textual

I think the point was that open-sourced apps aren't vulnerable to an attack vector like this, which is true. Of course, not everything can be open-sourced, but the poster's point still stands.

Open sourced apps are absolutely vulnerable to this “attack vector”

Did you already forget about the back door in xz utils?

Except that it's not really true, since open-sourced applications can and most definitely have changed maintainers. And even if they don't, there's still a risk. Do I need to remind everyone of the xz incident when it's so recent?

It is/was also available through a SetApp subscription.

Yes, just give us your software for free before you sell it to mystery buyer