Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 9, 2012, 06:59 PM   #51
ahdfox
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Apple's run amok

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacServiceGuy View Post
ok - so grab your tinfoil hats everyone, the conspiracy theorist has arrived...

If all of us walked into a bog box store and bought a brand new computer, and suddenly as we were checking out the sales person says "oh .. by the way... the only software this runs is from the manufacturer, you have to go to their store to get it" we'd all walk out (or laugh... or both).

but when apple says "the only software you can have is what we put on our app store" as it relates to mobile phones we say "ok!".

so for my part, i'm leaving the iPhone completely and going android.

However, for desktop computers, i don't have the same luxury. And now that apple has its hands all over mac apps in their app store, it's already killing my productivity.

I can't believe people are putting up with this sandboxing bulls**t and not complaining. Are you f'n kidding me?!

Here at our studio we use an app called Wiretap Anywehre from Ambrosia software. It's an absolutely essential app for us for the radio show we produce so that we can route audio from any app to any other app. We've been using it for years without issue.

When lion was introduced it suddenly stopped working properly. We could not longer pick the app we wanted to route from and to - so now if we want to record audio we can record ALL system audio, or none.

Why? Because of sandboxing. They hadn't updated their app and they could have gotten around it and fixed it but when i called to find out why a fix was taking so long the answer was "because there isn't' one coming". when i asked why they said it was because of the new app store requirements around sand boxing. So I said "so don't put it on the store, just distribute online". and the guy .. literally said "look.. we want to stay in business, and if we don't put our stuff in the app store apple has made it clear they will not take our other apps".

are you f'n kidding me...

i tried to warn everyone about giving apple this kind of power....

Dear God... there needs to be a new competitor in the desktop space like android is in the handheld space.. we need something that's not windows, and not mac.
17 years of Macs and now considering Linux when good old 10.6 runs out of steam in a couple of years. Amazing that Apple is having a hard time realizing that fewer choices does not always equal simplicity.
ahdfox is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 07:02 PM   #52
gotluck
macrumors 68030
 
gotluck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: East Central Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkermit View Post
As far as I know, Metro apps on Windows 8's app store are going to be sandboxed as well.
I don't think Microsoft will ever be able to implement apples one app store policy in the desktop market. Apples already done it in iOS so I feel the fear is warranted that it could extend to OSX and beyond on the desktop side. Its not neccesarily the sand boxing I'm afraid of.
__________________
iPad Air LTE 7.1.2 JB (T-Mobile) - GS 4 Google Edition 4.4.4 ART (AT&T) - Windows 7 PC's - iPhone 4 6.1 JB
"Give me liberty (root access), or give me death!" - Patrick Henry
gotluck is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 07:13 PM   #53
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveoc64 View Post
...If they're concerned about Apps having too much access, they should have a permissions system that lets the user choose what the App can do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkermit View Post
As far as I know, Metro apps on Windows 8's app store are going to be sandboxed as well.
But Windows already has a very flexible ACL (Access Control List) based security framework - it would be fairy simple to allow sandboxed apps limited and specific access to what they need to function.
__________________
Edward Snowden - American Hero.
Daniel Ellsberg: "Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America"
Marriage equality is unstoppable
AidenShaw is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 07:37 PM   #54
cnote678
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I use BetterSnapTool and it is going to be removed from the Mac App Store upon implementation of the requirements, which I think is a huge disappointment.
__________________
FINALLY! 13" Aluminum MacBook, 2.0GHz; 80GB iPod Classic. iPhone 2G w/ No Service.
cnote678 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 07:52 PM   #55
DrFreeman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
I think Apple may have longer term plans hence the sandboxing rule. It seems Apple is trying to unify its operating system (iOS and OS X) so sandboxing could be a step in that direction.

So you write one app and it runs on both iPad and Macbook albeit with interface tweaks!
DrFreeman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 08:22 PM   #56
blackburn
macrumors 6502a
 
blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Where Judas lost it's boots.
I hope that sandboxing doesn't break snow leopard compatibility. Or else I'm screwed.
__________________
Lenovo ThinkPad + Nexus 7 (2nd Gen)
blackburn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 08:32 PM   #57
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFreeman View Post
So you write one app and it runs on both iPad and Macbook albeit with interface tweaks!
That's pretty much how it already is. iOS and OS X are pretty similar at the API level and the sub-systems level. In fact, they share so much between each other, they are already pretty much merged.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 08:42 PM   #58
zorinlynx
macrumors 68020
 
zorinlynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzi View Post
@zorinlynx they do have different "entitlements" for different types of applications. The problem is, that there are too few entitlements to cover all usecases, and so many apps are not sandboxable with the current sandboxing technology. So the apple solution is to just not allow further updates for those apps which can't work with the few given entitlements .

Developers can file bugreports / feature requests but often you just get the answer that the technology you need for your application is theoretically able to workaround the purpose of the sandbox and so they won't allow it....
Isn't this just going to cost Apple money in the long run as profitable and useful apps like Transmit leave the store?

I just can't fathom why they would do something that would encourage developers to NOT use the app store, when they are so incredibly obsessed with promoting it.
zorinlynx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 08:47 PM   #59
jinnj
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
They probably don't want to spend the time to make a separate version to sell from their website.
It's not just the time to make the app it's the cost of selling apps online, cheaper than boxed software but still a cost. With MAS if your App doesn't sell a single copy all you are out is the $99 fee. With DIY Online Sales, you need storage, commerce merchant account fees, bandwidth, etc...

Note: There are many games available on MAS and Steam.
jinnj is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 08:48 PM   #60
Stella
macrumors 603
 
Stella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post
Isn't this just going to cost Apple money in the long run as profitable and useful apps like Transmit leave the store?

I just can't fathom why they would do something that would encourage developers to NOT use the app store, when they are so incredibly obsessed with promoting it.
If too many 'high profile' apps leave the store hopefully Apple will have a rethink. I wouldn't be the first time Apple have reversed developer rule decisions.
__________________
Hardware / Software: The right tools for the job - be it Apple or otherwise.
Stella is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 08:58 PM   #61
jinnj
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stella View Post
This will certainly become a problem for non MAS applications as time goes by.

People are lazy and some are less knowledgeable and both .. some will not know that you can obtain Mac software from any other sources but MAS.. others simply won't bother to look any other place than MAS.

So.. non MAS software will slowly decline in sales.
Not really most of the apps that need to work outside of the sandbox are in a niche market. The users of those apps will mostly likely search the internet for them. The non-techs will stick to MAS and it will benefit them as everything is there and they don't have to fear being ripped off or their credit cards being passed to unknown entities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stella View Post
Apple want MAS to be the defacto method of OSX software distribution together with its rules. Apple can't close OSX so MAS as defacto software distribution is the next best thing. The Apple developer rules will certainly restrict creativity and innovation.
You're right they can't close OSX but you're wrong it won't restrict any software developer because you can continue to develop outside of MAS. You can sell on Steam or even Amazon. What you don't get (and don't deserve) is the free publicity of MAS
jinnj is offline   -4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 09:03 PM   #62
Fukui
macrumors 68000
 
Fukui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Security comes at the price of flexibility. Always. Too much security and flexibility suffers. Too much flexibility and security suffers. Swing the pendulum either way too far and you've got problems.

Is mandatory sandboxing really needed ? Oh well, there's always Linux to go back to if Apple ever manages to screw up OS X too badly.
The only way to prevent that from happening is for mac app developers to band together in unison and boycott the app store: take their apps from sale and donít put them back up till apple gives up... it worked for SOPA....
__________________
It's a series of tubes!! - An old man
Fukui is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 09:10 PM   #63
ScottishCaptain
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Welcome to the iOSification of Mac OS X. It's like watching a bunch of lemmings get pushed off a cliff. Except they all honestly believe they're doing it out of choice and that it's the best thing for them.

I refuse to buy MAS applications.

Why?

Because restrictions such as this "sandboxing" that are really just half-assed implementations by Apple hurt applications more then they improve them. You can't seriously tell me with a straight face that I should accept limited and broken applications over their unhindered and free counterparts sold directly from the vendor.

There is NO REASON why Xcode shouldn't come with an "entitlements" editor that allows you to pick and chose what system resources you need and how. This should get baked into the *.app bundle, and when a developer submits an application to Apple, the reviewers can decide if the application really needs what the developer said it does and if not- they can further discuss the issues with the developer prior to approval (for example, there's no reason why a game would need access to everything in ~/, but a search utility might).

Really, there's a thousand different ways Apple could have gone about this. The above is just off the top of my head.

But no, they decide to lock everyone into a strict set of granular choices, most of which are so restricting they're virtually useless. Ring a bell with iOS multitasking anyone?

I'm sure I'll have hoards of people running to Apple's defence here saying that the limited and crippled entitlement system Apple is forcing on everyone is "for your own protection".

The truth here is that there is NO REASON why we can't have a Sandboxing implementation that works well, is secure, and can handle anything developers might need. Except for Apple's own laziness and arrogance regarding their own decisions these days.

-SC
__________________
2010 Mac Pro (MacPro5,1), 2*2.93ghz, 64GB, 4x2TB, Apple RAID Card, 5970 GPU, 2xSD, Eizo CG276W
ScottishCaptain is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 09:19 PM   #64
jinnj
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotluck View Post
I've been on windows long enough to know how to not compromise my security. I'll stay tuned I guess.
No you don't cause you're connected to the internet and you are still running Windows!

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotluck View Post
I don't think Microsoft will ever be able to implement apples one app store policy in the desktop market. Apples already done it in iOS so I feel the fear is warranted that it could extend to OSX and beyond on the desktop side. Its not neccesarily the sand boxing I'm afraid of.
What do you mean "One App Store policy" ? There is more than one app store for the Mac. Look around and you'll find it.

Note: While developing Vista, MS was going to sandbox all into one big sandbox and close off the system to all apps. Major failure when Symatec started crying and that feature was "enhanced" aka dropped.
jinnj is offline   -7 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 09:19 PM   #65
MattInOz
macrumors 68030
 
MattInOz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzi View Post
@zorinlynx they do have different "entitlements" for different types of applications. The problem is, that there are too few entitlements to cover all usecases, and so many apps are not sandboxable with the current sandboxing technology. So the apple solution is to just not allow further updates for those apps which can't work with the few given entitlements .

Developers can file bugreports / feature requests but often you just get the answer that the technology you need for your application is theoretically able to workaround the purpose of the sandbox and so they won't allow it....
Sorry I might be misunderstanding something...
Apple allows sub-apps(Deamons) within your app to have Separate Entitlements from the main app. So you can divide an app so parts that aren't allowed within the same sandbox can have there own Sandbox then pass pure data across to each other. I thought it was possible to get a Sub-app to do anything you could get a launchd deamon to do?

So why can't say a FTP app have a process to handle just the FTP session that then can pass Data back to the main interface app, then have another part that has has the Entitlements required to read write files into the users file structure?

And the other overriding question non-MAS apps can do what they please.
At the expense of visiblity and all the setting up your own sale portal.
So why don't these Dev's get together to make a Appstore for Pro Apps?
__________________
There is no such thing as "Collective Wisdom"
[ iPhone 5s, iPad Mini, 13" MacBookPro 2.7Ghz, 27"Al iMac i7, Black MacBook 13"]
MattInOz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 09:26 PM   #66
jinnj
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post
Isn't this just going to cost Apple money in the long run as profitable and useful apps like Transmit leave the store?

I just can't fathom why they would do something that would encourage developers to NOT use the app store, when they are so incredibly obsessed with promoting it.
First Transmit isn't doing anything special. They are using built-in features to mount ftp/sftp/etc... drives.

Second how are they "incredibly obsessed with promoting it". I haven't see a single promotion on this. They did move all of their apps to the App Store but I think this is less marketing and more simplicity.
jinnj is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 10:06 PM   #67
nuckinfutz
macrumors 603
 
nuckinfutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Middle Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahdfox View Post
17 years of Macs and now considering Linux when good old 10.6 runs out of steam in a couple of years. Amazing that Apple is having a hard time realizing that fewer choices does not always equal simplicity.
Linux is fine if you're a geek but I don't know why people think that the geek market is bigger than ole mom and pops that just want a computer that works and doesn't scare them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottishCaptain View Post

I'm sure I'll have hoards of people running to Apple's defence here saying that the limited and crippled entitlement system Apple is forcing on everyone is "for your own protection".

The truth here is that there is NO REASON why we can't have a Sandboxing implementation that works well, is secure, and can handle anything developers might need. Except for Apple's own laziness and arrogance regarding their own decisions these days.

-SC
The problem is Apple has likely thought about every available option and is charting a course for the future where Sandboxed applications are the norm and there is a way of delivering inter-application communication safely. I'd rather they go overly conservative at first and then develop a highly secure method for control.

Just because Apple doesn't give a roadmaps or assurances doesn't mean plans aren't in place to ameliorate many of the side effects of sandboxing.
nuckinfutz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 10:25 PM   #68
Stella
macrumors 603
 
Stella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckinfutz View Post
Just because Apple doesn't give a roadmaps or assurances doesn't mean plans aren't in place to ameliorate many of the side effects of sandboxing.
Apple should give roadmaps.. instead of keeping people in the dark.

There are some things Apple should keep secret, but others, not so much. You should be more open to 3rd party developers.. If Apple are indeed in the process of giving more functionality to the sand boxing implementation then this should be communicated, and thus increasing confidence.
__________________
Hardware / Software: The right tools for the job - be it Apple or otherwise.
Stella is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 10:25 PM   #69
dmelgar
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
I don't see why Apple is making it so restrictive. The sandbox doesn't let you do much even with all available entitlements. Its as if they're trying to encourage iOS style wrappered website applications. Tiny applications that do little for $1. MAS does not seem to care about any typically sized Mac app. There is no way to try an app, no trial, and the app can't do much of anything.

For all normal apps, you'll have to go outside MAS.

I used MAS for a while when it first came out, but never found much interesting out there. Why would I pay 30% extra to get it from MAS without a trial, if I can usually find the same app online with a free trial.

I think Apple is pushing MAS to irrelevance.
__________________
David's tech notes
dmelgar is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 11:16 PM   #70
ThunderSkunk
macrumors 68000
 
ThunderSkunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Durango, Co
Wow. Bad timing. Just as CAD companies are starting to take Apple seriously for the first time in decades. If I were Autodesk or Solidworks or PTC or or Dassault Systemeseses or whomever, and I was considering FINALLY bringing a decent, modern, parametric modeling app to the Mac, as they have been lately, considering the millions of hours that takes, this ugly little sandboxing requirement would pose a couple potentially huge risks:

1, you're not going to get the exposure of being listed in the App Store.

2, the chance they'll get more strict in the future and nuke your application altogether.

A cad model that can't be linked to external data sources is dead on creation, and a waste of effort. Apple crippling themselves just as the design & engineering markets are starting to warm up again? Not good.
ThunderSkunk is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 11:19 PM   #71
Stella
macrumors 603
 
Stella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinnj View Post
Not really most of the apps that need to work outside of the sandbox are in a niche market. The users of those apps will mostly likely search the internet for them. The non-techs will stick to MAS and it will benefit them as everything is there and they don't have to fear being ripped off or their credit cards being passed to unknown entities.



You're right they can't close OSX but you're wrong it won't restrict any software developer because you can continue to develop outside of MAS. You can sell on Steam or even Amazon. What you don't get (and don't deserve) is the free publicity of MAS
And we go in a full circle back to my first post in this discussion.... sales of non MAS ( smaller 3rd party developers especially ) will certainly fall as MAS becomes established.

Your post almost says "MAS is not a place for niche applications", though I don't want to put words into your mouth at all.
__________________
Hardware / Software: The right tools for the job - be it Apple or otherwise.
Stella is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2012, 12:39 AM   #72
LillDrutten
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
How stupid can someone be? What about plugins for logic, cubase and photoshop? What about content things like sample libraries for exs24/kontakt etc?
Steve Jobs have been away for half a year and now we see the first signs for apple decline.
LillDrutten is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2012, 02:16 AM   #73
marksman
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac
So, to be clear. It's a problem when Apple allows access to other application data and it's a problem when Apple doesn't allow access to other application data.
Yeah this is a non issue caused by inconvienced developers. In the long term developers will find solutions to provide the same functionality.

Sandboxxing is a no brainer in this day and age and it is something apple can use to sell the app store as if you only install apps from the store you increase security and integrity.

This just means developers desiring cross functionality will have to work together to create that functionality going forward. Up until now it could just be a one sided process.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire
I do not need a sandbox. I'm not a kid. Or who needs limited functionality?
Yet you are just like a little kid oblivious to your own security and safety.

People act like there are not extremely valid reasons for sand boxing, ones many / most adults understand and willingly accept. The child like perspective is "me want what me want and I no care why can't have"

Last edited by OllyW; Feb 10, 2012 at 03:42 AM. Reason: merge
marksman is offline   -3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2012, 02:36 AM   #74
Fuzzi
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksman View Post


Yeah this is a non issue caused by inconvienced developers. In the long term developers will find solutions to provide the same functionality.
no they won't. Apple clearly states that many things will stay limited and many apps won't be possible anymore in the sandbox. If you are a developer, read for example about the accessibility API which is completely prohibited in the sandbox.

Please don't write stuff like this if you don't know what you are talking about.
Fuzzi is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2012, 02:41 AM   #75
unlinked
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkermit View Post
The sandbox isn't for you, but for the app to play in. It's not about limiting functionality, but about limiting access to the system that would go beyond an app's functionality. That's the theory at least. In practice, Apple's approach to sandboxing still needs a lot of work to not hinder app developers' efforts (or so it seems).
Talk about new speak.
unlinked is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Age Requirement to Work in an Apple Store and Coaching Please? (Louisville Area) BMNEUR Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 4 Aug 2, 2013 01:46 PM
'Apple Store' iOS App Update Coming Tuesday with Free iTunes Store, App Store, and iBookstore Deals MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 77 Jul 31, 2013 03:48 AM
iPhone Urinalysis App Draws U.S. Government Scrutiny MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 116 Jun 7, 2013 01:52 PM
Apple Approves Mac App Store App with 'Retina Graphics' MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 42 Jun 8, 2012 06:19 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:50 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC