Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Again Encouraging Mac Developers to Sign Up for Developer ID Ahead of OS X Mountain Lion

nuckinfutz said:
...

I predict Apple will then kill us all and use our bodies for fertilizer. Then it is Gatekeeper and not nuclear weapons that will lead to the downfall of mankind. lol

if we're going down that slippery slope we may as well go the whole way right?
Click to expand...

Nope. You are either missing the point, or simply spinning the Apple talking points.

It is in fact very likely that Gatekeeper is another step in creating an iOS walled garden on our desktops, where only apps approved by Apple will be allowed on our "stock" Macs.

And this is NOT a good thing.

I actually jumped to Android precisely because I got tired of jailbreaking my iPhones so that I can tether, or use them on TMobile (once I realized how much better/cheaper it is than AT&T).
 
macUser2007 said:
Nope. You are either missing the point, or simply spinning the Apple talking points.

It is in fact very likely that Gatekeeper is another step in creating an iOS walled garden on our desktops, where only apps approved by Apple will be allowed on our "stock" Macs.

And this is NOT a good thing.

I actually jumped to Android precisely because I got tired of jailbreaking my iPhones so that I can tether, or use them on TMobile (once I realized how much better/cheaper it is than AT&T).
Click to expand...

That's not what Gatekeeper is. What you're promulgating is a logical fallacy. If Apple wished to lock the platform down they would have simply stayed the course with the Mac App Store. Gatekeeper does allow them to lock the platform down but for malware malcontents and not God Fearing Developers (GFD)

You guys are contorting this beyond recognition and then trying to tell the rest of us that it's "we" that don't understand. That's kind of hilarious.
 
nuckinfutz said:
That's not what Gatekeeper is. What you're promulgating is a logical fallacy. If Apple wished to lock the platform down they would have simply stayed the course with the Mac App Store. Gatekeeper does allow them to lock the platform down but for malware malcontents and not God Fearing Developers (GFD)

You guys are contorting this beyond recognition and then trying to tell the rest of us that it's "we" that don't understand. That's kind of hilarious.
Click to expand...

There is the potential that the government could see this as a system by which it can force Apple to block infringing applications. Say, a game console emulator or a program that allows one to search for torrents.
 
chrmjenkins said:
There is the potential that the government could see this as a system by which it can force Apple to block infringing applications. Say, a game console emulator or a program that allows one to search for torrents.
Click to expand...

If they even try!

uwe-boll-rampage.jpg
 
Mr Fusion said:
I'm very confused, someone please explain:


So this system is designed to catch developers who:

- Voluntarily sign up, knowing full well Apple is monitoring them, and then...
- ... One day out of the blue, they "behave maliciously" and Apple will shut them down.

...???

If someone is going to "behave maliciously" they aren't going to sign up for this in the first place. The only thing this is going to protect against are developers who apparently have a screw loose and one day go off the deep end and start injecting malicious code into their programs?

I'm sorry, is my logic off here or does this whole system seem very useless? :confused:
Click to expand...

By default, Mountain Lion won't run apps that aren't signed with a Gatekeeper ID. So all the clueless users who don't want to care about how their system works will only be running signed software. They're the crowd Apple is trying to protect.

That means that any malware that is unsigned won't affect most Mac users, since only a small proportion will change that setting.

Also, it protects against apps that are legit but have security problems —*if such a legit app had an exploit that malware could use to get access to the system, Apple could shut the app down until the developer fixed the issue.
 
Wasn't Gate Keeper the name of the spyware "security" software in the film The Net with Sandra Bullock?
 
Mr Fusion said:
I'm very confused, someone please explain:


So this system is designed to catch developers who:

- Voluntarily sign up, knowing full well Apple is monitoring them, and then...
- ... One day out of the blue, they "behave maliciously" and Apple will shut them down.

...???

If someone is going to "behave maliciously" they aren't going to sign up for this in the first place. The only thing this is going to protect against are developers who apparently have a screw loose and one day go off the deep end and start injecting malicious code into their programs?

I'm sorry, is my logic off here or does this whole system seem very useless? :confused:
Click to expand...

You've got the right idea--and it's what makes it useful.

If a developer knows they will publish malicious applications, thus getting their certificate revoked, they won't sign up for one in the first place.

If you've chosen the "Medium" security setting in ML, you will only give your computer permission to down load apps that have been signed by Apple Certified developers. No certification, no download. It doesn't matter if the developer never signed up for it at all or had it revoked. Either way, the download won't happen.

From what I can see, there is really no reason for a legitimate software developer not to sign up for this program. It costs nothing, imposes no restrictions and doesn't affect distribution. It's simply the developer declaring that they are legitimate and Apple confirming it--then the end user choosing an appropriate security setting for their needs.

Personally, I'm a fairly advanced user. I can use the "No security" setting because I am competent enough to not download malicious software on my Mac. Someone like my mother however, who consistently destroys Windows PC's because she insists on clicking "Yes" every time something pops up, absolutely needs these higher security options.
 
macUser2007 said:
Nope. You are either missing the point, or simply spinning the Apple talking points.

It is in fact very likely that Gatekeeper is another step in creating an iOS walled garden on our desktops, where only apps approved by Apple will be allowed on our "stock" Macs.

And this is NOT a good thing.

I actually jumped to Android precisely because I got tired of jailbreaking my iPhones so that I can tether, or use them on TMobile (once I realized how much better/cheaper it is than AT&T).
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've been using the "jump to conclusion" mat again.

It is not one step closer, Mac is not iOS.
You can still install any apps.
Stop jumping to absurd conclusions.

And congratulations on going to an inferior phone/mobile operating system.
 
chrmjenkins said:
There is the potential that the government could see this as a system by which it can force Apple to block infringing applications. Say, a game console emulator or a program that allows one to search for torrents.
Click to expand...

Except Apple have designed the system as a one time check per machine.
With so many technical bypasses already built in that it's hard to see how Apple revoking a certificate would even stop an app. They could do this as a token gesture to government or IP control but it'll have no effect.

I think it's important to understand this features is called Gatekeeper the gate is already in the system. As it stands the user has to go down and open the gate everytime someone rings the bell.

With Gatekeeper you have someone at the door, he has a guest list and a sword. So instead of having a dialogue to vouch for almost any file annoying the user. These dialogue will become rare and meaningful again, and generally only scammers.

The success of this will also be tied to Apple sand boxing things like PDF rendering so that it truly is the exception not the rule that the user has to vouch for a file. That is what will change the habits of the user.


Added: A motivated machine owner will still be about to work around the system with ease.
But malware will have a tough ride getting from one machine to the next.
 
Last edited:
Flitzy said:
It is not one step closer, Mac is not iOS.
You can still install any apps.
Stop jumping to absurd conclusions.
Click to expand...

Is it not using the same code signing code? Is it not using the same monolithic single source online store?

Sure you can install any app from any source now but with code signing in place you are one OS patch away from NOT doing that.

I would say this is more of a logical conclusion then a absurd conclusion.
 
Small White Car said:
Here's one area where I hope iOS learns from the Mac.

If this proves successful with Mountain Lion I sure would like to see the iPad take this approach over the app-approval process it has now.

I think it will happen eventually. Hand-checking every submission is only going to get harder and harder for Apple as time goes on.
Click to expand...

In a way I hope this isn't the case. Right now about 5% of Android apps take personal information without users knowledge. How do users know their info is being taken so they can report it and have the developers app signing revoked? They don't. Thats what code review prevents.
 
macUser2007 said:
Nope. You are either missing the point, or simply spinning the Apple talking points.

It is in fact very likely that Gatekeeper is another step in creating an iOS walled garden on our desktops, where only apps approved by Apple will be allowed on our "stock" Macs.

And this is NOT a good thing.

I actually jumped to Android precisely because I got tired of jailbreaking my iPhones so that I can tether, or use them on TMobile (once I realized how much better/cheaper it is than AT&T).
Click to expand...

I agree that this is generally the direction Apple is going. This is just one step closer to requiring that all apps be gotten from the App Store and Apple gets a cut. Going in that direction means no more disk utilities like Drive Genius, FileSalvage, Disk Warrior, and many others since they require admin access which App Store apps aren't allowed. I'm not saying it's gonna happen right now but this is one more step in that direction which Apple is headed.

It also means that developers have to pay to become ADC members where before you could just create apps and go. Sure you could remain unsigned for now but at some point it will be required of all apps and by default (the state most users will leave things at) people can't run your apps causing issues and killing sales for developers of unsigned apps.
 
OldSchoolMacGuy said:
In a way I hope this isn't the case. Right now about 5% of Android apps take personal information without users knowledge. How do users know their info is being taken so they can report it and have the developers app signing revoked? They don't. Thats what code review prevents.
Click to expand...

I was really hoping Apple would overhaul the Address Book API to not only make it easy to deal with but to also be far more protective of the users information.
 
lostngone said:
Is it not using the same code signing code? Is it not using the same monolithic single source online store?

Sure you can install any app from any source now but with code signing in place you are one OS patch away from NOT doing that.

I would say this is more of a logical conclusion then a absurd conclusion.
Click to expand...

That's tinfoil-hat stuff. Please...

It's the furthest thing from being logical.
 
Flitzy said:
Sounds like you've been using the "jump to conclusion" mat again.

It is not one step closer, Mac is not iOS.
You can still install any apps.
Stop jumping to absurd conclusions.

And congratulations on going to an inferior phone/mobile operating system.
Click to expand...

LOL, sounds like you have not a clue and believe that Apple is run by angels looking out for you....

The convergence between iOS and Mac OS is not going to be just for pretty UI touches. Apple is taking the iOS App Store concept to the desktop, and Gatekeeper is just a step along the way. Apple will monetize the desktop app channel, just like they did it on iOS.

And please do not comment on "inferior" phone systems unless you have some experience with them. Android 4.0.4, which I ran on my 4.6" Galaxy Nexus is pretty damned good and ICS is pretty much on par with iOS 5.1, IMO.

Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and apparently, fanboys too. :rolleyes:
 
Just don't introduce the Gatekeeper to the Keymaster......

But in all seriousness. I'm glad to see something like this on the horizon. Makes me feel a bit safer. Somewhat. Kind of. Only a little.
 
macUser2007 said:
The convergence between iOS and Mac OS is not going to be just for pretty UI touches. Apple is taking the iOS App Store concept to the desktop, and Gatekeeper is just a step along the way. Apple will monetize the desktop app channel, just like they did it on iOS.
Click to expand...

A combined iOSX would be another one of those FridgeToasters that Apple is planing to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back