Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Extends Deadline for Sandboxing of Mac App Store Apps to June 1
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pretty soon we will have to jailbreak our Macs so we can side load apps.
There is a fine line between secure and usable.
This is hyperbolic. Do you have any evidence that this is what lies in store for the future? For the amount of paranoia so many of you are exhibiting in this thread, I'm surprised your primary concern isn't safety at all costs.
The better option here would be for the developer to post a popup before first run detailing exactly what the app intends to do. Much like installing extensions on Chrome, where it says "this plugin will request data from...", so you know what it'll have access to. Or Apple could add hooks into their various subsystems, so any app that tries to gain entry will be automatically reported back to the end user, who could then confirm or deny it. Like how elevation rights work now, but more specific.
I'd prefer that in comparison to the "apps can never do this. ever" approach Apple is taking now.
+1
I picked up a "sandy bridge" 15" Lenovo for peanuts before last year's Black Friday price hike.
Native HDMI, express card & eSata ports. It actually does a lot of things better than my early 2011 MBP. (I could have bought 3 Lenovos for the cost of the "carved from a single, solid block of aluminum" wonder.)
Unless there are major changes, I think I bought my last new Mac.
Short term thinking there.
Longer term.... it will be more difficult to sell mac software outside of the app store as it becomes the defacto means of distribution. So, smaller developers will have little option but to add their software to MAS.
Ultimately, Apple want control of OSX software like they have over iOS applications. For the moment they can't close OSX.. so trying to create a defacto means of OSX software distribution is the next best thing.
For now
I remember when it was doubted there would be an app store for mac after the iphone app store came out. People scoffed at the notion. Many people thought it was crazy and unnecessary
Then there is the mac app store.
Then there are regulations on how apps that are coded that can be in the app store via methods like this
Then you have apple in ML having it default to run apps that are signed or from the MAS. This right here will lead many developers to only develop for the app store as 99% of the user base will never change that setting.
Next it will be only apps from the app store. Just watch. It is the natural progression. Apple is getting more and more restrictive on how apps can interact within its OS and hw platforms.
I thought Windows 8 will be a sandboxing model too, so that may not ultimately be the appropriate choice for you to go. Linux maybe? I'm a professional too - I write software for a living. "Professional" on the Mac now includes many additional professions than the original main focus - graphics and image folks. From my perspective, I've still got (and will still have) more flexibility in Mac-land than I've had in Windows or straight-up Linux/Unix.
Consolidation of UI ecosystems, changing the UI (Apple has been doing this for years) seems reasonable. While different people may not like it, not sure I agree that it is "dumbing down", just change.
Remember the Apple vs Microsoft OS adds? They made quite a bit of fun of the new security feature that was being released in Windows that asked you to approve almost every step of the way. No, I think that kind of an option is ludicrous. For the majority of consumers, having the security implemented for them is the better approach, rather that having constant pop-ups. For those wanted more advanced features, well they shouldn't have a problem finding their apps, tweaks, etc. outside the MAS. No one is preventing developers against sandboxing from designing a Advanced Mac App Store that doesn't have sandboxing, or from distributing the software directly from their websites.
We are thinking the exact same thing! Been working with mac's since early 90's. We really only need Adobe software to get professional-type work done... Especially after the Apple FCPX release....maybe Windows 8 will finally be worthy of making the switch and won't lock us up in some "App-land". All the new fanboys can stick with their iPads.
How does that help? In the case of Path, is it surprising that a social networking app would request access to your address book? The problem wasn't access to the address book, it was the fact that they uploaded the data without permission.
Is there any evidence for this, or is it more hyperbole? Do you see Adobe, Microsoft, and many other big developers rushing to the MAS? Why do I say this when you mention smaller developers? Because the point is there is no defacto distribution, and it doesn't appear there will be one either.
Again, for most people, the MAS will be the primary distributer, sure. But for people who need advanced features that extend beyond what sandboxing requires, I simply don't see why they wouldn't already be capable of loading up google to search for what they need. They would then find the developer's website and the software they are looking for. Specialty apps are already targeted to a different consumer group. If that group becomes so dumb they can't search google for what they need, then again I think the problem won't be with Apple.
Apple realizes if they are too strict with Sandboxing reqs, apps will leave the store. They're probably adding more entitlements to the API and working with developers on the issues.
Stop being so paranoid, people.
Stop being so paranoid, people.
You seemed to forget that the default setting allows for signed apps not from the Mac App Store half way through your point there.
source
Being able to sign your apps doesn't look to be that difficult. Additionally, even in that mode you can still run unsigned apps, you just have to okay it.
Apple is not going to shoot themselves in the foot and try to put the genie back in the bottle. Just look at when they tried to remove the desktop and Apple menu from OS X 10.0. It makes me wonder why we don't have people going into hysterics over Apple taking away the desktop and Apple menu in the near future (I'm sure the Next guys at Apple would like to at least remove the desktop).
News flash: os x was never really more secure than the competition, it was just less popular and less of a target for hackers.
Now it is growing, so apple needs to step up their game. Apple learn their lesson with that latest malware from a few months ago, so they are taking security precautions. It's a good thing. Just provide clear ways of doing things.
I guess you've already read about the Gatekeeper software in Mountain Lion. True, it offers a choice, but the default is only to launch apps from the app store or those that have a digital signature approved by Apple. When Lion came out a friend of mine who is fairly anti-Apple said 'pretty soon you'll have to jailbreak your mac to install non-Apple approved software'. I thought it was a pretty ridiculous statement, but the direction things are going is making me wonder.
Even if users never change that setting, signed apps are still on equal footing with MAS apps. Free for developers. No approval process.
Right, so what are you complaining about, the future? I didn't realize you could predict it accurately.
And people still thought it was crazy, but hey, at least it was optional. Of all my third party apps, and I have a ton, only one is in the App store right now. What does that tell you about Developers storming over to the MAS?
Right, more security added to what is mostly deemed crazy and unnecessary, and conceded as purely optional.
Any evidence that this is how developers will respond, or is it this the result of your crystal ball? My prediction is those developers will make it clear on their website that you need to change the default setting and inform people how to do so, and why it is there.
Natural progression according to your distorted narrative. Apple will never do that because the major developers don't need the MAS. Adobe, Microsoft, etc., all already have their own mode of distributing their software. They are not going to share their profits with Apple, and Apple will never cut them off from OS X because they are needed to keep it a viable platform. So again, you done with your hyperbole and paranoia?
You completely misunderstand what signing is.
Signing doesn't mean approval process.
Again, signing ≠ app store approval process.
The only thing the developer signature allows Apple to do is revoke it if the developer is found to be distributing malware. Then what happens is the anyone who tries to run the app for the first time will be told no and the app is trashed. Apple does not remove the apps if the app was already run on the computer so it isn't even a kill switch. It is purely a way to stop the spread of malware.
Basically, it seems all the people with conspiracy theories here haven't read up on what Gatekeeper is actually doing. It is literally guarding the gate to the OS and not policing what happens after that.
This argument gets old. Forecasting or seeing a trend is not rocket science. I know it may be a unique concept.
You can see the direction of how things are going. I hope it is wrong but with each step, apple is exerting control over what they deem worthy to run on thier os and hw. You can't dispute that.
Meanwhile, I am surprised you can predict what apple will do in the future so accurately as well...
While you think apple will suddenly stop with the implementation imposed by ML, I think they will continue this trend and keep adding "security measures" to the point that only MAS apps will be able to run on macs
I know what signing is but thanks for the refresher.
Last edited:
There's nothing hyperbole about it. Have you thought of the reasons why people won't go looking outside of MAS? It becomes more logical and clearer.
A lot of users are lazy, some are less technical, and users often fall into both categories
If they can't find it on MAS, then the software they are looking for "doesn't exist". They may not know where to look, or their search attempts fail.
Many windows users only used Internet Explorer because they didn't know any better... they didn't bother looking for alternative browsers, because they didn't know they existed. Once micrsoft were forced to display alternative browsers in EU versions of windows, Opera, Mozilla et al saw increased traffic - people were informed that alternatives exist. Now, replace "Internet Explorer" with MAS... things aren't much different. Its all about visibility....
From the users point of view who fit into the above categories - if software doesn't exist in the MAS, then why would it exist at all? Larger companies such as microsoft have an advantage of having more exposure. I'm sure a MAS version of Office isn't that far away.
A lot of users are lazy, some are less technical, and users often fall into both categories
If they can't find it on MAS, then the software they are looking for "doesn't exist". They may not know where to look, or their search attempts fail.
Many windows users only used Internet Explorer because they didn't know any better... they didn't bother looking for alternative browsers, because they didn't know they existed. Once micrsoft were forced to display alternative browsers in EU versions of windows, Opera, Mozilla et al saw increased traffic - people were informed that alternatives exist. Now, replace "Internet Explorer" with MAS... things aren't much different. Its all about visibility....
From the users point of view who fit into the above categories - if software doesn't exist in the MAS, then why would it exist at all? Larger companies such as microsoft have an advantage of having more exposure. I'm sure a MAS version of Office isn't that far away.
Last edited:
I'm still using 10.6.8 and have no plans on switching to Lion or Mountain Lion until Apple brings back Expose. Also, I'd like more control over the OS, launchpad needs to be disabled completely (i have no use for it, and removing it form the dock doesnt stop it from running in the background). Little annoyances like that are keeping me stay away from Lion.
That's because you are not paying close enough attention to the direction of things and are allowing yourself to see the distortion that the fear mongers are pushing. Come back to reality.
Apple doesn't have any approval process over signed apps other that eliminating known malware developers. There is no "asserting control over what apps they can allow."