While good for sure, I think what I bolded is exerting control no? Let's hope it stays like that in it's intention
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
While good for sure, I think what I bolded is exerting control no? Let's hope it stays like that in it's intention
Serious question regarding how the sandboxing is to work with this, posed to someone familiar with coding: how will this affect applications like GarageBand, Logic, FCP, Adobe Photoshop, Aperture, etc. where users often depend on third party plugins for functionality? For example, I use Native Instruments' GuitarRig 5, IK Multimedia's SampleTank 2.5, etc in Logic. Will sandboxing truly break these plugins, or has Apple allowed for these sorts of things in the sandboxing method for the App Store?
I tried snooping around, and it looks like it would indeed break plugins, but I don't know for sure because I don't develop anything in XCode.
Just curious. It would seem that the fear with GateKeeper is not what's happening in 10.8, but what could happen in 10.9 where Apple could say "okay, now you can only install sandboxed apps from the App Store". However if my concerns are warranted and sandboxing breaks third party plugins, that would, IMO, kill OS X, because without the expanded functionality of these sorts of plugins, a lot of people would have no choice but to jump ship.
I tried snooping around, and it looks like it would indeed break plugins, but I don't know for sure because I don't develop anything in XCode.
Just curious. It would seem that the fear with GateKeeper is not what's happening in 10.8, but what could happen in 10.9 where Apple could say "okay, now you can only install sandboxed apps from the App Store". However if my concerns are warranted and sandboxing breaks third party plugins, that would, IMO, kill OS X, because without the expanded functionality of these sorts of plugins, a lot of people would have no choice but to jump ship.
And as we've seen in the past, Apple has been very reluctant to completely kill any app on iOS or OS X. The only app that I remember Apple specifically killing was the MacGuardian trojan with a software update.
Apple has proven that they take a measured response so I doubt we'll see Apple removing a developer's signature if they don't like the app for a capricious reason.
FUD
Do you have any evidence that launchpad "runs" in the background? Or uses any resources at all except when you are using it?
----------
No more than any other anti-malware measure.
The Microsoft case was rather different, the problem was, so claimed the EU, that Microsoft was acting anti-competetively with Internet Explorer. The problem wasn't that people didn't know any better, but that Microsoft was distorting information about its competition when they used Internet Explorer. Google will never be run by Apple, so if there is distortion of information regarding third-party apps not in the MAS, it won't be because of Apple.
I thought that LaunchPad was basically part of the Dock (I guess the people who hated the Dock during the classic to OS X transition don't let stuff go).
He'll say when you download something from the MAS, it automatically launches Launchpad. So, in effect, the MAS and Launchpad are intertwined. He wants the two to operate independently of each other. I think he has a valid complaint on that front. There should be an option in the App Store not to launch Launchpad after software is purchased.
Your completely missing my point - I probably shouldn't have used IE example - your talking side issues. Forget about micrsoft tactics its irrelevent. My point is about about visibility. Visibility is extremely important for the average / less technical / lazy user.
These users will use the resources that is shoved in front of them.... Internet explorer was shoved in front of them, like MAS is... ( no criticism ) if lazy / less technical users can't find what they are looking for in MAS then why would they assume it exists all at? Users may not know the reasons why a piece of software hasn't been submitted to MAS ( which isn't that important at this stage )... but ultimately, the user will assume that software doesn't exist if they can't find it on MAS. Therefore, software that isn't on MAS will lose sales.. lose too much sales, then that software must be altered to fit on to MAS, which results, at this point in time, potentially less functionality ( and maybe dumbing down ) .
Last edited:
I dunno about that argument though. Before the MAS, nothing was in front of people. I imagine that alot didn't download any extra apps.
With the MAS and peoples familiarity with the ios store, people probably are exposed to much more apps.
Such "average, less technical, lazy" and uninformed users probably would benefit from having their apps sandboxed, thereby benefiting from the increased security. Security should only be loosened if the people are competent enough to recognize the risks in so doing. Not giving them the opportunity to learn more and expand their freedom would be a legitimate problem, but that does not seem to be Apple's intentions. Rather they want to protect these consumers.
And like Dukebound said rather aptly, those users only benefitted from the MAS.
Remember Apple isn't removing anything here. They are adding more services/features/protection.
Apple use to have software listings on Apple.com, I believe there used to be a link from the menu bar.
I agree.. but back to my point... why would a user look elsewhere if software isn't listed on MAS? New users, post MAS.
How would they benefit from a more secure OSX than today? After all, we are told repeatly that OSX is extremely secure with little malware.... unless, of course...
This is my biggest issue with the MAS. Good apps that don't conform to the sandbox, apps that would otherwise do well, won't get nearly as much attention as they deserve.
Though to play sides, I could say that most of the apps that will end up existing outside the sandbox probably wouldn't appeal to your average mom and dad type anyway, which is really the demographic the MAS is aimed towards.
Assuming (and hoping) that the current status quo of the sandbox and the gatekeeper remain in place, then all Apple is doing is providing an environment where the average mom and dad can play in without worry, while keeping the core OS separate, but still accessible for the power users. I'm okay with this, because, hey, my life won't change much at all. I'll get an extra warning or two. But hell, who cares. The only thing I'm worried about is Apple taking that extra step, and cutting the core OS off from everyone entirely.
You could say I'm being a little paranoid. Maybe more than a little. But if history has shown us one thing about Apple, it's that they love the control they exert over their OS and hardware. For good and ill, they are about the most anal retentive company on the face of the earth. If at any point they feel that giving power users open access to everything is detrimental to the "Experience", it wouldn't surprise me if they curtailed it right then and there.
Last edited:
Here's why. If their computers aren't doing everything they need it to do, they will search for software to improve their computing experience. They might search the MAS, or search Google. If they don't run into the limitations of their computing environment, then it seems everything is working well and they don't need the extra apps. "But they won't know about it". Quite frankly, if these people wanted to benefit from all technological possibilities, they would be taking a pro-active approach trying to learn what more they can do with their computers. Obviously they don't care and the MAS is perfect for their needs.
----------
Right now it is very safe. Does that mean in the future people won't try to exploit vulnerabilities? Of course not. Preventative measures are typically a good idea. You don't wait till a problem happens to try to treat it, you try to prevent it from arising in the first place.
Why do you think the war on cancer is so hard? Because once the disease has emerged, it is too complex and adaptable to resolve. That is why so much more new research is emphasizing preventative medicine. I applaud any attempts to be pro-active about software security.
----------
I think you are absolutely right. If Apple could take complete control, they would. The problem is right now it doesn't look like they ever possibly could take over that much control. They depend far too much on some of the software giants that won't ever share profits with Apple and their MAS.
Last edited:
The sandbox is a good idea, but it's extremely buggy and far from complete at this point. I'm glad that they're extending the deadline. Hopefully this means 10.7.4 soon with more bug fixes and entitlements.
I've been struggling with workarounds around Apple's bugs with the sandbox all day today. Specifically, ioctl. Why that doesn't work is beyond me, and it's causing me major headaches.
I've been struggling with workarounds around Apple's bugs with the sandbox all day today. Specifically, ioctl. Why that doesn't work is beyond me, and it's causing me major headaches.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)
Really concerned about this. Watching this unfold very closely.
Really concerned about this. Watching this unfold very closely.
I'm new to Mac, but am computer literate. I prefer purchasing through the MAS mainly for the fact that it's just so easy since my iTunes account is already setup to make the purchase (no need to enter credit card info). Also, Apple track MAS purchase,s so if I ever need to re-install an App, it's all in one central location.
I definitely don't limit myself to buying from the MAS, but do check there first when I'm looking for a certain type of App to install.
I definitely don't limit myself to buying from the MAS, but do check there first when I'm looking for a certain type of App to install.
Well if Developers co-operated in creating an active, visible well supported alternative market place for Apps, a Bizarre if you will, that offered the similar benefits to the customer. AppStore could only be considered defacto because it's the most Customer Centric and visible. An alternative outlet similarly focused on the costumer could be just as if not more successful.
Also remember the core market for PC's, the market that will remain will be Pro's. Using software that could well be worth more than the computer itself. Software that is unlikely to every be in the AppStore. Software Apple knows it needs to Keep on the platform.
If there was an App Bizarre that was customer centric like the AppStore, had common standards like requiring signing, central update system, notifications, single account for payments, all which are things that exist in a desperate form now. Then that could easily displace AppStore as the defacto but could allows live parallel.
I don't think just because Only Apple made a Customer Centric place that they are the only ones who can.
The slippery slope arguments in here are fallacious. Apple creating an App Store for OSX does not determine that they will lock up the OS down the road.
From my point of view, they want to bring the popularity and flurry of development on iOS to their PC platform.
From my point of view, they want to bring the popularity and flurry of development on iOS to their PC platform.
I agree that Apple should try to improve security.. but in the case of the current sandboxing model, Apple are sacrificing too much functionality for security.
By the time we see mandatory sand boxing, I suspect that it won't be as rigid / more flexible . They'd be fools not to be listening to developer concerns.
P.S You can't compare OS security to the likes of cancer. Pairs vs Oranges.
By the time we see mandatory sand boxing, I suspect that it won't be as rigid / more flexible . They'd be fools not to be listening to developer concerns.
P.S You can't compare OS security to the likes of cancer. Pairs vs Oranges.
Last edited:
I might think that this is an honest question that was posed to get an answer. ... unless, of course...
Is that claim supposed to convince anyone? Why can't I? Give me an argument. Tell me why the analogy doesn't work. I used an independent variable to make the cases analogous, prevention as a means of securing safety/health.
I'm confused, isn't "Mission Control" the same thing as "Expose" on steroids?
No, Mission Control is a dumbed down version of Expose, slapped together with spaces.
There is *no way* to show all the windows of every application at once with all other application windows at the same time, like this;
Notice that the windows from Safari are shown separately while still showing all other open windows?
In Mission Control, all windows are grouped, like this:
Which is a nightmare if you multitask, especially for those of us who work in multiple documents in photoshop, illustrator, indesign and switch between the three all the time.
The solution is easy: in preferences give users the option to UNGROUP the windows. But like i said, Apple is uncomfortable with the words 'choice' and 'options' so they don't give a crap about fixing this debacle.
Furthermore, I don't use spaces OR widgets, so that grey border and thumbnails at the top are useless to me when mission control is activated.
Mission Control is a miserable failure. I hate it.
Last edited by a moderator: