Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Open source projects would be banned. Firefox would be an example of a service that would get axed from OSX.
There are quite a few little programs people use that break out of the walled garden.
Under the walled rules MS Office not be allowed nor would many programs we use.

Any IDE would be banned as well.


This is just massive speculation.

Cabel from Panic who’s been making Mac software for years had this to say

2¢: I figured Apple would go Mac App Store-only. Gatekeeper is an investment of time and effort to ensure the opposite: secure indie apps.

Gatekeeper is also almost exactly what Wil Shipley of Delicious Monster suggested - http://blog.wilshipley.com/2011/11/real-security-in-mac-os-x-requires.html He, as well as other developers were concerned was concerned the sandboxing restrictions that Apple was about to enforce were not a good solution for developers or for users.

These are two of the best and most respected indie Mac developers.
 
Last edited:
Come on guys, how many of you ever had malware issues on a Mac? We know what we should install and what we should avoid. Especially us geeks. OSX is secure enough already, there is no reason for introducing Gatekeeper, besides tighter control over software running on Macs.

Gatekeeper isn't for us 1% geeks.
 
This is very disturbing. Security reasons? B*llsh*t. This is an obvious step towards controlling the software running on Macs.

You see, OS X is a fantastic system but there is something it lacks.

The system assumes you are not familiar with technology and programming. That's not a bad thing - after all, it's supposed to 'just work'. But the problem is, there are things OSX does not tell you. The system is not open enough to let you control its inner layers. It is designed not to trust you.

So open Terminal.app
 
This is ridiculous. An obvious money grabbing attempt by making users (by default) go through their App Store to get their software and system updates.

Wrong! This is only to prevent malware on your Mac. You gotta read between the lines after you read the whole article.

The user will have a choice to decide what kind of apps he/she wants to run on his/her Mac.

Also, as far as I know, developers can have their non-AppStore apps signed with a certificate issued by Apple to gain more trustworthiness. If a hacker tries to pass a fake app, OS X may protect you. And if a hacker makes a 'good' app with malware code inside, Apple can immediately disable their certificate, so it would no longer be able to run on your Macs.

For those developers who decide to use the Mac AppStore, there's the advantage of not having to pay for extra hosting bandwidth for users to download. Also, no need to implement an Update Check function inside their app. It's all handled by the AppStore.

I don't see anything ridiculous in this at all.
 
This is just massive speculation.

Cabel from Panic who’s been making Mac software for years had this to say



Gatekeeper is also almost exactly what Wil Shipley of Delicious Monster suggested - http://blog.wilshipley.com/2011/11/real-security-in-mac-os-x-requires.html He, as well as other developers were concerned was concerned the sandboxing restrictions that Apple was about to enforce were not a good solution for developers or for users.

These are two of the best and most respected indie Mac developers.

I totally agree, it really seems like everyone has taken this GateKeeper thing and gotten it totally backwards. It is not one more step towards OSX being locked down, it is a step towards allowing non-AppStore apps the same "rights" as AppStore ones. It is a great middle ground.
 
Good idea for the non-tech savvy.

Even if you are, it's possible to get malware on your Mac. I got 16 trojans on my MBP through my work e-mail. Some e-mail I opened had an attachment with a bot that got on my Mac and started using one of my two work e-mails to send out spam. We found out when hundreds, then thousands of e-mails were being bounced back; one day I had 20,000 e-mails bounce back from the spam. OS X ran fine, but the Mail app was getting worked over.

Sophos Antivirus never found anything. I installed ClamXav (from the App Store :)) and it found the trojans and deleted them.

I have a feeling this kind of stuff will be more common in the future.
 
Any IDE would be banned as well.

Not at all, and there are in fact quite a few IDEs on the App Store.

Even if full sandboxing rules get enforced, Apple has a mechanism for apps to request specific exceptions such as read/write access to the "user Documents folder, interaction with USB devices, printing, access to the built-in microphone, and others".


i have to say that getting people slowly used to it so no one will bitch once 10.9

I've been hearing that for 4 years already and yet we're still "getting used to it". It's been a mighty slow change, not sure if I'll see it in my lifetime.
 
I would imagine that this serves at least two purposes.

1) an extra layer of security
2) To undermine apps not sold in the appstore since they won't have the ID and to "encourage" developers to sell through the appstore.
 
Ahh, so it's not free... But where is this documented?

Apple wants to help you steer clear of malware even when you download applications from places other than the Mac App Store. That’s why Apple created the Developer ID. As part of the Mac Developer Program, Apple gives developers a unique Developer ID for signing their apps. A developer’s digital signature allows Gatekeeper to verify that their app is not known malware and that it hasn’t been tampered with. If an app doesn’t have a Developer ID associated with it, Gatekeeper can let you know before you install it. It’s another step Apple takes to keep your Mac safe.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/security.html
 
I would imagine that this serves at least two purposes.

1) an extra layer of security
2) To undermine apps not sold in the appstore since they won't have the ID and to "encourage" developers to sell through the appstore.

3) to make an extra few bucks

i personally think it will make everything more complicated for the every day user. that pop up reminds me of why i got my parents switch from windows to mac in the first place, they never knew what to do with those pop ups and just hard rebooted their computer
 
I would imagine that this serves at least two purposes.

1) an extra layer of security
2) To undermine apps not sold in the appstore since they won't have the ID and to "encourage" developers to sell through the appstore.

Yes they will have an ID, anyone can get an ID and sign their apps, no need to distribute them through the store.
 
I wouldn't mind it. First of all, I HATE Steam. Secondly, as long as I'm still getting all of the apps I need, I don't care if there is less freedom. They just need to not have tariffs on it and not restrict apps for reasons other than bad quality or maliciousness. An open-source project section would also be nice for developers.

In the end, you can get all of your apps from one place and never worry about malware or the more common junky app (Norton, anyone?). If you are advanced, you can take the risk of downloading betas.

FYI, to register for the Apple Developer's Program, there's a $100/year fee, and it gives the Developer all the exposure it can get. Then decide whether to charge or not for an app. And they are already getting Xcode for free, so why complain?
If it's Open Source, just keep using your regular website and get your app signed so it doesn't get corrupted, and people would trust it more.
The AppStore is not intended to be a playground for software experiments; have you ever gone to a store that sells 'Experimental TV Sets'?

Regarding Steam, it's a great way to get software. What do you expect? To pay nothing for premium software and a multiplayer environment?
The link is steampowered.com not steampowered.org. It's a business, and it needs money to function, not a charity.

The only ones who have a reason to hate Steam are the cheaters that get banned. Shame on those who cheat!
 
Uh... the only two options are Cancel or Eject Disk Image? If you hit Cancel will it still mount the disk image? There has to be a way to say "I know where it came from and I trust it"
 
Yes they will have an ID, anyone can get an ID and sign their apps, no need to distribute them through the store.

Thanks. That's re-assuring as I'm not a fan of Apple completely closing their garden 100% on their Macs. I do wonder how long they will stay that way though as I am sure the plan is to move to a completely closed system. I hope not. But again - I'm sure that's their long range plan.
 
The only ones who have a reason to hate Steam are the cheaters that get banned. Shame on those who cheat!

I hate Steam because they often charge a large premium just because I'm not in the US. The worst example I've seen is $90 here for a game that's $30 in the US. The same game is on the Mac App Store for $40...

It's also a pain to have to make a new account for every game, since you can only sell the whole account rather than individual games once you've finished them.
 
I hate Steam because they often charge a large premium just because I'm not in the US. The worst example I've seen is $90 here for a game that's $30 in the US. The same game is on the Mac App Store for $40...

Then I'm with you. It should be less expensive than in the store. Something's gotta be wrong.
Or, they need to purchase additional bandwidth to your location to avoid the game from lagging, reason why they have to charge you more.
 
Am I not understanding this correctly? I thought this Gatekeeper prevents code, not signed by a trusted authority, from running. So in other words, as long as publisher signs their code with a code signing certificate issued by a trusted certificate authority, such as Verisign, the program will run properly. If you write code yourself, couldn't you generate a self-signed CA and issue a Code Signing certificate from that CA, place the self-signed CA in the trusted certificate authorities store and be able to run/test your program. Or, purchase a Code Signing certificate from one of the already trusted certificate authorities and sign your code with that.

Many applications out there are already signed by a trusted certificate authority. Big software publishers sign their apps. Someone mentioned Firefox not running. Firefox is signed with a Verisign/Thawte issued Code Signing certificate (at least the version I have installed on my Windows computer).
 
FYI, to register for the Apple Developer's Program, there's a $100/year fee, and it gives the Developer all the exposure it can get. Then decide whether to charge or not for an app. And they are already getting Xcode for free, so why complain?
If it's Open Source, just keep using your regular website and get your app signed so it doesn't get corrupted, and people would trust it more.
The AppStore is not intended to be a playground for software experiments; have you ever gone to a store that sells 'Experimental TV Sets'?

Regarding Steam, it's a great way to get software. What do you expect? To pay nothing for premium software and a multiplayer environment?
The link is steampowered.com not steampowered.org. It's a business, and it needs money to function, not a charity.

The only ones who have a reason to hate Steam are the cheaters that get banned. Shame on those who cheat!

Several +1's, my friend!
 
Uh... the only two options are Cancel or Eject Disk Image? If you hit Cancel will it still mount the disk image? There has to be a way to say "I know where it came from and I trust it"

That's essentially what it did already before gatekeeper:

1284349663.jpg


However as the MacDefender drama last year showed many will still go on and click through it.
 
I don't get why you wouldn't buy your app from the app store if its there?
Because the stuff is more expensive at the App Store. Here's an example: Call of Duty 4, available now at the app store for $40.
It's also available through steam for half the price, and you can easily run it on your computer through Bootcamp.

But Apple seems to be moving in a direction where they don't want to encourage people to look to different places for the things they buy. They want to have a monopoly on the market, and they certainly can't get that, but what they CAN do is make THEIR marketplace (the app store) much more prominent to consumers than other outlets.

I won't be caught by their tricks, but I know a lot of other people will, and I have a problem with that.
 
Am I not understanding this correctly? I thought this Gatekeeper prevents code, not signed by a trusted authority, from running. So in other words, as long as publisher signs their code with a code signing certificate issued by a trusted certificate authority, such as Verisign, the program will run properly. If you write code yourself, couldn't you generate a self-signed CA and issue a Code Signing certificate from that CA, place the self-signed CA in the trusted certificate authorities store and be able to run/test your program. Or, purchase a Code Signing certificate from one of the already trusted certificate authorities and sign your code with that.

Many applications out there are already signed by a trusted certificate authority. Big software publishers sign their apps. Someone mentioned Firefox not running. Firefox is signed with a Verisign issued Code Signing certificate (at least the version I have installed on my Windows computer).

True, it's possible. I believe Apple is offering code signing for free to Developers, even those not using the AppStore.
Verisign costs money, and Firefox is will ing to pay for it because they can afford it.
Self-signed certificates could be forged and used by a hacker.
There are too many gaps that need to be filled in, and hopefully Gatekeeper will take care of that.
 
Wrong! This is only to prevent malware on your Mac. You gotta read between the lines after you read the whole article.

The user will have a choice to decide what kind of apps he/she wants to run on his/her Mac.

This is an underhanded trick to get people to put software on the Mac's App Store, plain and simple. Many applications, however can not/will not abide by Apple's rules, so the end result will be less software on OSX and thus leading to either a change in tune on the developer requirements or a major backlash from major software creators. Do a quick search on the App Store for Adobe's Photoshop, Microsoft Office 2011, VLC Player, Firefox, etc... The list is honestly greater than the amount of software on the store itself.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.