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

Mac App Store Sandboxing Requirement Pushed to March as Uncertainty Looms

Your attitude towards security is wanting.

Stella said:
Is it crap? Really? Please list 12 or more malware applications targetted towards the Mac that have been written in 2011. Those are still very much a drop in the ocean.
Click to expand...
the number of attacks doesn't matter, rather what matters is that I've seen more this year than in all previous years of Mac ownership. That number will increase as more and more hardware gets deployed, especially if the mindset in the community continues to ignore security.
I still stand by my 99.9999999999% percentage of Mac applications are safe.
Click to expand...
That would be foolish. Very few Mac apps have even been targeted. Even Apples software gets regularly pawned.
Sure attacks will increase in the future ( probably at a slow rate ) but does it warrant paranoia? No.. it warrants balance. Like I said before, Apple tend to tip over the balance of functionality in favour of security ( which harms innovation and software - like the commentary of this story says ).
Click to expand...
This idea that sandboxing harms innovation is a joke. If anything the feature promotes innovation as it encourages programmers to find new secure ways to deliver old functionality.
Your speaking for everyone? The MAS in its present incarnation?

I've no problem with MAS, its the restrictions applied by apple that I have a problem with.



So? They are utility type applications, it doesn't make a difference - they are software. There are other types of software that aren't going on to the MAS anytime soon due to their functionality, or with reduced functionality.




Definitely.. sand boxing can be good, but what privileges are an application allowed? Apple need to increase the privileges to allow flexibility but to minimize exploitation.[/QUOTE]

At least you are not totally against Sandboxing. Apples sandboxing is actually very interesting and developers do have control over what features get delivered to the app. I'm not saying this is a perfect solution but I'm going to strongly favor app store apps when ever I can.

In the end it is all about minimizing risk. Sand boxed app store apps just makes administration of your machine easier. If app store was the only avenue to apps on a Mac I'd be fairly disgusted but it doesn't look like that is Apples goal.
 
This is just one step toward total control by Apple. And one step toward the merging of OS X and iOS. Well, merging is not the right word; "iOSifciation" - or sissyfication if you ask me - of the platform is more like it.

And with the whole "screw pro users" the Apple platform is more and more becoming everyman's little toy and not the instrument of creative people and rebels who would like to shake things up a bit. Borring I say.
 
The average user won't have a problem with it.

arn said:
There's no debate that sandboxing is more secure. It is.

The question is how much you really care about it at the expense of certain types of applications.

arn
Click to expand...

If the restraints are too much for a given app all they need to do is find alternative distribution. This is the age of the Internet and thus not a huge problem. Given that I'd still would look first towards app store for my software needs in the hopes that the apps are indeed more secure.

The important thing is to have options. App store gives people the option of installing software that will be secure, along with other features that app store enforces.
 
If it continues this way, what will happen to bootcamp and microsoft office? I would turn my mac into a windows computer,. if i won't be able to install office on it.
 
Mr. Gates said:
Whats next ?

Apps no longer utilize the file system ?
Click to expand...
That's actually not just idle speculation. During his final WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs actually said that de-emphasizing the filesystem had been his long-range goal for the better part of the last decade. I read into his comments to mean that he envisioned OS X eventually evolving to essentially become the "desktop version" of iOS.

(Of course, some sort of filesystem will continue to exist under the hood, just as it does in iOS-based devices -- but the user wouldn't interact with it directly.)
 
wizard said:
If the restraints are too much for a given app all they need to do is find alternative distribution. This is the age of the Internet and thus not a huge problem. Given that I'd still would look first towards app store for my software needs in the hopes that the apps are indeed more secure.

The important thing is to have options. App store gives people the option of installing software that will be secure, along with other features that app store enforces.
Click to expand...

Apple's not interested in giving people options. Do you really believe that? Mark my words - in a few years time MAS is the only Apple sanctioned way to install proper apps on your Mac.
 
You guys really don't get this. Apple is making apps that come from its store more secure. It doesn't want people who get infected with any sort of malware to be able to trace it back to the App Store, so they're making sure that doesn't happen [or if it does, to not let it do any damage].

But this in absolutely no way takes away any third-party downloading source for applications that need more control than Apple's App Store is willing to give them. Remember, the App Store is just a distribution channel.
 
diddl14 said:
I wouldn't mind at all if the file system becomes part of ancient IT history where it belongs.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

You mean file managers right ? Because the filesystem is simply a sort of "table of contents" for storage hardware so that software knows where to look to find data.

The portion you interact with is highly detached from actual filesystems through usually a VFS layer and the UI itself (whether good old GNU fileutils, or BSD fileutils or a graphical version like Windows Explorer or Finder) is called the file manager.
 
Stella said:
I agree with you. But I also agree with the story commentary:

"As Snell points out, developers can choose to distribute their non-sandboxed apps outside the Mac App Store, but those developers would be giving up a huge distribution point. "


This "huge distribution point" will become more and more important as the MAC gains more traction. Small developers will find it hard to sell their applications because users ( are too lazy - in part ) won't be bothered to find external resources such as MacUpdate and other software sites.

Personally, I'm very concerned that these are the last few years of "open computing" that we enjoy today in the Apple environment. Computers will become locked up, at the expense to the consumer in regards to the variety and flexibility of software, especially in the Apple world.
Click to expand...

So Let's count the complaints on this board. Sandboxing is hard for developers, limits freedom for app buyers, gives consumers less choice, and Apple gets a cut because it's distributed from the app store. So you want Apple to not only leave the system WIDE open so that developers can have an easy road, but let malware affect applications and damage the user experience, dilute their brand, AND you want them to host and provide the distribution/transaction processing AND not take a cut. Okay then. Once I lay a golden egg and catch a leprechaun we'll be on the same page.
 
wizard said:
That would be foolish. Very few Mac apps have even been targeted. Even Apples software gets regularly pawned.
Click to expand...

I am foolish or being realistic? Personally I think I'm being realistic at this moment in time - the risks of a rogue applications are minimal - hence I asked you to name 12 pieces of malware / rogue applications written in the past 12 months. Despite there have been more attacks on OSX, the attacks have been very low in numbers. In the future, it may well stay this way or increase, we shall see.

You even say "Very few Mac apps have ever been targeted".. I think that highlights my point of low risks.

I have absolutely no problem with downloading applications from MacUpdate. This is where I get my software from. MAS is my last choice, though I still have purchased applications from there since they weren't available outside.

Given the risks, I would be less than enthusiastic about running an application offered on a pop up or via email who's email is unknown, for example :)


wizard said:
This idea that sandboxing harms innovation is a joke. If anything the feature promotes innovation as it encourages programmers to find new secure ways to deliver old functionality.
Click to expand...

I can point you to the iOS AppStore and show you that sand boxing does harm innovation, creativity and the range of software. iOS, although has the highest tally of applications, it also has the least range of applications of different types of functionality. In order to get those missing applications, people will jailbreak and use Cyndia. Lastly, you can already see from MAS that some applications aren't allowed.

wizard said:
At least you are not totally against Sandboxing. Apples sandboxing is actually very interesting and developers do have control over what features get delivered to the app. I'm not saying this is a perfect solution but I'm going to strongly favor app store apps when ever I can.

In the end it is all about minimizing risk. Sand boxed app store apps just makes administration of your machine easier. If app store was the only avenue to apps on a Mac I'd be fairly disgusted but it doesn't look like that is Apples goal
.
Click to expand...

While developers have control over what features get delivered to an application, they are also constraint by Apple to what features are allowed to be implemented. The current system isn't perfect and I'm glad you acknowledge that. Also the fact that it would be low of Apple to make MAS the only avenue of Mac software ( though they can do this by Defacto ). It is all about reducing risks.. but as I've always said - there needs to be a balance. At this time, I think the balance has tipped over on to the side of security.
 
Kaibelf said:
So Let's count the complaints on this board. Sandboxing is hard for developers, limits freedom for app buyers, gives consumers less choice, and Apple gets a cut because it's distributed from the app store. So you want Apple to not only leave the system WIDE open so that developers can have an easy road, but let malware affect applications and damage the user experience, dilute their brand, AND you want them to host and provide the distribution/transaction processing AND not take a cut. Okay then. Once I lay a golden egg and catch a leprechaun we'll be on the same page.
Click to expand...

Oh so suddenly the Mac platform is WIDE open. Wow, how the tide turns when it fits into Cupertino's press machine.
 
arn said:
There's no debate that sandboxing is more secure. It is.

The question is how much you really care about it at the expense of certain types of applications.

arn
Click to expand...

Given that there are reports of malware coming out more frequently for OS X, I think sandboxing makes sense. That said, I also see Jason Snell's point. It appears that once the sandbox is in effect, Apple's transition to a consumer-oriented company is complete, which is somewhat ironic given Forrester's recent "declaration" that companies should allow Macs onto their systems. What has happened over the past 10 years is that Apple has expanded their market, largely by de-emphasizing its original core customer base. It is a case that will certainly be studied in MBA schools for decades to come.

In light of the other thread (about the "complete overhaul" in 2012) and this, I would not be surprised at all if the "merger" of the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro lines occurs next year, and if the Mac Pro goes away.
 
Sandboxing should be recommended, but not required.

If an app is useless if sandboxed (like Transmit) it shouldn't have to be sandboxed.

If Apple is going to implement this policy they need to take each app on a case by case basis, not apply a blanket to all apps.

What I suggest is requiring the sandbox for app store apps unless there's a good justification not to. An app like Transmit or TextExpander would be exempt since the sandboxing would make them useless. A game, on the other hand, would require the sandbox.

It's not hard. Hopefully Apple exhibits common sense here.
 
goosnarrggh said:
That's actually not just idle speculation. During his final WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs actually said that de-emphasizing the filesystem had been his long-range goal for the better part of the last decade. I read into his comments to mean that he envisioned OS X eventually evolving to essentially become the "desktop version" of iOS.

(Of course, some sort of filesystem will continue to exist under the hood, just as it does in iOS-based devices -- but the user wouldn't interact with it directly.)
Click to expand...

Last WWDC ? Hum... have you used iTunes, iPhoto and other Apple software ? The filesystem is already de-emphasized. Everything is jammed into "Libraries" and accessed via their respective apps. You can't manage how these applications sort your data in the actual filesystem.
 
OllyW said:
You can manage where and how iTunes stores your songs.
Click to expand...

iTunes isn't sandboxed... yet.

Ironically, neither is the lion installer available via the app store. Apple doesn't seem to believe in abiding by their own rules.
 
Terrible decision. I do not want half-ass software. Secure is good, but this is something that would keep me from installing software via the Mac app store, which then puts me in more danger since it doesn't go through the approval process and I am then installing software that may truly be "bad" software. Just my opinion.
 
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