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.
Mac App Store Sandboxing Requirement Pushed to March as Uncertainty Looms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure, that's why the iOS systems have almost no apps and the few there are have 0 innovation on them.
The Cydia store has way more creativity and some very cool tweaks that I could only dream of in the App Store. For example, iSwipe (similar to the Swype on Android) is easily the coolest thing I've ever downloaded, which would otherwise be impossible since Apple doesn't give out its keyboard API to developers. With Xpandr you don't need to rely on all the other app developers to incorporate TextExpander in all their apps.
Sure, there's plenty of extra things you can get on the Cydia store. That's fine. If you like that, use it.
But do that knowing this:
Every app you get from the Cydia store which wouldn't be allowed in the iOS App Store (especially MobileSubstrate-based apps or things that make heavy use of private APIs) makes it more likely that something somewhere on your iOS device will crash or do something unexpectedly bad.
Read up on MobileSubstrate, it's quite interesting and cool. But at the same time, it's very dangerous to use.
And that's pretty much the dividing line. Apple wants people to feel safe and confident using their products. Unfortunately, it means that things like custom system keyboards won't be allowed.
Think about why.
If somebody writes a custom keyboard system, what do they have access to? Given that it's the keyboard, they have access to everything you type... like text messages. Like, the text in your mails. Like, your passwords.
How sucky would that be if somebody wrote an awesome keyboard which logged stuff without you knowing?
Computers are tools. You are proning limiting their usefulness because some people can use them for bad things if you're not careful. Frankly, I don't care that a hammer can hurt or kill people, I need to drive nails, I need a hammer, not some glorified plastic hammer shape thing that weights 3 grams.
Sandboxing works as long as your applications are self-contained and can make do with ressources Apple exposes through the sandbox. But half the stuff we use everyday requires interacting with other parts of the computer that is not on Apple's entitlement list. Sorry, Sandboxing just doesn't work for everything.
In reference to "djrod" and his comment on the link posted by "kps", read the link from comment #200 from this thread, from Forbes. No, I don't like it, but it will happen. It will be bad, if they do it fast and it will be bad, if they do it slow. But the absolutely worst thing they can do, is do it, 'half-fast' This is not something Apple is doing on its own. The rest of the major platforms will be following suit. Many applications, that are not 'system-resident', you will no longer be able to use on Apple or any other platform. Many applications have a choice, conform or die. Many of the users of these applications have grown accustomed to them. What can Apple do to mitigate the damage of these actions? Remember, damage is a term like 'beauty, is in the eye of the beholder'. They just want to do a group of things, like actually work with the 'damaged developers' and show them how and provide tools to help them to be compliant with this new standard. We can take what appears to be a negative and turn it into a win-win-win-win-win situation. You have Apple, developers, enterprise end-users, consumer end-users and ultimately, The National Security issue. This is the only way to actually win.
My point was precisely that there is nothing indicating that Apple is heading to that direction and that there is a context specific to the Mac, as opposed to iOS devices that makes it nearly impossible - in practical terms - for Apple to even try; namely the UNIX certification and the fact that a lot of very prominent applications used on the Mac are not available on the Mac App Store and are unlikely to ever be (think Microsoft and Adobe products).
I never said sandboxing works for everything. I am however saying that sandboxing is useful and it should be used whenever possible as an additional layer of security. And you have to know that "whenever possible" does NOT equal "everywhere."
Computers are indeed tools, I agree. And in the perfect world, your computer is your tool, my computer is my tool, and shared computers are our tools.
Unfortunately, with the examples of malware on Windows and many other operating systems, whether or not your computer remains solely your tool is kinda dependent on how persistant organized crime is.
On iOS, a mobile always-connected personal-data-toting device, it's much more important to be secure. The data is more personal, so the data is argueablely more valuable and easier to sift through once stolen. The network it's connected to is not unlimited but a shared resource. And a significant number of people are paying for data by megabyte instead of unlimited. A device where waste directly impacts another factor: battery life. Exploiting a mass of these units wins you more units than exploiting desktops, and more opportunity to create havoc.
And so with iOS, I support sandboxing much more than I support sandboxing the Mac. If not for the only reason that I want my data to stay my data and my phone to be at least as reliable as my flip phone, but more useful.
On the Mac, if I had to sandbox everything, I'd be screwed. (I am a software developer.) But if as many apps that I use which can be sandboxed are sandboxed, I'd be glad that I benefit from knowing that those apps are significantly less risky.
And for those apps which I need that I cannot sandbox, I'll pick and choose the ones I deem most trustworthy and useful and worth the risk and I'll use them. Just like I do now. Just like you do now. Just like you will always be able to.
For those less tech savvy than I, it's easier for me to tell them to just buy from the Mac App Store to say relatively safe. This benefits them because it's simply easier to understand.
For those who are tech savvy, you can install and do whatever you want. But you'll have the option of both sandboxed and unsandboxed apps.
We all win... Unless your job is to fix computers; then I'm sorry; sucks to be you.
Just what you said. The post is spot on. I lover this sentence, which or less says it all. Apple is a formidable marketing machine. The user base is now all about IOS. The long-term die hard fans (creative types - ironically on which the whole Apple "cool and different" image got built), will be dumped in favor of hordes of John Doe's who want a MacBook Airphone (where we are headed). Oh and the long time developers are going off the cliff as well. As previous post mentioned, the ultimate irony is perhaps only Mr Softy can stop the whole thing by drawing the line at MicroSoft office. Imagine that - Microsoft saving the future of Mac as an open platform for apps development
In a few years Linux may be the only open OS left. Get ready, the train has already left the station.
Not according to this May article in MacWorld from a security expert: http://www.macworld.com/article/160098/2011/05/macdefender.html
That said, I can readily understand why developers and power users are deeply concerned about this issue. We've already seen how Apple's near-total-remake of Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X was met with howls of disbelief and pain from professional video editors, who almost immediately began deriding FCP X as "iMovie Pro" because of the new version's inability to use many 3rd party tools that pro vid editors working in multi-seat houses need for collaborative project editing and interoperability with other software.
The problem is what everyone foresees is going to happen : eventually, Mac OS X will only be able to install things through the Mac App Store. This is the inevitable conclusion as more people adopt the "it's safer!" approach. The problem is that is it really ?
Are apps that are sandbox really safe ? iOS has been jailbroken at every version. The OS X sandbox can also be broken out of. Really, is Apple only promoting a false sense of security here ?
Meanwhile, tons of software is already losing functionality to fit inside the MAS and the sandbox requirement. Do we really want limited computing on OS X ? Isn't that what the iPad is for ?
Those who expect that OSX will eventually only install from the App Store only are being unrealistic. It won't happen. We can stop talking about it because there no way that the platform would survive such a change. Entertaining the possibility of such a restriction is seriously on the same lines as wondering about who's going to feed my cat after an asteroid hits California: pointless, as there's nobody left here to care.
The sandbox could/does have bugs. And since it's practically the same sandbox on both iOS and OSX, Charlie Miller's crack in the sandbox probably implies there was a similar problem on OSX. Of course, given the low adoption rate of sandboxing on OSX currently, such a bug makes no difference to Mac users.
I should point out that it's not a false sense of security, unless it's sold as being perfect. Which it isn't. It's simply improved security. Just because there's possibly undiscovered bugs in the sandbox doesn't make using the sandbox useless. It's still improving security just like encryption/SSL when you're buying stuff online or interacting with your bank. (encryption isn't foolproof either, it's just so far, it seems too time consuming to hack)
Anyhow, I do expect that some features will be removed from some apps in order to be sold on the MAS. Heck, an app I worked on removed a few features for the app store version. However, they were small features that I'm not even sure we've heard being used in a review or customer feedback. (to be honest, I don't even remember what the feature was, only that we discussed removing something)
Either way, if you want the features, you're welcome to buy the boxed or online store version.
As for "tons of software is already losing functionality", I have yet to see said "tons" or even a case where I've cared. Perhaps these wern't features that mattered enough to make the news. Or perhaps it's because I'm not a Mac App Store customer. If you could post some examples, that'd be much appreciated.
The iPad is for limited computing. The desktop has way more flexibility.
You sure about that.
Apple has a long history of locking things down into things they 100% control and get a cut off. Want on to iOS you must go threw the App store. Want to sell products on an iOS app (kindle for example) you have to give apple a 30% cut for being a credit card processor. Apple waited a while to drop that lovely bomb shell.
I think it is more people who do not see Apple doing it are living in la la land.
Big flaw with your logic.
iOS was always locked down, so people never lost any "openness" because they never had it. Quite the opposite, Apple has (slowly) started allowing iOS apps it didn't before (Google Voice for example). It would be a very different scenario to remove people's ability to install applications on the Mac and give people less freedom than before.
Hum, have you been reading the article this thread is about or did you just hop in to listen to yourself type ? There's plenty of meat in the Macrumors piece.
Again, you're missing the point that this will be a requirement in the MAS.
Actually I'm wondering if YOU read hchung's post at all before going ballistic.
hchung's post puts the debate in the right perspective IMO.
"Plenty of meat," eh? I'm not sure I could ever consider tofurkey to be meat.
Perhaps we have different definitions of "tons" and "is" when it comes to your claim that "tons of software is losing functionality."
If you read the articles you mentioned, you might also notice that pretty much all of them are qualified by the word "may."
"What Im hearing from some Mac developers is that they may actually have to remove features from their apps, or reduce their functionality, in order to fit them inside Apples new sandbox." -Jason Snell
"Mac Apps that may be affected: TextExpander, CoverSutra, Transmit, Fantastical" -Macrumors
If you read the entitlements docs, you might also notice that pretty much all of these articles are written by people who have not read said docs.
Now, I can definitely see based on the entitlements docs that yes, there will definitely be apps affected or outright not available when sandboxing is a requirement on the MAS. I expect TextExpander to unavailable. CoverSutra to be minorly affected. Fantastical and Transmit, not affected. Disk imaging utilities and Antiviral software are examples already given.
But even in the same article, Jason Snell wrote about what is basically the MAS target audience:
"Just among my friends and family, I cant tell you how many times I have discovered Macs that contain only the programs that shipped with the computer, plus occasionally a boxed copy of something (usually from Microsoft or Adobe)."
For any of them, if their software usage needs are met by a stock mac and Office and Photoshop, it's likely that many of the programs we're talking about possibly being dumbed down or removed are apps they wouldn't have noticed or understood how to use. For any of them, the MAS is still automatically an improvement over the status quo.
As for the rest of us, we'll download Superduper, MacPorts, and other advanced tools and install them just like we do now.
I'll defer answering Rodimus Prime to anjinha's response.
Security at all costs is the right perspective ? Perspectives are subjective. Neither is right or wrong.
hchung is just trying to have to have the last word. Point is we'll never agree. I feel sandboxing should be completely optional and that security at the cost of utility is the wrong approach.
I don't see where I went "ballistic". I don't know why some feel that forum posts are done out of emotions.
How extreme are we willing to go for security.
Everyone should use computers not connected to any network and run a BASH shell that can only run echo.
Why bother with bash at all ? Just make echo interactive and use that as a shell.
If you're going to make stuff up, I'm going to have to call you out on it.
I am not advocating "security at all costs."
I am advocating security where possible and primarily for those who least understand it.
If you're going to ignore the world outside of the Mac App Store, then I see why sandboxing the entire Mac App Store eventually equates a very limited utility. Although a narrow view like that is like telling me that nothing exists outside of Quebec.