OS X Mountain Lion Limits Apps to Mac App Store, Signed Apps by Default

[Eidorian]

By brand name hardware, I mean the individual components. Depending on which price point you enter in at, you'll either get a laptop with good hardware in it, or one with cheap, shoddy pieces of crap that'll give you nothing but trouble, and die on you after a year or so.

It would be nice to see notebook tear downs from the same vendor from different price points, $300-1,500. On a desktop to can much more easily check out the logic board and add-in cards for solid caps, VRM cooling, fans, etc.

This is one of the nice things about Apple. Unless they're having one of their rare off days (like the very first Air getting so hot, it'd flash fry your nuts if you sat it on your lap for more than 5 seconds), you can pick up a Mac knowing it'll be a solid machine that'll last you a few good years. With PCs, you have to do some research before you know what you're getting into.

If Apple gets burned it tends to be the entire industry given how acquisitions and assembly are parted to different vendors/suppliers. (Capacitor plague, bump gate, Death stars, Sony batteries) You can also poke fun at the amount of thermal compound comes stock or is suggested in maintenance documentation.

That or the original MacBook Air should not have been built on a 65nm platform to begin with. Things started to clear up with the move to 45nm.

 

[milo]

I agree with you. I miss the days of downloading from a dev site.

Why? Those days are still here, and any notion of those days going away is pure speculation.

 

[twoodcc]

as long as i have the option to use any app, then i'm okay with this

 

[mijail]

I'd reply to your other two points, but...eh. I'm feeling kinda lazy at the moment.

So why even say that?

By brand name hardware, I mean the individual components. Depending on which price point you enter in at, you'll either get a laptop with good hardware in it, or one with cheap, shoddy pieces of crap that'll give you nothing but trouble, and die on you after a year or so.

But I didn't buy individual components, partially because I didn't want the burden of that. I bought full systems, and trusted the vendors/integrators/whatchamacallits to do their jobs.

Did they do a crappy job because it was maybe cheap? Who cares. The fact is, they did a crappy job.

Producer A makes sometimes a crappy job, and I am assumed to accept it because "hey, but it's cheap". Producer B tends to do a better job, even though it can be somewhat more expensive. I already had bad experiences with A (and A1 and A2 and A3), and good experiences with B. How could I not prefer B?

The A's set themselves for (long-term) failure when they sold cheap crap. They got their quick buck, won't get more from me.

Remember the Jobs' line about not making crap 500$ computers? Dead on.

 

[Vulpinemac]

People will complain if it's a real problem

For now there is an option..

My concern isn't now, it's the direction this signals. Daddy Apple knows better than me what I want on MY computer. It's a signal to developers that they better tow the Apple line or their products won't run. It has potential to secure a future revenue stream by making programs only avalable on the app store. This is EXACTLY what Stallman and company were trying to prevent.

If it works for you GREAT, but I don't like this turn of events. Maybe if people complain enough we can get this changed it has happened before.

Because you wouln't take advantage of the run anything option doesn't mean it should be taken away from me..

Computers give free access to information and communication once you remove free they are pointless. I've said many times here that my heart will always be with the open source community and this is exactly why.

I've been following this discussion long enough and quite honestly I believe your opinion is blown all out of proportion; the iPhone and iPad are having no difficulties with their so-called "Walled Garden" and quite honestly when compared to Windows or Android that Walled Garden is proving far more effective than most third-party anti-malware solutions. The simple fact that such resource-hogging solutions are absolutely necessary for those two platforms simply demonstrates that another method is needed for protecting the user from both himself and outside influences. Even in Windows the best security is the sandbox--preventing any app from gaining access to the underlying OS that it doesn't need. In fact, it's the sandbox that finds most Windows malware now--but only by corporate and third-party security agencies.

Yes, I do agree that some sort of security is highly recommended for OS X. That walled garden has proven its effectiveness by blocking malware that has hit 'jailbroken' iPhones but not iPhones that are un-modified. Such a system can only be beneficial for the Mac, OS X and the user. Beyond that, it is possible to create apps for iOS that don't have to go through the App Store--banks have already done it--but the App Store just offers that additional layer of assurance that the application will do what it says and little more. Even Microsoft has seen the benefit and is building its own walled garden for Windows apps.

Meanwhile, as you say Apple may change their minds if there are enough complaints. Personally, I don't believe there will be all that many Mac users complaining. The Mac App Store has already let me find far more software than even I knew existed for the platform.

 

[Vulpinemac]

Too late for what? A potential malware attack? A program written by a rogue developer that somehow manages to take advantage of some currently unknown exploit that wipes out all your data? Yeah, it could happen. It's not an absolute inevitability, but the possibility is always there. After all, there's no such thing as a perfectly secure OS.

So what you're saying is that you'd rather wait until the damage is done before re-enforcing the walls that would protect you. By then the horde has entered your 'garden' and destroyed your crop. Windows was a victim of this kind of thinking for years.

But does Apple have to go this far to protect us from the potential what-ifs? We're giving up a ton of flexibility just to guard ourselves from the potentiality of a theoretically possible scenario.

All you have to do is look into history to see how many unprotected cities were raped by barbarian hordes--that probably the only nation in the world that has never seen a true invasion was protected by a Great Wall that stopped even the Mongols--for a while. That Wall never fell; the Khan simply talked the Emperor into opening the gates. Well, until the Japanese attacked at the beginning of WWII. Even then it was an air-and-water based invasion, not an overland one. The Wall still held.

...like you going out to the mall tomorrow and getting Hantavirus. It could happen. There is a statistical chance. But will it? I can't say with 100% certainty that it won't. Better sell your car so you're not tempted to go.

Eh, I'm not saying everyone is saying that. I'm just arguing against the few who are.

Right. The counter to my argument there is that Apple isn't likely to go that far. I'm arguing the extreme because...well...the whole thing is a sorta of road to hell is paved with good intentions type scenario.

Based on your own argument here, why do so many doctors, hospitals, clinics and even drug stores now promote influenza shots every autumn? Why should they do that when the odds of any single individual catching the flu is relatively low?

 

[Vulpinemac]

Maybe you should study your computer history a bit

I didn't say it could do wonders with incapable hardware, I said it could do more with equivalent hardware.

The closest OS I can think of that fits the criteria would be console front ends. They don't have to deal with nearly as much overhead, and are built around very specific hardware configurations. Because of this, the console designer can spend much more time tailor the software to take advantage of the hardware. Much moreso than the do-it-all, handle-it-all, runs-on-all type OSes such as Windows and OSX.

Think of it as being able to tweak performance until you can tweak no more. Windows and OSX are built to be able run on a wide variety of hardware. Hardware that's updated, on average, on a yearly basis. Apple and Microsoft don't have enough time to tweak the performance of the OS to take maximum advantage of every piece of hardware that it runs on. Not when a newer and faster chipset is just right around the corner.

The Mac OS, even before moving to the PPC tended to operate twice as fast as the equivalent version of Windows on an approximately equivalent machine. I'm talking back in the 68K processor days. The PPC accelerated that and even after PPC clock speeds stopped going up, they still ran as fast or faster than a Wintel with double the clock. Now, despite the two platforms almost perfect comparability, the Mac still runs Windows faster than the equivalent generic PC by a measurable amount--though it's not as visible to the naked eye as it used to be.

Why is this? Because the hardware itself is, as has been noted before, much more tightly integrated. Yes, many of those components may appear to be generic PC parts, but Apple still designs the motherboards (they are NOT generic by any means) and Apple still requires very tight specs on the discrete components used. I know this from personal experience both as an employee of one of their component manufacturers and as a technician prior to Apple opening its own brick-and-mortar stores. In fact, one of the reasons Apple opened their stores is that they could no longer trust their 'authorized service providers' to fully honor Apple's warranties--many of them gouging the customer for diagnostic fees even when Apple clearly stated that no such fees would exist.

So, the integration of OS to hardware, as you stated, is more due to the strict limiting of 'compatible' components which effectively slashed the number of component drivers needed in the OS--especially to drive less-than-reliable hardware that Windows was forced to accommodate. Better component specs mean better reliability means more efficient operations means faster overall speeds even if otherwise exactly identical. Because of this, Windows in BootCamp still runs faster than on any other equivalent off-the-shelf machine.

----------

Because they're too much of a niche to have enough competitors. I was referring more to desktops and normal sized notebooks, although you can see by competing "Pad" computers like the Samsung Galaxy that the same holds true when made en masse. Apple computers are already made with dirt cheap Chinese labor, so don't tell me it's because they're better made. We even have our bridges being made by Chinese labor (pre-fab) now in California and New York, among other places, so there seems to be no end to the cost-cutting measures employed to save a buck, even if it means shoddy quality and losses of American jobs.

I strongly suggest you learn of what you speak before making such blatant statements; Apple still has nearly full control of the hardware even if the assembly is performed by Chinese labor. Nearly every PC company uses the same Chinese labor to assemble their computers but Apple's computers tend to last longer and perform better on average because of the hardware choices. Add to this that Apple designs their own motherboards and uses ASUS to burn and assemble them, even the motherboard is higher quality than most off-the-shelf PCs. ASUS motherboards tend to be higher quality and higher priced than any other brand out there--especially compared to companies like Acer and even PNY. When you start comparing to those budget brands, well...

 

[Renzatic]

So what you're saying is that you'd rather wait until the damage is done before re-enforcing the walls that would protect you. By then the horde has entered your 'garden' and destroyed your crop. Windows was a victim of this kind of thinking for years.

Think of it like this. You've got a harddrive in your computer. Your harddrive is by and far the flakiest piece of machinery you'll ever own (I should know, I've had terrible luck with HDDs in my day). If it flakes out, you lose all your information. All your vacation photos. Your spreadsheets. Your doctoral thesis. All washed away in the blink of an eye, and a chik-chik-chiking noise.

A harddrive could die at any given moment. Are you willing to risk your vacation photos? Your thesis? Using a harddrive is a huge risk! The potential for loss too great! It'd be better if we didn't use them at all.

...or you could play it wise, and backup your stuff periodically. Then you get to enjoy the advantages of having a harddrive, while not having to worry about the potentialities. It's the same situation with a walled garden. Do I want Apple barring me from software they don't approve of? Software I myself might find useful? Yeah, I do run a risk of infection by going to strange sites. But, hell, if I play it safe, the chances of me actually getting infected are slim to none. I'm not quite willing to give up a goodly bit of flexibility to protect myself against something that may or may not happen.

Though this argument is really academic now. With Gatekeeper, you get the best of both worlds. You get the protection of the walled garden by default, but it gives you the choice to step beyond it any time you want.

Based on your own argument here, why do so many doctors, hospitals, clinics and even drug stores now promote influenza shots every autumn? Why should they do that when the odds of any single individual catching the flu is relatively low?

Probably because you're far more likely to get the flu than you are Hanta Virus. And you're about as likely to get the Hanta Virus by going to the mall as you are being infected with a mean piece of malware that wipes OSX off your drive and installs Dig Dug for DOS in its place.

The Mac OS, even before moving to the PPC tended to operate twice as fast as the equivalent version of Windows on an approximately equivalent machine. I'm talking back in the 68K processor days. The PPC accelerated that and even after PPC clock speeds stopped going up, they still ran as fast or faster than a Wintel with double the clock. Now, despite the two platforms almost perfect comparability, the Mac still runs Windows faster than the equivalent generic PC by a measurable amount--though it's not as visible to the naked eye as it used to be.

Right. There's a difference, but it's...eh. It's enough to show on benchmarks, but is it enough for someone to officially say "this Mac truly runs Windows better than an equivalent PC"? It's like saying a car that goes 200MPH is vastly superior to a car that goes 190MPH.

There are quite a few advantages a Mac has over a PC. But raw, unbridled speed isn't one of them. The slight advantage on equivalent hardware is outclassed by the beefier hardware you can get in the PC scene.

 

[AidenShaw]

links?

Now, despite the two platforms almost perfect comparability, the Mac still runs Windows faster than the equivalent generic PC by a measurable amount--though it's not as visible to the naked eye as it used to be.

Do you have links to those measures? Recent links where the hardware is truly equivalent?

...or it didn't happen.

 

[GermanyChris]

I've been following this discussion long enough and quite honestly I believe your opinion is blown all out of proportion; the iPhone and iPad are having no difficulties with their so-called "Walled Garden" and quite honestly when compared to Windows or Android that Walled Garden is proving far more effective than most third-party anti-malware solutions. The simple fact that such resource-hogging solutions are absolutely necessary for those two platforms simply demonstrates that another method is needed for protecting the user from both himself and outside influences. Even in Windows the best security is the sandbox--preventing any app from gaining access to the underlying OS that it doesn't need. In fact, it's the sandbox that finds most Windows malware now--but only by corporate and third-party security agencies.

Yes, I do agree that some sort of security is highly recommended for OS X. That walled garden has proven its effectiveness by blocking malware that has hit 'jailbroken' iPhones but not iPhones that are un-modified. Such a system can only be beneficial for the Mac, OS X and the user. Beyond that, it is possible to create apps for iOS that don't have to go through the App Store--banks have already done it--but the App Store just offers that additional layer of assurance that the application will do what it says and little more. Even Microsoft has seen the benefit and is building its own walled garden for Windows apps.

Meanwhile, as you say Apple may change their minds if there are enough complaints. Personally, I don't believe there will be all that many Mac users complaining. The Mac App Store has already let me find far more software than even I knew existed for the platform.

Is it bliss?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

The Mac OS, even before moving to the PPC tended to operate twice as fast as the equivalent version of Windows on an approximately equivalent machine. I'm talking back in the 68K processor days. The PPC accelerated that and even after PPC clock speeds stopped going up, they still ran as fast or faster than a Wintel with double the clock. Now, despite the two platforms almost perfect comparability, the Mac still runs Windows faster than the equivalent generic PC by a measurable amount--though it's not as visible to the naked eye as it used to be.

Too bad OSX doesn't run faster than Windows. It's just not as optimized in the hardware video drivers and it's using outdated OpenGL whereas Windows has the newest OpenGL available plus DirectX. The idea that somehow Apple hardware is magically faster than ALL Windows hardware is ludicrous, however. There are simply too many hardware combinations for me to believe you can make a blanket statement like that.

I strongly suggest you learn of what you speak before making such blatant statements; Apple still has nearly full control of the hardware even if the assembly is performed by Chinese labor. Nearly every PC company uses the

Where did I talk about quality in the post I quoted? Your reply makes no sense in that regard. I was talking about how prices did not drop when they moved assembly of the desktops to China. They simply kept the extra profit. What does that have to do with the quality of their Chinese manufacturing plant?

I would say that overall across all markets, goods are less quality when moved to China than before they were moved, but that's a general statement based on my observations of increased defects in many products or quality drops in things like the jean lines at Wal-Mart (last time I got a pair of jeans from Wal-Mart, the pockets were SO THIN that they broke a hole in them by the 2nd wear and I'm not alone in that observation that they dumped quality...and that's AFTER they moved to China, so it's obvious they are trying to save money and make more profit YET by dropping the thread count on top of manufacturing them with cheap labor. This sort of thing will hurt them. I have never bought another pair of jeans from them again. Better yet, I recently found a good source of AMERICAN MADE jeans from Texas that are very reasonably priced. I'm planning on ordering all my jeans from them in the future, assuming the quality is good.

same Chinese labor to assemble their computers but Apple's computers tend to last longer and perform better on average because of the hardware choices.

That's another blanket statement. I've never had one of my Windows machines go bad in the past 13 years since buying my first Windows Clone (used Amiga before that). I have had some Apple hardware develop problems (1st Gen iPod Touch, for example now has part of the screen not functioning correctly). And I could point to a few odd driver issues in OSX in regards to my external Midi box that have never been fixed by either Apple or the company that makes the box (If I shut down Logic Pro, I have to pull the USB cord and plug it back in. I've never had that problem in Windows.

Add to this that Apple designs their own motherboards and uses ASUS to burn and assemble them, even the motherboard is higher quality than most off-the-shelf PCs. ASUS motherboards tend to be higher quality and higher priced than any other brand out there--especially compared to companies like Acer and even PNY. When you start comparing to those budget brands, well...

So a nearly doubled price is justified because they use an ASUS motherboard? Yeah, that accounts for it.

I could point out any number of defect issues with Apple computers in recent years from yellowing screens to keyboard malfunctions to problems getting Macbook Pros lids to latch (you could see many of them not sitting flush as something is warped). This idea that Apple has no issues is absurd.

 

[linux2mac]

the Mac still runs Windows faster than the equivalent generic PC by a measurable amount--though it's not as visible to the naked eye as it used to be.

The bottom line is that Macs are the best computers. Since converting to Mac in 2009 I have added to my fleet - (4) Minis, (1) Mini Server, (2) 27" iMacs, and (3) MBP's and all are C2D except for one iMac that is i7. They all work better than any Windows box I have owned. Even the C2D Mini is amazing. The MBP's put all my past VAIO notebooks to shame and the iMacs are the best desktops by far.

 

[MPQholygrail]

Chinese Labor?

Can someone seriously point out any semiconductor that does not have some type of production or someone in their supply chain in Asia or the rest of the world for that matter? Honestly lets not be ignorant here. All PC components are made from a plethora of nations around the world not just China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia .ect. Supply Chains cross the globe whether it is an Apple or some other Company. Come on people, if you can post on this website at least have the courtesy of doing some research. It doesn't have to be a scholarly or trade journal but at least browse the lazy man's sage "wiki" Getting back on track on the issue at hand of regulating software and requiring acknowledgment of unverified software.

 

[KnightWRX]

It has been suggested several times that Apple will provide "free" certificates to developers outside of the mac app store so I don't see a problem here for the "open source" community here.

Now that it is released and that Apple doesn't provide free certificates (the certificates for Developer ID are only available to those who sign up for the Mac Developer Program), are you ready to change your view point in this ?

Of course you're not, but I just wanted to throw that little tidbit out there.

https://developer.apple.com/library....html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40011201-CH12-SW2

Now, please don't start the whole debate where you don't get my theoretical viewpoint about a future where Gatekeeper doesn't allow the running of unsigned code. Just admit you were wrong on arguing based on faith that Apple would provide free certificates.

 

[skinny*k]

********.

On the contrary, this is evidence that Apple is NOT going to close the Mac. Things cannot be much more obvious for those who really wish to see without bias and hatred.

I think that ‘doubt and skepticism’ would be more accurate, otherwise, I’m inclined to agree with your post.

Yea, Long live Apple.

 

[DeckardCain]

More than anything, I think Apple is afraid that their whole security claim is now a sinking ship.

It always was.

 

[Kclubb]

View from Microsoft dev

I am a recent convert to Macs (Mac MINI), and I thought I would put my two cents in from the Microsoft Develper viewpoint. MS has AUTHENTICODE which allows developers to purchase a certificate from a third party (not MS) to use to sign their programs. I have used this several years now - the cost is much more than the Apple dev program ($99?), but is not tied directly to MS. A big ugly dialog pops up if you try to install or run an unsigned program (by default).

This puts the vetting out into the public sector, but with a higher cost. But even at a higher cost, having the vetting done by someone other than MS feels better to me than having the manufacturer (Apple) decide who is in and who is out (by default).

Of course we have been living with this for years with the iOS app store, but this seems different to me. On the other hand, anything is better than allowing ANY software to run by default.

 

[milo]

Apple's position is that "who is out" is only guys who ship malware. Obviously anything can happen but I haven't heard otherwise so far.

Totally different situation from the app store where they curate things, nothing is screened for the certificates, they just pull it when malware is discovered.

 

[murrayE]

Why signed apps by default

WHy would it be apple's responsibility that you have adobe photoshop pirated? Apple couldn't care less unless it is on the app store.

Obviously (I hope) Apple sincerely wants to protect users from rogue apps. But just as obviously, if it sells an app that has similar (even if reduced) functionality as an app it doesn't sell, then it would strongly prefer that you buy the one they sell.

E.g., Apple would prefer that you buy iPhoto Aperture instead of Photoshop.