An Early Look At Mac OS X 10.8

adeelarshad82 writes "Earlier today Apple announced their next OS, Mountain Lion. According to an early look, OS X 10.8 does more to integrate social networking and file-synching into a personal computer than any other OS. It tightly integrates with the whole Apple ecosystem that includes iOS devices and the free iCloud sharing service. Moreover Mountain Lion adds a powerful new line of defense against future threats where a malware app is prevented from running even if it is deliberately downloaded to a computer. Even though Apple's clearly got a lot of fine-tuning to do—and possibly a few features to add, there's no doubt that Mountain Lion already looks very fine." Update: 02/16 15:04 GMT by T : New submitter StephenBrannen writes with some more details culled from CNET. The newest OS X has now been released to developers, with an official release date planned for this summer. "Mountain Lion, as it is called, will further blur the lines between iOS and its Mac OS. iOS features that are being ported include: Messages (replacing iChat), Notification Center, Game Center, Notes, and AirPlay mirroring. Also new to Mac OS is the addition of Gatekeeper, which should help prevent malware attacks on Apple products. Not announced is whether Siri will be ported to the Mac."

Comments

Hear that, MSFT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear that, Microsoft? You could bundle a years worth of Windows Updates, give it a catty name, and sell it for $30! Wake up and smell the revenue!

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother? Change the package coloring, claim it's the most secure version of Windows and sell the upgrade for $150.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can hear it now "M$ IS JUST TRYING TO SQUEEZE MORE MONEY OUT OF PEOPLE. There is no reason to upgrade because Windows 7 works fine and this upgrade isn't big enough to matter. It's just Windows 7 Service Pack 2...."

When Microsoft does something it's evil and will never work and nobody wants it etc... Imagine the uproar if you heard that Microsoft could remotely prevent apps from running...

But when Apple does something it's a good idea and boy-howdy let's go buy it right now!

There's never been a company that has faced more double-standards and moving goalposts than MS.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Tharsman]

Why do that when they can just charge 200 bucks for the initial release, with single computer licenses instead of family licensing like Apple does?

I figured Apple may do something like this when they announced Lion would not only be 30 bucks, but also the license would cover every single computer you own (at home, not for business.)

I’m cool with it also since the update is bringing some nice system apps. Game Center alone I would had paid 30 bucks for. Up to this day Microsoft still cant translate XBox Live to the desktop properly.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Zocalo]

Well, they'd have to change a few things to avoid getting sued by Apple. Maybe go after the dog lovers instead of those who prefer cats? Yes, that could work... You could install "Windows 7 SP Shitzu" and really mean it when you say "My PC's running like a dog" or "Man, this new OS is a PoS". Also, anyone who says "It's the dog's nads" would obviously be a paid shill, so it would clear that up too.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[IHateEverybody]

Where do you think Apple go the idea? What is Windows 7 if not two years of Vista updates bundled together with a new name and sold for $90?

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[beelsebob]

Yeh, because $30 every year or year and a half for a license covering all your computers is clearly worse value than $200 every 2 years or so per computer.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Shifty0x88]

OS X 10.8 does more to integrate social networking and file-synching into a personal computer than any other OS I've seen.

New version done, NEXT!

Oh and not everyone needs that shiat! (I know, I know I'm the only one that doesn't but still....)

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[guruevi]

$90? Where do you get your software? Windows 7 from the Windows store is $319.99. Even the stripped version (Home) is $199.99

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Bert64]

The difference is that MS charge over $100 for the upgrade, while Apple charge $30...
Because of the cheaper price, people will obviously have more tolerance for more frequent but smaller updates.

Also, Apple lets you install a single copy on multiple machines, MS doesn't, so if you have more than one mac the apple deal is even cheaper still.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[IHateEverybody]

I'm referring to the upgrade version. Even so, the joke was that MS should steal Apple's business model of offering tiny upgrades for $30 when Microsoft has been making tons of money off that model for years and your example is even better.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Moheeheeko]

OS X 10.8 does more to integrate social networking and file-synching into a personal computer than any other OS I've seen.

Y'know..... other than Windows 8.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[hal2814]

No, Next was the old version. Who's on first.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[schitso]

OS X 10.8 does more to integrate social networking and file-synching into a personal computer than any other OS I've seen.

You didn't look very hard, did you?

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Tarlus]

When Windows 7 first came out, Microsoft was directly selling the Professional edition for $30 as an academic discount. Now they are offering the upgrade for $60 as an academic discount.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[kanweg]

Which will be released mid to late 2012. So, about the same time or later.

Bert

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[VGPowerlord]

Unprofitable in the end, as Apple would sue for bussiness model copyright infringement, even if there is no such thing.

Except that Microsoft has been doing it longer.

See: Windows in the 90s/early 2000s: 3.1 in 93, 95, 98, ME in 2000, XP in 2001... 5 releases in 8 years.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[mikael_j]

OS X doesn't have service packs. "Service Pack" is MS terminology.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Moheeheeko]

Ehh, 3.1 was more of an application than an operating system, as your pc booted into DOS and you had to start windows manually, and could actually do most of what you needed without it. Anything after 95 ill give you as just being update packs, but 3.1 and 95 were both actually new things IMO.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Anonymous Coward]

See: OSX 10.7 Lion EULA (PDF) sections 2.A. or 2.B.i. depending on your acquisition method.

Section 2.B.i:

"You are granted a limited, non-transferable, non-exclusive license:
(i) to download, install, use and run for personal, non-commercial use, one (1) copy of the Apple Software directly on each Apple-branded computer running Mac OS X Snow Leopard or Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server (“Mac Computer”) that you own or control;"

One copy on each computer that you control doesn't equate to a single upgrade.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[VGPowerlord]

3.1 was an incremental update to 1990's Windows 3.0 with Multimedia Extensions and was by no means new.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[stewbacca]

unless you obtained the Apple Software from the Mac App Store or under a volume license, maintenance or other written agreement from Apple, you are granted a limited, non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time.

"Unless" is a very important word here. Since most people bought Lion from the Mac App Store, the rest of the quote is irrelevant. Simply put, you can buy one copy of Lion from the Mac App Store and use that single copy on ANY Apple-branded computer...according to your cited text, it doesn't even have to be one you own (unless that is stipulated elsewhere in the EULA).

It's not "simply copyright violation". And you are correct, you didn't even need to consult the EULA, because when you did, you got it wrong.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Only if you're breaking the law. That $30 only gives you a single upgrade.

I don't even need to consult the EULA for that one, since it's a simple copyright violation...

You need to actually read the stuff that you link.

Section 2.a. only states that you are not allowed to transfer the OS X that came with your Apple computer to another Apple branded computer. This also applies to people who decided to purchase the upgrade that is packaged on the thumb drive from Apple. BTW you can provide your own thumb drive and go through the iTunes method of purchasing and STILL be able to use section 2.b. below.

Section 2.b. explicitly allows you to use the upgrade that you purchased using iTunes (The method first pushed by Apple) on any computer that you own which is an actual Apple branded computer using at least OS X snow leopard. I legally updated my iMac and two laptops with my $30 update. Apple was even nice enough to help.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You are not forced to upgrade. I still have machines at work that are running OS X 1.5.8 which is still being supported. In fact the iTunes update was pushed to it last week.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Ihmhi]

give it a catty name

Ooh, how about W7 SP3 "Look at that bitch Chantelle with her new shoes, she think she cute"?

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Ihmhi]

Shitzu

Welp, you got that half right.

Hi-yooooooooooooo!

~swings an invisible golf club~

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[mystikkman]

>I figured Apple may do something like this when they announced Lion would not only be 30 bucks, but also the license would cover every single computer you own (at home, not for business.)

All these comparisons in this whole thread fail to take into account a big fact, Apple charges and gets a lot of money for the hardware, whereas MS gets zilch for the h/w you buy. On top of that, they bilk upgrades, have you seen how much difference there is when you upgrade the RAM or the hard drive versus the equivalent on newegg? So you've given a ton of money over to Apple for every single computer in your home already, so if anything, they should be upgrading them for free, not even $30, especially for minor updates(the earlier big updates were a lot pricier). Not to mention that fact that MS service packs are free. If you had bought a XP machine in 2001, you were getting a whole lot of free software upgrades with the three service packs.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[doh123]

did you read 2 B i ? it says you can install it once on EVERY machine you own... if you have 4 macs in your house that are yours... a single $29 upgrade gets all of them.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I don't think there's a retail price yet, is there ? If Apple move onto a yearly release cycle then prices should go down accordingly (hopefully.) After all they don't charge for major iOS versions either.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Tharsman]

Thats why I buy my mac with the defaults, and upgrade RAM and hard drives via newegg.

Not to mention that fact that MS service packs are free. If you had bought a XP machine in 2001, you were getting a whole lot of free software upgrades with the three service packs.

Despite the quick turnaround, 10.8 actually add a lot of features to OSX. This is not a "Service Pack", it is indeed a full upgrade. Apple seems to be using it's billions to ramp up development on the OS.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is primarily a HARDWARE company, and Microsoft is primarily a SOFTWARE COMPANY!!
Apple is primarily a HARDWARE company, and Microsoft is primarily a SOFTWARE COMPANY!!
Apple is primarily a HARDWARE company, and Microsoft is primarily a SOFTWARE COMPANY!!
Apple is primarily a HARDWARE company, and Microsoft is primarily a SOFTWARE COMPANY!!
Apple is primarily a HARDWARE company, and Microsoft is primarily a SOFTWARE COMPANY!!

Apple does not need its OS updates to be PROFITABLE! It uses its OS to push its shiny $2000 boxes!!

Why do people still not understand this difference???

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[siride]

It wasn't really just an application. It used DOS to boot and as a piggy-back for some device drivers, but otherwise, it was a real operating system. It was a shitty one, but it did, in fact, run the show.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Shifty0x88]

HAHA, no I read the entire article. Just didn't see much else that was all that exciting.

That and I was trying to be funny, not serious. Sorry =(

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[MightyYar]

The difference is this, and is very simple:

Microsoft will sell you an OS for $100 or so and then update it for 10 years or so, new OS or SR becomes available every year or so.

Apple will sell you an OS for $30 or so and then update it for 3 years or so, new OS becomes available every year or so.

It's almost exactly the same from the consumer's point of view unless you include time value of money and all that jazz. Frankly if you are sweating over the $30 for an OS update each year, you probably have larger problems than whether or not you are running the latest awesome. I tend to leave my computers alone until support for the OS becomes a problem. I stuck with Windows 98SE until well into the XP lifecycle, and I will keep XP until either support runs out or Application stop supporting it. On the Mac side, I only just updated to Lion from 10.5, and only because applications stopped supporting 10.5. That said, Mac upgrades tend to be way faster and more painless than Windows upgrades - why MS can't use their SP infrastructure to install major OS updates is beyond me. Usually the SP installations go smoothly.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[MightyYar]

It follows the same policy that they have for their iOS devices - you only buy apps once and then they work on all of your devices. I don't know why this comes as such a big shock to people.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Fahrvergnuugen]

In fact, the Mac App Store prevents you from paying for it twice. If you go to another Mac and enter your username and password, it knows you already purchased Lion and you get an "Install" button instead of a "Buy" button.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[ColdWetDog]

The big difference is that you only have to go through the 'will it blend?' once every other year with Microsoft. With Apple running around trying to find yet another feline-related name every friggin year, you have to go through your apps yet again to see just what they've deprecated.

Personally, I'm getting more than a little annoyed at this. It's NOT the $30 (or $110). It's the time and energy needed to get a perfectly useful computer to remain just that.

Now, I'm perfectly happy cuddling with my Snow Leopard. We're on pretty good terms now. No more new kitties for a while, please. Just leave 'em at the pound.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[ColdWetDog]

Apple has a long history of operating for the end user's benefit. Microsoft has a mixed history. Apple is trusted more because it deserves to be trusted more.

Which end?

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[UnknowingFool]

All these comparisons in this whole thread fail to take into account a big fact, Apple charges and gets a lot of money for the hardware, whereas MS gets zilch for the h/w you buy. On top of that, they bilk upgrades, have you seen how much difference there is when you upgrade the RAM or the hard drive versus the equivalent on newegg? So you've given a ton of money over to Apple for every single computer in your home already, so if anything, they should be upgrading them for free, not even $30, especially for minor updates(the earlier big updates were a lot pricier). Not to mention that fact that MS service packs are free. If you had bought a XP machine in 2001, you were getting a whole lot of free software upgrades with the three service packs.

By that logic MS should have provided Win 7 for free to all Vista owners, no?

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[UnknowingFool]

Microsoft also waits a tad more than a year between versions, and doesnt charge you for the service packs.

From wikipedia:
Leopard Release date: October 26, 2007
Snow Leopard Release date: August 28, 2009 (20 months)
Lion Release Date: July 20, 2011 (23 months)

By comparison:
Vista release date: January 30, 2007
Windows 7 release date: July 22, 2009 (29 months)

You were saying?

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[GonzoPhysicist]

They pretty much did, I don't remember the exact circumstances but you get a free upgrade if it the machine was purchased after a certain date.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[UnknowingFool]

Not to all owners. Only to those that purchased a PC within a certain amount of time prior to Win 7's release. Apple does the same thing for OS X owners. If you purchased a Mac right before Lion came out, you got a free upgrade.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[thetoadwarrior]

Sure if the major version didn't cost an arm and a leg in the first instance.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[xeno314]

To be fair, you've only included 2 MS releases vs. 3 Apple releases, which I presume is because including XP would weight the average time between releases against your argument.

I'm not saying that GP's argument is a good one, but yours is really no better...

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[thetoadwarrior]

They don't wait 5 years and completely break the shit out of everything so it doesn't matter.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[fragtag]

Microsoft also waits a tad more than a year between versions, and doesnt charge you for the service packs.

From wikipedia: Leopard Release date: October 26, 2007 Snow Leopard Release date: August 28, 2009 (20 months) Lion Release Date: July 20, 2011 (23 months) By comparison: Vista release date: January 30, 2007 Windows 7 release date: July 22, 2009 (29 months) You were saying?

Lets use a bigger sample size. Windows 2000 '00 Windows XP '01 Windows Vista '06 Windows 7 '09 Windows 8 '12 2.4 Years average (12 / 5) 10.0 Cheetah '01 10.1 Puma '01 10.2 Jaguar '02 10.3 Panther '03 10.4 Tiger '05 10.5 Leopard '07 10.6 Snow Leopard '09 10.7 Lion '11 10.8 Mountain Lion '12 1.33 Years Average (12 / 9)

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[UnknowingFool]

OP: Unlike MS, Apple releases a new OS every year.
Evidence: Apple releases a new OS about 20 months or so which is about how long MS took on their last OS (control). Not an argument for or against. Merely pointing to easily obtained information.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[thetoadwarrior]

The OS only ever costs $30. So yes MS charging $260.65 for Windows 7 ultimate and then charging $30 for service packs would be a fucking insult. Where as you have to buy 8.7 versions of OS X to equal the cost of Windows 7 ultimate. That means you could buy version 10.0 Cheetah all the way to 10.7 Lion for the cost of Windows 7. So that is nearly a decades worth of operating systems upgrades for the cost of one microsoft operating system and since you .7 left over that means you also get 70% of the cost of Mountain Lion left over for when it comes out.

So now compare that to the cost of XP, Vista and Windows 7 in the same time frame.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[UnknowingFool]

OP: Apple releases a new OS every year and they charge you for it unlike MS.

Counterpoint: it is easy to verify that this isn't fact. The last three were slightly more than the Vista to Win 7 difference. Many here consider Win 7 as a service pack to Vista yet MS charged full price.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[squiggleslash]

Your conclusion would look very different if you included the last three versions of Windows NT Workstation (XP, Vista, and 7), as you did Mac OS X.

Indeed, if you go back to the first release of a "completed" version of Mac OS X, 10.0, that was released in 2001, with 10.1 following a few months later. Jaguar and Panther were 2002 and 2003 respectively, Tiger 2005, Leopard 2007, Snow Leopard 2009, and Lion in 2011. With the exception of 10.0 to 10.1, all of these were paid upgrades, so taking that into account and counting them as a single product, I'd say, since 2001, Apple has released seven versions of Mac OS X.

During that time, Microsoft has released three versions of Windows NT Workstation: XP, Vista, and 7.

I mention this not to be pedantic, but to explain a little one of the reasons why I decided to get away from Apple and Mac OS X despite liking the environment a lot. A situation where, just to run a recent app, I'd have to pay Apple not just to upgrade my operating system, but in my case, upgrade my hardware too - none of my Macs were post-Panther compatible, and more fool I if I'd bought a Mac then that was - was just plain ridiculous.

I didn't switch to Windows, though had I done it would have at least solved the hardware issue. I switched to Ubuntu.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[DurendalMac]

Or they could release a service pack, call it a new version, and charge up to $300 for it. Oh, wait...

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[UnknowingFool]

It wasn't a conclusion but a counterpoint. The OP said that unlike MS, Apple releases a new OS every year and that they charge for it. A simple Wikipedia search says the facts are that it is not one year. As for charging, MS spent just as much time from Vista to Win 7 and many here consider Win 7 as a service pack to Vista but MS charged for it. As for your situation, if you ran Panther the absolute newest processor you could have ran was a PPC G5 and the oldest was a G3. You could have upgraded to Tiger if your processor wasnt an ancient G3 running at less than 300MHz. But those machines were 6 years old when Tiger came out

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[LordLimecat]

Lion: July 2011
Mountain Lion: Summer 2012

Looks like "1 year" to me.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[UnknowingFool]

First of all, the last three releases prove you wrong. This information was easily obtained. Second summer 2012 is something we call the "future" meaning it has not happened yet so Apple cannot have "released" it yet. Even if Apple may release it summer 2012, the most you can say is Apple released Mountain Lion within a year of Lion.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[awyeah]

But, Apple seems to add new features with every $30 update. MS Service Packs don't tend to add features (XP SP2 being a notable exception), mostly they're just rolling up hotfixes.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Gr8Apes]

Despite the quick turnaround, 10.8 actually add a lot of features to OSX. This is not a "Service Pack", it is indeed a full upgrade. Apple seems to be using it's billions to ramp up development on the OS.

And this actually bugs me as I'm about to "upgrade" to Lion this weekend.

As for OS X Service Packs, they are free, and come out regularly. As a bonus, unlike MS Service Packs, OS X service packs don't change your underlying OS by adding and removing features, they just fix things. And they notify you automatically, it's your choice to load them, and you usually have to sign in with an admin account to update system items.

And who doesn't buy their normal RAM or hard disks after market?

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Gr8Apes]

It wasn't really just an application. It used DOS to boot and as a piggy-back for some device drivers, but otherwise, it was a real operating system. It was a shitty one, but it did, in fact, run the show.

That wasn't true for 3.1, 95, 98, nor ME. In all of them, the DOS layer ran the show. If you doubt that, just run a memtest or delete a windows file from DOS and see what remains.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Gr8Apes]

More the reason to run Lion (or ML) in a VM. You have all the latest goodies when you need them, can test everything, but don't have to leave the comfort of your current OS behind if you don't want to.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Guy Harris]

Hear that, Microsoft? You could bundle a years worth of Windows Updates, give it a catty name, and sell it for $30! Wake up and smell the revenue!

The equivalents to "Windows Update" in [Mac] OS X are Security Updates and Software Updates, and both are free, just like Windows Updates, but thank you for sharing.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[siride]

I don't doubt it because I know the facts. The fact is that Windows 3.1 and later had a kernel called vmm386 which provided pre-emptive multitasking in 32-bit protected mode. Each DOS box was in its own VM and all Windows 3.1 programs shared a VM. In Windows 95, each Windows program got its own VM under this kernel.

The reason you can delete a file from DOS is because the filesystem drivers in Windows 3.1 would run in DOS, albeit invoked by Windows. That doesn't mean DOS ran the show. It just means that Windows farmed out some of the hardware interaction to DOS, using it as a sort of HAL. In Windows 95 and later, Windows had its own filesystem drivers. This is well documented if you bother to do a Google search on the subject.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Guy Harris]

I still wonder why Apple is hanging on to OSX (OS 10) when that are up to OS XVIII (18) now. Could it be that the big flying X when you start the computer looks really good and the flying XVIII would not?

And I still wonder why Solaris used to go from 2.{n} to 2.{n+1} and then started going from {n} to {n+1}, and Windows used to go from {n} to {m > n} and then went from {yy} to {yy} or {yyyy} and then went from {yyyy} to XP to Vista and then to 7 and then went back to going from {n} to {m > n} (with the OS version number reported to apps sticking at 6.{n} so that apps that don't try to gracefully adapt to the major version number don't shit their pants). (Not to mention NT starting out at version 3.1....)

In other words, OS version names are, to a large degree, bullshit dictated by marketing departments; don't try to apply reason to them.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Gr8Apes]

...During that time, Microsoft has released three versions of Windows NT Workstation: XP, Vista, and 7.

Do note that this was not for lack of trying. They failed to release BlackComb and Longhorn both, restarting development and creating that bastardization now known as Vista. Don't confused inability to get a release out the door with ... whatever point you were trying to make.

And you missed one, if you're going to go that far back and including significant releases - Windows 2000 was released in Feb, 2000 and was certainly more major than XP, compared to its predecessor.

... A situation where, just to run a recent app, I'd have to pay Apple not just to upgrade my operating system, but in my case, upgrade my hardware too - none of my Macs were post-Panther compatible, and more fool I if I'd bought a Mac then that was - was just plain ridiculous.

I bought a Powerbook in late 2004, it came with Panther, and ran Tiger and Leopard, the last of the PowerPC OSes. I also got an Intel laptop with Leopard, now running SL. I am good with all the apps except a few Lion only versions that I don't really need to upgrade at this point (meaning their Leopard/SL versions run just fine and provide all needed functionality)

That's just to state that if your PowerPC Apples weren't capable of running Tiger, they must have been pretty old indeed, and they were still good for 4+ years (just an out and out guess) before they couldn't run the latest apps.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Kalriath]

Up to 5 computers. The app store limits delivery to 5 computers maximum for anything.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Kalriath]

Up to 5 of your devices. Not all.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[ynp7]

I can hear it now "M$ IS JUST TRYING TO SQUEEZE MORE MONEY OUT OF PEOPLE. There is no reason to upgrade because Windows XP works fine and this upgrade isn't big enough to matter."

Fixed that for you. You were giving those idiots entirely too much credit.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[cyber-vandal]

Habitual criminals tend to be treated worse than everyone else.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Yes. 10.5.8

Apple only officially supports the current OS release and the immediate predecessor.

I don't see any official word from Apple that states this. Apparently their support is based on the application being updated and the versions of the OS that it supports. iTunes and QuickTime recently was updated on the 10.5.8.

Apple doesn't publish its EOL where I can find it. Traditionally they supported the current version and the previous version. However the closest thing I can find in writing is my AppleCare agreement which requires Apple to support its machine and the OS that is installed on that machine at the time of purchase for the duration of the AppleCare agreement which is 3 years.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[fyngyrz]

Apple does not need its OS updates to be PROFITABLE! It uses its OS to push its shiny $2000 boxes!! Why do people still not understand this difference???

...that would be because by far the most of its "boxes" sell in the $600 (mini) -- $1200 (imac) range.

See the Apple Store for current prices of current "boxes."

***Full disclosure: I own, among other Apple machines, an Apple box that was, in fact, well over $3k -- an 8-core, 3 GHz, 6-monitor, 32 GB Macpro; and the reasons I made that purchase include previous experience with lower priced Apple hardware (excellent, I wanted more) and Apple's OS X, which I am an unabashed fan of, at least until the recent attempt to meld with iOS, which I hope they'll get over when they realize they're responding to the wrong stimulus (iOS isn't popular because it's simple; it's popular because it's capable... and it's simple because the iP*ds have very limited hardware resources. iOS should grow towards OS X, rather than OS X towards iOS, and OS X should continue to improve in the usual desktop fashion, adding power, not simplifying. For example, iOS desperately needs a real filesystem, folders, and multitasking, and when Android gets there first because Apple is going the wrong way, and people begin to move so as to get at that power, Apple will be forced to follow, instead of wandering blindly along this silly path they appear to have chosen. And then I will be happy again. 3 cheers for competition.)

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[bmo]

But the Family Pack is 50 bux.

Are you really, really cheap, but want legit proprietary software? Get 4 other people, buy the family pack, full license for 10 bucks each. Legal and everything.

Same goes for Microsoft Office family pack for OSX. It's 150. You, and 2 other people split. Word, Powerpoint, and Excel. You pay 50 bux. Legal and everything.

The only place you get raped is the Business edition where Microsoft slaps on Outlook and bumps the price for a *single* license to 200 bux.

--
BMO

Sent from my Ubuntu Laptop

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[brantondaveperson]

But you just burn the downloaded dmg to a dvd (before you install, because it gets deleted after) and you can install it on as many machines as you like.

What's strange is that even though I could have bought a copy & given it to all my friends, when it came to it we all bought our own copies. Maybe that was because the price was reasonable?

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Osgeld]

yes breaking the shit out of everything every year is much more productive

I stopped wasting my money, everything I ran that Sir Jesus Jobs did not hand pick fucking broke every update

yea I know, how dare I run software that I want on my computer, I am such a bad little Apple Owner

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[MightyYar]

I haven't hit that limit yet because my kids are still young :)

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[stewbacca]

5 computers simultaneously. You can always clear out the associated computers from your AppleID and start over on 5 more machines.

I think 5 copies is more than reasonable...for $30...if your family has more than 5 Macs, then I'm sure you can afford a second $30 copy of the OS. If you need more, I'm sure there are plenty of sales people that can work with you.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[BasilBrush]

When Microsoft does something it's evil and will never work and nobody wants it etc... Imagine the uproar if you heard that Microsoft could remotely prevent apps from running...

Microsoft includes Anti-virus with Windows these days. So Microsoft can and do do exactly what you're saying.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[BasilBrush]

I'm afraid you don't know what a service pack is. Service packs bring security updates and new drivers. New functionality is a rarity.

Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion are about new functionality. They are equivalent to to the XP, Vista, Windows 8 changes.

Apple does them more often than Microsoft because they can. Vista for example was only so long coming because Microsoft development process was fucked, and they had to restart development at least once.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[BasilBrush]

Apple didn't used to release annually. 18 months was typical, then it got a bit slower for a while because OS X engineers had been helping out with iOS development.

However starting with Mountain Lion, Apple have said they are aiming for one OS X version a year, to match the iOS roadmap. This makes sense as there are features such as iCloud, Facetime, Messages etc that are applicable to both platforms, and so need rolling out on both.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[BasilBrush]

That EULA confirms what the OP was saying, not what you are saying.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[BasilBrush]

No. That's the iTunes store. The Mac App Store has no upper limit on the number of computers you own and use or control. You can install software from the Mac App Store on as many of them as you like.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[BasilBrush]

No, that's the limit on iTunes purchases - stuff for iPhones and iPods. It's policed by the number of devices you can pair with a Mac or PC.

For the Mac App Store there is no limit, either in the licence or technically. You can install the software on as many computers as you own and use (personal) or control (commercial).

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[WiiVault]

10.5.8 I assume you mean. And yes I got that update on my old Powermac too.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[BasilBrush]

Family Pack was back when OSX came in shrink wrap. Now it's via the Mac App Store, you can install as many copies of the standard version as you like on computers you own and use. So you can update the family for $30.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[DogDude]

Don't forget that the only way to get OSX in the first place is to buy a vastly overpriced piece of hardware with it on it. You can get a valid copy of Windows from a $20 thrift store machine and upgrade it, or buy a hard drive and an OEM copy of Windows with it.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Osgeld]

"That means you could buy version 10.0 Cheetah all the way to 10.7 Lion for the cost of Windows 7"

until the last 2 or 3 versions OSX was around 129.99$ which throws off your cost analysis

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[siride]

You didn't dismiss a damn thing.

Windows was an application that ran on the DOS shell, you say. First of all, the DOS shell was COMMAND.COM, which was essentially a command prompt that would dump itself and launch applications in a single-tasking fashion. It doesn't really run anything (except for batch scripts), it's just a launcher. Windows, nor anything else, could run on top of it. If you are talking about the DOS kernel, you again have some serious problems to contend with. For one, Windows was able to multi-task DOS applications, which requires virtual 8086 mode and a protected mode controller component (see the Intel manuals for more details). So Windows had to provide some sort of kernel to manage those DOS boxes. Additionally, Windows and Windows apps clearly ran in protected mode, which DOS doesn't run in. As such, Windows would, again, need some sort of kernel to manage the protected mode memory manager that DOS didn't have. So even if your oft-stated but always wrong idea that Windows was just a pretty shell on DOS, it was a pretty shell that had to do a lot of things that OS kernels usually do, severely weakening your point.

I'll also leave this here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/12/24/6849530.aspx

Now onto the next piece of bullshit. You say that no Windows OS is preemptive. I'm not even sure where you get this one from and I remain stumped after reading your statement several times. I don't see what the log clock has to do with whether the OS is preemptive or not (I should also mention that "log clock" isn't a thing and you really don't explain what your algorithm prints and how it's able to measure anything, really; also, running in a VM is a bad idea because the VM is multitasked by the host OS and most VM implementations use fuzzy timers since routing the timer interrupt to the guest is not a good idea). Then you say that Windows is time-sliced. Well, time-slicing IS preemptive multitasking. Otherwise, you have cooperative multitasking, because there's no guarantee that a program will ever give up control. Even the earliest Windows had to do a context switch to the kernel for interrupts, as did DOS, so that's not a relevant factor in cooperative vs. preemptive. Windows behaves the same as Linux in this regard, and every other modern OS. Since this is EXTREMELY well-documented, even in, e.g., academic OS textbooks, I'd like you to find me some sources that indicate that your definition of preemptive multitasking is real (actually, it'd be nice if you could explain what you actually mean, since I'm not clear what the distinction is that you think you're trying to make) and that Windows doesn't fit it.

Your link about DR-DOS does nothing to explain your point, at all. Nobody denies that DOS was booted first and from there, Windows was launched and was able to take over the system. Nobody denies that Windows used DOS functionality for some hardware access (more so in Win3.1 than in Win95). So what point are you trying to make here? Also, I mentioned HAL not to claim that DOS was NT HAL (it clearly isn't), but that it rather acted like one in a limited sense.

So, your post, which does nothing but parrot myths, proved nothing except your ignorance of some very basic concepts, such as how multitasking works, the difference between the DOS kernel and the DOS shell, and what print statements in a loop tell you about preemption. You ready to drop your delusions now that you've been thoroughly schooled?

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Psykechan]

The OS only ever costs $30. . . .That means you could buy version 10.0 Cheetah all the way to 10.7 Lion for the cost of Windows 7.

Except of course for the fact that it hasn't always been this way. Sure, 10.6 (Snow Leopard) and 10.7 (Mountain Lion) may be $30 but previous versions have been much more. Excluding 10.1 which was given away to appease the users of the broken 10.0, OS X has been similarly priced with home versions of Windows. Leopard (10.5) and Tiger (10.4) were both $129. The window between releases there was only two and a half years. If you want to compare Apples to oranges, those two upgrades are practically as much as your Windows 7 Ultimate quoted price.

Also, if you happened to purchase Windows XP back in the day you wouldn't have to upgrade if you didn't want to. Windows XP is still supported with security updates coming until 2014. Apple's support is usually about only three years after release, forcing you to upgrade. On the Windows side you could skip Vista if you wanted to. You may even make it to Windows 8.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Mac. This post was composed on a Mac! I know these prices because I have rode the Mac upgrade train that you are talking about. I just have a problem with posts like yours which are clearly wrong being modded to a +5 informative.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[thetoadwarrior]

When I bought my Macbook Pro I checked out to get a Dell with an SSD and similar spec, the Dell was nearly the same price but it also had a cheap plastic case, half the battery life and it was thicker. So no, it's not that bad of a deal at all thanks to Dell being such a tight ass and charging extra for standard things like Bluetooth. I do like IBM Lenovo laptops but they're pricier than Dells (and better) and again, at least at the time I was looking, I could not get an SSD in a Lenovo laptop in the same price range so I was looking at paying an few hundred on top for a separate SSD to put in and throw away a perfectly fine HD.

A used copy of Windows technically isn't valid and while the risk is low you would risk them saying it's now yours and not authorising it. OEM is fine, for me, as I build my computers but it's irrelevant to the vast majority of consumers. By that logic I could build my own machine and even put a pirated copy of OS X on it but most people are not going to do that.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[thetoadwarrior]

True, the price has changed and if you want to be technical the majority of the OS price is built into the cost of the machine. My point is though when you buy a mac now, to advanced the OS, it costs $30. Where as if I bought a Vista laptop rather than a macbook the cost to move up to windows is more expensive even if I go with the upgrade option.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[thetoadwarrior]

I have a Macbook pro (last version not the one with thunderbolt) and at the time the Macbook Pro was reasonable priced. I could have got a Dell with fairly similar specs, buy an external HD and plug it in to match the Macbook but that drives the price up quite a bit, it's still in a cheap ugly plastic case, thicker and has a much shorter battery life. I could have spend more than the Mac to get a Lenovo that had theSSD included or again buy something similar with an external SSD.

Macs certainly are expensive and in desktops it's much easier to get something cheaper and as good but with laptops that's not the case. Macbooks are more competitive than people think if you actually buy a quality PC laptop. You can of course buy junk, the lid will be loose in a short time, the battery life will be shit and it'll probably be a pain to carry around. I have to commute with my laptop every day so I don't want that and it's invaluable to get 10 hours, sometimes more, out of a single charge.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[thetoadwarrior]

I understand pricing was different then, my point is more (assuming things stay the same) that you can upgrade quite a few times on a Mac before it reaches the cost of one upgrade on a PC. There is also the fact most of the OS cost will be built into the hardware so when you buy a Mac with its pre-installed OS it is also not strictly true that the cost of that is $30. It's only the additional versions that cost that.

You don't have to upgrade a Mac either. I'm still on Snow leopard and still receive security and regular updates too. I'm sure that will end sooner than it would on XP for example but likewise I would say a lot of MS' problems are that XP support will go on for at least another 2 years from now possibly longer. There's no reason to be on XP in 2014 and what "support" you do get will be minimal because even MS doesn't really want you using XP at that point.
Apple's model is slightly different to Windows. I think it's a bit silly when people complain that they have to pay $30 to upgrade their operating system (forgetting the fact that even top xbox titles are twice that) and comparing it to a service pack that Windows gives away for free. Comparing going from Snow Leopard to Lion to installing a service pack is wrong. I'd even say going from Lion to Mountain Lion isn't the same as a service pack. Mountain Lion isn't fixing a broken system. It's adding additional features to the system. It may still look roughly the same but I'd argue that's because Apple has quite a good user interface and doesn't feel to need to try and re-invent it with every release. Not that Windows XP, for example, was that visually different from Windows 2000 if you used the classic theme which, imo, is necessary giving how ugly the default theme is.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

The point I was making is the fact that Windows 8 has been on open beta for about a year, in the hands of real users, and we are just now hearing about the new Mac Os, but no, Mac did it first.

Nobody said first. Stop making stuff up.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[UnknowingFool]

The OP claimed that Apple releases a new OS every year and charges for it unlike MS. It is an easily verifiable fact that the this is not true as the the last three have been 20+ months and slightly less than the timespan between Vista and Win 7. Also many consider Win 7 to be a service pack of Vista yet MS charged for it.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

OS X 10.5.8 is leopard.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Gr8Apes]

Here's my response to #1, about windows (3.1 and 95/98/ME since their core architecture remained the same) running on top of the MS DOS shell:

Because Win95 still rests on top of DOS, it relies on DOS memory: the so-called conventional memory below one megabyte. While almost all memory allocation by Windows programs comes out of extended memory above one megabyte, nonetheless every single Windows program -- even the newest Win32 program -- does still require a small amount of conventional memory, to hold a DOS data structure called the Program Segment Prefix (PSP). Every running Windows program must have a PSP. This structure is only about 300 bytes, but those bytes must come out of the memory below 1 MB, so that they can be visible to MS-DOS.

Besides undermining Microsoft's claims that DOS is gone from Win95, that each Windows program has a DOS PSP also means that Win95 can get wedged into "out-of-memory" situations, simply because all DOS memory below 1 MB has been allocated.

There's more, but that's what the links for. The simple layman's view is this - Windows was an app, and DOS was required to run that app, even on Win95+. The reason the DRDOS reference above was pertinent is because this was the reason that MS lost the suit. That you don't understand this, is probably because you bought this. The lesson you should learn from this is never take the word of a vested interest at face value. That's mistake #1 on your part, especially since finding it and referencing it took all of 2 minutes.

Now on to #2 of what you don't understand: From MS itself, Win2K (NT Kernel) is time-sliced, for all intents and purposes to 15ms. This has not really changed as far as I know even in the most recent kernel. (I was under the impression it was 16ms, since that is what shows on the clock, but perhaps there's a 1ms overhead in thread context switching, quite believable). In case you don't understand this particular topic either, what it means is that even if you yield() or sleep() a thread at the beginning of it's execution, windows won't activate another thread until the next time slice. Even more interesting is that at least for one application, the system clock calls during a time slice will always return the same exact long, indicating that the thread has certain restrictions put upon it, in windows at least. This is not the case with real OSes. (Yes, I do not hold MS or Windows in high regard, it's no secret.)

I hope I've opened your eyes just a little bit and taught you something, since you were apparently completely ignorant of these low-level pieces of information.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[siride]

Again, where to begin.

So I read that whole article. Few things surprised me as I already knew a lot of that stuff. It is well-known, for example, that the entire 3rd GB of each process's virtual address space is shared by all processes and writeable to some extent. This is a stupid compatibility hack. Sharing conventional memory, again, seems to have been a compatibility hack. The problem wasn't that Windows relied on DOS, but rather that it allowed too much DOS compatible to come roaring in and so the gates were opened and robustness was compromised. Note that the article only mentions areas of memory that were allowed to be writable by any program that shouldn't have been writable (or indeed readable). Nothing in the article stated that Windows really ran on top of DOS, with the exception of one statement "Win95 still rests on top of DOS", which is pretty damn vague. Again, there's no question in anyone's mind that Win95 and DOS had a relationship. The question is not about that. The question is whether Win95 was just a pretty graphical shell and DOS did everything else. The latter is patently false. Even this article wouldn't seem to dispute that. It readily accepts the idea of protected address spaces and VMs and multitasking and all that stuff. What it points out are places where that model is compromised in the interest of backwards compatibility and other hacks to make DOS drivers and legacy apps still work. One could open up address space holes on Linux if one wanted to, although lacking a DOS compatibility issue, there'd be no reason to do so.

On to your #2. I have performance monitor opened and I'm looking at context switches per second and I'm seeing values of ~2000 switches per second. That can't happen if your explanation (which is utterly bizarre) were true. In fact, if what you said were true, Windows performance wouldn't just be bad, it would be unusably abysmal. With the number of threads and processes active on a standard desktop system, if it could only switch threads about 80 times a second, nothing would get done. You couldn't get anywhere near 100% CPU usage because a lot of time would be waiting for threads to finish out their quantum instead of letting them yield and moving onto other threads while I/O operations take place. The problem here is that you simply don't understand how time-slicing works. And it's sad that you go on this big rant, based on an article that is really about adjusting some settings from the GUI (and is not an in-depth discussion about how scheduling actually works on Windows), when you clearly haven't the slightest clue. I mean, FFS, the article says that the time slices are meant to keep CPU bound threads from hogging the processor. CPU bound is the key phrase here. Any time a thread makes an I/O request, it's GOING to get switched out. Any time a keyboard interrupt arrives and there's a thread waiting on keyboard interrupt, that thread will get priority boosted and will get to preempt the running thread. Again, if it didn't do this, performance would be so poor as to be utterly unusable. The article talks a lot about priority boosting, which wouldn't make sense if every thread had to run for 15 ms before another thread was able to run. I'm actually flabbergasted that anyone would think that type of design even makes sense, much less would be implemented. It just blows my mind that you are that willfully stupid.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[Gr8Apes]

Actually, the question according to the DRDOS suit was whether DOS was an integral part of Win95 as MS claimed or not. DRDOS proved DOS was not an integral part of Win95, and that Win95 actually was nothing other than a shell running on top of DOS, requiring several features provided by DOS. They proved that Win95 could run on top of DRDOS, if DRDOS lied about itself and reported itself as DOS 7, which is also how they proved that Win95 still used a number of functions within DOS. That the Win95 shell significantly enhanced the abilities of the OS is not in question, but itself was not an actual OS.

Regarding #2, my lapse in coding windows is showing - the non-preemptive time slicing only applies to pre-NT windows. NT itself still time-slices and blocking I/O will result in a context switch.

Your statements regarding I/O, including keyboard input, were patently false at least as recently as XP and Office 2003. It was possible to essentially lock up most of the system leaving only existing taskmanager and consoles responsive to the user (ALT-TAB allowed you to switch to those, nothing else responded) This would have been an all MS installation. I don't recall and not having any such system handy today, I can't say whether all I/O would lock up, or just the GUI responsiveness until the operation in progress completed. Quite honestly, it's a problem I no longer care about, having dealt with it through NT4, WIn 2K, and the several iterations of XP also known as service packs I no longer run anything by MS (I don't recall if NT 3.51 had issues with this item, as it had other shortcomings that negated its use and IIRC, it didn't have the problematic API layer)

I guess we could just chalk up that last bit to piss poor coding on MS's part since there were other programs available that would not be subject to that lockup that were doing all the same high level functions as the MS apps (display, input, disk and network I/O, etc) although I don't know how they would have worked on a system subjected to such a lock up.

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[macs4all]

When Microsoft does something it's evil and will never work and nobody wants it etc... Imagine the uproar if you heard that Microsoft could remotely prevent apps from running...

Say WHAT?!? Where did you see that Apple could do that?

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[macs4all]

No. That's the iTunes store. The Mac App Store has no upper limit on the number of computers you own and use or control. You can install software from the Mac App Store on as many of them as you like.

Not only that, but did you see the "...or CONTROL" part of the paragraph?

So no, it doesn't even require that the Mac be owned by you.

And yet, people STILL bitch...

Re:Hear that, MSFT?

[macs4all]

Lion: July 2011 Mountain Lion: Summer 2012

Looks like "1 year" to me.

So let me get this right: You are against getting technologies out to developers and users as they become ready for prime-time; or would you rather Apple wait some longer period of time to add new features and technologies? And so, since you seem to think that they should sit on these new features for more than a year, exactly what schedule WOULD meet with Your Highness' Approval?

Not to mention the fact that no one has discussed the "point releases" and other Software Updates (those ARE "Service Packs") that Apple puts out on a regular basis.

All free, and on a MUCH more timely schedule that Windows "Service Pack" updates...

So, rant on, Apple-Hater; Rant on...

lockdown coming.

[God'sDuck]

"But what if you want to run an older app, or download a utility that was written by someone who hasn't paid Apple's $99 fee for a developer's license? If you're an administrative user, you can Ctrl-click on the App, choose Open from the pop-up menu, enter your OS X password, and tell Mountain Lion to trust this app in the future."

One step closer to all apps needing to come from the app store.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherf*cking walls around this motherf*cking garden!"

Re:lockdown coming.

[EraserMouseMan]

Yep. It's time you Export yourself outside the walled garden. It'll be a strange feeling for a few months. But boy is it liberating.

Re:lockdown coming.

[HarrySquatter]

You mean like that "walled garden" known as Android that has the same user options to only install from the Android market or to allow "Other sources"?

Re:lockdown coming.

[DigiShaman]

The convergence of OSX and iOS is nothing new. Just take a look at the Launch Pad in Lion. If the MacBook Air had a flip-able touch screen, you might have have an iPad now.

One App store to rule them all. All five devices under one account that is.

Re:lockdown coming.

[ColdWetDog]

One step closer to all apps needing to come from the app store.

OK, paranoid poodle, just how would you balance the attempt to limit damage by stupid endusers who will click on anything remotely interesting? It's basically sudo - 'you sure you want to do this?',yes?, 'OK, it's on your head'.

Although I'm not terribly impressed with Apple's attempt to transmogrify a perfectly good interface for users who typically need prompts to breath, this struck me as pretty reasonable.

Re:lockdown coming.

[HarrySquatter]

Sort of like how Android by default "spreads FUD" about apps not coming from the Android market? Since, you know, you have to check the "other sources" option in order to sideload apps? Yes, even on the vanilla versions of Android from Google it defaults to blocking sideloaded apps.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jo_ham]

Right, so if they try to do something about the supposed security problem (witness, ranting and frothing about Pwn2Own) then they are criticised for "locking down" but if they do nothing.... well, based on stories on here, they'll still be criticised for locking down. Might as well give it a shot eh?

How does this proposed feature indicate that apps must come from the App Store in the future? Sure, you can extrapolate from your two data points, but that doesn't mean Apple will go all the way to "App Store Only" in the same way that extrapolating from "not married on Sunday, married on Monday, married twice on Tuesday" really doesn't work.

There's not enough evidence to suggest that's the plan at all.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Anonymous Coward]

Developers can now get a free account to sign applications. Users then have a choice (see this screenshot of the settings whether they will allow App Store only apps, App Store or developer signed apps, or all apps.

I can't see Apple removing the ability to run unsigned apps completely. And besides, if you want to distribute your application to users, why not sign it if it's free to do so?

Re:lockdown coming.

[GrahamCox]

a utility that was written by someone who hasn't paid Apple's $99 fee for a developer's license

According to Gruber at Daring Fireball, the developer IDs will be issued free of charge. It's only if you want to submit to the App Store that you need to pay $99.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Speare]

You mean like that "walled garden" known as Android that has the same user options to only install from the Android market or to allow "Other sources"?

In the minds of many technically-savvy users, there is a huge distinction between a general purpose computer, and media consumption devices like phones and tablets. In the minds of corporations like Apple, eroding those distinctions helps them sell more media consumption devices and more media to be consumed. There will always be more technically-UNsavvy users than savvy, so they're just following the market. However, that leaves a lot of us out in the cold.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Mithent]

So, isn't this rather similar to the feature that Windows has had for years that warns you about running downloaded files, except this also requires elevation to run them if they weren't signed?

Re:lockdown coming.

[Samantha Wright]

I feel like I should spam this.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

To be fair, OSX already tells users not to trust any app that is downloaded from the internet, and asks you a confirmation to run it. If the app attempts to modify certain sectors, access some data, or even save information in some places, you are forced to enter a password to allow the app to do this.

I think this happens every single time the app attempts such modifications. For the most part only installers trigger this password validation now, and they do every time you run them. At least thats where I see them the most often.

This is not new either, has been there since at minimum Leopard (10.5). It appears the main difference here is the need to right-click (or ctrl click) to get the contextual menu that will allow you to open up the app. Makes it harder for people to accidentally click-open malware apps that somehow get downloaded by them clicking on the wrong thing.

Re:lockdown coming.

[HarrySquatter]

Great, and those technically-savvy users can just click the other option and stop whining. For the average user, this option is great. Is a combo box really that hard for you "technically-savvy users" to figure out?

Re:lockdown coming.

[beelsebob]

No, the OS is set to, by default, say "this application is not signed and hence not trusted", it's nothing to do with spreading FUD, it's a legitimate security device –warning users not to run random things that they don't know the origin of.

Re:lockdown coming.

[HarrySquatter]

Exactly. And these are the purported "technically-savvy users" who are most complaining about how they can't figure out a combo box and how to type in their password.

Re:lockdown coming.

[beelsebob]

The point being that going and finding said checkbox, and right clicking and saying "run it anyway" are roughly equivalent actions.

Re:lockdown coming.

[HarrySquatter]

It's not a walled garden when it's entirely YOUR CHOICE to restrict where you want apps to only be installable from. If you don't like the default option, click on one of the two other options.

Re:lockdown coming.

[who_stole_my_kidneys]

if your an "administrative user", apple does not like you, they never wanted you, and in all probability they hate you.

Re:lockdown coming.

[pirix]

I'm confused by your response. Besides the fact that Android runs on phones and OS X runs on computers - which I do think is a salient difference - I also don't understand explaining away one company's bad behavior by pointing towards another company that's doing the same thing. I don't see what Android does as being at all relevant to people's frustration with Apple and their move towards rigid control of their platforms.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

Not new. It has ALWAYS done this. From way before the App Store in the iPhone itself existed.

Re:lockdown coming.

[HarrySquatter]

The point is that when Apple does something no different from Android (which is not called a walled garden) the only response from these whiners is to whine about "walled gardens" when that isn't the implication of this change. This has nothing to do with trying to lock down OS X. It's about giving users control of what applications can be installed.

Re:lockdown coming.

[God'sDuck]

Oh god a check box..... it's sooooo difficult.... please help me!

Note I said "lockdown coming," not "lockdown here." I'm just pointing out that Apple is very, very smart about social engineering. This is of course very "easy" for technical users to deal with. But many users I support (IT of course, this is Slashdot) don't know how to work System Preferences. A smaller number don't know about control-click. So for those users, applications now have to come from the App Store (or at least be signed). So all commercial application developers will fall in line, not because they have to, but because the incremental cost is small (get a dev key) and the cost of not doing it is huge (grandma can't buy your app).

Once those users are used to the change, Apple will take the next step. By taking baby steps, they can morph OSX into a fully walled garden without much protest, because each step is sooooo difficult that the people that complain are easily shouted down. And then they get 30% of every transaction.

Re:lockdown coming.

[grub]

I've just installed the new Messages app beta on Lion. Sent imessages from my work desktop direct to my iPhone and back.

Pretty sweet actually.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

Sort of like how Android by default "spreads FUD" about apps not coming from the Android market? Since, you know, you have to check the "other sources" option in order to sideload apps? Yes, even on the vanilla versions of Android from Google it defaults to blocking sideloaded apps.

How dare you bring objective evidence to an Apple argument, sir!!!! :P

Re:lockdown coming.

[Quiet_Desperation]

I signed up for free last month as part of my new journey into the deep, dark lands of Objective C because I want to program this iPad thing I bought.

I see square brackets in my sleep. Brackets everywhere! Halp!

Re:lockdown coming.

[God'sDuck]

What worries me is that it will be just user unfriendly enough that low-tech-savvy users won't know what to do. As opposed to immediately prompting you for your password. My assumption is that this is couched in security, but is actually a deliberate inconvenience to make sure that application developers see a sales loss if they don't fall in line. Yes, it will increase security. I'm just connecting the dots between "Apple making 30% off every app transaction" and "Apple being a business first and a secure OS second" and assuming the business interests are going to take us to some interesting places.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Bert64]

Actually it makes perfect sense to have a walled garden for the vast majority of computer users.
Most people simply lack the technical skills to properly manage a fully featured computer connected to a public network like the internet. It makes perfect sense for these people to have a computer that is managed for them by someone else who is presumably competent.

Of course, such an approach has to be done properly...
You need multiple suppliers, so there is not a single entity in control of everyone's internet use, that would be terrible. People should be able to choose who they trust to manage their computer for them.
Also you need to have a process, preferably a complex one, by which people who are technically competent can unlock the system and manage it themselves. Have this process fully supported, but difficult enough that only competent people will be able to do it.

The Android approach is actually quite good, by default you have the marketplace provided by google or amazon etc which suits most users, but you still have the option to install third party apps or install third party firmware if you know how.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Anonymous Coward]

This, pretty much. The OS is set to, by default, spread FUD about apps not coming from the App Store. Being the default, it's as good as there being no other option, because users don't know enough to tell the difference.

Users don't know enough to tell the difference between valid regular programs and trojans. Currently the only malware available for Mac OS X are trojans. Gatekeeper will keep the low-hanging fruit out of the way.

And I'll be the first to raise my voice if non-App Store programs ever become completely prohibited, but until then, not having to worry about my parents or my sister download malware by accident keeps my personal tech support "costs" down to a minimum. Personally, I'll keep want to install things via MacPorts.

I'm also hoping Apple will integrate Capsicum as well now that it's in FreeBSD:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/capsicum/

Re:lockdown coming.

[God'sDuck]

Sure, you can extrapolate from your two data points, but that doesn't mean Apple will go all the way to "App Store Only" ...

I guess my thought is: why wouldn't they? They've proved the approach on iOS prints money like no tomorrow, improves security, and that they can get away with it. And they've proved on Lion that by making little tweaks to convenience they can get major developers to move into the App store. If in every iteration they add another tweak (in Lion only app store apps show up in the launchpad, in Mountain Lion non-apps need special permission to run), soon every application with any sizable userbase will have to move into the app store to not lose sales. And at that point they can launch a new unified OS that runs on every device that is fully walled, and the complainers will be few, since 99.9% of the apps anybody uses are already in the app store.

I don't think it's the end of the world. I don't think we can STOP it. And I'll still probably buy a Mac, because I frankly think they make a better product. But I do think we should notice what's happening.

Re:lockdown coming.

[m.ducharme]

How is this any closer to Apple locking down your ability to download and install any application (not App), and run it after a sudo check? It makes the mac App store more closed, I'll grant you that, but I for one never use the App store on my macs anyway, except to download a copy of the OS or Xcode or some other Apple software. Nothing mentioned in the summary (which was a little breathless and worshipful, I must admit) indicated that my ability to install third party software in the usual way would be limited (which is a good thing for me, because if that ever happens I'm gone).

Does the App Store make me uneasy? Yes it does. Am I watching new releases carefully before installing them on my computers? Yep. Has Apple done anything that would limit third parties from offering regular old software to mac users in the regular old way? No.

Re:lockdown coming.

[tibit]

I can't but agree. If you're serious about developing applications for a mac, then going through the app store won't be a big deal. If you're not-so-serious, or if those are free software, then it doesn't matter much because the users can easily bypass the protection. It basically makes you jump through more hoops before you can shoot yourself in the foot, and that is -- apparently -- what regular, computer-illiterate users need.

Now don't get me wrong: I believe that it's essentially illiteracy that makes the users oblivious to the fact that they themselves install and deploy malware. We're in an age where to be a successful citizen, you must have a basic understanding of computer security and operation. Being "non-technical" is a non-excuse. It's like saying that one is "non-artsy" or "non-crafty" when refusing to learn to read and write. Just as reading, writing and basic math became indispensable tools for existence in today's society, while you could do just fine without them a mere 500 years ago, today you do need to know how to tell a frickin' malware from the real thing, at least in the most obvious cases. Not knowing that is, today, just as bad as not knowing how to read would have been 50 years ago.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Culture20]

Even TFS details cosmetic changes that make OSX 10.8 more like iOS. Considering that Steve Jobs said that he planned to lock down Macs (stated that iOS was the future of computing), it makes perfect sense.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jo_ham]

iOS prints money for them because they sell the hardware - the software side of things lives and dies on third party developer support, which is why they've introduced the App Store to OS X. However, the App Store doesn't really make any money for Apple directly (other than their own apps, but they sold those beforehand), just in the same way that the App Store on iOS is a very small source of profit for them (nearly lost in the noise).

There's no reason for them to change the way OS X works and force an App Store only model, merely offer it alongside what already exists. They're smart enough to realise that not everyone is going to want to use it (or be able to use it) and they're not going to cut off that feature on the Mac - remember, they make the bulk of their money on the hardware sales, so any reason *not* to buy a Mac is just a threat to their bottom line. They know apps like the Creative Suite and other heavy hitters that are expensive or so things outside of the app store guidelines are not going to go away (as well as all the open source and freeware stuff that's part of the BSD side of things).

All they're doing is adding another step to the process in almost exactly the manner people on slashdot have been suggesting ("have the app store, but they should have a way for power users who know what they're doing to be able to work outside of it with a setting or password etc") and suddenly this is evidence of them locking everything down?

It's a security feature (although whether it will become like UAC on Windows and simply clicked through without reading is another matter), not a prelude to removing the ability to install non App Store apps.

Re:lockdown coming.

[grub]

It would be like using your desktop to send messages to BBM on a Blackberry. Then using your Blackberry to BBM to Playbook, then back to a desktop.

The iMessages system is (Apple) device agnostic now.

Re:lockdown coming.

[sglewis100]

Sort of like how Android by default "spreads FUD" about apps not coming from the Android market? Since, you know, you have to check the "other sources" option in order to sideload apps? Yes, even on the vanilla versions of Android from Google it defaults to blocking sideloaded apps.

That's different. It's open.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Truekaiser]

apple padlocks the door shut once you enter.
google leaves the door open and even tells you that you may leave at any time you wish.

Re:lockdown coming.

[itsdapead]

So, isn't this rather similar to the feature that Windows has had for years that warns you about running downloaded files

No, OS X has done something like that for years, too - except that works by using metadata to track downloads and warning the first time they are run, rather than just after they are downloaded (it even remembers where it was downloaded from). This adds code signing to the armory (new to OS X, outside the App Store, but obviously not new to the world) - pretty much anybody can get a signing key, but they prevent further changes after signing & Apple can revoke keys for malware.

Plus, you can turn the feature off if you think you're too smart to run a trojan.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Sloppy]

This isn't really all that bad. Imagine if Linux required you to sudo in order to chmod u+x something. The only people who would be pissed off by that, would be programmers (but Apple has thought of that too -- you can sign when you create the file, to make it be executable).

Pretty much the only thing they've gotten wrong (and it's a big one, but I think expected by users of this particular platform) is that the ultimate authority on what signatures are trusted, appears to be Apple rather than the owner of the machine.

You might be right that a lockdown is coming, though. Obviously, getting a share of all software sales for the platform, is something Apple would want, and their mobile customers have all already voted that they highly approve of the idea. Why wouldn't it end up going that way? To serve the interests of "classic" Mac users as opposed to iThing users? How many people is that? Not many of those are left, is my bet.

Re:lockdown coming.

[itsdapead]

if your an "administrative user", apple does not like you, they never wanted you, and in all probability they hate you.

Why don't you read one of the actual reports about the new OS? Then you might see the large friendly dialogue box with the "run anything but don't come cryin' to us if you get pwned" option.

Re:lockdown coming.

[pirix]

If I may refer you to this article: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/08/users-treat-criticism-of-favorite-brands-as-threat-to-self-image.ars

Re:lockdown coming.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's probably because if it just prompted for your password people would just enter their password. This would simply train users that applications often ask for your admin password and it's OK to give it to them.

The goal here seems to be to make running applications that aren't signed impossible for anyone who isn't savvy enough to appreciated the implications of doing so. In most cases this means smart enough to Google a tutorial.

Re:lockdown coming.

[mlts]

I will play devil's advocate here:

Apple's mechanism for checking for signed apps is, IMHO, a very good thing. What this does is force the user to really think about installing a program where the developer wasn't interested enough in obtaining a signing key.

All OSes should have some signed executable mechanism available. What this provides is resistance from attack should a repo/store/marketplace be tampered with, and ownership.

Windows has had Authenticode for years now, to the point where if an application developer doesn't care enough to sign their installer and code, businesses won't buy their product.

As for the OS X App store, yes, it is a double edged sword, and there is justification for being worried that Apple is slowly boiling the frog, but having a store/repo is a security benefit overall, which has been proven with Linux repositories.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Quiet_Desperation]

Uh, I suppose I shouldn't mention I kind of like it, then.

I'm only a little ways in, but it's starting to make sense. Messaging... yeah...

Although that could be me falling prey to the Obj-C equivalent of Reaper indoctrination or something.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jbolden]

The kernel code to require all apps to be signed by Apple already exists. ON 10.8 there are 3 modes set by the user:

a) Trust everything
b) Only signed apps
c) Only Apple store.

I'd assume the move will be towards (b) becoming standard. That may be good enough.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Z_A_Commando]

So it's "User Account Control" with a slicker title? UAC warns you that the program's signature isn't verified by Microsoft. If Microsoft had taken the next step, as it appears Apple has, and blocked programs without a verified signature, they would be vilified for it.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jbolden]

iOS isn't a fully walled guarden for the technically knowledgable. A great deal of the objection even to iOS has been hysteria. I agree with your basic point that the general direction of OSX will be towards the iOS model.

The fact is that for most end users and most developers the 30% Apple gets for playing the role of retailer is to their advantage. Apple is boosting software sales on iOS by making shopping safe and easy. Most developers easily recoup the the 30%. Heck in the OSX world it isn't uncommon for a developer to have to give up 80-90% to get the exposure the Apple store can give by "recommend application".

Re:lockdown coming.

[God'sDuck]

iOS prints money for them because they sell the hardware - the software side of things lives and dies on third party developer support, which is why they've introduced the App Store to OS X. However, the App Store doesn't really make any money for Apple directly (other than their own apps, but they sold those beforehand), just in the same way that the App Store on iOS is a very small source of profit for them (nearly lost in the noise).

$0.30 of every $1 spent on Apps goes to Apple. Thirty percent. They run the servers and handle the credit card transactions. They pay the server admins. They pay the folks that check code. The rest is profit. The App Store's market value is over $8 BILLION. Citation needed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS)

That's business. I'm not saying that makes them evil. But it definitely, definitely, prints money.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jbolden]

Out in the cold to do what?

Assuming iOS is your nightmare world, what is it you can't do on iOS as a technically savvy user?

Re:lockdown coming.

[jimicus]

What worries me is that it will be just user unfriendly enough that low-tech-savvy users won't know what to do. As opposed to immediately prompting you for your password. My assumption is that this is couched in security, but is actually a deliberate inconvenience to make sure that application developers see a sales loss if they don't fall in line. Yes, it will increase security. I'm just connecting the dots between "Apple making 30% off every app transaction" and "Apple being a business first and a secure OS second" and assuming the business interests are going to take us to some interesting places.

Considering the state such users tend to get Windows into, them not being able to figure out how to override it is probably no bad thing.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jbolden]

In all fairness the 3 settings on Mountain Lion are:

a) Apps from anywhere
b) Signed apps only
c) Apple store only

An option (c) will exist in 10.8.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jythie]

I am noticing that through this tread, we started with 'Apple will allow users to restrict installations' to 'Apple will no longer allow non-'App' applications'. Good example of whisper down the lane rumors.... 'what if' becomes 'fact' in only a few pages...

Re:lockdown coming.

[jythie]

Best, worse, it is all relative.

As someone who cut their teeth with C++ and Java, I found ObjC to be the most sane of the bunch, but then again I ended up really liking both C and SmallTalk when I started using them, and found both C++ and Java to be kludgy 'design by comity' languages.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Sloppy]

Sorry dude, but anyone who thinks of a "personal computer" and a "telephone" (or a "game console" or a "PVR" or an "e-book reader" or a $HACKER_INFIDEL_DU_JOUR) as distinctly different things -- and that one class should serve its owner and another class should serve someone else -- has sipped of the Nintendo/Sony/Apple/Microsoft(Xbox) koolaide.

If you like the taste, fine, drink more. If you don't, spit/vomit it out. It sounds like up to now, now you've had half a glassful, but I think you've got a fateful decision coming up. If you simply stop right now, the effect will be the same as if you chugged the whole thing, except slower and more agonizing.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Actually Apple hasn't taken the "next step". There is an option that is quite easy for the end user to change that allows unrestricted use of software from any source.

I don't see anything that rises to the level that warrants vilifying Apple or Microsoft. Not to mention, this is a developer's preview release.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Which OS are you talking about? It's your choice in both OS X and Android. You may want to re-read that article.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

You are not voiding the warranty by disabling this feature on Mac OS X either. And reading on the feture, it turns out you can disable it entirely.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

Apple is also offering a free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications. The feature by default will not ask for password for any signed app, so this does not force any developer to go exclusively via the App Store, but it may make it necesary to sign your app.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Moheeheeko]

But you are on iOS and he brought up cellphone OS's for some reason so I responded in kind.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Maybe because Objective-C was the main language since NextSTEP which is the ancestor of OS X.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Culture20]

In the minds of many technically-savvy users, there is a huge distinction between a general purpose computer, and media consumption devices like phones and tablets.

In the minds of many technically-savvy users, there is no distinction between a general purpose computer, and devices like smart phones and tablets beyond the arbitrary software restrictions placed on them.

Re:lockdown coming.

[gtall]

Did you even read you link? There's no mention of what it costs Apple to run the App Store. If you Google around, most of the stories say Apple runs the App store at cost or just above to make room for new capacity investment. But don't let that get in the way of pulling figures out of your ass.

BTW: The App Store's market value means nothing to the bottom line of revenues vs. expenditures, err....maybe you don't understand the difference.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Chelloveck]

Makes it harder for people to accidentally click-open malware apps that somehow get downloaded by them clicking on the wrong thing.

Does this ever really happen? Does malware ever get run by someone accidentally clicking on it? In my experience, the most common vector is to trick the user into wanting to run the software, not hoping that he'll click the program accidentally. This is usually done by offering porn or warez, or by pretending to be an anti-virus program. Any user dumb enough to run those things in the first place is dumb enough to disable the security system first. "What? It's not letting me run 'Natalie Portman Naked With Hot Grits.app'!? Damned cheesy 'security', of course I'm sure I want to run it!" One "disable" dialog later and they've been rooted.

I can't see this doing anything useful. Maybe it'll keep kids from running stuff they downloaded to their parents' computers (assuming the kids don't already have the admin password) but it's not going to stop the majority of users. Just like the "ZOMG! This was downloaded from the big, bad Interwebs! You're not really going to run it, are you?" warning doesn't actually stop anyone from running malware.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jo_ham]

Look at Apple's financial statements (and if you think they are lying, tell the SEC) - the App Store makes a profit for Apple but it a very small one in comparison with the hardware sales that are the reason the store exists for in the first place.

Apple has repeated stated year, on year, that the App Store is not much better than break even for them as a standalone product - the real money makers on the store are the third party developers.

Yes, much is made of the "massive" 30% cut they take for handling payment processing, store front, advertising, servers, bandwidth etc that go into running the store.

Yes, they pay all of those running costs and "the rest is profit" - and it *is* running in profit, just a very tiny profit compared to the hardware. They're not running the store to make money directly - they run it at near break even so that they can make money selling iOS devices.

The store prints money for third party developers - Apple stated something like $2.5 billion paid out to developers at the last big keynote I saw (Steve was alive at the time, since he was the one who said it), and it's going to be even more now.

It's not printing money for Apple though, not directly at any rate.

Re:lockdown coming.

[noh8rz2]

Off topic. The thread is about os x, not ios. Try to keep up.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

No, we are talking about OSX 10.8's new signed app treatment. Look at the post you replied before, he notes "This has nothing to do with trying to lock down OS X"

Android was brought up because Android treats apps exactly the same way (well almost) that Mac OS X 10.8 will, yet no one calls Android a "walled garden."

A lot of people here are screaming that forcing users into knowing what they are doing to install unsigned apps translates into OS X becoming a draconian walled garden that is going to destroy computing as we know it, despite being exactly what Android does.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jo_ham]

Right, and in the absence of options a and b, then we can start being all chicken little and talk about being squashed by a cloud, but in the meantime a security feature is being spun out into a Machiavellian lock down scenario.

This is what people have been saying Apple should do since the release of iOS (I know this is OS X, but coming from the other direction) - curated system for those who want it, with an option to move out "into the wild" for those who know what they're doing. The non-App Store install really isn't going to go anywhere.

Re:lockdown coming.

[noh8rz2]

Hw easy is it to get a valid apple signature, so the warning box doesn't pop up? If I spent 6 months developing a Mac app, and it only took 10 mins and free to get a signature, I would do so without hesitation. What's the problem here?

Re:lockdown coming.

[noh8rz2]

I think that if you want to distribute outside the Mac store, then you can get an apple signature and the warning won't pop up. Is this a mounting out of a molehills?

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

Does this ever really happen? Does malware ever get run by someone accidentally clicking on it?

Yes. A lot. Malware apps with icons that look like documents (images/movies) are rather common. A huge number of malware sneaks piggy backing on torrents and email attachments this way.

It's not clicking accidentally, but running a program accidentally because, well, you had no clue it was a program to begin with.

The point now is that the app wont even open up. A stupid user will just scratch his head "uh... well i guess this is a bad file, let me find my porn somewhere else."

I also have read some conflicting info now. Seems that you actually need to enable in a control panel the ability to run unsigned apps and apple will provide developers a service to sign apps free of charge, without needing to go through the App Store or approval process.

Sure, basically anyone, even malware authors may be able to get their apps signed, but then Apple can just invalidate the signature the first time it's encountered in the wild, effectively killing any spreading of the malware (and even killing already installed copies.)

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

I didnt mention ios...

Re:lockdown coming.

[God'sDuck]

Yes, they pay all of those running costs and "the rest is profit" - and it *is* running in profit, just a very tiny profit compared to the hardware. They're not running the store to make money directly - they run it at near break even so that they can make money selling iOS devices.

I...stand corrected. I had assumed Apple wasn't spending that much on operations. You're right; a bit more Googling shows they're only pocketing about 1%. I was assuming it was closer to 20%.

Re:lockdown coming.

[marcello_dl]

> I can't but agree. If you're serious about developing applications for a mac, then going through the app store won't be a big deal.

It's a huge deal. Has apps been pulled for suspect reasons in the past? what when the idea of a mandatory app store is sedimented? Now most people don't fully buy the concept, I'm talking IRL not in the world of internet media.

Well it's not like devs have much choice. Only big sw makers with multiplatform suites covering vertical market can oppose, and not forever. Old school Personal Computing is a pain in the ass for the system, MS and Apple and Google are moving, hardware makers are in bed with them. I'll get an abacus.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Ed Avis]

just how would you balance the attempt to limit damage by stupid endusers who will click on anything remotely interesting?

Provide a sane, one-click way to say "Run this app, but don't let it overwrite any of my stuff or access any of my files except those I explicitly drag onto it from the Finder". Technically not hard to do using a bit of sandboxing. The difficulties are in making a straightforward user interface to permit access to individual files (though if anyone can do it, Apple can) and dealing with legacy apps that expect unreasonable write permissions to all sorts of crufty places on the filesystem.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Moheeheeko]

Then by that argument I should be singing the praises about how I have to do litterally nothing to get whatever I want on my Windows machine, while you cannot do anything without Apple's permission on an iOS device.

Comparing a personal computer OS to a cellphone OS is asanine by default, as you have always been able to do what you want on a personal computer, reguardless of OS while on a cellphone, just asking you first before letting you do what you want was radical thinking when Android dropped as before It was only "do what we tell you or else".

Limiting my freedom in any form on a personal computer is a step in the wrong direction, no matter who does it. This process is going in the exact opposite direction of mobile OS's, they become more free, while home computer OS become more restrictive, and I fear its only a matter of time before iOS and OSX become the same thing, and limit you to whatever Apple deems worthy and nothing more.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Sloppy]

Imagine if Linux required you to sudo in order to chmod u+x something.

That might make a really cool mount option, sort of a "noexec-lite." I bet it would be easy to add, too.

Re:lockdown coming.

[shutdown -p now]

No, OS X has done something like that for years, too - except that works by using metadata to track downloads and warning the first time they are run, rather than just after they are downloaded (it even remembers where it was downloaded from)

Actually, Windows does is that way as well, at least since XP - it uses NTFS metadata to store the flag that says file came from an untrusted source. If you download an .exe, forget about it for a few months, and then run it, the dialog will still pop up.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

Now you are just trying to save face in the error.

There is a lot of logic behind bringing code signing to the desktop, starting with the fact that’s where it was born.

By virtue of Android and iOS being new platforms they happened to be entirely built around code signing, but Smartphones are little more than cell capable PDAs, devices that allowed you to do anything you wanted. So did Windows Mobile, actually. Code signing requirements are just an evolution in computing, unless you are 12 you would have seen it coming years ago.

At the end of the day no freedom is being limited in the Mac desktop with this. Entirely the opposite: you are simply gaining more power. The user is getting the tools he needs to be able to say "i only want signed apps to ever run on my computer." He has just as much power to say "let everything run on my computer".

Any hypothesis of Apple locking down the OS just by giving users a strong security tool is just FUD.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Chelloveck]

That will lead to even more problems, though. Don't need to go through the approval process? Then anyone, including malware authors can sign their apps. No gain. Oh, they're checking a revocation list when the app is run? Does that mean I have to be connected to the net every time I run a signed app? That could be problematic, especially considering that all of Apple's own apps will presumably be signed. (Or will those keys be irrevocable?) Or will my computer download and cache the revocation lists periodically? In that case, can't malware bypass security (at least for a few days) by blocking the revocation list download?

Re:lockdown coming.

[DogDude]

The *are* distinctly different things. Phones are designed to do a very limited number of things well. PC's are designed to do anything you want them to do. PC's are used for countless different things, with countless items plugged into them. They, by definition, are flexible, but with that flexibility, you sacrifice some stability. Phones, on the other hand, are NOT very flexible, but I've never seen a phone crash (note: I use a Windows Phone... I can't vouch for other phones).

Re:lockdown coming.

[catchblue22]

Market demand be damned. The simple fact is that I shouldn't have to "hack" my device to make it Turing complete.

Re:lockdown coming.

[beelsebob]

1) Apple hasn't taken the next step, you can still run the programs by right clicking and selecting open.
2) It's not like it's hard to get a signature – free dev account, gets you a cert to sign with. If apple finds malicious apps in the wild, they'll revoke it.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Cinder6]

Everything I've read says that the default is to allow signed and MAS apps only, but you can change it to run unsigned apps. How much does it cost to get a developer ID and sign your apps? It's free. You don't need the $99/year license--it's a new program.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/16/gatekeeper_to_add_optional_app_restrictions_to_mountain_lion.html

Also, notice the "and" part in my first sentence. You don't need to be in the MAS to have a signed app. You do, however, need to be in the MAS in order to take advantage of iCloud.

Re:lockdown coming.

[TheRaven64]

More importantly: apps that come from the App Store are now required to run in a sandbox. Apps that do not can do anything. It makes sense to warn when you run a new app outside of a sandbox. It would be even better if it would say 'Do you want to run this app in a sandbox?' and default to 'yes'.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jbolden]

I agree with you that people are being chicken little. Heck I don't think the policies on iOS are really so bad. But.... I do think it is important to be clear here. Apple is unambiguously moving in that direction. There is more evidence than just "two data points", it is now possible to create a Mac with that setting and it might become the default in the future.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Moheeheeko]

There was no error, people are trying to say that this feature isnt an increase of restrictions on the personal computer by saying a cellphone does the same thing. It isnt a valid comparison.

Why dont people call Android a "walled garden"? Because it isnt iOS, that limits you to only whats "approved" for the app store, which Apple has demonstrated in the past can and will be limited by thier own tech politics.

Apps are banned simply because they improve upon features that are allready on the OS and make Apple look bad. camera improving apps, apps that let you exchange files via bluetooth (like every other phone on the market), apps that improve upon the built in claendar, even apps that just simply put icons on the home screen to see if you have a text or not are all on the banned list. With the new OS "blurring the lines between OSX and iOS" it isnt far fetched to wonder if they will eventually make both the same OS and kill the "let me get what I want" feature entirely.

Re:lockdown coming.

[quacking duck]

Check what you're replying to. This wasn't about jailbreaking iOS, it was about allowing apps from unverified 3rd party sources to be installed onto the next release of Mac OS X. No warranty is voided.

And even on iOS, if a jailbreak or jailbroken app borks the device, you can just restore the Apple-approved firmware. Apple just won't do warranty work on a system that comes in jailbroken.

Re:lockdown coming.

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Been there, done that. Different strokes for different folks.

Re:lockdown coming.

[david_thornley]

You're missing a very important point. The malware will be signed. Think about what "signed" means. Somebody went to Apple and gave some personal information in exchange for being able to distribute botnet apps. Even if the personal information is faked, there's likely to be leads, and probably evidence to help convict the writer. The fact that the signature can be revoked in some way is gravy.

Re:lockdown coming.

[beelsebob]

It's not actually non app store apps that it bans – it's unsigned apps. Any developer can sign an app by grabbing a free dev account and sending a cert signing request to apple.

Ofc Apple reserve the right to revoke the cert, which will cause a signed app to be *impossible* to run on any mac that knows about the cert revokation.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jo_ham]

It is the default setting already, not "in the future" (ie, it is the default in the new dev preview of 10.8).

All it does, even when set at the most restrictive setting (there are three options you can choose), is ask you to confirm you want to trust an app that you install if it didn't come from the App Store. It doesn't stop you running it (unless you say no of course), and it won't ask again after the first approval. It's essentially UAC as seen in Windows XP, except it remembers your choices and holds a whitelist that has App Store apps in it, plus any apps that you choose to add to it.

If you don't want it to ask at all (ie, the current state of affairs on 10.7) then you can turn the feature off.

The three choices are:

* App Store Only (ask about all other apps on first run)
* App Store and digitally signed developers (ask for anything that is not digitally signed, with the certificates (according to Apple) given to any developer that wants one) - This is the default setting when installing OS X 10.8
* Allow from anywhere (feature turned off)

Re:lockdown coming.

[Moheeheeko]

Im aware of that, but people seem to think that comparing OSX to Andoid to justify restrictiveness and cry foul because Android isnt criticised for doing the same thing is a valid point. I explain that Android isnt viewed as bad because the other option is iOS that is far more restrictive. The comparison to OSX is either Windows, or Linux, both of which lack any software signing requirement. Therefore by comparison, it is restrictive.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

With the new OS "blurring the lines between OSX and iOS" it isnt far fetched to wonder if they will eventually make both the same OS and kill the "let me get what I want" feature entirely.

In short: FUD.

Re:lockdown coming.

[TheRaven64]

How is this any closer to Apple locking down your ability to download and install any application (not App)

Why not App? They come in bundles with a .app extension, and have since NeXTSTEP 1.0 in 1988...

Re:lockdown coming.

[noh8rz2]

Sorry, meant to reply to the parent. His reference to voiding the warrantee is an allusion to ios jaibreaking, which has nothing to do with OSx.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why they would have to bother with this - Mac's don't get viruses.

Re:lockdown coming.

[iluvcapra]

We haven't seen the implementation of this yet, but if you were to set Apple's certificates to untrusted, their signatures, and revocations, would probably have no effect.

Note also that if you're committed to using some code they've revoked cert for, you can strip out a Mach-O binary's signatures.

Re:lockdown coming.

[thetoadwarrior]

What does iOS have to do with OS X?

Re:lockdown coming.

[makomk]

Right, so if they try to do something about the supposed security problem (witness, ranting and frothing about Pwn2Own) then they are criticised for "locking down" but if they do nothing...

Code signing does nothing to stop them getting owned in Pwn2Own, because the security vulnerabilities are in trusted code which is generally supplied by Apple themselves. In fact, take a look at iOS sometime. That's even more locked down and half the jailbreaks are from remotely-exploitable security holes.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

Explain to me: how does an OPTION locks an OS down?

Re:lockdown coming.

[makomk]

All it does, even when set at the most restrictive setting (there are three options you can choose), is ask you to confirm you want to trust an app that you install if it didn't come from the App Store. It doesn't stop you running it (unless you say no of course), and it won't ask again after the first approval.

According to a comment by someone else, this option to override is only available to admins and by default non-admins can only run signed apps.

App Store and digitally signed developers (ask for anything that is not digitally signed, with the certificates (according to Apple) given to any developer that wants one) - This is the default setting when installing OS X 10.8

Anyone that wants one and is paying them $99 a year to become a developer, yes.

Re:lockdown coming.

[makomk]

Think about the number of developers of Apple software. Now think about what proportion of them consistently follow good security practices.

Re:lockdown coming.

[makomk]

By being default-enabled, requiring admin privileges to change, and no doubt coming with scary warnings about how you'll get hacked if you disable it.

Re:lockdown coming.

[beelsebob]

Absolutely – gatekeeper doesn't stop you doing anything you couldn't already do, it just makes the OS rather more secure for noobs by providing Apple with a way of stopping malicious software running on their machines, and not impeding people who genuinely want it to run.

Re:lockdown coming.

[makomk]

I don't think they are actually. According to Apple's webpage for Gatekeeper you have to be part of the $99/year Mac developer program. The only person claiming that they're free is Gruber, and I think he's either misunderstood what Apple has said or is being deliberately misleading. Notice how the Verge piece says there's "there’s no cost to developers beyond the standard Mac developer program fees" - the developer IDs are technically free to registered developers but since in order to register as one in the first place you have to pay the annual fee they're not actually free in practice.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jo_ham]

You don't need to pay Apple $99 per year to get digitally signed - the whole point is to provide developer ID for apps installed *outside* the App Store ecosystem.

So, for example, Adobe would get digitally signed so that the Creative Suite would be in the whitelist by default (although I'm aware they also pay the absolutely gigantic and extortionate, unaffordable $99 fee to develop in the App Store too, since they sell Photoshop Elements that way).

Apple have also stated that the certificates are available for any developer than wants one - there's no vetting process, but once you have one, it can be revoked if your apps are obviously malware (or your cert is compromised).

And speaking about non-admin users - how is that really different to now? non-admin users can't run installers either (although they can drag apps that don't use one into their home folder). If you don't have admin access on the machine, it's being maintained by someone else who can manage your software for you.

Re:lockdown coming.

[makomk]

According to the official Apple site you have to be a member of the $99 a year Mac Developer Program in order to get a developer ID. From the way the Verge piece is worded, I suspect that Apple have been feeding journalists a line of BS about it being free to registered Mac developers, which is technically true - it's just that you have to pay an annual fee before they count you as a developer in the first place.

Re:lockdown coming.

[mario_grgic]

Now you understand how religions come about.

Re:lockdown coming.

[BlackSnake112]

You do know that Foxconn makes apple hardware, right?

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

) You already need admin privileges to install software in both macs and windows
2) If you have no admin privileges you have no business installing software on that machine.
3) The message to disable it reads "Choosing 'Anywhere' makes your Mac less secure. Instead you can allow an individual application from an unknown developer by control-clicking it's icon and selecting Open" (my i peed myself after reading that!
4) Double clicking the downloaded, unsigned app, will simply read "XXX is not from an identified developer." Right clicking it and selecting open simply brings a password entry box without additional messages.
5) If such a message scares anyone, that person should not be installing software from the open web to begin with!!!
6) This only affects apps that are downloaded from the internet. If you get the app into the machine from a thumb drive or CD, it will run normally.

Honestly, if you consider this even near "locked down", you dont know much about computers.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

Apple developer IDs are entirely free, not technically.

The way Apple Developer program works is that you first get an Developer ID. Once you have that, you log in and you can subscribe to the iOS Developer program($99/year), the Mac Developer Program ($99/year), or the Safari Developer program (free.)

You only have pay for the Mac Developer program if you want access to software and OS betas and App Store publishing among other things.

Up to this point everyone has stated only a Developer ID is required to get the required certificate. Anyone that goes through said process would know the rest I listed here. Gruber likely thought not everyone would figure Dev IDs are free.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

"But what if you want to run an older app, or download a utility that was written by someone who hasn't paid Apple's $99 fee for a developer's license? If you're an administrative user, you can Ctrl-click on the App, choose Open from the pop-up menu, enter your OS X password, and tell Mountain Lion to trust this app in the future."

Or just fucking set "Allow applications downloaded from:" to "Anywhere". (At least according to Daring Fireball, the default setting is "Mac App Store and identified developers"; I'm curious whether that's also the default setting if you upgrade a machine, or if it defaults to "Anywhere" on an upgrade for the benefit of already-installed unsigned apps, or if it's using Quarantine so that it pesters you only for newly-downloaded apps. For that matter, I'm curious whether it's in the exec code, so that it vets all executable images, or if it's in Launch Services so that it only vets applications launched through LS.)

One step closer to all apps needing to come from the app store.

Or not. It might just be a heavier-duty version of the "warning when you first open a newly-downloaded application from the UI" stuff that's been there since at least Snow Leopard; the MacWorld article on Gatekeeper makes it look a bit like the latter.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

This, pretty much. The OS is set to, by default, spread FUD about apps not coming from the App Store.

Or, if John Gruber's claim is correct, the OS is set to, by default, spread FUD about apps coming neither from the App Store nor from identified developers :

In effect, it offers all the security benefits of the App Store, except for the process of approving apps by Apple. Users have three choices which type of apps can run on Mountain Lion:

• Only those from the App Store
• Only those from the App Store or which are signed by a developer ID
• Any app, whether signed or unsigned

The default for this setting is, I say, exactly right: the one in the middle, disallowing only unsigned apps.

Being the default, it's as good as there being no other option, because users don't know enough to tell the difference.

Hopefully the dialog that pops up when you try to launch an app not in the category specified by the setting will also point you to the setting for changing that behavior. (That article also says the default is "App Store or identified developer.)

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

By being default-enabled,

Note that the default, according to both Daring Fireball and MacWorld, is "App Store or identified developers", not "App Store only", so it's not as much of a lockdown as iOS by default.

requiring admin privileges to change,

Perhaps they're changing it in Mountain Lion, but the first user account created on a machine is given admin privileges by default. It's up to that user to, if they create accounts for other users, whether to trust those users to run arbitrary apps.

and no doubt coming with scary warnings about how you'll get hacked if you disable it.

Yes, although the warning also tells you how to override the option on a per-app basis.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

Yep. It's time you Export yourself outside the walled garden. It'll be a strange feeling for a few months. But boy is it liberating.

I.e., by opening up System Preferences, going to the Security pane, and setting "Allow applications downloaded from:" to "Anywhere"? (Or were you talking about iOS, which unfortunately lacks that option?)

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

I think that if you want to distribute outside the Mac store, then you can get an apple signature and the warning won't pop up.

The default setting is "Mac App Store and identified developers", so if you want to sell software that works with the default Mountain Lion setting, you can get a signing key and use that.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

Well it's not like devs have much choice.

Yeah, the only choices they have are:

1. go through the Mac App Store (which means your apps work with all settings for Gatekeeper);
2. go through the Mac App Store or register as an "identified developer" and get a key and sell the software however you want (which means your apps work with the default setting for Gatekeeper as well as the "run anything" setting);
3. do neither (which means your apps require that the user either set Gatekeeper to "run anything" or run your app by control-clicking and selecting Open - which I suspect only has to be done the first time it's run).

I.e., they do, for the Mac, have a choice to avoid the App Store.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

Even TFS details cosmetic changes that make OSX 10.8 more like iOS.

ZOMG THEY SPLIT THE TO-DO LIST INTO ITS OWN APP AND RENAMED iChat to MESSAGES THE NEXT STEP IS HAVING TO PERSONALLY PLEAD WITH TIM COOK TO BE ALLOWED TO RUN AN APP!!!!!!1111ONE!!!!!!!!!

Considering that Steve Jobs said that he planned to lock down Macs (stated that iOS was the future of computing),

The two are inequivalent; I don't know exactly what he said (did he literally say "iOS is the future of computing", or did he say something else that some could interpret as meaning that?), but it could be that he said something that amounted to "most people would be fine with an iOS-style system, and the Mac is there for the people who need more" (which is what his "car vs. truck" statement amounted to).

Personally, I agree with John "Daring Fireball" Gruber when he says about the Gatekeeper options "Call me nuts, but that’s one feature I hope will someday go in the other direction — from OS X to iOS.". Whether that'll happen is another matter.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

You miss the point. It's not about where it presently is, it's about where it seems likely to be headed. I wonder if you'll still defend Apple when/if they do start forcing you to jailbreak your computer before installing outside of the official store?

No, I wouldn't (and it doesn't seem likely to me to be headed that way). I, like John Gruber, think it'd be cool if these options want "back to iOS"; whether that'll happen is another matter. (Of course, one disadvantage to Apple of them doing that is that if it reduces the demand for jailbreaking enough, it'll reduce the number of third-party developers finding security holes for Apple, so they'll have to do more work themselves. :-))

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

My assumption is that this is couched in security, but is actually a deliberate inconvenience to make sure that application developers see a sales loss if they don't fall in line.

If you're talking about Mountain Lion, presumably by "fall in line" you mean "sign up for the Mac Developer Program at USD 99/year and get a signing key"; you obviously don't mean "start shipping your app through the App Store and paying Apple 30%", because the default setting is "allow App Store apps or apps signed by identified developers".

Re:lockdown coming.

[Sancho]

A few points to consider.

1) Apple now has a kill switch. Part of the point of pushing application-signing is so that they can disable signed apps which turn out to be malicious. Only one has to wonder if that's all it will be used for. It's not that I'm particularly distrustful of Apple--I'm distrustful of companies with a lot of power. Amazon's used their kill switch to remotely delete content, promised not to do it again, then did it again. If a company is big enough to survive the publicity of using their kill-switch, then it is in their interest to use it when locking out that software benefits them.

Heck, merely having the ability to do such a thing invites having some patent lawyer ask for a court order requiring that they use it against allegedly infringing third-party works, even if Apple itself were inherently trustworthy. Kill-switches from software vendors are a horrible idea. Apple almost certainly wants the ability to disable any software running on their hardware, which partially leads into...

2) There's no doubt that Apple would love for all software to be sold through the App store. They make money that way, and they get people accustomed to relying on them for software. I don't think it's inherently bad to run an app store, however requiring people to use it would be bad. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think that's the future for Apple.

My prediction is that 10.10 will remove the ability to run unsigned content (after all, it's free to get a signing key.) And 10.11 will probably require all precompiled applications to be acquired through the App store (except on the Server version of the OS, for which the option to run unsigned binaries will almost certainly remain.) 10.9 will keep the defaults, as it will take some time to get a critical mass of non-App store developers signing their work.

3) Virtualization. I expect it to be built into the OS at some point, based upon point 2 above. Maybe they'll acquire Parallels or Virtualbox from Oracle. Maybe they'll write their own. It will be a concession to the fact that they still live in a heavily-Windows world, and interoperability is still sometimes required.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Em Adespoton]

In my opinion, Apple needs one more piece to make this a solid system...
Anything that can run in the sandbox should do so. If it does something that can't run in the sandbox, this should be flagged in an "Application summary" panel, where you can see what other rights (kernel access, network stack access, system-area file access, etc.) the software wants to use, and approve/deny those features on a per-app basis.

This way, if you have an app that's supposed to print postcards based on images in iPhoto and it starts asking for elevated kernel privileges or access to the network stack, you can revoke access and still use the app.

While not really the best thing to do, it's what would work in real life with real users who won't want to ditch their postcard printer and search for some software that is legit.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Em Adespoton]

The end result is that it is possible to lock down a Mac if you'd like to, but still run software modified post-signer if you don't want to.

This is really a benefit as the current common Mac malware is:
Fake Flash installer
Fake Antivirus installer
Fake Apple product installer
Fake Microsoft product installer

That covers pretty much 80% of the malware you'll see today on the Mac. With a CA for apps, you can now attempt to runn that Flash installer and get a "This is not a signed application" error (and you KNOW that Adober signs their installers) or a "This application was downloaded from www.getcherwarezhere.info and is signed by 'Adobee lnc.' Are you sure you want to run this?" message. With Apple getting error submissions from most of the install base and someone likely to report this malicious app, the 'Adobee lnc.' cert would be revoked mightily fast, and thanks to Apple's push update service, most of the install base will have the revoked certificate cached within hours of its revocation.

This means that in order to do what they do now, the malware authors would have to either register a few thousand bogus developer accounts in a way that wouldn't get them auto-revoked, or start targeting ADC account username/password combos to make an end-run around this security measure.

Both of these add a disincentive to write the stuff in the first place, and both methods will eventually be attempted. We'll see how well Apple does at handling them.

The main down-side I see to this system is that if I write some software, publish it (to the App store, or freelance) and then someone steals my account info, my cert will be blocked and ALL my software will be revoked. To fix this, I'll have to re-compile all my software against a new certificate and make it available to my userbase.

From an end-user's perspective, the issue becomes some random software on my computer suddenly failing to run without control-clicking to run it, with no reason given. This could get extremely confusing.

Re:lockdown coming.

[bmo]

Guiding people to trusted resources is a good thing.

As opposed to the Microsoft way of doing things where users are *taught* by the ecosystem to just download and run software willy nilly because "you need this codec to view this porn" or some shit like that.

And then there's the warez scene where downloading, installing, and running software from torrent and DDL sites is just like clicking on Viagra ads in spam email. Except the Viagra ad clicker isn't going 'round bragging that he's not paying for software.

And Wintards wonder how they get fucked in the ass by malware writers.

Famous last words "Oh, it's just a false positive"

--
BMO

Sent from my Ubuntu Laptop

Re:lockdown coming.

[brantondaveperson]

By being default-enabled

Which improves security. App-store provided apps are less likely to contain malware.

requiring admin privileges to change

Which you'll have if you own the computer.

and no doubt coming with scary warnings about how you'll get hacked if you disable it.

Which is an unwarranted assumption.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

The kernel code to require all apps to be signed by Apple already exists.

...and it's not even clear whether that code is being used here. This might be done well above the exec/posix_spawn calls, just as the "you just downloaded this app from the Intertubes, do you really want to run it?" dialog is.

Re:lockdown coming.

[gnasher719]

I...stand corrected. I had assumed Apple wasn't spending that much on operations. You're right; a bit more Googling shows they're only pocketing about 1%. I was assuming it was closer to 20%.

The cheapest way to buy on the App Store is to buy gift cards which are often available at reduced prices. For example, last week I bought £25 gift cards for £20, from a legitimate source. If I buy the card for £20, and the store isn't selling at a less, then Apple gets less than £20 or less than 80% from the purchase and pays 70% to some developer or to a record company. So that is less than 10% left before the cost of running the store.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jbolden]

I'd assume they don't want apps granting permission to other apps bypassing the security system. But we'll have to see.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

I'd assume they don't want apps granting permission to other apps bypassing the security system. But we'll have to see.

"Granting permission" applies to sandboxed App Store apps, and the sandbox in which they run might well just block exec and posix_spawn calls completely. Apps that happen to be signed by an identified developer have the same permissions that unsigned apps do, so it's not as if there are other permissions to grant - all signing does is protect against the app being modified by some piece of malware (that would invalidate the signature) and let Apple flip the kill switch on it if they decide it should be killed because, for example, it turns out to be malware.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jo_ham]

Because... that's what people want from the platform?

It is possible for them to have more than one way to meet the needs of their customers. Just because they have iOS doesn't mean everything is going to replicate it exactly.

Consider the way they have introduced this feature - by default the option is app store and any other identified developer (digital signing is free to get from Apple), and a one-time conformation for "unknown" apps, but there are two other options to choose from - one of which is to disable the feature entirely. They "care" enough to know that power users (and occasionally their other customers) need more than the App Store can provide.

Also, you forgot to log in. If you hang around enough to "be really sick of me jerking off on every Apple story" then you really should remember to log in. It's really easy. Also, if this discussion and others I've had on here count as jerking off then you have my deepest sympathies over your own sex life. It must really be tragic.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jbolden]

I'm not following sorry I'm probably being dense.

OK so if it is app store only then only sandboxed apps can run.

If it is appstore or signed then I'd assume that signed ones don't have to run sandboxed.

If it is anything then can they remotely kill?

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

Impossible, the last time this came up on Slashdot we were assured by legions of fanboys that Apple would never do that.

And they haven't done that. Hell, the default isn't App-Store-only. I'd be happier if the "I didn't launch that app because it's not from an identified developer" dialog directly told the user how to override it or flip the switch (as that'd squelch the "but the switch isn't obvious so it might as well not be there" complaints). (I'd be even happier if iOS adopted the same model, as that'd squelch a lot of complaints....)

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

I'm not following sorry I'm probably being dense.

OK so if it is app store only then only sandboxed apps can run.

If it's App Store-only, you have to control-click on a non-sandboxed app and use Open to run it, if overriding that setting is supported.

If it is appstore or signed then I'd assume that signed ones don't have to run sandboxed.

if it's App Store-or-signed, non-App Store apps don't, as far as I know, run sandboxed (unless there's an option for the developer to choose to sandbox it, which there might well be - maybe they want to do something that would keep it out of the App Store but still want to block it from being tricked into doing things the user doesn't want it to do).

If it is anything then can they remotely kill?

They can't kill unsigned apps. I don't know what happens if you run a signed app and it's been killed - it might just drive on, it might say "we think this might be malware, are you sure you want to run it?" and let you launch it anyway, or it might just refuse to run it.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

if your an "administrative user", apple does not like you, they never wanted you, and in all probability they hate you.

If you're an "administrative user", you are what Apple would call "the first user account on the system", as the initial user account is created, by default, with admin privileges (which means "your default group set includes the "admin" group").

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

The *are* distinctly different things. Phones are designed to do a very limited number of things well.

So my phone was designed to:

• keep a list of carbohydrate contents for foods (and let me add custom items to the list);
• listen to music, upload the sample to a server, and hopefully get back a match for the music to indicate what the song was and who was performing it;
• act as a remote control for my set-top box (well, actually, the Apple TV is under the set, but...);
• ssh into a remote machine;

etc.? It does a decent job of the first three of those (I haven't done much with iSSH).

Phones, on the other hand, are NOT very flexible, but I've never seen a phone crash (note: I use a Windows Phone... I can't vouch for other phones).

I don't think XNU's ever panicked on my phone, but I have seen app crashes.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Sancho]

You're causing this to go in circles.

Meathead 1 said:

This, pretty much. The OS is set to, by default, spread FUD about apps not coming from the App Store. Being the default, it's as good as there being no other option, because users don't know enough to tell the difference.

Meathead 2 said:

Sort of like how Android by default "spreads FUD" about apps not coming from the Android market? Since, you know, you have to check the "other sources" option in order to sideload apps? Yes, even on the vanilla versions of Android from Google it defaults to blocking sideloaded apps.

This was apparently in an attempt to point out that the popular phone OS around here does the same thing

AC, in a burst of sanity, said:

I'm confused by your response. Besides the fact that Android runs on phones and OS X runs on computers - which I do think is a salient difference - I also don't understand explaining away one company's bad behavior by pointing towards another company that's doing the same thing. I don't see what Android does as being at all relevant to people's frustration with Apple and their move towards rigid control of their platforms.

To which Meathead 2 said:

The point is that when Apple does something no different from Android (which is not called a walled garden) the only response from these whiners is to whine about "walled gardens" when that isn't the implication of this change. This has nothing to do with trying to lock down OS X. It's about giving users control of what applications can be installed.

And this is where it really gets fouled up.

Meathead 3 brings iOS into it, which no one had mentioned up until this point:

The main difference here is on Android you dont have to void the warranty to get those other apps, just uncheck the box.

Meathead 3 is thinking of iOS in a conversation about OS X and Android. Meathead 3 gets called on it and goes into defensive mode, "Well someone else brought up phone OSs!" Look, iOS locking stuff down isn't news. It's been going on for the better part of 4 years.

Meathead 3 goes into "defense mode"--probably realizing his error, but definitely being unwilling to be proven wrong, and goes off on several tangents. Then we get to your post:

By being default-enabled, requiring admin privileges to change, and no doubt coming with scary warnings about how you'll get hacked if you disable it.

Well. Duh. Android does this. OS X does this. We've come full circle.

And really, the whole point is that when Android does a thing, no one screams about lockdown and no one calls it a walled garden. When Apple does the very same thing (newly, on OS X) lots of meatheads start crying foul. It's not saying that it's right when Apple does it--it's pointing out the double-standard that no one complains when Android does it. It demonstrates the incredible bias here, which has nothing to do with technical merits and has everything to do with the companies involved. It's like a bunch of sports fans getting into fights, and it's absurd.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Sancho]

Apple's desktop offering is now more locked down than than the other competing desktop platforms.

True.

Apple's phone and tablet offering is also more locked down than Android, which is the main competing phone and tablet platform.

True, but this is nothing new.

Comparing the level of lockdown on Apple's desktops to the level on Android smartphones is comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not sure how this last statement follows from the previous ones.

For some reason, people want to differentiate general purpose computing devices based upon whether or not they make use of telephony on the cell tower networks. This confuses me, because it seems like an odd arbitrary distinction.

Android phones are general purpose computers. So are iOS devices. So are machines running OS X. So are machines running Linux. So are machines running Windows. Why does comparing the lockdown of any of those devices to any other not make sense? What is it about comparing a phone OS to a desktop OS that's wrong?

I'll tell you what the difference is: when you want to win your argument, you say that Android's different, so the optional, default lockdown isn't the same as the Mac's optional, default lockdown.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

A few points to consider.

1) Apple now has a kill switch. Part of the point of pushing application-signing is so that they can disable signed apps which turn out to be malicious. Only one has to wonder if that's all it will be used for. It's not that I'm particularly distrustful of Apple--I'm distrustful of companies with a lot of power. Amazon's used their kill switch to remotely delete content, promised not to do it again, then did it again. If a company is big enough to survive the publicity of using their kill-switch, then it is in their interest to use it when locking out that software benefits them.

Heck, merely having the ability to do such a thing invites having some patent lawyer ask for a court order requiring that they use it against allegedly infringing third-party works, even if Apple itself were inherently trustworthy. Kill-switches from software vendors are a horrible idea. Apple almost certainly wants the ability to disable any software running on their hardware, which partially leads into...

I have the same concern, although it'd be nice to have some way to block stuff that turns out to be bad; yeah, it closes the barn door after some horses have already escaped and shit all over some machines, but at least it might stop them from doing more damage.

2) There's no doubt that Apple would love for all software to be sold through the App store. They make money that way,

Do they make enough money for them to bother getting rid of the "identified developers" option?

and they get people accustomed to relying on them for software. I don't think it's inherently bad to run an app store, however requiring people to use it would be bad. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think that's the future for Apple.

My prediction is that 10.10 will remove the ability to run unsigned content (after all, it's free to get a signing key.) And 10.11 will probably require all precompiled applications to be acquired through the App store (except on the Server version of the OS, for which the option to run unsigned binaries will almost certainly remain.) 10.9 will keep the defaults, as it will take some time to get a critical mass of non-App store developers signing their work.

OK, you're on the record; I'll go on the record as predicting that the most they'll do is default to "App Store only", and they may well not even do that. (I wish I could also predict that the OS X model will go "back to the iPhone/iPad", as that'd squelch a lot of the complaints about the "walled garden", and make the frog in the pot complain that the hot tub is getting a bit cool, but we'll see what happens in iOS 6.)

3) Virtualization. I expect it to be built into the OS at some point, based upon point 2 above. Maybe they'll acquire Parallels or Virtualbox from Oracle. Maybe they'll write their own. It will be a concession to the fact that they still live in a heavily-Windows world, and interoperability is still sometimes required.

There might be some hooks in the kernel in the future for doing some of the virtualization stuff, to replace any kexts that Parallels/VMware Fusion require, but I don't expect them to build it into the OS, based on my expectation that they won't do the stuff you predict in point 2, so no need to do it themselves, and on virtualization not being as core to desktop/notebook machines as it is to servers. Only if it looks as if all the virtualization projects will go away, or if there's some way they can do virtualization a lot better than anybody else can, do I think they'd bother.

Re:lockdown coming.

[nightfell]

One step closer to all apps needing to come from the app store.

This will never, ever, happen. It's just silly FUD, right up there with using Linux means you will be sued by MS, or that Google is going to close source Android.

Re:lockdown coming.

[nightfell]

I'm confused by your response. Besides the fact that Android runs on phones and OS X runs on computers - which I do think is a salient difference - I also don't understand explaining away one company's bad behavior by pointing towards another company that's doing the same thing.

He's pointing out that it's not a bad behavior. In fact, it's a highly beneficial behavior, and one that is completely optional (and always will be).

I don't see what Android does as being at all relevant to people's frustration with Apple and their move towards rigid control of their platforms.

No one is frustrated with Apple about this. The only people making a stink about it are the anti-Apple fanboys, and bringing up Android serves to perfectly illustrate their irrational fanboyism through hypocrisy.

Re:lockdown coming.

[nightfell]

What's "media consumption device" got to do with anything? It's just a bullshit term used by arrogant nerds to put down other people's computers. It's just a variation on "toy computer". It's pure snobbery nonsense.

Most people's PCs are "media consumption devices". And good for them! Who are you to put down someone for how they want to use their computer? It's theirs, not yours. Why the silly tribalism?

As for:

However, that leaves a lot of us out in the cold.

Or you can just change the setting globally. Or you could use the feature to your benenfit, while still allowing unsigned apps in a cas-by-case basis.

Or you could just bitch and moan like an angry old man about something that is completely silly and has absolutely no impact on you whatsoever.

Re:lockdown coming.

[WiiVault]

I just wanted to remark how refreshing it is to see somebody admit a mistake. Sometimes /.ers forget being wrong isn't the same as being stupid. Way to go God'sDuck.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Sancho]

I have the same concern, although it'd be nice to have some way to block stuff that turns out to be bad; yeah, it closes the barn door after some horses have already escaped and shit all over some machines, but at least it might stop them from doing more damage.

I wonder how attempts to run the software post-kill will be handled. Some reports are that you can still right-click and choose "Open" to run the software. That might be a reasonable compromise, though I still have concerns.

Do they make enough money for them to bother getting rid of the "identified developers" option?

They make tons of money on the iOS store, which is the only way in Apple's world to get software onto the devices. I imagine that they make less money on the Mac app store, though I'm not sure (the prices seem higher than the iOS app store.) The real key would be to look at how much money publishers make for applications sold outside of the store. Almost everyone I know who has a Mac has bought Parallels or VMWare. I know many who get Office. That's all I can think of that I've personally seen, other than free apps or apps purchased from the App store (iWork, Lion, maybe a few games.)

OK, you're on the record; I'll go on the record as predicting that the most they'll do is default to "App Store only", and they may well not even do that. (I wish I could also predict that the OS X model will go "back to the iPhone/iPad", as that'd squelch a lot of the complaints about the "walled garden", and make the frog in the pot complain that the hot tub is getting a bit cool, but we'll see what happens in iOS 6.)

I could go as far as to say that they might go default to App Store Only and drop the unsigned option. But I think the end goal is to get all client software to go through the App Store. I imagine that difference between signed and App Store is fairly small for most developers.

The kernel hooks for virtualization would make a lot of sense.

Re:lockdown coming.

[BasilBrush]

This does not limit your freedom in any way. Provided you are an administrator of the Mac you are just as capable of installing and running any arbitrary software as ever you were.

Mountain Lion just provides more protection against malware - if the administrator wants to use it. You don't have to.

If you don't get this, go away, read about Mountain Lion, and then come back.

Your fears for the future, are about as relevant as your fears of walking under a ladder. People like you predicted the next version of OSX would be locked down. People like you were wrong, it isn't. You have no credibility.

Re:lockdown coming.

[BasilBrush]

You're saying that that a PC and a cellphone aren't a valid comparison. Then you go on to assert that OSX (A PC OS) will be a certain way because iOS (a cellphone OS) is. Spot the flaw/inconsistency/bullshit.

Re:lockdown coming.

[BasilBrush]

Having privileges set by admins has been a feature of computers for the last 50 years. That in fact is the very purpose of admins.

If it's your own Mac, then you are the administrator and have control. If it's not your Mac (say you're an employee or a child) then you don't have the right to complete freedom on the Mac. Only those freedoms that the Admin decides to give you. This feature gives the admin more control about what software you can download and run, specifically untrustworthy software. And as such is unequivocally a good thing.

The only people who are criticising are:
1) those that don't yet understand the feature
2) those that are Apple haters, and will paint any difference from their favoured OS as a negative. Even when it's a positive.

Re:lockdown coming.

[BasilBrush]

My prediction is that 10.10 will remove the ability to run unsigned content (after all, it's free to get a signing key.) And 10.11 will probably require all precompiled applications to be acquired through the App store (except on the Server version of the OS, for which the option to run unsigned binaries will almost certainly remain.)

That's interesting because people were predicting Mac App Store only for the next version (which now called Mountain Lion). This third party self signing is a new feature. Why would they introduce it only to get rid of it again one or two versions later? That makes no sense.

It's clear this is a feature intended to make sure that they don't have to make OSX Mac Store only, whilst still keeping it virtually malware free.

Re:lockdown coming.

[BasilBrush]

That's the Android approach. Apple won't do that. It's a a technical approach and Apple aim their computers at consumers. Users of Mac shouldn't be expected to know what elevated kernel privileges or accessing a network stack are.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Sancho]

This third party self signing is a new feature. Why would they introduce it only to get rid of it again one or two versions later? That makes no sense.

It makes sense as a transition. It's hardly different from the signing required to put an application on the App store. Once most people are signing anyway, it will be easier to take the next step and list in the App Store. Once most people are listing there, there's little reason to keep the other options around (from Apple's perspective, at least.)

Re:lockdown coming.

[BasilBrush]

Considering that Steve Jobs said that he planned to lock down Macs (stated that iOS was the future of computing), it makes perfect sense.

He didn't say either of those things. He did say "we're transitioning to a PC world." But that doesn't contain any promise to lock down OSX.

Re:lockdown coming.

[BasilBrush]

It doesn't make any sense as a transition. It's entirely unnecessary to have such a step.

It only makes sense as a way of having increased security for those apps that are not in the Mac App Store. The existence of this feature makes Mac App Store lock-down less likely, not more likely.

Re:lockdown coming.

[BasilBrush]

As far as I can see (I'm a paid developer for iOS but not Mac), the jury is still out in whether Developer IDs can be got for free or not.

Personally I think it makes more sense if they only come to those who've paid. If it's free he can just grab another cert with a different fake ID and continue where he left off. Better if losing a cert actually incurs a financial cost.

Re:lockdown coming.

[BasilBrush]

Lion only app store apps show up in the launchpad

Not true. All apps show up in Launchpad.

in Mountain Lion non-apps need special permission to run

Not true. In Lion, by default, non signed apps pop up a warning the first time you run them. This means Lion gets LESS warnings than Snow Leopard when all non App Store apps got a warning first time you ran them.

Apple have no intention of having a unified OS. They know full well that a phone OS isn't suitable for a desktop PC. They are only giving the two a family resemblance. Removing differences that are only historical, whilst keeping the differences that are essential. For example OSX will always be windowed apps with the option of full screening them. iOS will always be full screen apps only.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Sancho]

Well that's just like, your opinion, man.

I think it's the perfect progression for lockdown. Start by creating your app store. You require signing and some other requirements in order to list with the store. You see that not everyone is moving to the store as fast as you'd like, so you kick it up a notch--start rejecting all unsigned apps by default (that's the stick) but let developers who sign their apps bypass this restriction (the carrot.) Eventually, most developers are signing, and from there it's a short jump to requiring them all to list with the app store. Getting people to sign is the hard part, so Mountain Lion will be a big leap in that direction as developers don't want to give long instructions and explanations to their users as to why the apps require extra effort to run.

Re:lockdown coming.

[BasilBrush]

AIUI, the cert is only checked the first time an app is run. So if the app has been run before Apple revoking the cert won't stop a user continuing to run it.

There are pros and cons to that.

Re:lockdown coming.

[BasilBrush]

No you don't need to be connected. The revocation list is downloaded to the Mac once a day. If you don't connect to the internet, then your revocation list is going to go out of date, but certs will still be checked against it locally.

And it's not every time you run an app. It's only the first time an app is run. Once the user has allowed it to run the first time, there are no longer any checks done. So there would be no benefit for malware to block the download of the revocation list.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

By being default-enabled

Which improves security. App-store provided apps are less likely to contain malware.

Less likely, probably. It's still not perfect, though, as per the Path problem; Apple had to decide to require apps to ask permission before snarfing stuff from the address book.

and no doubt coming with scary warnings about how you'll get hacked if you disable it.

Which is an unwarranted assumption.

Actually, no. (Not quite "you'll get hacked", but "makes your Mac less secure".)

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

Why are you comparing Android to a robust computer operating system based on Free BSD?

Comparing an OS based on the Linux kernel with an OS with a BSD-flavored OS? Why, the two have nothing in common! :-)

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

Do they make enough money for them to bother getting rid of the "identified developers" option?

They make tons of money on the iOS store,

[Citation needed]

I could go as far as to say that they might go default to App Store Only and drop the unsigned option. But I think the end goal is to get all client software to go through the App Store.

The goal is probably to get most client software to go through the App Store. I suspect that the last 10% of the software would take 90% of the work, and that they don't consider that last 10% worth the effort.

I imagine that difference between signed and App Store is fairly small for most developers.

Most, perhaps - the bad news is that they have to make sure it survives sandboxing and that not having to maintain their own store is worth Apple's fee for using their store; the good news is that you don't have to maintain your own store. (My guess is that you could sandbox the software without going through the App Store, so it's not as if the App Store gives you the good side of sandboxing, namely that even if you've missed something there are limits to the damage your software can do.)

Re:lockdown coming.

[kcitren]

My prediction is that 10.10 will remove the ability to run unsigned content (after all, it's free to get a signing key.) And 10.11 will probably require all precompiled applications to be acquired through the App store (except on the Server version of the OS, for which the option to run unsigned binaries will almost certainly remain.) 10.9 will keep the defaults, as it will take some time to get a critical mass of non-App store developers signing their work.

That'll make my life as a software developer a living hell. Kinda throws off the automatic background compilation stuff Eclipse does, and the whole rapid prototyping I do in Python with interactive shells. I'm not sure that's exactly what they're going for.

Re:lockdown coming.

[WiiVault]

Glad I'm not alone. I'll add I'm far more likely to trust an opposing position put forth by someone who admits they are imperfect over one by a blowhard who won't accept an contrary evidence.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Daniel Phillips]

Apple has repeated stated year, on year, that the App Store is not much better than break even for them as a standalone product - the real money makers on the store are the third party developers. Yes, much is made of the "massive" 30% cut they take for handling payment processing, store front, advertising, servers, bandwidth etc that go into running the store.

There is no way Apple is making anything other than a massive profit with a 30% cut of something that just basically costs electrical power and depreciation and a minor amount of manpower. If Apple says otherwise then methinks somebody cooketh the books. And probably ought to mediate a while on where that ends...

Re:lockdown coming.

[Daniel Phillips]

I'd like that. It would hasten the fadeout of iStuff.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

It makes sense as a transition. It's hardly different from the signing required to put an application on the App store.

But it's quite different from the sandboxing and the passing-it-through-Apple's-approval-board required to put an application on the App Store.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jo_ham]

Payment processing and transaction fees are free from credit card processors like visa, mastercard etc?!

Cool! I'll just stop paying those then! I didn't realise they were free!

Also, I know for a fact that bandwidth and sever hardware/data centre maintenance costs the same as the "electrical power" to run them. The servers, rack space, building, cooling, data lines, bandwidth, maintenance etc is all rolled into the cost of the electricity! Why wouldn't it be?!

If you think Apple is filing fraudulent financial statements that is an extremely serious allegation, and if you believe it is true then you should contact the SEC immediately.

Let's put it another way - for the risks of being caught (given the financial and criminal penalties as well as the PR issue) filing fraudulent accounts, what benefit do they really get by claiming that the store is running near break even for them? It's already abundantly clear that the vast majority of their profit is in hardware sales - there's no real reason to lie about what it costs to run the app store given that the penalty for lying about it and being caught is a lot more than just some neckbeards on slashdot claiming that *this* is the straw that breaks the camel's back and will be the reason that they continue to never buy Apple products.

You could also ask Google what it costs to run their marketplace, since they take 30% too, for the same features as Apple's store - payment processing, bandwidth, hosting, store front, etc, or is it not book cooking when Google is doing it? If it really is significantly less, then why does Google not charge a much smaller percentage? Surely that would be great PR for them? Or do you think they have warm and fuzzy business feelings towards Apple and are colluding with them to secretly make massive profit on their stores but really tell everyone they are break even?

I'm not sure what Apple's angle is for lying here? It's not like they hide their financials in their annual statements.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Daniel Phillips]

what benefit do they really get by claiming that the store is running near break even for them?

They would get to shift the money over to puff up hardware profits and mask short term weakness in hardware sales, which otherwise would be a deadly blow to Apple's stock price. I am not saying Apple is actually doing this, I am saying they could. And claiming that no money is being made in the online store in spite of a 30% cut of sales just makes me think like that. It's too ridiculous a proposition to be believed.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

I dont think its a question. I have two developers IDs, one is free.

The only thing that is open to potential question is if indeed that will be all that is required to get a certificate. Up to this date you still need a Mac Dev Program membership to get a certificate. They have not opened this up for all registered developers with just free DevIDs, but the OS just got into beta and in theory, only people in the paid Mac Dev Program have access to test this anyways.

I disagree with the payment requirement. For this to work properly its better for all honest devs, even if they are school kids with no income at all, to be able to get certificates.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jo_ham]

I'm sure they could, but that would be illegal, and the risk of getting caught would be high.

I'm also not sure they're worried about masking short term weaknesses in hardware sales given that they're one of the few PC manufacturers who have had positive growth year-on-year for the past 5 to 6 years, and their recent release of the "disappointing" iPhone 4S has been one of their biggest quarters ever (while the 3GS and 4 still continue to sell very well).

Honestly, as a conspiracy theory it's too outlandish. It's far more likely that the Occam's Razor solution is the likely one - that they really do run it at just-about break even.

One thing that is evident though is that it's certainly been extremely good for third party developers on iOS. The jury is still out on the OS X App Store.

Re:lockdown coming.

[paanta]

Really? Which would you have an easier time doing:
A: Remove all your personal data from your Mac/iPhone, move it to a Linux/Android system and tell Apple to take a hike or;
B: Find an alternative to all the Google services you use.

I could do A this evening and, after spending a few bucks on software for the new platform (which you need to do ANY time you switch platforms, walled software garden or not). I couldn't do B without a whole lot of hardship. The alternatives to Google search, maps, reader, mail, etc are just not in the same league. People who think Google is some fuzzy wuvvy wittle bunny wabbit are delusional. Apple makes money by keeping you happy and coming back for more. Google makes money by selling you to others. Not saying Google is evil, just that the core business model involves some semi-hidden transactions.

This might be working towards a lockdown from a developer's perspective, but the consumer retains the ability to leave at any time. DRM'd music/video notwithstanding (which is why you're nuts for buying that in the first place).

Re:lockdown coming.

[metamatic]

In fact, it's a highly beneficial behavior, and one that is completely optional (and always will be).

[Citation needed]

No one is frustrated with Apple about this. The only people making a stink about it are the anti-Apple fanboys,

I've been a Mac user since 1986, and I currently have two Macs, three iPods, a Time Capsule and an AppleTV in the house. And I'm upset about the gradual frog-boiling march to locked down OS X.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Truekaiser]

strawman.
alt search: bing.
alt mail: yahoomail, hotmail.
alt maps: mapquest.
alt phone: windows phone

Re:lockdown coming.

[metamatic]

Oh, don't worry, you'll just need to join the developer program for $99 a year to get access to run your code on 'your' computer. Like with the iPad.

Re:lockdown coming.

[metamatic]

If Apple had shipped the iPhone and iPad with an option to turn off the jail, I'd have bought an iPhone and iPad. But the fact that they didn't do so makes me distrust their motivations with Gatekeeper on OS X.

Re:lockdown coming.

[metamatic]

As of end of last year, free IDs didn't come with the required certificate. You had to pay.

(I signed up as a Mac developer, but they rejected all my apps, so I canceled.)

Re:lockdown coming.

[Tharsman]

As of yesterday it still did not. From all reports I am taking it Apple will start giving all registered users access to mac certs once the beta window is over.

This is something I do would love to see some confirmation or more info on. On a similar note, it would be amazing if they did similar for iOS, even if certs only allowed you to install your apps from your own machine via xcode.

Re:lockdown coming.

[BasilBrush]

Well since posting what I did, I've seen Will Shipley tweeting that a $99 is required for a Developer ID to sign apps for Gatekeeper. And that revocation will mean another $99 and a wait of a week. And as he's the most experienced and well connected Mac developer I know, I'm sure he's right.

School kids with no income at all don't need a certificate. Remember that even if code isn't signed, it still doesn't mean software can't be run on a Mac. It just means that the Gatekeeper option will need to be set to the most open option to use it. Which seems about right for software coming from penniless school kids.

You might be able to make a plea for penniless schoolkids to not be treated as suspect. But really that consideration is so fringe it's far less important than the effectiveness for everyone of Gatekeeper doing it's job properly: reducing the potential for malware.

Re:lockdown coming.

[nightfell]

In fact, it's a highly beneficial behavior, and one that is completely optional (and always will be).

[Citation needed]

Windows and Linux both have had code signing with defaults set to varying levels of requiring user interaction to install unsigned code. Android and iOS also have this. Game consoles have this in an even more extreme way (and have *zero* malware). Google has remotely killed software found to be malware using a similar mechanism. Windows has driver signing which has improved driver quality over time, iOS has code signing which has made malware a non-issue, various Linux distros use signing to ensure software is coming from trusted repositories.

But I really can't see how you really need citations (which are embarrassingly abundant and overt) to see how this is beneficial.

Or do you need citation for the fact that it's completely optional? The Mountain Lion coverage is chock full of it. Or for the fact that it always will be? Um, it's impossible to cite the future. It's just absolutely absurd to think Apple is going to make this mandatory. It would break the Macintosh. What makes you think Apple would be so stupid as to do that?

No one is frustrated with Apple about this. The only people making a stink about it are the anti-Apple fanboys,

I've been a Mac user since 1986, and I currently have two Macs, three iPods, a Time Capsule and an AppleTV in the house.

And having black friends doesn't mean you aren't racist.

In this case, you're imagining something that isn't real, isn't on the way to being real, and has zero chance of ever becoming real. You're upset about a beneficial feature, for fear of something that IS NOT real, and there's no reason to think that ever will become real, other than paranoid fantasy.

And I'm upset about the gradual frog-boiling march to locked down OS X.

You are jumping at shadows. You are imaging some Grand Scheme that doesn't exist. Apple has in no way ever implied that they intend to lock down OS X like iOS. They *could* do this, but they *aren't* and *haven't* done this. If they ever do, just switch to Linux, problem solved. But if you do like Apple hardware and software over generic PC hardware and Linux (presumably based on your "I have black friends" disclaimer, this is the case), then why switch before it's even remotely true? And why worry about something that is not *actually* happening and which even if it were, you have absolutely no way to stop, and is completely voluntary that you can easily escape with the download of a single ISO?

Re:lockdown coming.

[metamatic]

In fact, it's a highly beneficial behavior, and one that is completely optional (and always will be).

[Citation needed]

[...] Or for the fact that it always will be? Um, it's impossible to cite the future.

OK, so you have no evidence. Of course, it would be easy enough for Apple to issue a written guarantee that they won't lock down OS X.

It's just absolutely absurd to think Apple is going to make this mandatory. It would break the Macintosh. What makes you think Apple would be so stupid as to do that?

Why would it break the Macintosh? So long as they offered approved Apple developers a way to unlock the machine for $99 a year and run their own code, who would be impacted?

You are jumping at shadows. You are imaging some Grand Scheme that doesn't exist. Apple has in no way ever implied that they intend to lock down OS X like iOS.

OK... So why doesn't iOS have a similar "unlock" option? They could have made iOS work just like this new OS X feature. Why didn't they?

And to put it the other way, why wouldn't they make OS X like iOS? They've been wildly successful with iOS.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Daniel Phillips]

It's far more likely that the Occam's Razor solution is the likely one - that they really do run it at just-about break even.

Sorry, I do not find that credible, no matter how strong the reality distortion field. Apple has consistently demonstrated less than stellar corporate morality and there is no reason for me to rule out the possibility that they may indulge in a little book cooking from time to time. People under pressure to earn their bonuses do some remarkable things, look at Enron. Why should Apple stop at patent troll lawsuits and lying about the antenna when there is even more money to be made by even less ethical practices? And in fact the stronger the protestations I hear to the contrary, the more interesting it gets.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jo_ham]

Then report them for it - it's a crime.

You can "not find it credible" due to your gut feeling if you like, but filing false accounts over something as trivial as "hiding" the supposed mega profit made from the online store? I mean, really - what's their angle? For the enormous risk of being caught (it only takes one whistle blower or a severe audit), there doesn't seem to be any actual benefit to them lying about it, regardless of their positions on other subjects. It simply does not make sense, and "but they're eeeeeeeeevil" is not evidence, but I can see your frothing Apple hate prevents you from considering anything except the baseless conspiracy theory. Shame.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Daniel Phillips]

...filing false accounts over something as trivial as "hiding" the supposed mega profit made from the online store? I mean, really - what's their angle?

Simple, it would help mask weakness in phone sales, which would be deadly to Apple's stock price and cost somebody their bonus.

Re:lockdown coming.

[jo_ham]

And by "weakness" in phone sales you mean the record quarters they have posted.

The 4, then the 4S were selling by the truckload. The 4 and the 3GS are *still* selling by the truckload despite the 4S (which is much higher still) as cheaper alternatives to a 4S.

Perhaps they'd be looking to cover their losses in the phone arena... if it were even remotely necessary, which it isn't.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Daniel Phillips]

by "weakness" in phone sales you mean the record quarters they have posted.

Is it entirely out of the question that the strength of those recent quarters was overstated?

Re:lockdown coming.

[jo_ham]

Well, only if they can somehow hide the number of iPhones in vendor channels across all of the countries where they are sold, and then hide all of the phones in consumer hands after they buy them, and hide the cellular carriers' reports on the number of devices on their network and the data they're using... then there's the iOS developers and the ability to collect the UDID of a handset, so you'd have to fake a ton of that data somehow (but you're trying to make it look like there are fewer iPhones than there really are, so what? you intercept and block some UDIDs? but then what if the developer notices that they aren't getting as many device IDs as indicated by the sales of their app, so now you have to fake the download and sales figures of third party apps and tell them that they've sold *less* than they really have, and you then have to use those figures in your official PR (the deliberately lower numbers)...

The level of complexity and conspiracy is just so far fetched. Not to mention the risk of a whistleblower somewhere in thy supply chain or within Apple itself. It's just not a feasible scenario with so much at stake given that the ultimate act in the conspiracy requires deliberately filling false accounts on a massive scale.

So it's either do all that... or maybe they're telling the truth about their profits from the App Store, and that it's designed as a value-add to sell hardware, which is where the profit comes from, as it always has historically with Apple.

Re:lockdown coming.

[Daniel Phillips]

maybe they're telling the truth about their profits from the App Store

Apple doesn't seem to attach much importance to telling the truth.

Re:lockdown coming.

[nightfell]

OK, so you have no evidence. Of course, it would be easy enough for Apple to issue a written guarantee that they won't lock down OS X.

Who said that? There's plenty of evidence, just no proof (because, as I stated, proof can only come from the future). There's much more evidence that OS X won't be locked down than there is that it will. Your position is untenable with the current facts.

You are extrapolating into the future based on the assumption that a small change is part of an inexorable trend. By your logic, based on the style changes in jeans from the 50s through the 70s, today pant legs would be 10 feet wide. That's exactly what you are doing here.

You're seeing one drop of rain in the desert, and predicting an unending deluge.

As for a written guarantee, that's one of the dumbest things I've heard. Do you want them to promise not to do every thing you're afraid of? How often do companies do something like that?

Re:lockdown coming.

[metamatic]

I hope you're right and that Apple add the options from GateKeeper to iOS.

I'm betting they won't, though.

Re:lockdown coming.

[nightfell]

Well, I'm definitely right right now, and for the near future. Worrying about the far future is a bit silly, without strong reason to. Especially when you can simply jump ship when actual problems arise.

As for iOS, of the two scenarios (fully lock down OS X, or unlock iOS GateKeeper style), I think the iOS unlocking is far more likely, but I won't get my hopes up until something concrete arises (no point in getting my hopes up about something so unclear, just the same as no point in getting worked up over something negative).

GateKeeper is the missing piece for Apple if they ever plan to open up iOS more than it currently is, and I think as the iPad grows in popularity, as it further encroaches upon the PC, it my need to be opened more. Hard to say though. I like the iPad as it is, so I'm not going to worry much, but I definitely would like to see it more open (GateKeeper style).

Re:lockdown coming.

[metamatic]

Jumping ship is a lot of hassle. I'd feel much more confident that Apple weren't planning to lock down OS X if they weren't busy purging all the GPL software from OS X.

Re:lockdown coming.

[macs4all]

I'm confused by your response. Besides the fact that Android runs on phones and OS X runs on computers - which I do think is a salient difference - I also don't understand explaining away one company's bad behavior by pointing towards another company that's doing the same thing. I don't see what Android does as being at all relevant to people's frustration with Apple and their move towards rigid control of their platforms.

You don't seem to understand how regular (non-geek) people work. Apple does.

If you don't start with the most "safe" setting, then you mightaswell not even put it there, for the vast majority of people.

Having said that, if Apple even considers not letting an OS X expert, like me, take off the training-wheels; then I'll be the first one in line with my torch and pitchfork...

Re:lockdown coming.

[macs4all]

By being default-enabled, requiring admin privileges to change, and no doubt coming with scary warnings about how you'll get hacked if you disable it.

OMG! Not the Scary Warnings!!!

MAKE IT STOP!!!

Please.

Re:lockdown coming.

[macs4all]

As usual, it will be the OSS stuff that gets the shaft on things like this. Projects that don't have enough central management or funding to get a cert.

Considering the fact that Open Source is, by its very nature, technically MUCH more easy to have a "poisoned" copy floating around the dark recesses of the internet (like the thousands of instances of exactly that on Windows), I would say that that isn't inserting any kind of "shaft" anywhere; but rather, acknowledging that having bona fides is actually a pretty nifty thing, especially for non-savvy users. But also for "savvy" users that get a little too anxious to d/l that nifty "pre-compiled Binary" of something from Deity-Knows-Where...

And ANY Slashdotter that doesn't sport a full neck-beard secretly KNOWS they search for a precompiled Binary FIRST, even if it comes from some obscure Blog site, amirite?

Re:lockdown coming.

[macs4all]

Comparing an OS based on the Linux kernel with an OS with a BSD-flavored OS? Why, the two have nothing in common! :-)

Wow, I didn't know that SCO's legal team posted on Slashdot! How about a Q&A session?

OS X and Linux really DO have NOTHING in common other than supporting POSIX.

Linux is FAKE Unix. OS X, by virtue of it's BSD heritage, isn't a "fake" Unix; but arguably far closer to a "real" Unix (whatever THAT is...).

Re:lockdown coming.

[macs4all]

apple padlocks the door shut once you enter. google leaves the door open and even tells you that you may leave at any time you wish.

Really? So you are somehow LESS able to install an alternative OS on an iPhone than on a Android one?

If you think so; it's only because you aren't smart enough to do it.

Do you REALLY think you couldn't port Android to an iOS device? Anything can be reverse-engineered...

Just because there doesn't exist a precompiled binary, doesn't mean it can't be done. Ask the zillion people who have ported Linux to everything from TV sets to Microwave ovens...

You're just a talentless whiner. Admit it.

Re:lockdown coming.

[macs4all]

No, the OS is set to, by default, say "this application is not signed and hence not trusted", it's nothing to do with spreading FUD, it's a legitimate security device –warning users not to run random things that they don't know the origin of.

Not to mention the fact that, although I don't know about Linux (but I'll bet at least Ubuntu does it), but both Windows and OS X have be putting u pat LEAST a "first launch" warning dialog on ANY "downloaded" stuff for several years now, and for the most part, users don't find those things an impediment to downloading stuff in the slightest. In fact, those were instituted to "catch" stuff that might have been SURREPTITIOUSLY downloaded and installed by malware.

And yet nobody claimed that THAT had a "Chilling effect" on downloading and installing stuff from the intarwebs.

What's the big deal here? Heck, Apple even put the default at the "medium" setting, where it would bother regular users the least, and yet still not open them up to every prison-raping, just because they got "click happy" at the wrong time...

Re:lockdown coming.

[macs4all]

That's the Android approach. Apple won't do that. It's a a technical approach and Apple aim their computers at consumers. Users of Mac shouldn't be expected to know what elevated kernel privileges or accessing a network stack are.

And you think that 1 in 100,000 Android users DO?!?

Re:lockdown coming.

[Guy Harris]

OS X and Linux really DO have NOTHING in common other than supporting POSIX.

...and supporting a whole bunch of other libraries that come with OS X and a lot of Linux distributions. That's actually rather a lot, given, for example, the amount of code that builds and runs on OS X and various Linux distributions and *BSD and Solaris and HP-UX and....

Linux is FAKE Unix.

Linux is a UN*X-compatible system that happens to be quite widely used. Whether it's "fake" or not depends on how emotionally attached you are to AT&T's implementation.

OS X, by virtue of it's BSD heritage, isn't a "fake" Unix; but arguably far closer to a "real" Unix (whatever THAT is...).

OS X, by virtue of its BSD heritage, had almost all of its AT&T-derived code replaced by independently-written code (and the few bits of AT&T-derived code either got an AT&T notice stuck on it or also got replaced - I don't remember what those bits were). (You're not a member of AT&T's legal team, are you? :-))

As for the comments to which I was responding:

Why are you comparing Android to a robust computer operating system based on Free BSD? Android is not an Apples to Oranges comparison. Android to iOS is.

well:

1. Is the poster in question asserting that Android isn't robust? If so, what evidence does he or she offer to support that assertion?
2. Is the poster in question aware that iOS is also "based on FreeBSD"? If so, why is FreeBSD relevant here?
3. Does "Android to iOS is" mean that comparing OSes that run on mobile phones and tablets with OSes that run on desktop and notebook computers is bogus? If so, why?

Way to go Airplay Mirroring...

[ruckerz2k]

Something to bring "hobby" Apple TV into the mainstream and get rid of those god awful $30 dongles.

Hyperbolic much?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Moreover Mountain Lion adds a powerful new line of defense against future threats where a malware app is prevented from running even if it is deliberately downloaded to a computer"

While having a mechanism for the OS to check and display the cryptographic signature and signing party on an executable before executing it, the notion that this is 'new' seems to stretch credulity. Most Linux distros have been signing packages since shortly after they stopped supporting vacuum tube based systems, and Windows users have been getting little boxes describing(or freaking out about the lack of) 'Authenticode' signatures on drivers, activex controls, and executables for years now...

There are, undeniably, times when Apple introduces novel things, or non-novel-but-polished-to-an-unprecedented-sheen things; but this would not seem to be one of them...

Re:Hyperbolic much?

[HarrySquatter]

Of course. The point was that the idiot above was trying to conflate the statement to mean that Apple is trying to claim that signing executables was their invention when that wasn't even remotely the implication. Then he had to try to through in the lame "BUT TEH LOONIX DID IT FRIST!!!" thing.

Re:Hyperbolic much?

[blueg3]

Most Linux distros have been signing packages since shortly after they stopped supporting vacuum tube based systems, and Windows users have been getting little boxes describing(or freaking out about the lack of) 'Authenticode' signatures on drivers, activex controls, and executables for years now...

I know you're trying to be funny, but Linux originally didn't support anything older than a 386, which was fairly new at the time.

Relevant to "new", OS X has been doing signature-checking for a while now too. Windows doesn't really warn you about a lack of signature on an executable, though. If it requires administrator privileges, the warning is different. (OS X is more or less the same way -- the admin-rights dialog displays signature information or lack thereof.)

Re:Hyperbolic much?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Sometimes "new" just means "new to OS X" not "new to the entire field of computer science".

When you view the release notes on a different application do you immediately update the word "new" to such levels of importance? Probably not.

Re:Hyperbolic much?

[NJRoadfan]

Microsoft even went a step further and prevents 64-bit unsigned drivers from being loaded unless you specifically enable them in the F8 boot menu.

Re:Hyperbolic much?

[Dixie_Flatline]

It's funny that I ran across your comment here, because I just read through a huge pile of other comments that are taking Apple to task for daring to get the user to acknowledge that maybe running an unsigned package isn't a good idea.

I don't think you're wrong, but it amuses me that everyone finds a completely different way to criticise Apple, even when those criticisms are diametrically opposed.

Yours is the more correct complaint, but hey, that's marketing for you. :/

Re:Hyperbolic much?

[ColdWetDog]

When you view the release notes on a different application do you immediately update the word "new" to such levels of importance? Probably not.

No, I typically parse those statements as a bug fix.

Re:Hyperbolic much?

[nightfell]

Where does it state, imply, or even hint, that this feature has never been used anywhere else?

It's new to OS X. That's all it says. And in fact it's already in Lion, just not enabled by default, and hidden behind a command line utility. Somehow that doesn't scream "hyperbole".

It's a new feature that differentiates Mountain Lion from Lion. That is all.

Re:Hyperbolic much?

[Guy Harris]

I know you're trying to be funny, but Linux originally didn't support anything older than a 386, which was fairly new at the time.

"Fairly". Linux: 1991. 80386: 1985, so "fairly new" presumably means "within the past 5-6 years". (Oh, and 80486: 1989.)

Re:Hyperbolic much?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

"Moreover Mountain Lion adds a powerful new line of defense against future threats where a malware app is prevented from running even if it is deliberately downloaded to a computer" While having a mechanism for the OS to check and display the cryptographic signature and signing party on an executable before executing it, the notion that this is 'new' seems to stretch credulity.

It's new to OS X. They claim nothing else.

data cost to the iCloud is not free

[Joe_Dragon]

I hope there is a easy way to trun if off before a trip to Canada turns into a 20K + data bill as the system thinks it's a good time to start a backup to the Cloud.

Also you don't need to be roaming to be hit with over the cap fees.

Re:data cost to the iCloud is not free

[mblase]

But you do need to be on a data plan for a cell phone provider, and as far as I know, OS X desktop only supports wi-fi or ethernet networking.

Re:data cost to the iCloud is not free

[WiiVault]

In the US at least Comcast can charge you after you pass 250GB, with ATT I think it's 150GB, and others are similar. And as far as wifi and ethernet, those are usually the methods used to tether. In either case the GP post has some merit, for an admittedly small portion of individuals. Still even a 5% chance of insane overages is concerning.

Re:data cost to the iCloud is not free

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I hope there is a easy way to trun if off before a trip to Canada turns into a 20K + data bill as the system thinks it's a good time to start a backup to the Cloud.

Also you don't need to be roaming to be hit with over the cap fees.

Care to tell us what your post has to do with OS X?

What about resolution independence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Text on my 15" MBP with 1680x1050 screen looks too small. I need a way to increase the size of everything like you can do in Windows. So far there's no way to do so in Mac OS X 10.7.

Re:What about resolution independence?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

They've been trying to get that to work for years now. Maybe in OS XI :-)

What a strange article

[SDF-7]

The opening paragraph has to be the most rabid bit of product love I can recall, especially compared with the actual content.

"upend the video games market"... Really? Just because the screen (if you have a laptop [aka can use the computer anywhere near your sofa] and the AppleTV box) can be wirelessly mirrored to the TV? And using hypothetical controllers that don't exist? Uh-huh.

"For the consumer market ... may be the most significant OS release since Windows 95". A fairly bold statement, given there's nothing in the article that even tries to back that up. Is the new security model supposed to be that big of a paradigm shift (for users, not for vendor lock-in)? Is it the "ooh... you can post to a blog quicker!" stuff? It pretty clearly looks like a point-release to an existing OS that is mildly interesting, but hardly redefining the consumer space.

Re:What a strange article

[Mithent]

I agree, it's ridiculous hyperbole. It also declares that "OS X Lion is already the best consumer OS by far. When Mountain Lion ships, it will only increase Apple's lead. Anyone who uses a computer for both pleasure and work won't want to use anything else." Well, we've been told.

Then the actual article talks about such strange decisions as having no Save As... option in first-party applications, and justifies it because there's an improved workaround for that problem in this version.

Re:What a strange article

[lisaparratt]

I've got an Apple controller in my pocket - it's called an iPhone. Just look at the proposed controllers for most of the nextgen systems: they all look a lot like small tablets.

Re:What a strange article

[CharlyFoxtrot]

cisions as having no Save As... option in first-party applications, and justifies it because there's an improved workaround for that problem in this version.

My guess is that Apple is trying to break people's habit of using "save as" to create different work-in-progress versions of a document (my primary use for "save as") because they want you to use Lions' Versions for that. Duplicate actually makes more logical sense to me but it still screws with 20 years of habits.

Re:What a strange article

[stewbacca]

I agree, but they still should give the user the option to revert to old habits if they want to. Like the scrolling thing...you can go back to the old way if you want, but you can't go back to Save As... You have to learn the new paradigm, which is fine for new users, but like you said, it's hard to break 20 years of habits. I'm only now getting used to it and I use Macs at work and home and have been on Lion since last June.

Interestingly enough, I've only used the versioning feature one time to go back and get a previously "saved" version, but I'm pestered with the "duplicate/unlock" thing with every file. Seems like a pretty low ROI to me.

Re:What a strange article

[Osgeld]

"And using hypothetical controllers that don't exist? "

You mean those thousands of HID class USB game controllers that have worked flawlessly since OSX Beta?

Re:What a strange article

[BasilBrush]

I agree, but they still should give the user the option to revert to old habits if they want to.

The new way is an essential repercussion of iCloud. Because apps don't just save when you ask them to any more. They effectively save constantly. You have an open doc on one computer, and any changes you make will be reflected in the same open doc in on another computer within a couple of seconds.

If you mean to branch a document into two, then you have to make that clear before you start editing. Not wait until it's time to save the document as used to happen.

Not free.

[scubamage]

iCloud isn't free. 5GB is free, and if you are syncing multiple devices it fills up extremely quickly. Then you have to start paying.

Re:Not free.

[scubamage]

A free account is 5GB, which can't even handle a full ipad backup (something I recently encountered as it tries to back up your apps as well, and with a game like rage weighing in at 1.1GB, you can see it fills up quickly). More than that and you have to use their paid service. Its a freemium model.

Re:Not free.

[sglewis100]

iCloud isn't free.

5GB is free

Which is it? I guess my DropBox isn't free either, although I don't think I've ever paid.

Also, to the guy that said Apps are too big so you can't back up in 5gb... I have an iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad, and have used about 2gb of my 5gb storage. You see, apps don't count (you redownload them for free). Music doesn't count (you redownload for free). Photos don't count (PhotoStream doesn't subtract from the free storage). It's for settings and documents.

Re:Not free.

[AresTheImpaler]

The apps themselves do not count towards the 5GB only the data created by them. I have less than 1gb on iCloud backups and use both an iphone and ipad. I have Rage installed too.

Re:Not free.

[Anonymous Coward]

(Responding AC because I'm at work...)

A free account is 5GB, which can't even handle a full ipad backup (something I recently encountered as it tries to back up your apps as well, and with a game like rage weighing in at 1.1GB, you can see it fills up quickly).

You could not be more wrong.

http://www.apple.com/icloud/what-is.html

"Your purchased music, apps, books, and TV shows, as well as your Photo Stream, don't count against your free storage."

Re:Not free.

[Fahrvergnuugen]

Wrong. Apps and music do not count towards your 5GB.

”Your purchased music, apps, books, and TV shows, as well as your Photo Stream, donâ(TM)t count against your free storage.”

Re:Not free.

[shutdown -p now]

Try re-downloading VLC Player for iOS...

Re:Not free.

[ColdWetDog]

What are you doing backing up your apps? You can re-download them for free at any time from the very same source as your backup location.

Which is an absolute pain in the ass. When I restore a machine from a backup, I want to 1) start the process 2) end the process 3) reboot 4) start using the machine. The fact that iPads / iPhones don't do that is a letdown. Fortunately, you don't have to do it all that often but it's a dumb way to go.

Re:Not free.

[CharlyFoxtrot]

He probably has some comic book reader installed with a lot of comics in it.

Re:Not free.

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Apple iCloud brings previously purchased apps back from the dead

"Lamenting the time you restored your iPhone and lost that beloved VLC app because it's no longer available on the App Store? Cheer up, there's an iCloud for that. The service allows you to re-download any app you've previously purchased on any of your iOS devices -- including killed apps."

VLC for iOS was a POS by the way.

Re:Not free.

[stewbacca]

A free account is 5GB, which can't even handle a full ipad backup (something I recently encountered as it tries to back up your apps as well, and with a game like rage weighing in at 1.1GB, you can see it fills up quickly). More than that and you have to use their paid service. Its a freemium model.

I'm really tired of bogus claims about what iCloud is and isn't.

From the iCloud FAQ:

Your iCloud account includes 5 GB of free storage for Mail, Documents, and your iCloud Backup. Your purchased music, apps, books, and TV shows, as well as your Photo Stream, don’t count against the 5 GB of free storage.

So if you want to use an anecdote to claim how bad iCloud sucks, you should use real anecdotes and not make stuff up that makes it obvious that you are making stuff up. My current backup file sizes are 305MB (iPhone), 252MB (Wife's iPhone), 46MB (iPad), 35MB (Wife's iPad). So your mythical 1.1GB app simply isn't a factor, considering the way Apple handles your backups as counted against your storage. I have FOUR iOS devices that barely exceed a half GB...for EVERYTHING on them (that is counted against your storage).

If you are dubious, just go to settings>iCloud>Storage & Backup>Manage Storage and it will show you all the devices associated with that iCloud account. If you want to come back and claim that you have more than 1GB backup file for a single iPhone/iPad (let alone a single App taking up 1GB), I'm all ears.

Re:Not free.

[stewbacca]

Which is an absolute pain in the ass. When I restore a machine from a backup, I want to 1) start the process 2) end the process 3) reboot 4) start using the machine.

Um, which is exactly what you do. You 1) start the process of restoring a backup, 2) end the process, 3) reboot then go to the purchased items tab and select "download all", 4) start using the machine.

You don't even have to wait for everything to finish downloading (except the thing you want to use, obviously, but you can select that first). The whole process takes less time than your PC restore/reboot scenario.

Re:Not free.

[jerk]

iCloud backups don't work that way, but local backups to your computer still work do. I rather like the restore from iCloud option, though I've only used it once just to see how it worked. Since my backups were to iCloud (nightly - when I plugged it in before bed), my application data was more up to date than my backups to iTunes were (the only one of great concern to me was CarCare to track car/motorcycle maintenance.) The night I did the iCloud restore, I kicked it off before bed and woke up to the phone just like it was before I had erased it.

Re:Not free.

[Sancho]

Actually, that comes down to bad development decisions on the part of the game makers.

The UI for what iCloud backs up in Settings shows an application and a backup size. What is backed up is a particular, non-selectable subdirectory in the app's directory. It's the same directory for every app. If the app developer chose to put e.g. large graphics files under that directory, then they will get backed up to iCloud during the regular backup.

It's very easy to see such a large backup size and assume that the whole app is being backed up. Instead, unnecessary data is being backed up. I've had to disable specific apps backups to iCloud due to this. I could still download the app, but my settings/progress would be deleted since I didn't enable that app in iCloud (due to the enormous size of the backup.)

Re:Not free.

[BasilBrush]

iCloud does not back up your apps. Only selected user data. Rages's 1.1GB does not eat into your iCloud allocation.

Re:Not free.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

A free account is 5GB, which can't even handle a full ipad backup (something I recently encountered as it tries to back up your apps as well, and with a game like rage weighing in at 1.1GB, you can see it fills up quickly). More than that and you have to use their paid service. Its a freemium model.

Why would you "backup" you Apps when you can just re-download them? Even ignoring the price of doing that, why spend the time uploading them when you don't need to?

Normal users shouldn't install just any program...

[RocketRabbit]

As much as this review will cause hysteria among the Slashdot crowd (OMG THEY ARE LOCKING OUT CHOICES) I am very much in favor of using the App Store as the default repository. This has two major benefits as far as I see it. First, the applications will actually go into the /Applications folder instead of being run from a mounted .dmg file. Second, applications will actually get updated.

Another benefit is that this move will nip a lot of malware vectors in the bud.

Before everybody gets their panties in a twist, note that you can still install whatever you want after entering an admin user/pass and changing the settings.

I will agree with PC Magazine on a few points though - why the hell does a notepad have to look like a real life notepad? That's just cutesy stupid bullcrap.

Clutter futzing my interface, no thank you.

[Shivetya]

So the age of tablets/smartphones/etc is going to result in cluttered desktops too? I already am not a complete fan of the iPad/iPhone icon bloat / cluterfest we have now but I see Apple wants to bring me that same mess to my desktop.

Even better, notifications which apparently want to write to my display but not make use of that convenient Apple bar at top; really - it can display more colors than black on gray - if I get mail just flash the mail icon up there or the like. Since third party apps can use this I hope we get a global opt out

Then comes the walled garden, I wonder what the default will be for new machines coming with Mountain Lion?

I am a little surprised that the dock at the bottom is surviving, been getting worried that its demise is soon.

Interface wise, looks like a spit between white on dark gray and black on white... are the teams not talking to each other?

Hey Apple! There are many things that work well in the device/touch world that need to stay there.

Re:Clutter futzing my interface, no thank you.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Icon clutterfest? You mean like mission control? Which goes away and comes back at a keystroke or gesture

Re:Clutter futzing my interface, no thank you.

[NJRoadfan]

Did they ever improve that lousy program known as Finder? I haven't used a newer version of OS X then 10.5 to confirm. Apple will get props for "inventing" the notification bar, even though Windows has had a similar feature since 95. Apple used to use the bar on top for notification, it seems to have gone by the wayside since OS X came out.

Re:Clutter futzing my interface, no thank you.

[SuperKendall]

Did they ever improve that lousy program known as Finder?

Yes, although even in the worst of times I preferred it to Explorer.

Re:Clutter futzing my interface, no thank you.

[stewbacca]

Yeah, um, you have to actually run Launchpad to get the iOS look and feel of icons on your desktop. Otherwise, OS X 10.8's desktop looks pretty much like OS X 10.0's desktop from the early 2000s.

Re:Clutter futzing my interface, no thank you.

[stewbacca]

Ahh the old, "finder sucks but I can't tell you why because I only read that it sucks from people who hate Apple" argument. You forgot the one-button mouse argument while you were at it.

Re:Clutter futzing my interface, no thank you.

[Guy Harris]

Then comes the walled garden, I wonder what the default will be for new machines coming with Mountain Lion?

If you're referring to Gatekeeper, the default is "allow apps from the App Store and apps signed by an identified developer", with the other options being "only allow apps from the App Store" and "allow anything". The pane in System Preferences says "Allow applications downloaded from:", so it might be that none of that applies to apps installed from somewhere other than the Intertubes.

Yearly upgrade cycle.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

gruber's got a few words on mountain lion..

Interesting to see Apple's moving to an annual release cycle.

Re:Yearly upgrade cycle.

[0100010001010011]

Moving to?

Re:Yearly upgrade cycle.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

as opposed to a biannual?

10.0 - 10.2 were kind of the exception but:

2003 - 10.3
2005 - 10.4
2007 - 10.5
2009 - 10.6
2011 - 10.7

and now they're moving to annual updates.

Re:Yearly upgrade cycle.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Interesting to see Apple's moving to an annual release cycle.

Ah, so hardware drivers will only ever work on the last version of OSX...

Mountain Lion?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Eh. I was pushing for Lion King.

Re:Mountain Lion?

[Hieronymus Howard]

I was hoping for Maine Coon.

Re:Mountain Lion?

[catmistake]

I was hoping for Maine Coon.

I like it. Other suggestions out there for a while include:

Mac OS X Maru and Mac OS X Nyan Cat

Seems a little... strange but unimportant I guess that Apple already did the Mountain Lion

Re:Mountain Lion?

[Quiet_Desperation]

I love those. Big poofy tails FTW.

With Lion King, though, they do some sort of "circle of life" thing in the ads.

"Bad things happen, and you can't do anything about them... unless you have the new Time Capsule backup features on Mac OS 10.8 Lion King!" - Timon

Re:Mountain Lion?

[Quiet_Desperation]

I figured they'd just go to birds of prey next or something if Mac OS ever goes to 11, or XI.

Sharks? Mac OS 11.0 Mako. 11.1 Thresher. 11.2 Fricken Lasers.

Re:Mountain Lion?

[f8l_0e]

If you're going to bitch about it, at least get it right. This would be the third cat of the same name, as a Puma, Panther, and Mountain Lion are all the same thing.

Re:Mountain Lion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us not forget Mac OS X Cougar and, of course, Mac OS X Liger, known for its skills and magic.

Re:Mountain Lion?

[al3]

I always pictured a black panther http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_panther which isn't the same as a Puma.

Re:Mountain Lion?

[ColdWetDog]

These crazy California kids are gonna have to resort to some serious big cat name hunting if they carry on like this. Or maybe just downsize it a bit...
OSX 10.9 Fat Ginger Tom anyone?

Na, OS X 10.9 - Hello Kitty

Re:Mountain Lion?

[qubex]

OS X 10.8 “Hello Kitty"

Re:Mountain Lion?

[mario_grgic]

I always thought it would be OS X Liger.

Re:Mountain Lion?

[catmistake]

If you're going to bitch about it,

I wasn't!

at least get it right. This would be the third cat of the same name, as a Puma, Panther, and Mountain Lion are all the same thing.

In that case... Leopard and Snow Leopard are worth mentioning, even though they're not cougars, the names show that Apple doesn't mind reusing names.

Re:Oh Boy!!

[Megane]

Hey, Napoleon, did you hear that 10.9 is going to be named "Liger"?

Re:OMG! OMG!

[JBMcB]

What do you think this website is? It's for geeks. Geeks like gadgets, and talking about gadgets. If you don't like these posts, filter them out, or go somewhere else.

Social networking?

[Megane]

OS X 10.8 does more to integrate social networking

So does this mean we'll get Facebook / Twitter / Google Plus / Reddit / Digg / Fark / Something Awful / 4chan / EBaumsWorld / B3ta etc. "Share" icons hogging up every window's title bar? So I can "share" the latest crash log with a bunch of mindless blogheads?

That shit is getting real annoying. No I do NOT want to "share" every little bit of random crap I come across on the intarwebs with my "FaceTwatDitPlus friends circle". And now even /. has succumbed to this hipster crap.

Re:Social networking?

[GrahamCox]

I just shared your post. Fun, isn't it?

Re:Social networking?

[tooyoung]

In other words, a set of behaviors that you just made up on your own are incredibly annoying to you?

Facebook sharing has been integrated into iPhoto for some time and is nothing like what you describe.

Re:Social networking?

[WiiVault]

I'm so totally gonna re-tweet your comment! I also just must friend you on Facebook for being so insightful!

Re:Social networking?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

OS X 10.8 does more to integrate social networking

So does this mean we'll get Facebook / Twitter / Google Plus / Reddit / Digg / Fark / Something Awful / 4chan / EBaumsWorld / B3ta etc. "Share" icons hogging up every window's title bar?

No, you'll get one Share button. http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/features.html#sharesheet

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Quiet_Desperation]

I will risk saying this without the Anonumous box checked

Look out, we've got a badass over here.

The only hysteria I see is the people going off on rants and/or tossing out homophobic slurs (like Mr. AC above) when there is Apple news. Seriously, any Apple news here or on Ars or Wired has endless "Derp! iFag! iSheep! iHerd! Nothing I don't like should be allowed to exist!" in the comments.

There's thousands of popular things out there I don't care for. I ignore them for the most part.

So Fuck you!

Oh, yeah, no overreaction in your post at all.

windows has stuff like

[Joe_Dragon]

Where downloaded apps have a pop up saying do you want to run this with a check box saying don't ask me again about this app.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Tharsman]

True Apple Haters know that Apple stuff are not gadgets, they are [insert degrading fashion term for gadgets here]!!! No geek would like [repeat what I said on previous degrading insert, amp it up by preceding it with the word "shitty"]!!!

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading the article, I failed to find any hint of exaggeration that would merit the comparison to curing cancer. This is slashdot. It's about gadgets and tech. Updates to an OS, especially those that change the nature of the desktop/laptop experience, are worthy of a post. And I'm not just an Apple fan -- I would find it just as interesting to learn of new updates from Microsoft, HP, Linux, or any of the other players.

If you are feeling frustrated, perhaps you should spend your time elsewhere until you've regained (or developed) a sense of objectivity. About the only thing that has me puzzled is how the parent post rated a 5.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Mojo66]

It's so groundbreaking! So visionary! No one else had ever thought to do something like this before!!

You mean like putting a touch interface over Windows 7?

Re:InB4 haters?

[Phasma Felis]

Thank you for yours!

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Truedat]

I will risk saying this without the Anonumous box checked, what the fuck is going on with the mass histeria? As if we are curing cancer several times per year now! It is a damn gadget, and a nice looking one to be honest, but a gadget it remains.

Well this is a gadget website amongst other things, and the headline clearly mentioned apple. Anyway it's not as if the existence of this story means there is now less space on the interweb for cancer-talk.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[zero.kalvin]

You are missing the point, and this is not about slashdot, just because I said something here, it is not an attack on slashdot, on the contrary I find it refreshing that I am voicing my opinion here. Now even if there was no moral ambiguity about these gadgets, beyond a certain level this histeria that these gadgets are getting is not healthy, and there is absolutly nothing wrong in talking about them, but it is just how culturally ( the geek one specifically ) we are responding to them. Second of all, with all what we know now, concerning the conditions on how these gadgets are created, I find it pitiful that the story is not getting paid enough attention ( And on slashdot there have been 2 or 3 stories in the last 2 weeks about this), and sad that ( as far as I know) no one is calling Apple boycot over this. Yes we are geeks, but we are humans first, and pardon me but my convictions on how humans should be treated trumps all interest in gadgets and alike.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[ifrag]

First, the applications will actually go into the /Applications folder instead of being run from a mounted .dmg file.

Odd. In my experience most .dmg files I have downloaded have some auto popup showing you that you should be dragging the folder into /Applications (the unmount being assumed I suppose). Or even if the file didn't have the reminder what is stopping you?

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[blueg3]

Since when does one run applications from a mounted .dmg file instead of from the Applications folder? You're supposed to copy the application bundle in the .dmg to the Applications folder to install it, then trash the .dmg.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[jo_ham]

So news on new Linux releases or Firefox releases (where are they, every half an hour now?) is fine, but news on 10.8 isn't?

What else do you expect on a site supposedly dedicated to technology news? A major OS is releasing a new version, but that's not important, I suppose. More room for some rampant Apple trolling though, or news about how a government department is switching Linux distros.

Fast release and no roll back is bad enterprise

[Joe_Dragon]

Fast release and no roll back is bad enterprise.

Now with New OS updates it brakes apps and in a enterprise that can be bad. But apple should do the right thing and you down grade the OS on hardware and not lock to say the latest mac OS 10.X even more so if you kill off API's. Let say say 10.8 makes CS 5.5 not work now and you have to wait for adobe to update CS 5.5 now in a enterprise. They can't wait and may want to down grade and what happens when say there new laptop can't take 10.7 and apple is like we upgraded your system 10.8 for free even if they did not want it.

Re:Fast release and no roll back is bad enterprise

[jbolden]

Apple has all sorts of things that are bad for enterprise. OS upgrades don't happen automatically and if systems are managed by OSX server then end users don't upgrade the OS.

Re:Fast release and no roll back is bad enterprise

[ColdWetDog]

And it's not like everyone is jumping on Microsoft upgrades.

(Sent from my Windows XP box at work)

Re:Fast release and no roll back is bad enterprise

[jbolden]

Exactly. Microsoft is easier for the enterprise to manage but fundamentally there isn't much difference in how it is done.

Re:Fast release and no roll back is bad enterprise

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Fast release and no roll back is bad enterprise.

Not backing up is bad enterprise. Ever occurred to you that you are the problem?

Re:OMG! OMG!

[jo_ham]

Really, you think so?

To be honest, it's just a potential refinement of what they've done before with some tighter integration, but I suppose if you haven't been out of your mom's basement you won't have seen anything like it before and think it's new and groundbreaking.

Be careful of the sun, it burns tender, pale flesh.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[kanweg]

An Apple boycott would be silly, as just about any other manufacturer (Dell etc.) have their stuff manufactured over there too.

Apple is the first tech industry to join the FLA which is currently visiting China. First impression: Conditions are better than the norm:
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/technology/Apple+iPad+factory+conditions+better+than+norm+agency/6162817/story.html

Bert

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[AndreR]

Here's my experience maintaining a couple of friend's and family's Macs:

- .dmg files in the Applications folder.
- Apps in the dock that refer to the .app inside the .dmg, which is still inside the Downloads folder.
- "My application stopped working after I emptied the Downloads folder".
- People who actually opened the .dmg and then the app inside it every time they wanted to use it.
- Every single .dmg ever opened since last rebook still mounted, icon showing on the Desktop and in Finder.

Here, we're the 1%. Apple wants to make life easier to the 99%. Can't blame them.

Re:AKA

[mundanetechnomancer]

AKA OSX Panther

Consoles are more often connected to a TV

[tepples]

Just because the screen (if you have a laptop [aka can use the computer anywhere near your sofa] and the AppleTV box) can be wirelessly mirrored to the TV?

Yes. One of the big differences between consoles and PCs is that consoles are more often connected to a monitor big enough to fit multiple players around, that is, a living room TV. I acknowledge that this doesn't help FPS or RTS, genres that work better over the Internet because they depend on hiding information from other players. But it makes games in gamepad-oriented, console-heavy genres, such as fighting games and party games, far more comfortable to play than if everyone has to crowd around an iMac (especially a smaller one) or the monitor of a Mac mini.

And using hypothetical controllers that don't exist?

USB HID gamepads have been available for PCs and Macs since around 1999 from companies such as Gravis and Logitech. For almost as long there have been adapters to use old consoles' controllers as HIDs. Nintendo and Sony even make Bluetooth gamepads for which hobbyists have developed drivers for various kinds of computers.

Re:Consoles are more often connected to a TV

[NJRoadfan]

I use my SNES controllers with one of those adapters. It has the right amount of buttons and isn't all that bulky.

Goodbye Growl - Hello Notification Center

[ruhri]

Yay! I've been waiting for a decent notification framework to become part of MacOS ever since Growl screwed up mightily after moving to the App Store. Also now I don't have to tweak Mail every single time a new version comes out just to have decent e-mail notification. Was about time...

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Hijacked Public]

Cigarette smoking is falling out of favor in western countries, but increasing in developing countries. So you might see use of the word shift demographics a bit and we can't know where the AC is located.

Regardless, there are still quite a few smokers overall.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[WrongSizeGlass]

There is always rumors about a new iOS, or a new iPad or a new iPhone and somehow people get are juiced about them, in the end I just can't reconcile this enthusiams the people are having with the immorality of how these things are created. So Fuck you!

I know that Apple gets all the bad press for the Foxconn manufacturing atrocities, but keep in mind that Foxconn makes 'gadgets', and many other things, for many major companies besides Apple including Acer, Amazon, Cisco, Dell, Gateway, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola Mobility, Nintendo, Nokia, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba and Vizio. The 'employment accommodations' are basically the same for any product they are making, so let's not pretend Apple is the only company who shoulders the "immorality of how these things are created".

Let's hear some of your vitriol aimed at these other companies as well, or you're just another Apple hater using Foxconn as an excuse.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[Tarlus]

Agreed. The app store is basically just like a package manager, albeit one with its fingers in your wallet. Consistency and centralized package updates (plus automated dependency handling) have always been things I enjoyed about package managers, so at least in that regard the app store has its benefits.

I also agree about the visual aesthetics of their iOS-matching applications. The literal pen-and-paper look of the notepad or sewn leather look of the to-do list just seem uncharacteristically tacky for Apple. Software that tries to resemble its real-world counterpart like it's still a novelty... what is this, 1995? I'd feel pretty stupid having to rely on that.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[fermion]

I am in favor of Apple using the APP store. Mac OS X Lion has been the easiest upgrade I have ever done. I forgot to make a disk image, you have to do so before you install, but I assume if my machine breaks I can just install snow leopard and redownload.

What worries me is this 'Mac OS' and 'iOS' convergence. We have already seen one fatality, the Apple Airport utility. The version on the Mac has now been dumbed down to match the version on iOS. Now there is no access to logs, no way to display the MAC address, no easy way to choose which configuration to import or manage profiles. It is really a POS. Just in case anyone else needs a working Airport utility, 5.6 is still available for download so grab while you can.

It may be that mountain lion is so dumbed down that it is no longer useful for people who want to create actual product and do actual work. In that case we will be left with no mainstream OS, and I suppose I will just have to find some other *nix.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[stewbacca]

About the only thing that has me puzzled is how the parent post rated a 5.

Because Macs can't run Linu.....oh wait...nevermind.

Re:Oh Boy!!

[stewbacca]

Except for the fact that after, oh, 15 minutes, the old way feels wrong on nearly every level...especially valid considering many Mac users are also iOS device users.

Save As = Duplicate?

[MeNeXT]

I still can't wrap my head around one simple issue. The simple one click process which allowed you to take a form letter with a few minor changes and save it has now become this funny process of duplicate and save??? Renaming something and adding steps does not make it simpler. I only updated one system to Lion because this seems to keep on getting in the way....

Keep iOS walled garden on iOS. I don't need silly apps to accomplish tasks I need an OS which will allow me to work. If Apple doesn't have a solution or if the software does not support it I will find my own solution. Sharing is not iCloud, Facebook or Twitter. Those are products. There are thousands or even millions of other solutions out there. Beside iCloud why not FTP/SFTP/SSH? Why no support from the Finder for the iPhone/iPad? Why is there only one way to skin a cat on OsX? As Apple continues with the iOS walled garden the functionality of the desktop is diminishing. My car is not made by Apple and yet I need to interface with it. My phone is not made by Apple because my iPhone could only connect to one computer. 32 gigs and I couldn't use it other than with one computer or a jailbreack.

Common people we are going back to 1983 where Apple products were locked down and limited by the vision of one company. The beauty of OSX is that it is on top of a very powerful OPEN system. As Apple locks this down it's just getting in the way like the ugly notes and contacts interfaces. /RANT

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[jbolden]

What are you talking about.

Duplicate and Save on OSX 10.7 is because of versioning. In any kind of versioned file system you have to decide what to do with history if you want to branch. The fact that you aren't considering the complexity of branching shows how successful Apple has been.

FTP, SSH and SFTP come with OSX as part of the command line. If you want GUI versions there are tons of apps for all of those.

I'm not sure what you mean by "support from Finder for iPhone/iPad". They don't want you mucking about in the filesystem directly at all. But you can mount those drives like you would any Unix drive. If you don't know how, you shouldn't be directly mucking around with the filesystem. In which case use the iTunes interface.

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[muecksteiner]

So what would have been wrong with keeping "Save as...", and making that action count as a branch?

After all, the beauty of Apple products lies in making things simple. And after using it for some months now, the whole "Duplicate" thing still seems like a major screw-up in terms of usability. With no clear semantic gain in sight?

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[jbolden]

So what would have been wrong with keeping "Save as...", and making that action count as a branch?

Because they are trying to break the paradigm in your head regarding "saving". Saving is now something the computer does automatically. Saving a version... i.e. naming a particular version for retention is something you do and duplicating i.e. creating a branch is something you do. They want you to stop thinking in terms of saving. They aren't reducing functionality in any way.

. And after using it for some months now, the whole "Duplicate" thing still seems like a major screw-up in terms of usability. With no clear semantic gain in sight?

It seems clear you don't quite get the idea of autosave and what's going on. You haven't adjusted to the paradigm yet. There isn't a clear "semantic gain" there is a genuine functionality gain. You've gone from an unversioned filesystem to a versioned filesystem. That's the gain.

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[nitio]

Let me stop you right there. I don't like it either but you're not being very receptive.

Think of it this way: You're working on your form letter template, adjusting signature, header, common text etc. You don't need to worry about saving the document because the document exists and all versions of it as well. You are to forget you need to save - hard, I know. But when you think about it, why the hell should we be worrying about saving a document?

Now, you need to create one letter from your template. Cool, you want it to be saved differently so you'd save as - but then again, saving is a process you don't need so they named it Duplicate. Here is the issue, whan you actually duplicate it freaking creates a new windows with a copy and keep the damn original version open! This is not intuitive.

That's what they fixed. Duplicating now actually will ask you to save the file differently and not create a new window. Truth be told, I'm taking this out of my ass because I might have imagined reading it.


Finally, I believe we finally reached a point in consumer computing where shit happens before you needing to intervene. We may discuss all about saving or not but seriously, why the hell have we gone all these years having to do something that the computer should be doing all along? Is the same shit as AI and context language interpretation.

It's the difference between "Search Pizza Place Near my current location" and "I want some pizza fast".

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[jbolden]

You can have a versioned filesystem underneath, and retain exactly the old semantics for saving and copying.

No you can't. Because "saving" and "copying" are no longer meaningful concepts. In fact associating "documents" with "files" is no longer meaningful. This is what you are not grasping. Apple does not want you to use your system the way you always have. They want to expose you to an entire different way of conceiving documents. They aren't trying to force you to learn about low level stuff they are trying to break you from your habits buit upon focusing on low level stuff.

A "file" is nothing more than a consecutive string of filesystem extents. A document is information for a application. There is absolutely no reason that you as an end user should be focused on how applications choose to store their information in files, and frankly very quickly applications won't store their information in files at all.

You are unhappy because you are jamming a square peg in a round hole. Don't use "save as" as part of your workflow. Change your workflow to adjust to the upgrade.

And this has nothing to do with Apple fanboiness. Versioned filesystems existed on OpenVMS, OS/400 (i-series OS), MVS... for decades. Microsoft's original intention for Vista (when it was Longhorn) was to jump directly to a full database filesystem. The only reason people use non database filesystems for application data is innertia.

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[muecksteiner]

You have a point there. An in that modified form you describe, the whole thing would be much, much more intuitive (the form we have now is horrible). But I still don't really see the point of making the change to the "Duplicate" semantics in the first place, even in the fixed form. The issue is not the manual saving as such - I agree with you that this is obsolete in a well-built versioning file system.

But still. See, if I have a file "letter_template.foo", and want to use it for a letter of mine... propeller-shift-s is my way of duplicating stuff, and has been for the last two decades. Either you already have a mental model of what is going on when you interact with a file system (in this case: having to save the template under a different name, lest you overwrite it), or you are not going to "get" the new semantics, either.

Especially in the modified form you describe, the "Duplicate" semantics of file interaction are not bad - but I would not call them significantly more intuitive than what we had so far. So why bother with upsetting everyone except a few purists?

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[nitio]

We agree at that point. They could have implemented it right (as in, the new form) and keeping the name of the function "Save As..." or at least "Save a Copy".

"Save a version" and "Duplicate" confuses people. I guess that's how they came up with names to replace "Branch" in both cases, lol

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[muecksteiner]

But isn't that my original point? ;-)

Namely, that they could have had all the nice new versioning things underneath anyway, but should have kept the names in the menus? And that it was asinine for Apple to do it the way it did?

Your explanation, and in particular your "fixed" version of the workflow, actually helped me to understand this mess better. So at least for me, this exchange helped to clear things up - thanks!

The thing that got me started to reply in the first place was not anything you said, but the whole "paradigm" statement by the other poster. Once I hear the p-word, my canines suddenly extend some extra 10cm, and the urge to verbally slap people becomes very large... :-)

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[stewbacca]

Renaming something and adding steps does not make it simpler.

Yes, because a novice user has NEVER opened a template, added their own information, then saved over the template, right?

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[stewbacca]

While everything in your post is correct, and I personally agree, all the novice users at my work are confused by the lack of Save as... I think they should keep the functionality and just rename Duplicate - Save as Save as...(and deal with the slashdot pedants that will come out in full force to ridicule the fact that Save as is really just versioning and how they are "dumbing down" the OS again).

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[stewbacca]

saving is a process you don't need so they named it Duplicate.

Except that when you are done editing your duplicate, you are prompted to Save it when you close the app, because it is a new instance. So evidently saving is still a process we need.

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[jbolden]

Eventually it is going to be too confusing for novices as the system gets more complex. "Save as" creates a connection between one or more OS level file (i.e. a stream of sequential extents identified by a name / position in a hierarchical index) and an collection of application data. As the underlying system for application data gets more complex there won't be a stream of sequential extents.

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[Sancho]

Eh, I use OS X and also had problems wrapping my head around Duplicate at first. I think it's like the Office Ribbon--the right choice for new users, but completely unintutive for people who are familiar with the old way of doing things.

The problem is that a common workflow was to Open a document, make changes, and then Save As the new document. That option is gone. I don't see any option which even looks like it (duplicate sounds like copy, which I would do from Finder normally (or actually the command line, but most people would do it from Finder.))

Actually, "Save A Version" sounds more like "Save As" than "Save" to me. And if I choose it, I've saved over my original. Now there's a revert that I can try.

If I do try Duplicate unintuitively, it kindly lets me know that I've made changes to the document I'm about to duplicate and offers the option of Duplicate-then-Revert. At least that part makes sense.

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[BasilBrush]

So what would have been wrong with keeping "Save as...", and making that action count as a branch?

Because Save as... comes after editing. Branching should come before editing.

Remember in the age of iCloud, saving is continuous. So it matters when you change the name of the document.

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[BasilBrush]

Oh my. So much fanboi-ness in such a short sentence. Plus the condescending attitude of the True Believer in All Things Fruity.

He just understands something you don't. If that makes you angry... meh.

You can have a versioned filesystem underneath, and retain exactly the old semantics for saving and copying. There is *zero* reason to alter this.

You're wrong. You're just confirming that you haven't got your head around what's changed. Save as... is not a suitable branching command for a system that is constantly saved. Because it's used after editing, and branching should be done before editing.

Theres no need to do a Duplicate-Save combo. Just Duplicate before you edit.

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[BasilBrush]

You need to give the duplicate a name at some stage. Personally I would have gone for the Duplicate command asking for the name for the duplicate. But that would no doubt have got even more complaints from those who have been doing the same thing for 20 years and don't want to change.

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[muecksteiner]

Remember in the age of iCloud, saving is continuous.

Good point. But I would wager that the jury is still out on whether such a continuous saving without any form of distinction on the part of the user whether the continuously saved changes are actually worth being saved is a good idea.

It's perfectly o.k. to continuously save stuff in the background all the time. But in the semantics everyone has gotten used to during the past 20 or so years of widespread GUI usage, things already have a somewhat different meaning. And, if you look at it right, all the "new" functionality is already there, only with somewhat different semantics. Point in case w/r to the continuous saving: so far, unless I press "save", all changes that I make in a document are to be considered tentative (automatic backups of the ongoing work notwithstanding). Pressing "save" is, if you will, a "commit" operation for what has been going on in that editor window. No explicit "save", no commit. This whole angle seems to be missing from the new Apple concepts, or did I miss something?

Because in this regard, continuous saving is a fairly asinine concept, since it screws up the usage case of editing a document, and then figuring that the changes were not worth it. So far, you just closed the window in that case, and these changes were intentionally lost. Now, you have to explicitly revert them. Which is not terrible, but... why? As with the duplicate vs. save as thing, these changes feel like someone at Apple was feeling under-appreciated, and wanted the world to see what a smart kid he is. But the rule #1 in UI design is "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". Which Apple seems to have sinned against big time in this case.

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[jbolden]

The ribbon is a good analogy, but this goes even further in that a few versions from now your workflow must eventually change. "Save as" creates a connection between one or more OS level file (i.e. a stream of sequential extents identified by a name / position in a hierarchical index) and an collection of application data. As the underlying system for application data gets more complex there won't be a stream of sequential extents. I don't know how far / fast Apple is going to move towards a database filesystem.

I'd suggest you get rid of the notion of "save" in the old sense entirely. Apple wants you out of the business of thinking about application data in terms of files. Rather just think in terms of the data. Which versions of the data do you want retained in the stream and marked? Just don't think in terms of the old paradigm. Think about this the way you would something like files inside of mail.app where you don't care where on the disk various files are and how they are grouped, it isn't your problem.

Re:Save As = Duplicate?

[Sancho]

That's a good point. Maybe Duplicate is just the first step in that direction. With iCould document saving, they could really take the leap and get rid of the file paradigm altogether.

Re:Introducing Mac OSX 10.8!

[koan]

OS X isn't meant for enterprise environments, it requires Apple to release fixes for their buggy shite and quickly patch security flaws, this goes against Apple's ideology which is "We are right you are wrong"

Re:OMG! OMG!

[jbolden]

This isn't exactly a rumor the article points to Apple's website. The details here are rather official. Given that there is an already released developer preview, no reason to call these rumors.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[jbolden]

Apple isn't alone in producing things this way. If you want better standards either support:

a) a stronger UN
b) Tariffs.
c) Politicians who support tieing human rights to trade.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Ihmhi]

You have stated a:

[ ] indifference
[x] dislike
[ ] irrational hatred
[ ] pathological urge to destroy

towards Apple. Here's why you're right...

(We totally need one of these...)

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Hognoxious]

It's just Lett's law updated for the 21st century.

Re:Oh Boy!!

[Ihmhi]

V O T E
    F O R
W O Z N I A K

capsicum

[jbolden]

Why would Apple want capsicum?

They already have capabilities and sandboxing. They don't have any particular reason to want ELF. A

Put back Leopard features

[RogueWarrior65]

Wake me when Apple puts back Rosetta and gets rid of sandboxing.

Re:Put back Leopard features

[stewbacca]

Sorry, but the sandboxing complaint is lame. Sandboxed apps have interfered with my work (use Lion at work) exactly zero times since Lion came out. I had to actually research an example of how sandboxing can interfere with your work, and it was so nominal that I don't even remember what it was.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[MightyYar]

I would expect a similar story about the newest version of Windows as well - in fact we've heard lots about Windows 8 and Metro. It's one of the only two mainstream desktop OSes, and as such will effect a lot of the readers of Slashdot.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[ak3ldama]

I would counter that it is completely accurate for a program called "Notepad" to look and behave like a real notepad. If it just wants to be a text editor, well, it can be called that. Or ed, or vim, or edit, or etc... I think it is awesome. (Not a mac user, do not have any Apple devices, and still trying to get used to Gnome 3.) Certain parts of OS X are quite neat, and having a real looking Notepad is one of them. I have been tempted by OS X for a while now. Their 27" iMac seems like a neat platform - that resolution with IPS and a glassy cover is just about what I want. I would almost buy that to run Linux on except my current computer is still sufficient.

Re:Oh Boy!!

[CharlyFoxtrot]

That's my nr 1 request, just give me the old (pre-Lion) scrollbars back. Although looking at the screenshots they've at least improved the bastard things by providing dedicated areas for them again instead of popping them over content like in Lion. It is seriously annoying.

Hopefully Mountain Lion is the Windows 7 of Mac

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

as Lion was definitely the Vista.

Re:Hopefully Mountain Lion is the Windows 7 of Mac

[LanMan04]

??

Lions works great on my 2008 Mac Pro. Very few programs that don't work.

Pfft.

[darth dickinson]

OSX 10.8 is really just what 10.6 should have been.

The marketing machine activated

[recharged95]

"does more to integrate social networking and file-synching into a personal computer than any other OS."

a. Mt. Lion it's not out yet.
b. Have you seen Windows 8 preview?
c. Have you used Chrome OS (on paper it can be called a PC)?

Thankfully, Linux Users Aren't Nutty Over Releases

[ilikenwf]

I chuckle when I imagine Linux fanboys going crazy over impending releases of kernel revisions...updates are nice, but getting sexual pleasure from new hardware and software is a little odd, mac and windows people.

I'm a Linux fan and user, but I mean, seriously? People act like their wife is popping out a baby when a new apple product rolls out.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[mystikkman]

There is always rumors about a new iOS, or a new iPad or a new iPhone and somehow people get are juiced about them, in the end I just can't reconcile this enthusiams the people are having with the immorality of how these things are created. So Fuck you!

I know that Apple gets all the bad press for the Foxconn manufacturing atrocities, but keep in mind that Foxconn makes 'gadgets', and many other things, for many major companies besides Apple including Acer, Amazon, Cisco, Dell, Gateway, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola Mobility, Nintendo, Nokia, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba and Vizio. The 'employment accommodations' are basically the same for any product they are making, so let's not pretend Apple is the only company who shoulders the "immorality of how these things are created".
Let's hear some of your vitriol aimed at these other companies as well, or you're just another Apple hater using Foxconn as an excuse.

Apple deserves and gets the most blame because they are the ones with most margins to spare and the most cash in the bank (~100 billion). I like how the Apple lovers gloat about Apple taking 75% of the smartphone profits, making tens of billions of dollars of profit every quarter and being worth more than Microsoft+Google COMBINED, and how they get most of the profits from the PC industry as well. So the answer to your question is, how much more money can Nokia pay it's workers on the $20 handsets it sells the most before declaring bankruptcy(ending up in workers completely losing their jobs), versus Apple with it's multi-hundred dollar margins while playing $8 or so for assembly for each iPad and iPhone?

Of course all of them deserve blame, but Apple deserves the most blame, they are in the best situation financially to pay better than all the companies you have listed, and STILL make monster profits. That's why the bad press is directed more against Apple.

What I Want To Know...

[longbot]

Does it fix SAMBA, which was (and still is) horribly broken in 10.7?

Re:What I Want To Know...

[NJRoadfan]

when has SAMBA not been broken in OS X? Its one reason why ADmit Mac and DAVE still have a market.

Re:What I Want To Know...

[MassacrE]

OS X no longer ships Samba as of 10.7 (due to the switch upstream to GPLv3). So yes, if by broken you mean 'was replaced with an entirely new project', it will remain so.

Re:What I Want To Know...

[longbot]

In 10.3/10.4 and later, it connected and worked fine.

Re:What I Want To Know...

[longbot]

I believe "intentionally crippled" is a valid euphemism for "broken". I still interoperate with a number of Windows machines, it's a giant gaping flaw to me that caused me to roll back from 10.7.

Re:What I Want To Know...

[mario_grgic]

Samba uses GPL v3 so it was removed from OS X. Notice how bash in OS X is at version 3.2 from 2005? That's because bash is also GPL v3 and if you want modern bash currently at version 4.2 you have to install it yourself.

Apple has been purging all GPL open source software from Mac OS X and the goal is to have none in the end. This means to get good UNIX experience you will have to do a lot of work of downloading and compiling yourself, kind of like Windows. and Cygwin. Or you could just install Ubuntu.

Re:What I Want To Know...

[MassacrE]

I believe (like FreeBSD) they are fine with GPL v2. It seems like projects switching to GPL v3 is motivating Apple and a few other of the BSD'ers to create new open source projects for all the functionality they were getting from these projects. I love that it finally motivated someone to invest heavily in coming out with a gcc alternative (clang + llvm).

I have noticed a pattern that apple's replacements only implement the newest defined functionality or protocol, however. For an example, there is work going on to replace libstdc++, but the replacement is only meant to target compilers that support C++11. So I wouldn't be surprised to find out that say, a Lion Mac has trouble connecting to a Windows 2000 server using their samba replacement.

I've been wondering for a now if there is a project somewhere to come out with a BSD-licensed replacement for bash.

Re:What I Want To Know...

[Guy Harris]

So I wouldn't be surprised to find out that say, a Lion Mac has trouble connecting to a Windows 2000 server using their samba replacement.

I've been wondering for a now if there is a project somewhere to come out with a BSD-licensed replacement for bash.

Presumably by "Windows 2000 server" you mean "domain controller", given that Samba is an SMB server and file sharing clients connect to it; Samba connects to servers such as WINS servers and domain controllers. (Yes, pet peeve of mine. Samba is an SMB server; it is not a generic term for all software that does SMB on UN*X. Mac OS X's SMB client, smbfs, is not "Samba", it's a descendant of Boris Popov's (BSD-licensed) FreeBSD SMB client VFS, with a lot of additional work done by folks at Apple. What got replaced in 10.7 was Samba, the SMB server, not smbfs, the SMB client.)

Re:What I Want To Know...

[Guy Harris]

I've been wondering for a now if there is a project somewhere to come out with a BSD-licensed replacement for bash.

Well, there's a non-GPLed Bourne-compatible shell with history and job control (well, yeah, I think AT&T finally added job control to the Bourne shell in SVR4, if I remember correctly) and some other enhancements, and it even comes with Mac OS X (and has since at least Leopard, maybe further back). It's not a Bash clone (especially given that it antedates Bash...), but sometimes that's a feature (control-O FTW!).

Social integration

[thereitis]

The social integration had better be optional. I'm not interested in giving companies like FaceBook more personal information.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[mystikkman]

It's so groundbreaking! So visionary! No one else had ever thought to do something like this before!!

You mean like putting a touch interface over Windows 7?

Are you referring to Windows 8? If so you're wrong, Metro is much more groundbreaking and innovative than the icon and window based touch interface in every other touch UI including iOS and Android.

Re:Oh Boy!!

[curious.corn]

There's a setting for that: System Preferences > Personal > General | Show scroll bars : Always
Indeed it is annoying but you can change it...

Re:OMG! OMG!

[UnknowingFool]

Apple deserves and gets the most blame because they are the ones with most margins to spare and the most cash in the bank (~100 billion). . . So the answer to your question is, how much more money can Nokia pay it's workers on the $20 handsets it sells the most before declaring bankruptcy(ending up in workers completely losing their jobs), versus Apple with it's multi-hundred dollar margins while playing $8 or so for assembly for each iPad and iPhone?

So Apple is to blame because the system that exists where most electronics manufacturing occurs in countries like China simply due to the fact they make more profit? I see where does HP and Dell fall in line as (by all accounts) they make many more computers than Apple in China?

Of course all of them deserve blame, but Apple deserves the most blame, they are in the best situation financially to pay better than all the companies you have listed, and STILL make monster profits. That's why the bad press is directed more against Apple.

Um Apple does pay better than their competitors. However maybe you haven't parsed the notion that these are the same exact factories that work for Apple's competitors. Meaning paying one set of workers more than another does not really change the situation very much. And the situation is cultural. If you live in rural China where most of theses workers originate you have two choices: Subsistence farm and be at the whim of droughts and floods or go work in a factory far from home. Be aware that if you don't like the work, there are millions of others ready to take your place. As for wages, they are a decent wage for China. Most slashdotters can't seem to understand that living wages differ in different parts of the world. $7.25/hr in the US is a fortune in some places. In other places, that is pittance.

REALLY integrate iOS! Let M. Lion run Apps!

[wisebabo]

You can do this if you allowed iOS Apps to run in Mountain Luon!

I would think that, at least at one level, this would be easy to do. I mean the developer environment already runs iOS on intel (in emulation mode). They even have a way of emulating the touch interface (but I'm not sure how good multitouch works).

While a lot of Apps wouldn't really find a market or niche (who needs a basic sketch App when you've got Photoshop) there are hundreds, no thousands (tens of thousands?) of others that would be useful or interesting. Like all the media Apps or perhaps music Apps.

Anyway, I think it would help both Apple and the developers (who could opt out if they wanted to). So why not?

Re:REALLY integrate iOS! Let M. Lion run Apps!

[BasilBrush]

If you'd actually tried to run apps in the development emulator, you wouldn't think this was such as good idea. iPhone apps are designed for touch, they work really badly with a mouse/trackpad.

OS X Airplay Mirroring!

[tholomyes]

Finally! I was hoping this would be in 10.7, but the ability to stream your desktop to an AppleTV will make meetings a lot easier. No more hooking up to flaky, over-abused video cables.

The New Naming Paradigm?

[Lord of the Fries]

So is this the evolution of Apple's "cat" themes? Pick a general cat name for an odd release, followed by a specialized variant for the even number?

10.5 Leopard
10.6 Snow Leopard
10.7 Lion
10.8 Mountain Lion

Will there be a contest for the next set? I'd like to submit

10.9 Kitty
10.10 Hello Kitty

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Magee_MC]

I'm not sure, but Flamebait should definitely be.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[blueg3]

Oh, I don't blame them. I was just curious if someone had a reason they were running applications from .dmg files other than "user error".

I consider it poor design for a dmg-installer to not have the giant instructions showing you dragging the application to the Applications directory. (Bonus points if they include an alias or symlink to the Applications directory within the .dmg!)

Re:OMG! OMG!

[JBMcB]

OK, then why are you posting about the moral problems of buying iOS devices on an article about a desktop operating system?

Re:OMG! OMG!

[jo_ham]

To quote your own post...

whooooooooooooosh

(you missed the sarcasm, also the "log in" button)

Also copy HP

[wisebabo]

Sorry to add to my previous post even before it was modded up (or down!) but it would even be better if Apple released a iMac/workstation like the one HP just did.

Am I crazy? Apple GETTING IDEAS FROM ITS COMPETITORS?!!

Well, HPs new machines have a great new feature. They allow the the display to be folded down FLAT. This allows them, in certain models, to be comfortably used with a TOUCH INTERFACE! Now I would love to use a multi-touch interface on a large surface without having to hold my arm upright ("gorilla arm" syndrome is what it's called).

What do you think?

Re:OMG! OMG!

[cayenne8]

Well...if the main thing that the new release is about is integrating with social networking, then it doesn't entice me at all.

I'm not on facebook for a number of reasons, I certainly don't need my computer to made more readily available to to such privacy black holes.

I do hope it is all opt in, or at the very least,easy to disable 100%.

I still tend to like to use my computer for computer stuff....AV editing, some coding...etc.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[cayenne8]

You know...I think most people just don't know...and many people are like me in that, well...they just plain don't care.

I figure if they didn't have these jobs, conditions would be even worse there. It isn't our fault they or their govt tolerate bad human working conditions....they do that in order to be able to do this work, otherwise, the cost would go up, and some of that work might come back to the US.

So, no..I don't really care...it is their choice, and I get the benefits from it.

If getting China up to better standards, means manufacturing jobs come back over here, when then...I'll show some interest in this. But for now...they make their own bed.

No one holds a gun to China's collective head to force them to allow this....

Re:Oh Boy!!

[TheRaven64]

After 15 minutes, I found the setting to change it back to scrolling the correct way, which makes sense when you're using a trackpad rather than a touchscreen. It still automatically hides the scroll widgets, but since they made them very ugly in 10.7 that's probably for the best, even if it does lose you the immediate feedback of knowing how big the current document is and where you are in it.

Good strategically for Apple

[wisebabo]

Another add-on (sorry, the coffee must be really affecting me!).

Anyway, this would be good for Apple because they Google wouldn't easily be able to replicate this. (What are they going to do, ask Microsoft for help in optimizing Android to run under windows?).

I guess they could have Android run under Linux. I will not make any disparaging comments about the size of the user base.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[mystikkman]

>So Apple is to blame because the system that exists where most electronics manufacturing occurs in countries like China simply due to the fact they make more profit? I see where does HP and Dell fall in line as (by all accounts) they make many more computers than Apple in China?

I specifically stated that they deserve more blame(not the only one to face blame) because they make more per iDevice/Macbook than Dell or HP or anyone else and thus are in a better position than them to pay a little more. HP was about to get out of the PC business because the margins are so thin, Dell is also suffering these days. So while they definitely deserve a lot of blame, Apple deserves more blame for this.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[mblase]

I will agree with PC Magazine on a few points though - why the hell does a notepad have to look like a real life notepad? That's just cutesy stupid bullcrap.

For the same reason that FaceTime has to look like an old-school movie camera, or the YouTube app is an old brown tube television, or the Contacts app is an old leather address book, or the "Phone" icon is an old telephone handset, or the clock app is an old analog circular clock....

It's all about instant recognition. A yellow spiral notepad says "notepad" instead of "word processor", which is probably what Apple doesn't want it to be used as.

Re:AKA

[ColdWetDog]

Hello Kitty!

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[ColdWetDog]

Or even if the file didn't have the reminder what is stopping you?

A brain. Or something along those lines.

I recently took a look at a friend's MacBook (she's actually quite intelligent, just rather mechanically declined). Several apps were being run from .dmgs. I pointed out the installers TOLD YOU IN BIG LETTERS TO MOVE THE FILE INTO THE APP DIRECTORY but since they 'work' just where they were, that's were they stayed.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[ColdWetDog]

I run older apps from their .dmg all the time. The main reason is 'cause they're compressed that way - saves some space.

So, how did you get that 10 megabyte MFM drive in your iMac?

Re:OMG! OMG!

[UnknowingFool]

Did you miss the part where they do pay more than their competitors? My point is this: According to US standards, all of these factory workers do not get a decent living wage; according to Chinese standards, it is a decent living wage. Just like I make a decent salary where I live; if I moved to New York City, it's nothing. Before people gripe about the pay understand the relative standard of living not the absolute values of wages.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[bill_mcgonigle]

It may be that mountain lion is so dumbed down that it is no longer useful for people who want to create actual product and do actual work. In that case we will be left with no mainstream OS, and I suppose I will just have to find some other *nix.

Yeah, after iPhone succeeded (v2), I switched from OSX to Fedora (KDE). It's not as smooth, but it is a bit more powerful. What I'm confident about, though, is that the Mac will be discontinued for a Desktop Edition of iOS (I know the guts are the same, but the user layer and workflows/metaphors) and I don't want to die the slow death and then be left with nothing.

I looked at Apple's page on 10.8 and it looks great for my mother to use, but even less like something I'd want to use. The progress from OSX to iOS has gone one step further - nothing to make me change my conclusion.

The Mac had it's run - it's nice of Apple to give the users a soft landing rather than just dropping it and I understand why they want to go proprietary and profitable.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[quacking duck]

Supposed to and reality are two different things. In particular, non-admin users like my parents don't have access to copy to Applications, so they have indeed launched apps directly from the downloaded .dmg file.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

OMG! OMG! OMG!!!! New Apple news!!!

Blah blah blah blah blah Walled Garden! Blah blah sheep! Blah homosexual blah blah blah BLAH BLAHs!!11!!1! Whine whine Foxconn!

I'm jizzing myself!!!

-Sent from my Android carbon copy of an iDevice

Re:OMG! OMG!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Yes we are geeks, but we are humans first, and pardon me but my convictions on how humans should be treated trumps all interest in gadgets and alike.

Are you sure you're actually worrying about the conditions of the workforce? I ask because a boycott, if successful, would cause layoffs.

Gatekeeper

[GoJays]

Gatekeeper isn't a virus/malware protector, it is the virus! Or well it is according to the movie "The Net". The writers of that movie should sue the pants off of Apple because they obviously thought of this first... :P

Re:OSX has jumped the shark...

[qubex]

I have to agree. They’re just adding clutter and backporting annoying eye-candy. OS X used to be a dependable, solid OS that was a pleasure to work with. Now they’re curtailing users’ ability to run stuff, abstracting the filesystem, adding eye-candy that causes clutter, and reducing computers to some kind of network appliance cum social experience. Apple’s design has always been noted for it’s minimalism. How is it that their software development is headed in the opposite direction? It’s becoming clunky.

Yes, Leopard (on G5) and Snow Leopard (on Intel) have been their high-water marks so far. I fear they’re going gaga over social networking and consumer electronics.

Look Away

[SuperKendall]

why the hell does a notepad have to look like a real life notepad? That's just cutesy stupid bullcrap.

If you feel that way about Notepad, I STRONGLY suggestion you never open iCal...

Re:Look Away

[RocketRabbit]

Why? It's no worse than Notepad.

Nothing changes for the technical user

[SuperKendall]

I looked at Apple's page on 10.8 and it looks great for my mother to use, but even less like something I'd want to use.

You can just ignore those parts if you want and continue to use the technical bits of OS X. All Apple is doing is adding a layer of easier to use applications atop a core system that is still the same...

Most of them

[SuperKendall]

Think about the number of developers of Apple software. Now think about what proportion of them consistently follow good security practices.

Actually, most of them. If you are programming in Objective-C there are no buffer overflow vectors to even worry about, for example... and most of the frameworks guide you do doing things in a secure manner.

The point is though, even if they slip up and hole is found Apple can disable the app for EVERYONE until the application fix is in place. That is really useful for the average user.

Wrong

[SuperKendall]

According to a comment by someone else, this option to override is only available to admins and by default non-admins can only run signed apps.

Every user is an admin of their computer. The default is exactly what he described.

Why should that option NOT only be toggle able by an admin account?

Anyone that wants one and is paying them $99 a year to become a developer, yes.

NO! If you just want a signing certificate that is free to acquire, you do need to register with Apple. Only if you want to sell on the App Store are you required to pay the MASSIVE $99/year fee.

It already works like that

[SuperKendall]

When I restore a machine from a backup, I want to 1) start the process 2) end the process 3) reboot 4) start using the machine. The fact that iPads / iPhones don't do that is a letdown.

How do they not do that?

When you restore an IOS device from an iCloud backup, it downloads all of your apps from the app store, then it downloads all of the data for those apps from iCloud.

That's one process, at the end everything is back to where it was.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[kinnell]

If Apple paid Foxconn more do you really think the factory workers would earn more?

here's where we get it from...

[schlachter]

http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Premium-64bit-System-Builder/dp/B004Q0PT3I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329427079&sr=8-1

Windows 7 OEM version. $99.

Ironically, I think most people buying this are buying it to run in a VM on their Macbook Pro. :)

iCould backups on WiFi

[SuperKendall]

I hope there is a easy way to trun if off before a trip to Canada turns into a 20K

iCloud backups happen on WiFi.

That said, you do need to be careful - buy an international data plan beforehand (you can get 50MB which is good for a decent amount of map use) and make sure to reset your network usage meter just as you get there so you can really tell how much of your allotment you have used.

P.S. pro-rated

[SuperKendall]

Also something to consider is that any plan changes you make are pro-rated - so if you buy a 50MB plan, and use all 50MB you need to make sure to wait a month before canceling the plan. Of course, that also means if you only use 20MB you can cancel it after half a month and pay half as much.

Or if you anticipate high data usage for a day buy the 800MB plan for just a few days.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[schlachter]

I will risk saying this without the Anonymous box checked.

this

Re:Oh Boy!!

[Sancho]

Maybe so, but for those of us who have to work on multiple devices regularly, I think that switching to and from natural scrolling would absolutely kill my productivity. Until most PCs have this as an option, I simply can't enable it on my Mac.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[mystikkman]

They can enforce it as a condition and get it done, because they're such a big customer, they have enormous leverage over Foxconn.

Re:so what my sex game that app will put in the st

[Guy Harris]

so what my sex game that apple will put in the store why should my uses have to do jump though hoops to run it?

If you can afford USD 99/year for a Mac Developer Program membership, so you can get a signing key, they won't have to jump through hoops to run it unless they've explicitly told Gatekeeper to warn about non-App Store apps from identified developers.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[RocketRabbit]

Why do you think I brought this up? Tons and tons of Mac owners who are none too savvy simply run a program from a .dmg and then when they reboot because of an update or whatever, "forget" where they "installed" the program. Then they bother me.

I have dealt with this more times than I would like to recall and I welcome our new App Store overlords.

Re:Ask them every time.

[Guy Harris]

"Ask them. Ask them every time. Make them tell you to stop asking if they get tired of you asking."

Or just ask them the first time they try to run the app, and then, if they say "run it anyway, even if it's not from an identified developer", don't ask them again. I haven't seen anything to indicate how it behaves, but if it's anything like the quarantine stuff that's been there since Snow Leopard, it's probably "ask once".

Re:OSX has jumped the shark...

[GrahamCox]

I fear theyâ(TM)re going gaga over social networking and consumer electronics
Perhaps, but that's certainly where the growth and the money is going to come from.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[RocketRabbit]

Realistically you never need to enter any credit card information in order to get an account and use the App Store. Yes, it sells commercial software but there's an awful lot of free stuff on there too.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[RocketRabbit]

Heck they even upgraded 5.6 just a few weeks ago.

Airport Utility as it stands now is probably more suited for the generic mom that everybody mentions, and I think that's fine.

Again, though I don't see Apple ever going over to an iOS type interface with no way out for OS X. After all, somebody will have to make the Mac applications...

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[RocketRabbit]

Your theory sounds good but it falls flat when you consider it deeply.

Who will make the OS X applications, if as you predict they totally lock it down with no way out?

Also, how is Fedora "more powerful" than OS X? I guess it depends on what you want to do. For me, photography and digital music are big reasons to use a computer, and the current state of the art in open source in both those areas is just terribly embarrassing. Shameful, really.

I would be interested in hearing what things you can run on Linux that you can not run on OS X (no Wine here, remember I have that on the Mac too). I don't really think it is necessary to list all the software and hardware I can use with my Mac that you can not with Linux.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[stewbacca]

Third benefit. Buy once, put on all your Macs. Buy once, put on you Mac any time you restore the OS. Buy once, put it on the new Mac you buy next week. Buy once, put it on a friend's machi......errr, um wait, I didn't say that.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[stewbacca]

Purchases from the Mac App store skip that step. Purchases go right into /Applications. I never thought installing an app could get easier than the "drag this to the Application folder", but it has.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Uberbah]

Apple deserves and gets the most blame because they are the ones with most margins to spare and the most cash in the bank (~100 billion).

Except Apple is getting all of the blame, not just "most". Microsoft also has a gigantic pile of cash, yet you don't see anyone holding their feet to the fire over the XBox 360 and all the suicides at that Foxconn plant.

Which is why this is just an excuse to break out the Apple Hatorade.

Re:Oh Boy!!

[stewbacca]

15 minutes? There's a freakin' movie on first install that shows you how to switch back if you can't be bothered to look in system prefs/mouse and change it back.

I thought the disappearing scroll bars were a UI mistake as well, but with all the gesture devices (trackpad and mouse, namely) it takes just a slight twitch to make them reappear. I haven't really been bothered by it since. It's actually pretty smart to hide them, as the user is not inclined to think of the scroll direction as being associated with the scroll bar and instead is associated with which way you want the page to go.

Weirdly, the new scroll behavior seems to be more intuitive with my Macbook Pro than it is my MacPro. Maybe it's the proximity of the screens, or the form factor of the Macbook Pro being more similar to an iPad?

Re:Introducing Mac OSX 10.8!

[stewbacca]

"It still doesn't work well in enterprise!"

Works well enough for the largest tech company on the planet. Unless you want to claim that Apple doesn't use Macs in their enterprise, that is.

Re:OSX has jumped the shark...

[stewbacca]

I fear they’re going gaga over social networking and consumer electronics.

Yes, because Apple has a long track history of being late to the game and relying on old, outdated paradigms....oh wait...

Re:Yawn

[stewbacca]

I'll get it for Messages alone. No more juggling my iPad and computer at work when my wife chats me from her phone one second and her Macbook the next.

Free?

[thoughtlover]

and the free iCloud sharing service

Just like my old .Mac account? That lasted a whole two years before Apple reneged on their initial deal and started charging for the service. Back then, it wasn't easy to archive email, so I lost a lot of personal email and had to tell everyone to use a new eddress. What a pain in the ass that was.

Re:lion costs a whopping $30

[jorx]

Lion drops support for PowerPC applications.

Mod parent up

[WiiVault]

The most evenhanded analysis I've seen. If Apple isn't pulling a slippery slope than this is a step forward. If it end up being a way to kill non-appstore/signed apps then it is a step backward. It's really to early to tell which is the case.

Re:Normal users shouldn't install just any program

[WiiVault]

Sadly I agree with AndreR. Lots of users do exactly what he said. Mac users are just as smart or dumb as their Windows counterparts after all.

Far more important many Macs newly unsupported

[WiiVault]

I'm surprised that the long list of newly unsupported Macs isn't seen as more important than app signing. Here is a list of Macs unsupported by Mountain Lion: Any Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook from late 2007 to late 2008, Mid 2007 Mac mini, Late 2006 polycarbonate iMac, Early 2008 MacBook Air.

Re:lion costs a whopping $30

[tsa]

There are no MacBook Airs with a PowerPC.

Re:More useless junk, just like in Lion.

[tsa]

If you don't use them on you iPad/Phone then why do you want them there?

Re:lion costs a whopping $30

[Guy Harris]

There are no MacBook Airs with a PowerPC.

...which is why you might want Rosetta if you're using, for example, the last full-featured version of Quicken for Mac rather than Quicken Lite^WEssentials. (I'm now using Quicken Essentials because Quicken 2007 for Mac reproducibly shat all over one of my accounts and I figured I was more likely to find myself pooping out gold bricks than getting any support for that bug.)

Re:Thankfully, Linux Users Aren't Nutty Over Relea

[Guy Harris]

I chuckle when I imagine Linux fanboys going crazy over impending releases of kernel revisions

The equivalent wouldn't be a new kernel revision, it'd be something like Ubuntu 13.01 "Wonder Warthog", but I'm not sure there's even as much hyperventilation about new distribution releases or even new desktop environment releases (most of the new features being touted here are at layers of software closer to KDE or GNOME than at the kernel layer; I really doubt anybody was jumping for joy because, say, Lion finally correctly supported select()/poll() on BPF devices...).

Re:Yawn

[Guy Harris]

If I get it the main win for me would probably be getting rid of that fucking two-pane version of Address Book. (I don't know what drugs the people who came up with the Lion version of Address Book were on, but if it left 5% of their brain cells still functioning, I'd be amazed....) I can probably tolerate all the social networking integration crap, especially if it makes using GOOD OLD FASHIONED EMAILING OF URLS easier (no, I have no interest in "sharing" stuff with 500 of my closest friends).

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Daniel Phillips]

I will risk saying this without the Anonumous box checked, what the fuck is going on with the mass histeria? As if we are curing cancer several times per year now! It is a damn gadget, and a nice looking one to be honest, but a gadget it remains. There is always rumors about a new iOS, or a new iPad or a new iPhone and somehow people get are juiced about them, in the end I just can't reconcile this enthusiams the people are having with the immorality of how these things are created. So Fuck you!

You said it straight and deserve to be modded up.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right, so before apple became the biggest tech company in the world you were beating on someone else? The bad press is directed at apple because it is their model that has become successful which goes against the particular brand of marketing that you were sold. Your bitter and twisted because you've been exposed as what you are. An easily led, technically lightweight fraud. Deal with it.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[UnknowingFool]

Please coward. I'm someone who sees the China problem as what it is. Before it was high technology, it was textiles. Before it was China, it was Mexico. The exploitation of cheap labor is nothing new in the course of history. If you have any clue, you would see that.

Re:Oh Boy!!

[TheRaven64]

15 minutes? There's a freakin' movie on first install that shows you how to switch back if you can't be bothered to look in system prefs/mouse and change it back.

I didn't spend 15 minutes looking, I spent 15 minutes trying their new UI model before deciding that, no, it wasn't something to get used to, it was just a failed attempt to apply an interaction mode that made sense on one input device to another.

I thought the disappearing scroll bars were a UI mistake as well, but with all the gesture devices (trackpad and mouse, namely) it takes just a slight twitch to make them reappear

Assuming that your fingers are already on the trackpad, and not on the keyboard...

Re:OMG! OMG!

[zero.kalvin]

So it is ok to mistreat people if they are making money ? This is similar to the dictator that is saying I want to be mericful and instead of killing all dissidents I'll just lock them up forever!

Re:OMG! OMG!

[zero.kalvin]

I agree that China's side of the issue is a bit different, but the gun can be held against Apple.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

They are voluntarily working there so they can make money to live off of. If they suddenly lose their job due to low demand, how have we helped them?

How Apple updates their OS.

[aristotle-dude]

10.7 - was the initial release of Lion and was a a paid update for 29.99 on the mac app store.

10.7.1 - was the first "service pack" for Lion and is free.

10.7.2 - was the second update.

10.7.3 - was the third service pack.

If history is any indicator, Apple will deliver a few more service packs for Lion before 10.8 Mountain Lion is released as a paid update for a round 30 dollars.

Critical updates and new printer drivers are delivered by Apple through software update in between 10.x.x "service packs" for free.

The only difference between a service pack on windows and a 10.x.x release on OS X is the frequency that they are released by Apple versus MSFT's releases.

Paid updates from both companies include new API calls whereas service packs and 10.x.x update generally do not.

Hopefully, this will clear up some of the confusion caused by the FUD spread by others on this site and others.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I apologize for my persistence, but since we're discussing the treatment of people (as opposed to arguing about which smart phone OS is better) I really would like an answer to my question.

If, for ethical reasons, we boycott the products they manufacture and cause them to lose their jobs, how have we helped them?

Re:OMG! OMG!

[NateTech]

And other unintended consequences would certainly ensue if they did.

Just because you have "leverage" doesn't mean you should necessarily use it.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[kqs]

d) Unions

Factory conditions in the US in the late 1800s were as bad as they are in China now until unions and strikes came around. (Worse, possibly. It makes the news when an industrial accident kills a dozen workers now.) No-one has any incentive to enforce labor laws except for the workers, and without a union workers are powerless and replaceable.

Unions with support from outside (the UN, trade deals, etc) are the only thing which will work.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[zero.kalvin]

It is not just about them, it is about them and other people! If you do not boycott them, then there would be no reason for Apple/(foxconn) to change that behavior. Losing a job is a not an amoral behavior if the outcome is better conditions for future employees. And let's reverse the situation, how are you helping them by not doing anything ? Beside a boycott doesn't necessarily lead to loss of jobs, if anything it might lead to better working conditions ( or maybe I am just an optimist). Now I have a question for you, are you willing to buy an Apple iProduct after all of this ?

Re:OMG! OMG!

[jbolden]

I agree. But China is a dictatorship. Unions haven't tended to do well in dictatorships, except for those dictatorships that built themselves on union support. Uncontrolled they are too much of a threat to the regime.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

And let's reverse the situation, how are you helping them by not doing anything ?

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting doing nothing. I'm saying a boycott is counter-productive. Just getting public attention talking about it is causing Apple to react. The only problem I see now is.. it's just Apple reacting.

Now I have a question for you, are you willing to buy an Apple iProduct after all of this ?/quote?

YES. The real question is if I'll buy a product from anybody else. The reason for this is they're moving ahead and starting to get changes done there. If they announced raises at the Foxconn plant for their assembly work and their profits went up as a result, guess what'd happen!

(cr)Apple

[Steevee]

will this here fancy new software make my (cr)Apple super de duper?

i can't wait to waste more money on it and make (cr)Apple more richer.....

Re:Oh Boy!!

[davesag]

I was hoping it would be Domestic Shorthair

Re:OMG! OMG!

[Quiet_Desperation]

I do? Really? Either it happens I'm sleepwalking or you're a complete dumbass.

Re:OMG! OMG!

[macs4all]

Isn't Fag out of the lexicon by now?

No, it's just been relegated to a synonym for Harley Rider and of course it retains its longstanding association with the term "Anonymous Coward".

Re:OMG! OMG!

[macs4all]

So the answer to your question is, how much more money can Nokia pay it's workers on the $20 handsets it sells the most before declaring bankruptcy(ending up in workers completely losing their jobs), versus Apple with it's multi-hundred dollar margins while playing $8 or so for assembly for each iPad and iPhone? Considering that we're talking about China here, $8 for iPad assembly is absolutely within reason. It's not like the workers are actually doing anything but some "final assembly". We don't have tables full of workers winding speaker coils, stuffing PC boards, or doing an hour's worth of assembly.

I don't know, but just looking at an iPad or iPhone's innards (and being an embedded software/hardware engineer with over 3 decades of experience), I'd venture to guess that the "manual labor" in iPad/iPhone assembly is measured in single-digit minutes. People get pretty efficient when they do the same process (literally) a thousand times a day...

Grab the bottom plate. Glue down the battery. Install the 3 or 4 pre-stuffed PC boards and plug in a few FPC strips. Drop the display assembly (pre-built) onto the bottom plate. Connect another FPC strip. OS has already been loaded when the PC Board was assembled. Boot to diagnostics. Do display and control functions test. Send to final inspection. Sounds like about 5 minutes for someone who does it every day.

All the rest is done by robots. And they don't have unions. Yet.