Slashdot Mirror


Apple In Trouble With Developers

geek writes "According to Marco Arment, the creator of Instapaper, Apple may be in trouble with developers. According to Arment, the new sandboxing guidelines from Apple are pushing developers away in droves. 'I've lost all confidence that the apps I buy in the App Store today will still be there next month or next year. The advantages of buying from the App Store are mostly gone now. My confidence in the App Store, as a customer, has evaporated. Next time I buy an app that’s available both in and out of the Store, I’ll probably choose to buy it directly from the vendor. And nearly everyone who’s been burned by sandboxing exclusions — not just the affected apps’ developers, but all of their customers — will make the same choice with their future purchases. To most of these customers, the App Store is no longer a reliable place to buy software.' Arment also comments on the 'our way or the highway' attitude Apple often takes in these situations and how it may be backfiring this time around."

47 of 343 comments (clear)

  1. Pray I don't change them further.... by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember, that line didn't even work out for Vader and he had Star Destroyers and millions of clone troopers at his command. If you have the upper hand you can sometimes force people to accept a one sided deal. But if you go beyond that and keep changing the terms on it eventually everyone figures out they might as well take their chances because they are hosed anyway. You have to leave them some hope of survival.

    I especially liked how the article has this:

    "This even may reduce the long-term success of iCloud and the platform lock-in it could bring for Apple. Only App Store apps can use iCloud, but many Mac developers can’t or won’t use it because of the App Store’s political instability."

    Anyone who would write that, in the context of it being a good thing!, is obviously a Kool-Aid drinker. When you are driving those people away it is a warning sign.

    Imagine how badly Microsoft is going to bungle this same gambit. Notice how Valve is already running for the exits? Uh huh, good times ahead for everyone!

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Pray I don't change them further.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But, according to John Romero, Android is a piracy platform and Apple TV will make you his bitch!

      And now! Daikatana 2!

    2. Re:Pray I don't change them further.... by exomondo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      alter, alter! not 'change'...on the other hand maybe George Lucas changed that line in Empire Strikes Back 're-imagined' special edition 2.

    3. Re:Pray I don't change them further.... by Lord+Lode · · Score: 3, Funny

      altered that line!

    4. Re:Pray I don't change them further.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

      alter, alter! not 'change'...

      Perhaps he-sa tryin' to be avoidin' LucasArt lawyerin'!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Pray I don't change them further.... by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yea, you are right. I was in a hurry so do I still have to turn in my geek card?

      Say a couple "I'm am your father"s or "Do or do not. There is no try"s. You might be forgiven.

      Better line would have been "The more you tighten your grip, ..., the more ... will slip through your fingers."

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:Pray I don't change them further.... by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Funny

      2012 and we still can't punch people in the face over TCP/IP...

    7. Re:Pray I don't change them further.... by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet, all the best games and applications are still being written for OSX, Windows, and iOS. You can keep preaching about how great open software is, but when it's hard to make money off the platform, the best developers are never going to go there. You're preaching idealism. MS and Apple preach profits. We live in a capitalist society - guess who wins?

      The gravy train comes with no guarantee you will always remain on it. Apple prospers while those who do business with Apple prosper. When Apple tries too hard to prosper all by themselves they begin to look like that company which nearly died before the second coming of Jobs.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    8. Re:Pray I don't change them further.... by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Remember, that line didn't even work out for Vader and he had Star Destroyers and millions of clone troopers at his command.

      No he didn't. By "A New Hope", all of the clone troopers were dead or in retirement homes (they had their aging accelerated). The Storm Troopers were standard grunts hired from a thousand colony planets. Kenobi thinks they're the super precise shooting clones he remembers, but he's wrong. The only surviving clone is Boba Fett.

    9. Re:Pray I don't change them further.... by sco08y · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's funny how George Lucas pretty much did in the Special Editions to the fans (and future fans) what Vader did to Lando in ESB. Well, not exactly funny, but ironic maybe?

      Huh? It's been a while, but I don't recall a scene where Vader slaps Lando to the ground, says, "suck it, bitch, you'll buy it anyway" and shits in his face.

      (That's one kind of dramatic scene where a cape just doesn't work.)

    10. Re:Pray I don't change them further.... by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bollocks. All kinds of apps are simply impossible to produce within the constraints imposed by the App Store. Like menubar icons that let you plug into iTunes for example (and before you point out that tools like these already exist, I will point out that those are all using temporary entitlements.

      I strongly suspect cool apps like TotalFinder also violate no end of App Store policies as well.

      Or how about an app that simply goes through a folder and renames/deletes some files according to user parameters (like A Better Finder Rename for example)? Impossible - permission must be obtained by means of a file open dialog for every single file the app wants to manipulate.

      Sandboxing is bullshit. Or rather, Apple's implementation of it is bullshit.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  2. Perhaps the walled-garden was bad after all. by sethstorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These are the things you get with the lack of openness - in favor of the One True Platform where everything must submit to the One True Experience

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  3. App Store by Lord+Lode · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This summary contains the word "App Store" a few more times than necessary...

    1. Re:App Store by Volguus+Zildrohar · · Score: 3, Funny

      They didn't App Store it would App Store you so much.

      --
      When confronted with one problem, some think "I'll use recursion". Now they are confronted with one problem.
    2. Re:App Store by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And it missed a line:
      "Disclaimer: Marco Arment, the creator of Instapaper, is likely more than a bit disgruntled with Apple, now that the functionality of Instapaper has been rolled into Safari."

      Apple has a history of driving away developers by incorporating their ideas into the bundled apps. Not many developers though... only those of really well thought out OS enhancements.

      While Marco does have a point, the timing of the statement smacks more than a bit of sour grapes. As a developer, he's known the sandboxing exemptions were temporary for, well at least a year. He's had more than a month since the sandbox closed its lid. I think he'll find that anyone developing heavyweight applications never even entered the App Store; they're still going strong on their own. The App store does great things for apps that are happy to live within the sandbox though; lightweight apps that have nothing to do with managing the computer but instead accomplish specific tasks.

      What Marco will find is that for every serious application developer leaving the Mac App Store, there are 50 App developers moving in -- some of them migrants from the iOS App Store, who are just adding a secondary target to their development builds.

      In my opinion, the App Store was never the place for non-sandobxed software in the first place. In time, Apple may create more sandbox features that will enable more heavy applications to re-enter the Store, but this will only be after the honeymoon period is over with the "App" crowd -- expect another year of shakedown before anyone doing complex OS tasks can "trust" the store.

      Kudos to Apple though for starting in restricted mode and slowly enabling more features -- and at the same time having a blanket exemption period for more serious developers to play with the store and see if it's right for them.

  4. He's talking about the new MAC app store by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Informative

    not the App Store most people are thinking of (the iphone/ipad one). TF summary is misleading.

    The mobile App store's always been restrictive, and it seems to have done okay... nothing to see here.

  5. As an Apple hater, I disagree. by twocows · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I loathe Apple. They are probably one of the most detestable companies in the technology sector right now. I see them as a modern version of 90s Microsoft.

    But this? I think this is a move in the right direction. The added security benefits sandboxing brings far outweigh any negative consequences a few developers too lazy to implement something Apple's been telling them they need to implement for the better part of a year might experience (at least according to the OS X review a few days ago from Ars Technica). And it's not like these developers have no recourse; as long as they register with Apple or whatever, the default OS setting will allow users to go download those products from the vendor's website.

    There are plenty of reasons to hate Apple. Their push toward better security practices is not one of them.

    1. Re:As an Apple hater, I disagree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until Apple decide it wants your software's market share and removes your App from the App Store because Apps that compete directly with official Apple products are not allowed.

    2. Re:As an Apple hater, I disagree. by twocows · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a reason not to use the App Store in general, not to protest their implementation of sandboxing and adding it as a requirement for App Store apps.

    3. Re:As an Apple hater, I disagree. by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is when Apple is forbidding APIs to be used if you do not distribute the application on the Mac App Store.

      These are APIs that allow the user to store things on servers that Apple is paying for. So it's not just "using an API", it is "using infrastructure that is paid for by Apple".

    4. Re:As an Apple hater, I disagree. by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did you know there is no setting which allows an application to write files in a user selected folder, no you have to ask the user for every file to save manually.

      That's not true at all. The standard com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write entitlements can handle that very easily. All you have to do is use a standard open dialog to let the user choose a folder, and then write arbitrary crap into that folder or any subfolder within it. Then, save a security-scoped bookmark to that folder if you need to retain access to that folder on future launches. Where things get awkward with that arrangement is when the user copies those files to another machine or restores from a backup. At that point, you'll have to ask the user to open the folder containing the file "foo.wav" or whatever. Then, you can scour the files in there, create security-scoped bookmarks for all of them, and repeat for any other folders full of files.

      A much better solution for that problem is to store each project in a self-contained bundle (a folder with an extension, e.g. a .rtfd file, as supported by TextEdit). If you do that, everything just magically works, because instead of opening a project file, the user is opening a folder that contains everything related to a given project. For obvious reasons, that approach is strongly recommended unless you absolutely have to reference files outside of the project for some reason.

      Also I want to make screenshots and mail the screenshot,preferences file and log file to me, when the user has a problem he likes me to look at.

      That isn't allowed because you aren't allowed to see other apps' windows. It would be a fairly serious security violation if an app could take pictures of other apps that are running and then mail them to the app developer. The same goes for log files that contain data from other applications, preferences files written by other applications, etc. However, there is no reason you can't capture an image of each of your own windows, store a copy of your own log messages in your own file, or send your own preferences file.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:As an Apple hater, I disagree. by jasomill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Should I have to bundle together an editor, source control, and an interpreter in order for those programs to use the same files inside the sandbox? Should I do this for every language I want to develop in using that editor? ... Would Apple close that hole, or reject me from the app store for that reason?

      No, no, and no. Sandboxed applications have free access, forever, to files and folders you explicitly select, where "forever" can even include subsequent versions of the same app. Many vendors are running away from sandboxing "to improve user experience" in ways that directly conflict with the whole notion of sandboxing: accessing the user's SSH private keys without confirmation, using Apple Events and/or the Accessibility API to control arbitrary third-party applications, and so on. Apple's goal seems to be to maximize the number of applications that can be reasonably sandboxed without undermining the whole idea of sandboxing, using the App Store and iCloud as "carrots", because they're trying to address a problem Microsoft never did: most developers don't give a damn about the mitigation of security vulnerabilities in their applications. It's a hard problem, and discussions like Marco's will ultimately contribute to a better solution, but "give up sandbox requirements" isn't an endgame I'd like to see.

    6. Re:As an Apple hater, I disagree. by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's actually pretty straightforward. The UNIX security model sucks. It assumes that attacks come from the outside, and is designed to protect the user from other users on the same system. In the UNIX model, everything run by a particular user has the same rights as the user. In practice, that just isn't a viable security model anymore.

      Consider this scenario: you have a web browser. When everything is working, you trust that the browser is not malicious, so you run it as yourself. Later, you go to a web page and, because of a bug in that browser, somebody is able to execute arbitrary code. Under the UNIX model, that browser can send all your files to a server in Croatia, encrypt them, and extort money from you in exchange for getting your data back.

      The only way to prevent such a scenario in a traditional UNIX permission system is to run each application as a separate user. That might be practical for a power user, but it would be insane for most folks. And if you ever wanted to open that JPEG file that you saved with the web browser, you'd have to go in and either change the owner (Finder running as root is a terrifying thought) or set really scary ACLs. No matter how you cut it, that's not user-friendly.

      A modern security model must be fundamentally built on the principle of distrust. Distrust everything. Any app could potentially become malicious at any time, whether because the app developer put in a backdoor or because somebody exploited a buffer overflow. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the operating system to not only protect the user from other users on the system, but also from flaws in other applications being run by the same user.

      The result is a sandboxing model, in which applications are allowed to open only files that the user has explicitly authorized them to open. Although the user sees a standard file open dialog, when running in a sandbox, the application is not in charge of displaying that dialog. Instead, a system daemon called pboxd (the "powerbox daemon") displays the dialog. When the user chooses to allow that application access to a resource, that daemon then extends the application's sandbox to allow access to that file. In this way, the application has access to exactly the files or folders to which the user has granted it access. No more, no less.

      Such a security model is really the only sane security model you can come up with. By using user intent rather than an arcane set of permissions, the user is able to open files in whatever application the user chooses, trusting the operating system to ensure that those applications do not have access to files that the user has not allowed those applications to open. This significantly reduces the benefits gained from attacking security holes in an application.

      That's not to say that some apps don't need broader access (e.g. Finder), but it is a worthwhile goal to minimize the number of apps with that level of access, as they are the juiciest targets for attack.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:As an Apple hater, I disagree. by tlhIngan · · Score: 3

      The user is paying for their iCloud service (if use more than the free quota, if they need more moeny remove the low the free quota), why the developer must be forced to a store for that?. Do Google force developers using Google Drive APIs to use Google Play or Chrome Store? If I pay for Google Apps for domains, do every XMPP messaging client must distribute their app using the Google methods if they will connect to Google Talk server. There is no excuse for Apple blocking iCloud

      Easy, to prevent abuse and malware spreads.

      First off, developers suck. Yes, that includes you and me. For every well-written to-the-API app, there's dozens of others that take shortcuts and cheat at things, usually in the name of "making release" or "fixing a bug".

      The sandboxing requirement was well known going into the App Store at least over a year ago. All developers knew about the deadline, and it was extended, twice as they weren't ready. Why? Because they didn't have to do it! But now that Apple forced them, they suddenly realize that they need to do it, and fast. It's unfortunately also Business 101 - even if you announce a change years in advance, remind them to the point of nagging, some company with something that's worked fine for all those years suddenly realizes you mean business and has to scramble to meet new requirements. Despite having years to get ready. Very few, if any, will actually try to get ahead of the curve and meet the new requirement ahead of time.

      As for limiting iCloud to App Store Apps - it's probably with sandboxing. Imagine you had a regular app that had a bug and used iCloud. A smart malware writer will exploit your app to infect a user's document stored on iCloud so even if the user wipes their mac, the instant they use the app, they're infected again because of an exploit in your app.

      Try diagnosing THAT as technical support. Sandboxed apps using iLcoud - well the app can get infected, but that infection is confined through the sandbox to that app only.

      Or imagine it's a different file - let's say a specially crafted file using some exploit in libjpeg or other imaging library. If a sandboxed app loaded it, it gets infected, but that infection is confined to that app only. If it was available to all apps, all it would take is a vulnerable one to infect *all* your Macs simultaneously through iCloud.

      The other alternative is to have Apple scan and delete infected files off their servers. But I'm sure that will go over really well with people.

      One final reason is well, everywhere you have the app, you have access to your files via iCloud, since all app stores Apple has are tied to iCloud now. Let's say you buy some nifty editor off the Mac App Store. You go to a new Mac, login and redownload the editor and boom, the files are there. If it was the other way, you'd have to find the editor's website, somehow manage to get the registered copy (hoping it's not machine-locked!) and then get at your files. Less convenient, while the other way puts more work on the developer, the user gets a much better experience.

      As for developers screwing their customers - two sides to the coin. Apple is withholding from developers the IDs of who purchased their apps, probably for the better (given all the hacks and stealing of customer databases, you'll probably fine many developers would have pretty shoddy websites vulnerable to SQL attacks, buffer overflows, plain text customer lists out in the open, etc. Hell, there's probably someone out there who stores their entire customer database as a series of emails on a publicly-accessible IMAP server. (You will easily find that while they can code up wicked stuff for an app, but then fail to take basic security precautions for their website...).

  6. Re:A lot faster than I thought by Desler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except there is no evidence that developers are "leaving in drones" neither from the linked blog posting or anything from the summary. That was just sensationalism added in to rile up the Apple crowd.

  7. Re:well by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    What was that about the cheesemakers?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  8. Like Walmart..... by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple probably doesn't care. When one merchandiser leaves, another one will gladly take its place.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  9. Backwards, more will go to app store by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a developer I see what he is saying.

    But as a user the changes only make it MORE likely I would look in the app store first for something. I know something from there will work along with the system security restrictions.

    With more people looking in the app store, the simple truth is more developers will have to service that market somehow or lose users (or at least not grow at the same rate as the mac install base does).

    Apple has already changed some ways in which sandboxing works, to accommodate some application needs. And they will do more of that going forward - but historically Apple implements overly strong security to start with, and then whittles it away as required instead of letting users get used to an overly permissive model.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  10. Re:A lot faster than I thought by exomondo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Except there is no evidence that developers are "leaving in drones"

    If i were leaving i don't think a drone would be my preferred conveyance.

  11. The problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Developers think "Great, I can release an App Store version... I just need to remove x and y." So they do that, and people buy the App Store version. Then the developer realizes his App Store version now can't do Z, which makes it much harder to keep making in parallel with his native version. So he stops updating the App Store version. App Store customer sees non-App Store version getting updates and gets angry.

  12. How will 'the halo effect' come into play? by Voyager529 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many, MANY people buy Macs because they believe that they are better/more stable/more secure than the Windows machines they've used for the past decade. Whether they are or are not is an endless Slashdot debate that is completely tangential to my point, because what's at question here is the perception, not the reality.

    If people perceive the Mac to be the stable part, software that doesn't work will likely be blamed on the developer, not Apple. To them, a sandbox is a place young children play in, not a computer security model. A developer trying to explain this to someone who truly doesn't understand the security model will make himself look foolish to the customer, not enlighten the customer.

    The App Store will still be used by many Mac users in the same way Origin is used by EA customers. Few (if any) EA customers desired Origin, it's just necessary for Battlefield 3, Mass Effect 3, and The Sims. Similarly, even if many Apple developers ditch the App Store, the fact that Final Cut Studio, Logic, and Aperture are available through it will keep a huge demographic begrudgingly using it. Adobe is probably the one company who can likely keep a working trigger finger on Apple preventing conventional software installations, but their pushing their 'Creative Cloud' model may weaken their grip on said trigger. Ableton and Serato may be in a position to help pick up the slack a bit, but they definitely don't have the same level of clout.

    Finally, long time Mac incumbents may be wary of the Mac App Store, but newcomers who love their iPhone/iPod/iPad may be more inclined to start at the App Store since that's "where software comes from". It's part of the vertical solution that they feel they bought from Apple. The question will be whether developer A's FOO_APP skiddishness in being included in the App Store will be the golden opportunity for similarly-functioning FRA_APP to eat its lunch. Again, Adobe may be able to keep itself afloat with selling stuff through adobe.com/journeyed/cdw/staples, but searching the App Store through functionality puts developers on much more even levels for those that would be affected by the sandboxing and not having a legal team at their disposal to go RIAA on their posteriors.

    1. Re:How will 'the halo effect' come into play? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just upgraded my MacBook Pro from OS X 10.7.4 Lion to 10.8 Mountain Lion. Unfortunately this change brought a new version of OpenGL (great!) but Apple removed the PBuffers they had deprecated some time back. That broke the software I've been working (using th JoGL OpenGL bindings). While on one hand you can argue that Apple deprecated PBuffers on their platform so tough luck to me. On the other hand both AMD on Windows and Ubuntu Linux still have working PBuffer implementations and my software still works on those platforms.

      As a developer it makes me a bit unhappy Apple brought in a lot of Cloud stuff (that I personally have zero interest in) while removing small but useful features that are actually widely used. Backwards compatibility matters a lot, which is one of the great strengths of Windows but Apple are less keen on it. As a developer (the point of this article) it now means that until the JoGL library catches up OS X has moved from a first-class target for my game to second class behind Linux and Windows (where I know the development effort won't be slowed by fairly needless breaking changes). This is because I can't guarantee that the effort I make to get things going again on OS X won't be nullified with further (IMHO unnecessarily strict) changes as new OS X versions are released on their yearly cycle. Sure, I have the technical chops to patch JoGL myself, but it is something I don't have to do for Windows and Linux, and is a diversion of effort for me actually *getting the important stuff done*.

      nb: I must be a luddite. I'd much rather get my software directly from the vendor rather than the straightjacket of the App Store. I just know getting stuf through the App Store will be problematic whenever Apple decides that it is in their interest (not mine) to replace the App Store with something else. All technology changes, eventually, but Apple's timescale for change is probably much faster than mine since I just want to get stuff done => future trouble, so I avoid using App Store where I have alternatives.

  13. New sand boxing guidelines? by hsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple hinted to sandboxing being mandatory at WWDC11, they announced it would happen later that year, then forced everyone to a few months ago. So, where does this "new" come from exactly?

  14. What I've seen by jbolden · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What I've seen is that many apps are starting to have 2 versions:

    a) The internet version
    -- designed the way the developer wants
    -- paid upgrades
    -- weak or weaker tie to iOS version

    b) The app store version
    -- designed the way Apple wants
    -- free upgrades (or rarely 100% rebuy upgrades)
    -- strong tie to the iOS version via. iCloud

    That's a really interesting choice. So far I've always gone for the internet version because the app store worries me. I like the idea of iCloud integration, but most of what I want I could get though dropbox and sym/hard links. I could get the update management the more traditions way (http://www.macupdate.com/desktop/) but frankly all the apps check by themselves at this point mostly.

    But I don't know the App store is "in trouble". I think there is likely to be a fork in what you get where. The App store might have lots of inexpensive simple applications, free demos, desktop support for phone apps and other apps that are single purpose while the retail side focus on the $20 on up apps which are more versatile. I don't think it is good that the market is forking creating two software ecosystems with different tastes.

  15. Only on Slashdot by Starteck81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love that people on here bitch endlessly about how insecure OSes are. Then Apple makes a move to require devs to code in a more secure manner, result? They freak out. Did I miss anything?

    --
    "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
  16. Marco may have a point by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Problem is, I read the linked post and can't tell if he's right or wrong. He refers to developers leaving, he refers to customers being burnt, he refers to sandboxing exclusions... but he doesn't give a single example to illustrate his point!

    So what exactly are you talking about, Marco Arment?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  17. Will Apple's own "apps" run in their sandbox? by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Will iTunes run in the "sandbox"? QuickTime? Safari? Keynote? Numbers? FinalCut "Pro"?

    1. Re:Will Apple's own "apps" run in their sandbox? by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Informative

      A lot of those do. Mail does, the mothership process of Safari does not, but it's "Web Content" processes, the ones that present URLs, do. Quicktime Player does. Facetime and the Reminders app do, the Calendar does not, TextEdit does, the productivity apps don't -- it's pretty much hit or miss, I don't think there's any agenda to it, they just update the apps when they get around to it. I know they'd rather have most of their user-facing apps in a sandbox, so they can't be used as an exploitable surface to their underlying services (the camera API, the filesystem, the sloppy blob that is Quicktime...). Several OS processes run in a sandbox as well, like the metadata indexer and the pasteboard daemon, because they have to crunch through gobs of roudy and arbitrary data and are rather intimate with the underlying system.

      But the sandbox and entitlements are about maintaining a chain of trust. If you don't trust the developer, in this case the organization known as Apple Inc, you shouldn't be running anything they make, starting with their OS and hardware, so the question is sorta mute.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  18. Cynicism wins, again. by billcopc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a newcomer to the Mac, I was not at all interested in the App Store. Maybe I'm too cynical, but goddamn it, I'm proven right too often to change my ways. The App Store does not solve any existing problems for me, as a user. If I can find some app in their, then I could have Googled for the author's web site just as easily. I actually prefer apps that self-update, rather than having to open the inflexible App Store client. I don't need a 3rd party getting between me and the developer, isn't that the whole point of a global network ? We don't need no stinkin' middlemen!

    Another peeve is how their delivery method makes it difficult to back up the installation files. I don't want to redownload the dumb thing every time I set up a test box, or follow their annual OS upgrades (from scratch - fuck inline updates!) For regular users, I'm sure the experience is seamless, but as soon as you start messing in a terminal, the messy parts become painfully apparent. It's kind of like that last bit in Portal, where you break out of the test area and run around the broken-down maintenance hallways.

    It's a fine model for the iPhone/iPad, but desktop/laptop computers have a long legacy that predates this sort of integration and far greater diversity in how people use them. Tell me how to use my computer and I'll tell your company to go fuck itself.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  19. The main problem and simple solution by rabtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right now the Mac app store makes no distinction between system/developer utilities and regular consumer applications. As a result, the list of available entitlements are too narrow. Regular users are baffled by the file system and getting it out of their faces is a great idea. Locking down apps is also good from a security perspective for most apps and users.

    Apple just needs to make a special more rigorous review process for these sorts of apps and only allow those apps to request admin access or touch the file system outside the sandbox. In fact only the Developer and Utility categories need allow this sort of thing.

    On a related note, Apple needs something like Windows' contracts so apps can specify the types of data they can provide or accept and let the system manage the interaction. This gives a safe clean way for apps to share data... The primary drawback of Apple's current "share nothing" model.

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  20. Re:A lot faster than I thought by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who needs evidence? Apple is "in Trouble". Because someone has a complaint. No one ever had a complaint before. Ever.

  21. NOT ABOUT iOS by mj1856 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The summary is misleading. The article is about the MAC app store for desktop applications. Was anyone else left scratching their heads about how the heck they would deploy iPhone apps to the public without the app store?

  22. Re:Sandboxing? Some background please? by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sandboxing is a standard security term. And it's a fairly stupid one at that. It's more like you're in prison. But the prison warden doesn't want you to talk with other prisoners and plan a riot, so you're put in solitary confinement and there's limited input/output (food through a hole, mail is censored, talk to your lawyer once a week, etc). That's sandboxing. (I guess whoever came up with the term had a bad childhood that involved bing locked in a room with sand on the floor). A normal app can read/write to any file anywhere (assuming appropriate permission). A sandboxed app can only read/write files with explicit user permission (open/save dialog or dragging the file icon). For many applications, that's fine. But it doesn't play well with a lot of utilities or power tools. And some standard apps can't implement advanced features since they no longer have permission to do that.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  23. Re:Agree by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you go back to the article Ament links to, their complaints are:

    No free trials
    No discounted upgrades
    No free upgrades if the prior version was purchased after a specific date
    No way to provide license keys that could be used on Windows (many of our customers use both platforms)
    No volume discounts or site licensing
    No access to customer information, which prevented us from validating orders, offering discounts, running promotions, newsletter signups, etc.
    Unclear refund policies
    Most importantly, we had to create another version of Postbox for the Mac App Store that removed features such as iCal support, iPhoto integration, and Add-Ons in order to comply with Apple’s Application Guidelines

    None of these, save the last one, have anything to do with sandboxing. The last one does, but I don't understand it, because access to the user's calendar and photos are explicitly-defined entitlements that you can access, all you have to do is check a box in Xcode. A sandboxed app cannot access the filesystem of the computer, except for paths specifically named by the user in an Open or Save dialogue (the dialogue boxes are run by a separate daemon that passes the paths to the client application over IPC, so you can't futz with it to pick open more of the user's fs than they specifically let the application see.) Obviously this is deadly to bulk renamers, but I don't understand the complaint in the context of document creation, utilities or accessories, games, or really anything but document indexers -- which would have to just be sold the old fashioned way, on a website.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  24. Re:Regarding Valve... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You may not have noticed, but the main reason Valve (and specifically Gabe Newell) feels that Windows 8 is the worst thing ever hoisted on humanity may have something to do with the fact that Windows 8 has a built-in facility (the Metro app store) that has ability to overtake the virtual monopoly that Valve has built with Steam for the digital delivery of PC games.

    Win8 is really a shot across the bow of Valve's business model. They'd better have a plan B in place -- and no, Linux is not a viable plan B.

    Valve will be fine. They'll just have competition.

    Did anyone ever believe that Valve would never face any challenges from competitors? As long as they keep delivering value, they'll continue to do well.

    The notion that success can only mean you are #1 in your sector is one of the things that's hurting business in what passes for capitalism in the 21st century. Like an old commercial used to say, number 2 has to try harder, and even though most corporations don't like it, "trying hard" is supposed to be part of the deal. We've had too many corporations who have believed "trying hard" means killing all your competition via the legal system instead of the marketplace.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  25. The big deal about sandboxing by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I suspect people reading here dont' have a clue about sandboxing or what a BFD it is. Sandboxing is massively overdue. It's been available for years and years in OSX but there has been a zero adoption rate. I came across it in Xgrid, an apple application which relied heavily on it.

    Xgrid is a job server that lets other people run jobs on your computer---safely. How the heck do you do that safely and still have left an environment that can do anything at all. You can't do this with linux permissions or firewalls. But you can with sandboxing. in sandboxing you specify in detail what resources every application has access to. What parts of the file system it can't see even if it has unix permissions. What parts of a network it can access. How much memory it can use. etc... It's a universal wrapper that can be created for every program.

    Since firefox can be wrapped it's insane to use any browser without wrapping. If some roque plug in contains the ability to do something nasty you dont' care because it can't. it can't access resources it needs. You are essentially shutting down bad behaviour not bad apps.

    So why is it not default?

    Cause it's annoying to set up. If you take shortcuts in your application based on giving it more privledges than it needs you get punished by the sandbox.

    lazy developers hate it.

    time to force the issue. it's good for consumers.

    It doesn't do anything for apple, other than make the OS better.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:The big deal about sandboxing by Mabhatter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is that Apple has not developed system wide functions to replace many of the things they are taking away... And for the things they are replacing, they are going for the heavy-handed iOS approach and locking devs down to only sharing specific Apple-approved file types. Basically having the computer act like a "system" is dead in favor of manual apps. The idea of using Apple Script to string your own custom workflow of little apps is right out the window.

      Add insult to injury, Apple seems to be preemptively "Sherlock-ing" their most prosperous Mac Devs about one OS version BEFORE Apple copies them. now they are pulling apps and leaving USERS in the lurch without features they had yesterday.