Why do these apps require installers at all? What are they installing—presumably any of their proprietary tech can run in userspace unprivileged. Personally, my best guess is because that’s the flow the product manager expected.
Tell HN: Cisco WebEx on OS X uses the same pre-installer tricks as Zoom
111–120 of 181 posts
Re: Tell HN: Cisco WebEx on OS X uses the same pre-installer tricks as Zoom
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's extremely unlikely. Malware on macOS isn't prevalent. There is no market for anti-virus vendors on macOS, and Apple have been repeatedly tightening the approval process for macOS software. Gatekeeper only ever gets more aggressive, not less. Meanwhile videocall software is widespread, it's rapidly become a necessity for a large part of the world's population. I wouldn't be surprised if on macOS it's now in sec…
> the usability of macOS software installation is terrible and no, the App Store is not an acceptable alternative. macOS software install UX is worse than Windows. It's worse than Android and iOS. It's better than Linux but that doesn't say much. Sounds questionable in all the parts. Mac: Just click-mount an installation disk image and drag an app icon to the Applicationss folder - isn't this a perfect install UX? If…
On the Mac, the whole "drag an app to the trash to delete" thing has always been a lie, since most applications spew things in ~/Library, /Library, and other app support directories, which means you miss lots of stuff that AppCleaner has to find. It's still a terrible experience, and if you don't know that then downloading a new copy of the app won't fix anything because all of its preferences and extra files are in a directory you didn't think to clean out because its hidden by the system.
Re: Tell HN: Cisco WebEx on OS X uses the same pre-installer tricks as Zoom
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
No company that has a choice is going to pay Apple their tax. That's why the MacOS sure is always going to be the same as the Windows store: a home of loser apps. Since another install procedure is available, only losers will use the app store. Ergo, any software available through the app store is a loser app.
And yet Microsoft Office is available via the macOS App Store, alongside venerable packages like Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, Logic and Final Cut (Apple-owned software), the Omni suite of software, Autodesk software, Pixelmator, etc. The App Store has problems, but all apps there being "loser apps" is not one of them.
Re: Tell HN: Cisco WebEx on OS X uses the same pre-installer tricks as Zoom
#114This is apples fault. Not for not blocking it but for not making the download-and-installed as streamlined as it needs to be. Being forced to drag something to a folder is not the UX you expect.
Would distribution via the App Store work? I mean that is the easiest and most trustworthy way - from a consumer's point of view - to install software.
The difficult problem is making sure non-technical users can install and run binaries from untrusted third parties in basically a single click.
Does that sound like a security nightmare? It is. But it's also the users' expectation of "just working".
Re: Tell HN: Cisco WebEx on OS X uses the same pre-installer tricks as Zoom
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems unnecessary for core functionality at least -- I installed Zoom by unpacking the .app from the .pkg by hand (without running any installer scripts) and it works fine.
Mind throwing me the name of or link to the program you used to unpack the .app? I'd like to do that myself, and remember stumbling on a program that did that, but can't recall the name.
Re: Tell HN: Cisco WebEx on OS X uses the same pre-installer tricks as Zoom
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's extremely unlikely. Malware on macOS isn't prevalent. There is no market for anti-virus vendors on macOS, and Apple have been repeatedly tightening the approval process for macOS software. Gatekeeper only ever gets more aggressive, not less. Meanwhile videocall software is widespread, it's rapidly become a necessity for a large part of the world's population. I wouldn't be surprised if on macOS it's now in sec…
> 1. Genuine one or two-click install of software from the web, without the App Store being involved and without requiring sandboxing I disagree with this. Why is going via the app store a bad thing? The app store is the solution here. Zoom should be able to tell apple "Hey I'd like to handle zoom://" links, and clicking one will redirect you to either zoom or the app store (without the source of your link knowing wh…
But I would vociferously disagree that an app store can be the only solution.
Giving anyone that much power over a platform is antithetical to the promise of computing.
Ergo, as GP noted, Apple has a lot of work to do on making non-app store installs a viable alternative.
Re: Tell HN: Cisco WebEx on OS X uses the same pre-installer tricks as Zoom
#117Why aren't more apps like Zoom and this one distributed via the app store? I mean besides the installer hackery they are legitimate and free apps right? Or would that mean that their premium services would require paying the fees to Apple, which they avoid this way?
Can you even use the app store with a company mac? Who has the login - your personal account or some corporate one?
Re: Tell HN: Cisco WebEx on OS X uses the same pre-installer tricks as Zoom
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mind throwing me the name of or link to the program you used to unpack the .app? I'd like to do that myself, and remember stumbling on a program that did that, but can't recall the name.
7-Zip can do it on windows, maybe there's an osx port?
Re: Tell HN: Cisco WebEx on OS X uses the same pre-installer tricks as Zoom
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a script, though; should they sandbox the preinstall phase? That would break most packages.
Instead of silently breaking they could have a popup like "Do you allow the preinstall script to write into /this/folder?" on a write operation outside of the sandbox.
Re: Tell HN: Cisco WebEx on OS X uses the same pre-installer tricks as Zoom
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's extremely unlikely. Malware on macOS isn't prevalent. There is no market for anti-virus vendors on macOS, and Apple have been repeatedly tightening the approval process for macOS software. Gatekeeper only ever gets more aggressive, not less. Meanwhile videocall software is widespread, it's rapidly become a necessity for a large part of the world's population. I wouldn't be surprised if on macOS it's now in sec…
> the usability of macOS software installation is terrible and no, the App Store is not an acceptable alternative. macOS software install UX is worse than Windows. It's worse than Android and iOS. It's better than Linux but that doesn't say much. Sounds questionable in all the parts. Mac: Just click-mount an installation disk image and drag an app icon to the Applicationss folder - isn't this a perfect install UX? If…
No. Please do set up a usability test in a lab and watch people try.
You will find:
1. Many users struggle with unusual mouse/trackpad movements like drag and drop, right clicking. That's why the Mac theoretically has a one-button mouse.
2. The instructions for what to do differ between DMGs and usually consists of a single arrow if present at all. This isn't clear enough to communicate "drag and drop" to people.
3. If the user figures out or has been shown that they have to drag and drop, they may then be confused when it appears nothing has happened, or by a small dialog that appears and then quickly disappears. It's now not clear how to actually start the app. Nothing appears in the dock, the app itself doesn't start. Launchpad made this better some years back because now there's at least a button to push to show you all apps and let you search for them iOS style, but the user has to realise they haven't started the app.
Note that if you use the App Store there's a sort of animation that (if the user sees it) suggests the app has been deposited into the launchpad. But you don't get that with out-of-store installs.
4. If the user isn't very familiar with this DMG process they may double click the app to start it from the DMG itself, which will look like they successfully installed it (because the app starts) but which may (a) break the app in subtle ways if it expects to be able to write to its own directory, (b) confuse the user when the folder disappears along with the downloaded file button in their browser, thus giving no obvious way to get back to it, except via a realisation that the window which popped up was a folder despite not looking like one and thus could be perhaps relocated via the Finder, unless you rebooted in between in which case maybe not.
Bizarrely and against all rules of good UX design the right thing to do isn't the simplest action that appears to work, but rather, several more steps in between.
5. If they do manage to drag it, find it in Launchpad and start it, very likely they won't realise they're supposed to "eject" the DMG to get rid of the prior copy, even though nothing is actually being physically ejected anywhere. They may also be confused by the presence of two icons that should be equivalent but aren't. If they do know they're meant to eject/unmount it there's nothing obvious to let you do that, for instance there's no button labelled "Eject", but rather you're meant to find the icon for the DMG on the desktop (which is covered), realise it's an icon that represents the window you saw earlier although in the absence of a branded icon there's no indication of that, be mystified by the strange metal object in the icon (who has seen a real HDD these days?) and then realise you're meant to start dragging it again to the trash can, which magically turns into an eject symbol? Or you could try using the Finder, in which case the sidebar entry for the DMG is going to be under "Locations" in a scrollable area that doesn't have scrollbars, and no visual indication it can be scrolled, and the icons next to the name of the app don't indicate what they do, and if your Finder is set to use e.g. tree mode then clicking it shows a view totally different to the one you saw earlier!
The entire UX is something only a UNIX hacker could ever think makes sense. Unless you have a really solid grip on filesystems, nested folders, mount points etc this whole thing is just totally mystifying and a lot of pointless busywork too.
Some Mac apps have code that detects when the user has made these sorts of mistakes and will offer to move the app to /Applications for them. It's intended to partly work around these usability problems, but ultimately, a PKG is still much better especially for videoconf apps where the standard way to start them is via the browser and not by finding an icon in Mission Control.
Windows: let every app you install do anything it wants with all the system files, leaving traces after uninstallation is a norm.
Mac apps leave stuff behind all the time too because they don't have any uninstallation procedure. On Windows it's at least a bug in the uninstaller which could be fixed. On macOS it's a fundamental design issue with the OS itself.