Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#11

Post by natesm » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 11:35 AM UTC

CHsurfer wrote: post #10

One possible strategy may be to offer a 'limited' version of your app that is compatible with the Sandbox constraints for a low price. When a user tries to do something that is not possible due to the constraints, you can inform them that the pro-version (not installed through the app-store) can eliminate this and other inconveniences. If you are worried about destroying the market value of your app, then just charge…

Actually, you can't (within the app, at least) - App Store apps can't make references to the existence of software that is outside the App Store.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#12

Post by vidarh » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 11:36 AM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #4

statictype wrote: post #3

This would worry me if there weren't at least two other major Operating Systems available to choose from. The Mac is moving more towards simplicity and safety - targeting normal consumers. That's fine. Ironically, now Linux and Windows (and anything else that comes up down the line) will have to serve as the 'Computer for the rest of us'

> That's fine. Ironically, now Linux and Windows (and anything else that comes up down the line) will have to serve as the 'Computer for the rest of us' I'm expecting Windows to move towards a more sandboxed experience as well, at least for Metro/WinRT. I know Miguel de Icaza also hopes for broad sandboxing support by default. Regarding TFA, he does not make much of a case against sandboxing (applications not being a…

Sandboxing in general is great. It only becomes a problem if there's no mechanism for users to adjust permissions for apps in cases where they are overly strict.

I love how sandboxing on smartphones have gotten users to ask more questions of why a certain app needs the permissions they request, for example.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#13

Post by pavlov » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 11:37 AM UTC

nknight wrote: post #7

I can think of only two GUI apps I semi-regularly use that can't fit within those restrictions: VMware Fusion, and Steam. Plugins are a red herring. Some poorly-designed plugin infrastructures will not be workable, boo-hoo. Valid use cases can be accommodated with proper message passing. Maybe we'll finally get applications that don't crash horribly because of buggy plug-ins?

What kind of plugin architecture do you propose that doesn't use dynamic loading or standard IPC mechanisms? Your "message passing" is much too vague.

Remember, this needs to be fast enough to accomodate FCP video processing plugins - hundreds of megabytes of data may need to be passed between the host and plugin each second.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#14

Post by pavlov » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 11:39 AM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #6

We don't know that much about the Mac App Store sandboxing yet, it could be perfectly benign. This is mostly a bunch of conjuring of ominous fantasies.

All the details are available on the Mac Dev Center. (I didn't just make up that list of entitlements.)

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#15

Post by natesm » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 11:40 AM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #6

We don't know that much about the Mac App Store sandboxing yet, it could be perfectly benign. This is mostly a bunch of conjuring of ominous fantasies.

It's been available since Lion, my app uses it. We know everything about it technically. However, we know nothing about how Apple is going to handle exceptions and what will get you rejected. An app that I'm sort of working on right now absolutely needs read access to the entire filesystem, and possible write access in the future, unless Apple makes technical changes in sandboxing (unlikely until 10.8, effectively unusable until 10.7 customers are a tiny minority).

Judging by Apple's actions in the past, we probably never will get any sort of official information, and when we try to piece it together by community observation, it'll be inconsistent anyways.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#16

Post by natesm » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 11:42 AM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #13

nknight wrote: post #7

I can think of only two GUI apps I semi-regularly use that can't fit within those restrictions: VMware Fusion, and Steam. Plugins are a red herring. Some poorly-designed plugin infrastructures will not be workable, boo-hoo. Valid use cases can be accommodated with proper message passing. Maybe we'll finally get applications that don't crash horribly because of buggy plug-ins?

What kind of plugin architecture do you propose that doesn't use dynamic loading or standard IPC mechanisms? Your "message passing" is much too vague. Remember, this needs to be fast enough to accomodate FCP video processing plugins - hundreds of megabytes of data may need to be passed between the host and plugin each second.

Is it possible to install the plugins to `~/Library/Containers/...` instead of the usual location?

Not that loading code is allowed on the App Store anyways, unless you're Apple, of course.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#17

Post by RyanMcGreal » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 11:44 AM UTC

natesm wrote: post #11

CHsurfer wrote: post #10

One possible strategy may be to offer a 'limited' version of your app that is compatible with the Sandbox constraints for a low price. When a user tries to do something that is not possible due to the constraints, you can inform them that the pro-version (not installed through the app-store) can eliminate this and other inconveniences. If you are worried about destroying the market value of your app, then just charge…

Actually, you can't (within the app, at least) - App Store apps can't make references to the existence of software that is outside the App Store.

Ugh, it's like the GPL in reverse.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#18

Post by cageface » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 11:53 AM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #13

nknight wrote: post #7

I can think of only two GUI apps I semi-regularly use that can't fit within those restrictions: VMware Fusion, and Steam. Plugins are a red herring. Some poorly-designed plugin infrastructures will not be workable, boo-hoo. Valid use cases can be accommodated with proper message passing. Maybe we'll finally get applications that don't crash horribly because of buggy plug-ins?

What kind of plugin architecture do you propose that doesn't use dynamic loading or standard IPC mechanisms? Your "message passing" is much too vague. Remember, this needs to be fast enough to accomodate FCP video processing plugins - hundreds of megabytes of data may need to be passed between the host and plugin each second.

AudioUnit plugins have strict realtime requirements that won't work with message passing too. If Apple disallows plugins that will be the end of the Mac as a pro audio platform. Not that a lot of plugin developers would mind so much after the insane platform churn at Cupertino in this last decade, but it's hard for me to imagine Apple would go that far.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#19

Post by iaskwhy » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 11:55 AM UTC

mevodig wrote: post #9

Ultimately, for me, this is about creating a reasonable user experience for the majority of users. While it's easy to forget this when spending a lot of time in forums such as HN, _we_ are not that majority. This constant expectation that platforms used everyday by millions of people should be tailored to us is untenable.

That can be a really dangerous way of thinking if you apply it to everything else. It reminds me of when people define democracy as the will of the majority when in reality it should be the voice of the minority. Sure, we should aim to simplify everything but whenever someone makes a call to silence the minority it's not going to be a good thing.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#20

Post by Angostura » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 11:56 AM UTC

statictype wrote: post #3

This would worry me if there weren't at least two other major Operating Systems available to choose from. The Mac is moving more towards simplicity and safety - targeting normal consumers. That's fine. Ironically, now Linux and Windows (and anything else that comes up down the line) will have to serve as the 'Computer for the rest of us'

This would worry me if the AppStore were the only way to get aplications on to your Mac.

I can see it being very disapointing for developers who enjoyed the convenience of the AppStore, but need additional functions. But I guess they will have to sell ex-Store

I can also see the benefit of Apple being able to say that 'Anything you buy on the Store is safe(tm)'.

However if Apple every makes teh Appstore a compulsory way to get software onto the Mac, I will drop Macs. And I speak as someone who has used them for about 20 years.