131–140 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mainstage is in the Mac App Store as well, nothing about Rewire support is consistent with MAS guidelines. Unfortunately, it appears this may be a "do as I say, not as I do" situation.
Unfortunately, how? The whole point of sandboxing is to reduce the damage a badly written or mal-intended application can do to a system. Surely Apple TRUSTS their own apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"When I think of all the articles that have passed through the HN front page about mobile developers' terrible experience with the app store" Right, there are no success stories. "Why kick up revenue to apple" People keep saying this like Apple doesn't deliver buying customers and revenue. The app store making a profit on sales is exactly how every other store in the world works. Why does Apple 'kick up revenue' to A…
If the app store can truly compete with an open marketplace, why won't apple let me install arbitrary software on my iDevice?
"If the app store can truly compete with an open marketplace"
As it turns out there is an open market for iOS apps and an open alternative to iOS and Apple's walled garden is competitive with both.
"why won't apple let me install arbitrary software on my iDevice?"
Aren't the reasons obvious? Simplicity, profit, security?
You might as well be asking why your Macy's card doesn't work at Sears or why you can't make a copy of your building key at Sears or why.. hey just what does Sears have against freedom anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that every pro media application released before March 1, 2012 was not safely distributed? I guess I should step back a bit and make my argument more clear. I'm not opposed to the concept of sandboxing, I recognize the benefits of these policies as Apple's user base grows and malware becomes a greater concern. My contention is that the imposition this places on users and developers alike will most…
Are you suggesting that every pro media application released before March 1, 2012 was not safely distributed? Yes. Is that hard to grasp? Sanboxing is safer than the old distribution practice. You won't find any security expert to disagree with this. Thus, every pro media application distributed without sandboxing was LESS safely distributed than a sandboxed one.
I don't want to see them fuck it up.
Now:
>Thus, every pro media application distributed without sandboxing was LESS safely distributed than a sandboxed one.
First, they weren't less safely distributed, they were less safely executed. Nothing gets sandboxed until after it's been distributed. The only reason we're discussing both issues here is that Apple has elected to conflate the two with their MAS policies.
I'm only 25, and yet I've installed thousands of pieces of software during my brief time on this planet. Very few of them wreaked havok on my life, so you'll have to forgive me if I remain unconvinced that every single application I run must be sandboxed to maintain the stability and integrity of my system.
My contention is not that sandboxing, generally speaking, is bad for users. It isn't.
My contention is that sandboxing, as Apple has narrowly defined it, is impossible to implement in a large segment of professional applications as they are currently written.
Furthermore, if developers choose to eschew the MAS, users of their applications will be deprived access to useful new tools like iCloud file sharing for reasons that seem arbitrary at best.
Finally, in two weeks time when Apple begins to enforce regulations which will exclude these applications from MAS distribution, but does not remove VST/AU support from Logic Pro, Rewire support from Mainstage, or [insert your favorite hypocrisy here], they may be acting anticompetitively, which is bad news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For the duration of the company's existence, one of their biggest customer segments has been the creative industry I would have thought the Final Cut Pro X debacle ( http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/professional-video... ) would have served adequate notice to those folks that Apple doesn't consider them an important market segment anymore...
It's the opposite. Taking the time AND money to rewrite the old Final Cut Pro codebase from scratch is an indication that Apple is pretty much dedicated to their Pro apps. Unlike, say, Adobe, that merely piles incremental bloat upon incremental bloat, and calls it a "new version of the suite". The complains are from people that: 1) see a black interface as some kind of iMovie-fication (iMovie is black, so they have d…
Having said that, I've had far too many conversations with far too many professional filmmakers and editors (I'm talking "multiple all-nighters every week editing multicam RED; invitations to Cannes; contracts to produce music videos for multi-platinum selling artists and promos for Fortune 100 companies" professional) about the weaknesses of Final Cut X to have much regard for the opinion you've shared here.
Ultimately, if the intended users are dissatisfied, then Apple missed the mark, any rationalizations from armchair analysts notwithstanding.
By the way, you left a complaint off your list: Zero compatibility with project files from previous Final Cut versions. Hope you've got some free time to recapture everything you've ever shot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about saving though, it's about reading files that already exist in certain locations. Imagine for instance an application that helps you clean up your downloads folder, but wouldn't be appropriate to use on other folders on your system. It's not the best example, but it illustrates how much of a usability mess it is to ask the user to locate the folder for you through an open file dialog, and then have to r…
That's a fairly niche case, though. Personally I'm comfortable sacrificing it in favor of not giving apps full read-write access to everything on my system by default. I can see how there are very specific cases in which it would be too cumbersome, but it probably works in > 80% of cases, and it's pretty clear that those 80% apps are who the App Store is aimed at. Edit: Thinking about this some more: not to pick on y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mainstage is in the Mac App Store as well, nothing about Rewire support is consistent with MAS guidelines. Unfortunately, it appears this may be a "do as I say, not as I do" situation.
Unfortunately, how? The whole point of sandboxing is to reduce the damage a badly written or mal-intended application can do to a system. Surely Apple TRUSTS their own apps.
It's unfortunate for users, rational beings who, having spent several hundred/thousand dollars on pro applications, can generally expect not to be served malware. I don't really need Apple's assistance to ensure that Ableton doesn't sell me a trojan. If they do, I have my lawyer's number in my phone, we know who to sue, we've got it covered. It's unfortunate that the way the rules are currently written, no pro media application will be able to take advantage of iCloud functionality…except of course the ones that Apple sells.
I don't care who Apple trusts. And if the answer to "Who does Apple trust?" is "No one but Apple," that says more negative things about Apple than it does about the tens of thousands of software developers, large and small, who aren't Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's another kind of applications, besides dev tools, that's going to be affected by this. I'm a user of one of Apple's "pro" applications, Logic Pro 9, a top music recording software (or DAW). I started using it long before it was put in the appstore, and was surprised when they moved it there, as it was a 5 DVD install. Anyways ... the tool interacts with plugins written in a Logic Pro independent standard, VST.…
>Is Apple going to cripple Logic Studio? Or will they also have to take their "pro" software out of the appstore? The answer is simple, Apple's apps will have special access that will make them better than 3rd party apps which have to jump through all these hoops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that every pro media application released before March 1, 2012 was not safely distributed? Yes. Is that hard to grasp? Sanboxing is safer than the old distribution practice. You won't find any security expert to disagree with this. Thus, every pro media application distributed without sandboxing was LESS safely distributed than a sandboxed one.
My intent isn't to bash Apple, I love their products and intend to use them for the rest of my life, provided they don't fuck it up. I don't want to see them fuck it up. Now: >Thus, every pro media application distributed without sandboxing was LESS safely distributed than a sandboxed one. First, they weren't less safely distributed, they were less safely executed. Nothing gets sandboxed until after it's been distrib…
Well, it's a pedantic distinction if sanboxing occurs before or after. Since, sure, sanboxing rules are applied at runtime, but sanboxing is also built into the app before distribution (the developers adds the certs, the "ask for permission" bits, etc).
I'm only 25, and yet I've installed thousands of pieces of software during my brief time on this planet. Very few of them wreaked havok on my life, so you'll have to forgive me if I remain unconvinced that every single application I run must be sandboxed to maintain the stability and integrity of my system.
Well, in Windows lots of apps have wrecked havoc with my system. Malware, spyware, what have you. I've hand around 10 instances of my machine being infected in around 8 years of using a Windows machine. In OS X, on the other hand, nothing yet. And sandboxing is a way to ensure it won't be so in the future.
But there's is also another issue for which I think sandboxing is nice, besides malware. It keeps apps from spiting stuff all over the system. Like, how MS Office installs its shit everywhere it can, or how Abode Creative suite does. Same things for lots of small apps. If sandboxing can keep the confided in their own space, that will also be a win.
My contention is that sandboxing, as Apple has narrowly defined it, is impossible to implement in a large segment of professional applications as they are currently written.
Well, I think those rules can change. They already extended the period before sandboxing is applied. I'm sure as limitations are found we will see other changes too.
For some apps, on the other hand, like developer tools, rsync, git etc, they will always have to run without sandboxing.
Finally, in two weeks time when Apple begins to enforce regulations which will exclude these applications from MAS distribution, but does not remove VST/AU support from Logic Pro, Rewire support from Mainstage, or [insert your favorite hypocrisy here], they may be acting anticompetitively, which is bad news.
I'm not sure about the "anticompetitively" thing. It's their store, their rules. If sandboxing is about not trusting apps, then why would Apple require it for their own apps? One would think they trust them already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, how? The whole point of sandboxing is to reduce the damage a badly written or mal-intended application can do to a system. Surely Apple TRUSTS their own apps.
Are you dense? It's unfortunate for users, rational beings who, having spent several hundred/thousand dollars on pro applications, can generally expect not to be served malware. I don't really need Apple's assistance to ensure that Ableton doesn't sell me a trojan. If they do, I have my lawyer's number in my phone, we know who to sue, we've got it covered. It's unfortunate that the way the rules are currently written…
You might be dense. Who said it's only for trojans? I wrote "to reduce the damage a badly written or mal-intended application can do to a system".
Sandboxing is not only about malware. If, for example, Live has a bug that eats your home directory, it won't have its day under sandboxing.
And who said anything different will happen to Live or anything? It's not in the App Store, and you will STILL be able to run it. The change is for App Store applications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the opposite. Taking the time AND money to rewrite the old Final Cut Pro codebase from scratch is an indication that Apple is pretty much dedicated to their Pro apps. Unlike, say, Adobe, that merely piles incremental bloat upon incremental bloat, and calls it a "new version of the suite". The complains are from people that: 1) see a black interface as some kind of iMovie-fication (iMovie is black, so they have d…
As I indicated above, I think the reboot of Final Cut was well intended. Having said that, I've had far too many conversations with far too many professional filmmakers and editors (I'm talking "multiple all-nighters every week editing multicam RED; invitations to Cannes; contracts to produce music videos for multi-platinum selling artists and promos for Fortune 100 companies" professional) about the weaknesses of Fi…
Not really. System 9 Users also complained about OS X 10. How it wasn't like OS 9, how it missed some features, how it was unstable etc. But putting a nice foundation down is better than giving instant gratification to your users in the long run.
By the way, you left a complaint off your list: Zero compatibility with project files from previous Final Cut versions. Hope you've got some free time to recapture everything you've ever shot.
Or just use the old version for your old projects, and only move to the new one for new stuff?
What kind of Pro jumps to a new version of a core tool anyway as soon as it it released? Most actuals Pros keep their setups steady for many years. Which is why I think most of the noise is from low production tinkerers, that already use both FC and Premiere etc.