Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mac App Store apps must implement sandboxing as of March 2012

developer.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Mac App Store apps must implement sandboxing as of March 2012

#31

Post by benatkin »

lukifer wrote: post #20

Though there have been many disturbing trends in the evolution of the App Store(s), this one is actually quite mild, if not welcome. Honestly, it's always unsettled me a little that any software can just start arbitrarily scribbling bits to the hard drive. (The system folder is protected, but my data isn't.) The concern is only a little about malware, and mostly about buggy code. All the sandbox requires is that apps…

> Although if Apple starts making stupid rejections and standing by them, then I take it all back.

That's a given.

Re: Mac App Store apps must implement sandboxing as of March 2012

#32

Post by pyre »

lukifer wrote: post #18
cageface wrote: post #17

The real question is this: Is Apple going to eventually make the app store the only way of installing apps on a Mac? I think this is likely and if so is going to be the end of the line for me as an Apple customer.

I draw the line here too. I accept the control tradeoff on iOS because I view them as appliances, not computers, and there are upsides to the curated experience. But if I can't fully control my primary computing device, I'm out. (I'd be okay with the machine shipping in "grandma mode", so long as there's an official way to disable it completely.)

Wait until you void your AppleCare if you disable 'grandma mode.' Or until any third party decides that they will only support Macs in 'grandma mode.'

Re: Mac App Store apps must implement sandboxing as of March 2012

#33

Post by ugh »

kennywinker wrote: post #28
extension wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Locking down OSX would be an epic technical and social battle. I can't think of any reason they would go to war with their power users just to do that, especially since they already have a curated platform. They probably just want to give novice users a safe, curated experience by default.

I can absolutely see them doing this... and SOON. Give the MAS ecosystem a year, two at most, to mature. There WILL be a switch somewhere, in the system prefs... a defaults write command... why? Because of Adobe, ProTools, Microsoft, and to a lesser extent stuff like homebrew and macports.

If there is a switch then there’s no problem. There would be no social battle. (Some people would be annoyed but that’s about it.)

I can absolutely see Apple adding such a switch and activating it by default. It wouldn’t be a big deal. (Well, I think Apple technically already added that switch. As far as I know Parental Controls can be set up in a way to only allow apps from the App Store.)

Re: Mac App Store apps must implement sandboxing as of March 2012

#34

Post by ugh »

Groxx wrote: post #23
glassx wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the real question is: what would Apple gain from killing 90% of the app ecosystem? There are some apps that can't be really sandboxed (Little Snitch, virtualization tools), some apps you can't sell on the AppStore (video/audio/photoshop plugins) and there's even Apple apps that aren't available there yet (Logic, Filemaker, ). Also, Macs are the only way to write OS X and iOS apps, it would make the barrier…

Gain? 30% of all application sales, instead of 30% of 10%. I don't think they'll lock it down to the app store either, but there are plenty of essentially-reasonable reasons why they could/would.

If you believe that Apple is making a lot of money with their App Stores, sure. But they don’t. Even with the absolutely massive iOS App Store. The Mac App Store is tiny in comparison.

It’s just not Apple’s business model.

Re: Mac App Store apps must implement sandboxing as of March 2012

#35

Post by pyre »

jayfuerstenberg wrote: post #26
lukifer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I draw the line here too. I accept the control tradeoff on iOS because I view them as appliances, not computers, and there are upsides to the curated experience. But if I can't fully control my primary computing device, I'm out. (I'd be okay with the machine shipping in "grandma mode", so long as there's an official way to disable it completely.)

Your opinion is valid. There is one way to disable it as these rules still only apply to apps sold via the MAS. Anybody can release software outside of it and just forget about Apple's rules.

I think the fear is that Apple will decide that the MacAppStore is the only way to install software on OSX.

Re: Mac App Store apps must implement sandboxing as of March 2012

#36

Post by ugh »

benatkin wrote: post #31
lukifer wrote: post #20

Though there have been many disturbing trends in the evolution of the App Store(s), this one is actually quite mild, if not welcome. Honestly, it's always unsettled me a little that any software can just start arbitrarily scribbling bits to the hard drive. (The system folder is protected, but my data isn't.) The concern is only a little about malware, and mostly about buggy code. All the sandbox requires is that apps…

> Although if Apple starts making stupid rejections and standing by them, then I take it all back. That's a given.

Apple typically didn’t stand by stupid rejections. They made them, didn’t stand by them.

Re: Mac App Store apps must implement sandboxing as of March 2012

#37

Post by benatkin »

ugh wrote: post #36
benatkin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although if Apple starts making stupid rejections and standing by them, then I take it all back. That's a given.

Apple typically didn’t stand by stupid rejections. They made them, didn’t stand by them.

We shouldn't have to embarrass a company before we get access to a useful application.

Re: Mac App Store apps must implement sandboxing as of March 2012

#38

Post by ugh »

benatkin wrote: post #37
ugh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple typically didn’t stand by stupid rejections. They made them, didn’t stand by them.

We shouldn't have to embarrass a company before we get access to a useful application.

That’s one valid way of seeing it. I don’t share it. But a nice derail you did there.

Re: Mac App Store apps must implement sandboxing as of March 2012

#39

Post by gte910h »

lukifer wrote: post #18
cageface wrote: post #17

The real question is this: Is Apple going to eventually make the app store the only way of installing apps on a Mac? I think this is likely and if so is going to be the end of the line for me as an Apple customer.

I draw the line here too. I accept the control tradeoff on iOS because I view them as appliances, not computers, and there are upsides to the curated experience. But if I can't fully control my primary computing device, I'm out. (I'd be okay with the machine shipping in "grandma mode", so long as there's an official way to disable it completely.)

Huh? They're just talking about selling things in the Appstore.

They're not stopping people who don't distribute this way.

Re: Mac App Store apps must implement sandboxing as of March 2012

#40

Post by biot »

fleitz wrote: post #13
biot wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's free to register as an Apple developer and your ID will then work: http://developer.apple.com/programs/register/ Though to your point, I'm not sure why Apple requires someone to login just to read the docs.

No it isn't. I'm an iOS dev but not Mac and I can't read the docs. You have to pay to read the docs and find out what sand boxing entails. But I suppose if you're not distributing through the App Store why would you even care?

You're right. I should have verified that before posting.
Post reply on HN