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

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#41

Post by mike-cardwell » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 12:54 PM UTC

mbq wrote: post #29

Angostura wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Knowing Apple's achievements in pwn2own, this most likely won't increase the real security... Whatever you do, security always boils down to aware user, thus it is in fundamental contradiction to this company philosophy.

How can you possibly claim that this wont increase security?

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#42

Post by makira » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 1:01 PM UTC

The problem with the current sandboxing is the missing entitlements, for simple things like:

- Using the burning framework (cd & dvd burning)

- Interfacing with Apple Remotes

- Having a shared container between a main app and a helper app

Also, many utilities will have to be removed from the App Store because of sandboxing, and that will likely cut revenues dramatically for those developers.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#43

Post by super_mario » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 1:07 PM UTC

As a die hard Mac user, fuck Apple and the Mac. Honestly. After the rumor they are killing off Mac Pro, and this insane gestapo shit already under way in Lion (which I don't use), I really don't want to be associated with Apple in any way.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#44

Post by super_mario » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 1:08 PM UTC

Angostura wrote: post #20

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…

Give it a release or two and app store will be the only way to get software on your locked down appliance owned by Apple.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#45

Post by marquis » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 1:13 PM UTC

super_mario wrote: post #44

Angostura wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Give it a release or two and app store will be the only way to get software on your locked down appliance owned by Apple.

If this happens they will effectively kill off a huge number of professional services, especially in the media industry. I'm not looking forward to a future where I have to look to Windows or Unix as my main development platform.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#46

Post by schiptsov » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 1:14 PM UTC

Jeez! How do I run my Java crap?!

but, considering it is a little bit more, I think Apple gives to developers too much freedom. To write a successful and profitable iPhone app you all you need is just the ability to play a sound file. ^_^

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#47

Post by super_mario » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 1:14 PM UTC

cageface wrote: post #18

pavlov wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apple can't get out of Pro market fast enough. They already killed XServe, they "deprecated" Java, which means no chance in hell anyone will try to host their app server on Mac, and now even develop on Mac, they haven't updated their Pro audio software in almost 5 years, the fiasco with FCP X (complete rejection from actual pro users), and most recent rumor they will kill off Mac Pro as well.

Apple wants to be handheld "post-PC" maker and not a computer company. They don't want anything to do with the pro market, people who actually need to do work with their computers.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#48

Post by dmbaggett » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 1:15 PM UTC

This is all so well-played by Apple: evolve ever more locked down systems in seemingly consumer-friendly ways. Once consumers forget they can even install their own applications (except through the app store), OS X distribution will be just as heavily moderated by Apple as iOS distribution.

Expect Apple, Microsoft, and Google to exert ever more control over distribution. The software industry is evolving into the "studio model" just as the movie industry did decades before: 5-7 huge players controlling absolutely everything that sees the light of day. Everything else is small-time "indie" stuff that hits big every once in a while, but is otherwise irrelevant. (It took Apple to make Microsoft realize this was something they could actually get away with -- thanks, Apple!)

Nintendo's been doing this for years with their consoles. It's not good for developers, and not good for innovation. But it's very good for the studios, because it gives them complete control, and makes a new player emerging out of nowhere (as Google themselves did circa 2000, or Facebook did circa 2009) much less likely. The cartel stays nicely entrenched.

How long 'til websites are similarly locked down? Will users forget they can just type a URL in, and instead install everything through their friendly neighborhood web app store? (Don't laugh.) Who will approve websites? Oh right, the 5-7 huge players. Got it.

I don't want to sound like a tin-foil hat here, but having spent my youth in the console game business (Naughty Dog), this seems all too familiar...

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#49

Post by voxmatt » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 1:21 PM UTC

nhaehnle wrote: post #2

In general, this type of sandbox is a Good Thing. I would love to live in a world where the default environment for any program is a very limited sandbox that can only interact with the outside world via standardized UI elements. That is, outside a data store specific to the application, it can only access files via the standard dialogs, and so forth. The potential for malware distribution would be significantly redu…

On what the article claims: my understanding is that the sandbox restricts all non-user initiated actions. That is, if a user initiates it by clicking, dragging, OK-ing, etc., then all the old system interactions are still allowed. If you want to take a screenshot, of course you can so long as the user hits a keyboard combo to do it.

Where it's a real hurdle, however, is for those programs who have to monitor and interact with files outside its sandbox without user interaction. Take fantastical, it has to check the user's iCal calendar (or iCloud, or whereever that file is these days) persistently. If it can only do that when the user tells it to, it loses a lot of its appeal and functionality.

That being said, I think these rules actually make a lot of sense on the balance. But it would be nice to allow the user to authorize complete access in some sort of double-verified-super-secure-foolproof way.

Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad

#50

Post by saturdaysaint » Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 1:22 PM UTC

This article mostly seems to ignore the fact that you can still distribute apps outside of the App Store. In fact, considering the falling costs of hosting and easy access to marketing tools (look at the quality of the website for any Mac App), it's probably never been easier.

For pro apps with dedicated audiences (see: Adobe, Ableton, Avid, Nuance) which is just about anything with a plugin architecture, the App Store's distribution is unnecessary. These are established companies with deep links into creative communities. As a consumer, when you're looking at spending hundreds of dollars on, say, music software, you don't care what's in the "Top 25" or on Apple's "Featured" list (if you're smart) - you care about what the people you're working with are using and the opinions of specialized professionals.