8 ms·

Between a rock and a hard place – our decision to abandon the Mac App Store

372 points by jespern 15y ago

pooriaazimi 15y ago
It is clear that Apple's current sandboxing is not perfect, but what could be done? The goal is to create the most secure running environment that is possible. Allowing random apps to access/modify different files on the system (without user explicitly allowing that) kinda defeats the purpose of sandboxing (from user's point of view - from developers POV, sandboxing makes his app more secure and stable). All I see is people ranting about sandboxing's limitations, without coming up with actual plans to improve it.
- wtn 15y ago
  They're trying to take take take everything away from the user. Soon there will be no filesystem.
  - LaGrange 15y ago
    Next thing you know, there will be no keyboard, just a featureless ball. It would roll down from slippery slopes real well.
    - Oxryly 15y ago
      Hopefully it'll eventually become a computer with no screen or keyboard, just a big red button which turns the thing off. I'd buy that.
      - technomancy 15y ago
        And version two would remove the button. Why would you want to turn it off?
    - whatusername 15y ago
      The MacBook Wheel: http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no,14299/ http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary...
  - grecy 15y ago
    >Soon there will be no filesystem. Is that a bad thing? I'm not saying it will happen soon, or that those of us long in the tooth will go easily, but I honestly think it's the future. Think about young teenagers who will soon be "in charge". They snap a pic on their phone and send it to someone else. Nobody cares where it is in the filesystem, or even what the filename is. I used to meticulously name, tag and organize my mp3 collection into folders and sub-folders. Now I don't even know where they are on my hard drive - because I just don't care. Those are old concepts we used to rely on to find and use information stored inside the computer, but I honestly don't see the need for the in the future. We can stop focusing on the "how" of the computer, and focus on the doing. I will add that "power" users like developers will require these kind of concepts for a lot longer than your average Joe, but I still see it becoming less and less important.
    - laconian 15y ago
      Teenagers aren't going to go on making careers out of tagging photos and checking into places.
      - stock_toaster 15y ago
        > Teenagers aren't going to go on making careers out of tagging photos and checking into places. Do they currently go on to careers managing folder hierarchies?
      - grecy 15y ago
        >Teenagers aren't going to go on making careers out of tagging photos and checking into places. Some of those teenagers will go on to be CEO's and Execs at huge fortune 500 companies like Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, etc.
      - ugh 15y ago
        Your point? I don't get it.
      - forgottenpaswrd 15y ago
        "Teenagers aren't going to go on making careers out of tagging photos and checking into places." Exactly. No human will do this, computers will do for us in an automatic way, using search and programming. We will ask the computer: "Show me my 2004 photos in chronological order, and the computer will do." What is the problem?
  - sunchild 15y ago
    Yes, and never mind that just about everything you take for granted about personal computers was "given" by Apple, too. I find this notion that users are entitled to complete device freedom really annoying. If you find it so objectionable, go build your own hardware and OS platform. This isn't a matter of human rights because no one is telling you that you can't make your own.
    - soc88 15y ago
      Great sarcasm. :-)
      - cooldeal 15y ago
        I honestly can't get if that's sarcasm or the poster really believes such things. I think Poe's law applies here. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law
    - recoiledsnake 15y ago
      And if you don't like pollution and global warming, stop complaining and trying to make things better, instead colonize your own planet and make them pollution-free.
    - sunchild 15y ago
      @recoiledsnake: (for whatever reason, I'm not allowed to reply directly to you) You're comparing Apple's ecosystem to Earth's. Apple is a private company that makes products that are sold on the commercial markets. The Earth is something entirely different. If Apple made planets, then yes – they could decide how to manage the atmosphere. That's how business works.
      - icebraining 15y ago
        (for whatever reason, I'm not allowed to reply directly to you) It's a cool-off period.
        15y ago
- smackfu 15y ago
  It's silly to pretend that Apple didn't pick and choose which capabilities they would support in the sandbox. It's very similar to their support for "multitasking" on iOS. Handle the common cases well, most others will find some way to make it work, and the rest are out of luck.
- pnathan 15y ago
  Typically the tradeoff with secureity is usability/features vs. security. It's also important to note that the point of black hat hackers is to get around limitations. Without putting serious teeth into the sandboxing, it's largely pointless and security theater.
zdw 15y ago
Dev tools don't really have a place in managed environments IMO - they just need too low level of access to a system to be able to do their work. Now, say a game or web browser that runs potentially malicious content, sure, sandbox it. But other things like code interpreters, low level Unix tools, or inter process tools like AppleScript, they're still open to (mis)use by anyone. I'm going to guess that most malware for OS X will soon become non-compiled scripts. Sure, the interpreter would be signed, but what it runs is totally arbitrary.
- gizzlon 15y ago
  Good point. Every interpreter - and program that loads anything - will have to be foolproof. There was a case some time ago where an Xbox (or was it ps3?) game did not correctly check the saved games before loading them. IIRC people where able to exploit this and get the game to run code on their behalf. In theory, all the games and apps have to sign/encrypt/check everything they load. But I can't believe they will all implement this correctly or that Apple will find all the subtle bugs when reviewing.
  - roc 15y ago
    The sandbox lessens the risk of said overflows. Instead of exploiting a flaw in an interpreter or file handling function and getting control of the entire machine, you'd only get control of the sandbox's context. The only way to parlay that into control of the system would be to break the sandbox. And then, because OS X default security is fairly sane, the only way to do real lasting damage is to use a further exploit to escalate your permissions.
    - gizzlon 15y ago
      True, but that would be true without signed apps as well. Also, I guess it depends on what the app does and what you mean by "real lasting damage".
  - gravitronic 15y ago
    xbox, ps3, wii, psp, gamecube.. this has been a consistent successful attack vector against signed application environments on consoles.
LaGrange 15y ago
I mostly agree, with one exception: "SSH keys and agent configuration are automatically picked up, so access to remotes over SSH ‘just works’" Um, no. If there's one thing that's more private than my address book, it's my ssh keys. The fact that they aren't available to your application by default is a feature. If you need a key, ask me for it. If I want to give you the access, I'll do that.
- zdw 15y ago
  Under OS X, the Mac Keychain framework hooks into ssh-agent, so you don't have to retype your private key passphrase over and over, just once per session. There are other tools that do similar in other OS's, for example the "keychain" script in Debian. This isn't something weird IMO.
  - LaGrange 15y ago
    That would actually be (GUI, it doesn't work like this actually, I think, but what I want would look the same) ideal: you don't get my ssh key. You get an ssh session arranged for by the keychain. Too bad it's probably too much work for something not enough people use (and those who use it are generally security-conscious enough to avoid malware on their own).
    - calloc 15y ago
      If you call `ssh` on the command line it will use Keychain to unlock your private SSH key. That part is done. The application shouldn't be asking for SSH keys, it is completed already. Just use `ssh` as you would before.
      - jackalope 15y ago
        And if you type 'ssh-add' you'll only have to enter your passphrase once. I think this all got sorted out beginning with Leopard; before that, it may not have worked as expected (compared to other *NIX environments).
funkah 15y ago
Good points. I am concerned about this coming sandboxing. I don't use the Mac app store, but the sandboxing seems to be too restrictive, and I'd hate to see apps giving up functionality just to stay in the store. I think long-term Apple will get this sorted out, but it would be a shame for app functionality to regress in the meantime.
icebraining 15y ago
I got a wrong certificate warning and a 403. Does anyone have a mirror?
- funkah 15y ago
  http://blogs.atlassian.com.nyud.net/2012/02/between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-our-decision-to-abandon-the-mac-app-store/ http://blogs.atlassian.com.nyud.net/2012/02/between-a-rock-a...
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  Disable the HTTPS-Everywhere ruleset.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Oh, I don't even remember that I have that installed. Yeah, that was it.
Ryanmf 15y ago
Apple needs to do better than this. For the duration of the company's existence, one of their biggest customer segments has been the creative industry. I can't think of a single pro audio/video/graphic/etc app that doesn't make extensive use of plug-ins, another Mac App Store disqualifier. Do the developers of these apps necessarily have a "right" to iCloud APIs, delta updates, and other benefits of playing in Apple's sandbox? Of course not. But is Apple harming themselves and their customers by excluding the creators of these apps from the party and potentially causing them to focus their development efforts elsewhere? I think they may be.
- smacktoward 15y ago
  > 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-editors-weigh-in-on-final-cut-pro-x/ 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...
  - Ryanmf 15y ago
    Maybe. I hope not. All the filmmakers/editors I know still use a previous version of Final Cut, many of them really like some of the features of Final Cut X (syncing is apparently dead easy, nearly automagic), and remain hopeful that Apple will pull it together and address their needs in future updates. I don't know if you have used/use Final Cut 6/7, but it is a phenomenally ugly, often poor performing, generally unintuitive piece of software. I can see where the motivation for a full reboot would stem from. Now, a reboot that involves consolidating formerly modular panes into a single window when the target market typically works on two, three or more displays is just dumb. A reboot that was, as a practical matter, 0% backwards-compatible may have been necessary, but if it could have been avoided, it should have been. But buried under all the mistakes, I think there was some genuine good intent (yes, I know I'm grasping at straws). I primarily work with music, and you don't need to be as involved as I am or attend as many shows as I do to know that for any artist/band that uses a laptop on stage, the MacBook Pro is the de facto standard. The same applies to Mac Pros in studios (although those boxes may be going the way of the Dodo as well). None of this necessarily makes a difference to Apple; the new features in Mountain Lion which focus on Chinese web portals and social networks serve as a reminder that the emerging Chinese middle class is likely as important a segment to Apple as any, and the number of potential customers in that group already dwarfs the ranks of every DJ, producer, sound engineer, and electronic musician on earth. Still, it would be a great disappointment to me and many others if Apple were to abandon such a loyal group of customers who helped them reach this point.
jcnnghm 15y ago
If Apple is not going to be distributing software updates because of their asinine policies, Apple should refund their 30% cut to their customers.
abruzzi 15y ago
I've been wondering/worried what Gatekeeper, sandboxing, and the rise of the Mac App store in general are going to mean for third party plugin type apps, say for instance Native Instruments virtual synth plugins, or photoshop plugins. iOS can't really handle them, but will they be able to continue to exist on future macs, or will they only work on the non-app store model?
- Ryanmf 15y ago
  1. By the letter of the law, Mac App Store apps are to be sandboxed, which means no /Library access, which means no plug-ins. In practice, Logic, Mainstage, Final Cut, and others are currently available in the Mac App Store. To me, the only thing that would make these harsh restrictions worse would be uneven enforcement of the rules. We'll see what happens. 2. As of iOS 5, the platform has native Audio Unit support. I haven't seen much use of it, more commonly devs have been porting their work to JUCE (as in the case of the Auria iPad DAW, which features some popular third party plug-ins as in-app purchases).
  - twoodfin 15y ago
    > By the letter of the law, Mac App Store apps are to be sandboxed, which means no /Library access, which means no plug-ins. I don't understand: What prevents an app from having an "Add Plugin..." dialog that uses the sandboxed file browser to locate a plugin library in whatever sensible format?
    - Ryanmf 15y ago
      No technical limitation that I can think of prevents the scenario you've described. As a practical matter, it would require anything up to and including a full rewrite of every pro media creation app on the market. The standard to date has been that there is a specified folder for plug-ins, and the host scans the folder for installed plug-ins on startup. One benefit of this arrangement is that the user must install the plug-in only once to have access to it in any application that supports its plug-in format. Let's use pro audio apps as an example. I use Ableton Live and Native Instruments Maschine as my primary compositional tools, but I prefer to mix/master in Reaper. Given your alternative method, when I purchased Madrona Labs' Aalto, one of my favorite virtual instruments released in recent memory, I would have needed to endure three separate installation processes to have access to the plug-in in each app where I might want to use it. Additionally, Maschine happens to have the ability to run both as a standalone application and as a VST plug-in. Let's say I sketched out a beat in Maschine standalone, using Aalto to produce some cool Buchla bongo sounds. Later, in Live, I insert an instance of the Maschine VST and open my project file for further processing. Do I now have nested sandboxes? Will it work at all? Things get even more complicated when one considers the plug-in developers who require iLoks (license verification USB dongles). These seem even less likely to be compatible with Apple's new processes. Don't get me wrong, I hate and refuse to use iLoks, and by extension any software which requires them. But many Pro Tools/Waves/Soundtoys/etc users are just used to the inconvenience of a hardware dongle at this point, and the companies I mentioned have many satisfied customers. It seems to me more likely that rather than rewriting their apps or fundamentally adjusting their license verification practices, many of these developers will simply avoid the App Store altogether. As a consequence, users suffer.
tzs 15y ago
Wouldn't security-scoped bookmarks solve some of the problems he describes? From the sandbox design guide: -------------------------------- Starting in Mac OS X v10.6, the NSURL class and the CFURLRef opaque type each provide a facility for creating and using bookmark objects. A bookmark provides a persistent reference to a file-system resource. When you resolve a bookmark, you obtain a URL to the resource’s current location. A bookmark’s association with a file-system resource (typically a file or folder) usually continues to work if the user moves or renames the resource, or if the user relaunches your app or restarts the system. In an app that adopts App Sandbox, you must use a security-scoped bookmark to gain persistent access to a file-system resource. Security-scoped bookmarks, available starting in Mac OS X v10.7.3, support two use cases: • An app-scoped bookmark provides a specific sandboxed app with persistent access to a user-specified file or folder. For example, if your app employs a download or processing folder, present an NSOpenPanel dialog to obtain the user’s intent to use a specific folder. Then, by creating a security-scoped bookmark for that folder and storing it as part of the app’s configuration (perhaps in a property list file or using the NSUserDefaults class), your app acquires a means to obtain future access to the folder. • A document-scoped bookmark provides a specific document with persistent access to a file. For example, a code editor typically supports the notion of a project document that refers to other files and needs persistent access to those files. Other examples are an image browser or editor that maintains an image library, in which the library file needs persistent access to the images it owns; or a word processor that supports embedded images, multimedia, or font files in its document format. In these cases, you configure the document format (of the project file, library file, word processing document, and so on) to store security-scoped bookmarks to the files a document refers to. (A document-scoped bookmark can point only to a file, not a folder.) A document-scoped bookmark can be resolved by any app that has access to the bookmark data itself and to the document that owns the bookmark. The document can be a flat file, or a document distributed as a bundle. --------------------------------
- feralchimp 15y ago
  Wow thanks; I had not realized there were 10.7.3 related updates to the Sandboxing Guide.
- seanalltogether 15y ago
jobu 15y ago
How could Apple handle sandboxing in Xcode? It doesn't seem possible. Right now they just distribute the installer via the app store, but I thought they were planning to put the whole app in there. I wonder if Apple might give some companies of just distributing the installer via the app store as well.
- calloc 15y ago
  Xcode was not distributed through the App Store, an Installer for Xcode was distributed through the App Store.
- bonzoesc 15y ago
  Apple fairly routinely lets themselves be exceptions to rules for their own platform. Lion is distributed via the Mac App Store, and I'd put money on them not allowing Ubuntu or Windows to be distributed via the Mac App Store in a similar fashion[1]. 1: future anti-trust cases or congressional testimonies nonwithstanding
  - cbr 15y ago
    Hypothetical rule: "Operating Systems may be distributed through the Mac App Store only if they are capable of running the Mac App Store"
- mvelie 15y ago
  They just updated xcode today. In the new update they're slightly more in compliance as it is no longer an installer that is downloaded, it's an app package. You can tell they spent some time reworking stuff to get it working correctly within those app store rules.
hemancuso 15y ago
The real question regarding the Mac App Store, IMHO, is whether or not it forbids a broad enough class of still-popular applications that it fails to achieve the goal of becoming the default distribution method for applications on the Mac and instead is relegated to games and simple utilities that fit nicely inside this model. Very very popular apps like: Chrome Photoshop/Adobe CS Fusion/Parallels Microsoft Office Text Editors FTP Clients Dropbox All need to be procured and installed outside the app store. While it's not impossible to imagine some of these asking for the temporary exception and getting in, they would all have to remove features or heavily modify themselves to comply with the rules. The Mac App Store loses a bit of its allure when you get your new MacBook Air [even as a non developer] and can't find basics like Chrome or Dropbox or Microsoft Office in there.
- smacktoward 15y ago
  Pretend I'm Apple answering these questions for a moment... > Chrome "Safari." > Photoshop/Adobe CS "Creatives? Did you see what we did to Final Cut? Have you noticed how little we talk about the Mac Pro anymore?" > Fusion/Parallels > Text Editors > FTP Clients "We're in the consumer products business, not the 'tools for nerds' business. Ask an XServe customer if you want more information." > Microsoft Office "We could care less if we sell boring-ass business software into enterprises." > Dropbox "iCloud."
  - archgrove 15y ago
    Or, far more accurately, "You can get these all apps from the developers directly. We don't support them on the Mac App Store at this time, and we don't discuss future product directions".
    - drivebyacct2 15y ago
      Two and half, three years ago, people predicted this move for OS X after the locked down nature of the iPhone really took hold. There are people that swore up and down that signed applications would never come to OS X and that there would never be a walled ecosystem on a non-iOS Mac product. Now we know this to be blatantly false. Apple's biggest money comes from devices that have an exclusively walled ecosystem. It seems pretty clear that they want users using what they provide to them. I don't think it's incredibly inaccurate to say that they don't care that they're not supporting major competing applications.
aneth 15y ago
This is the first iteration of something I'm sure Apple will refine over the coming years. It's not surprising they haven't addressed the concerns of some applications, particularly power user and developer applications. Instituting a sandbox with user controlled permissions seems a solid step for usability and safety. For sure every feature will probably not ever be possible in a sandbox - for that we have regular installations which are not going away any time soon if ever. Apple is smartly trying to establish a trusted installation pattern for desktop applications resembling the experience on iOS, recent snafus notwithstanding. So basically, it's notable that some applications are having difficulty with the first iteration of these new restrictions, but it's not surprising and I'm confident the issues will be resolved in time. Meanwhile, we've all survived without the App Store for a long time. I think these applications can survive. This is not the time for outrage.
LinaLauneBaer 15y ago
I like the idea of a sandbox. Apple promotes the sandbox as a security feature but shouldn't Apple try to improve much more important things (security wise) first which are much less invasive? Example: The Keychain application from Apple (used to store certificates, private keys and passwords) is using a encryption algorithm that is too weak for what it is used - namely: DES. You can break it with a reasonable amount of money. Wouldn't it make more sense to improve these kind of things first? We would gain so much more security with a minimal effort.
- Someone 15y ago
  I could not believe they would use single DES (I would have expected AES), so I googled around. Apparently (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6312871/what-encryption-algorithm-does-the-ios-keychain-use-to-protect-data&#62 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6312871/what-encryption-a...; it is (or at some time was) 3DES; the PDF linked from there states: "All the password data in the keychain is protected using the Triple Digital Encryption Standard (3DES)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_DES#Security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_DES#Security states: "NIST considers keying option 1 to be appropriate through 2030." I am still surprised that it is not AES, but 3DES seems good enough. Also, I am not sure that PDF still describes the current situation.
- xp84 15y ago
  > "The Keychain application ... using a encryption algorithm that is too weak for what it is used - namely: DES" Source? This is relevant to my interests. Namely, I'm trying to figure out if using something like 1password or other services would be worth it. Thanks!
bconway 15y ago
One thing to be wary of: abandoning the Mac App Store is going to make life much harder for you and your users in the near future. As of OS X 10.8, by default applications cannot be installed outside of the App Store (though a setting exists to change this): http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/16/os-x-mountain-lion/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/16/os-x-mountain-lion/ (scroll down to Gatekeeper) Here's hoping that 10.9 doesn't disallow such installations at all (or void your warranty instead?).
- bethling 15y ago
  That's not quite true - as shown in your link, gatekeeper's default (at least for now :) is to allow App Store as well as Signed Applications. If a developer is willing to get their application signed, then end users will still be able to install the application outside of the app store.
- shinratdr 15y ago
  Actually that's incorrect. You can't install completely unsigned applications from the web in 10.8 without changing a setting, but the default isn't the "Only MAS" option, it's the "MAS + identified developers" option. So while you can abandon the App Store without penalty, you shouldn't stop paying Apple the $99 a year you need to do so to get the app signed, even if you aren't going to sandbox it or distribute it through the MAS. They just want the option of pulling a cert for a dev found to be distributing malware, not to personally review and reject every application that runs in OS X.
barryfandango 15y ago
When I think of all the articles that have passed through the HN front page about mobile developers' terrible experience with the app store, I can't imagine why a desktop software developer would voluntarily subject themselves to it. Sure, iDevice developers have no choice. But for desktop software there's this handy thing called the Internet. Why kick up revenue to apple, subject myself to submission rules and arbitrary rejection, absurd technical limitations and switcheroos like the one described in this article, and all the rest?
- Steko 15y ago
  "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 Amazon when they could just sell all their iPads online through Apple.com? The answer is because lots of people shop at Amazon and Apple will sell way more iPads with Amazon then without them.
  - barryfandango 15y ago
    If the app store can truly compete with an open marketplace, why won't apple let me install arbitrary software on my iDevice?
    - Steko 15y ago
      It's common courtesy to announce when one's surrendering an argument and starting a new one. "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?
josephcooney 15y ago
I always got the feeling that once OSX became popular enough it would become an attractive attack target. Apple would have to start caring more about security. And the 'it just works' aspect of a lot of things they do would be reduced or eliminated.
ori_b 15y ago
The problem is that allowing the holes he wants in sandboxing would defeat the security benefits. And that security is the whole point of the ordeal. I don't know what the best solution is. Possibly allowing non-sandboxed apps in the app store, which go under extra review (possibly with a premium charge to defray the cost of extra review), or requiring the user to select a 'do not sandbox this' option when installing the app. However, Apple can't give this app what it wants while keeping the integrity of their sandbox.
adsr 15y ago
I hope Apple relaxes it's policy in regards to the sandbox. I do think it's great to have a sandbox provided by the OS, but IMO the default rule should be: "no access", then the developer could tick all legitimate uses for the application, if this happens to be unrestricted access, so be it. I think this is especially true with the new upcoming code signing feature in Mountain Lion.
tomelders 15y ago
I'm grateful for the iTunes App Store, but I have a bad feeling about the Mac App Store. I think now might be the time for a rival App Store to set up shop before Apple locks developers into only releasing through their approval process. Maybe I'm over reacting, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

372 points by jespern 15y ago

It is clear that Apple's current sandboxing is not perfect, but what could be done? The goal is to create the most secure running environment that is possible. Allowing random apps to access/modify different files on the system (without user explicitly allowing that) kinda defeats the purpose of sandboxing (from user's point of view - from developers POV, sandboxing makes his app more secure and stable). All I see is people ranting about sandboxing's limitations, without coming up with actual plans to improve it.

wtn 15y ago
They're trying to take take take everything away from the user. Soon there will be no filesystem.
- LaGrange 15y ago
  Next thing you know, there will be no keyboard, just a featureless ball. It would roll down from slippery slopes real well.
  - Oxryly 15y ago
    Hopefully it'll eventually become a computer with no screen or keyboard, just a big red button which turns the thing off. I'd buy that.
    - technomancy 15y ago
      And version two would remove the button. Why would you want to turn it off?
  - whatusername 15y ago
    The MacBook Wheel: http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no,14299/ http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary...
- grecy 15y ago
  >Soon there will be no filesystem. Is that a bad thing? I'm not saying it will happen soon, or that those of us long in the tooth will go easily, but I honestly think it's the future. Think about young teenagers who will soon be "in charge". They snap a pic on their phone and send it to someone else. Nobody cares where it is in the filesystem, or even what the filename is. I used to meticulously name, tag and organize my mp3 collection into folders and sub-folders. Now I don't even know where they are on my hard drive - because I just don't care. Those are old concepts we used to rely on to find and use information stored inside the computer, but I honestly don't see the need for the in the future. We can stop focusing on the "how" of the computer, and focus on the doing. I will add that "power" users like developers will require these kind of concepts for a lot longer than your average Joe, but I still see it becoming less and less important.
  - laconian 15y ago
    Teenagers aren't going to go on making careers out of tagging photos and checking into places.
    - stock_toaster 15y ago
      > Teenagers aren't going to go on making careers out of tagging photos and checking into places. Do they currently go on to careers managing folder hierarchies?
    - grecy 15y ago
      >Teenagers aren't going to go on making careers out of tagging photos and checking into places. Some of those teenagers will go on to be CEO's and Execs at huge fortune 500 companies like Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, etc.
    - ugh 15y ago
      Your point? I don't get it.
    - forgottenpaswrd 15y ago
      "Teenagers aren't going to go on making careers out of tagging photos and checking into places." Exactly. No human will do this, computers will do for us in an automatic way, using search and programming. We will ask the computer: "Show me my 2004 photos in chronological order, and the computer will do." What is the problem?
- sunchild 15y ago
  Yes, and never mind that just about everything you take for granted about personal computers was "given" by Apple, too. I find this notion that users are entitled to complete device freedom really annoying. If you find it so objectionable, go build your own hardware and OS platform. This isn't a matter of human rights because no one is telling you that you can't make your own.
  - soc88 15y ago
    Great sarcasm. :-)
    - cooldeal 15y ago
      I honestly can't get if that's sarcasm or the poster really believes such things. I think Poe's law applies here. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    And if you don't like pollution and global warming, stop complaining and trying to make things better, instead colonize your own planet and make them pollution-free.
  - sunchild 15y ago
    @recoiledsnake: (for whatever reason, I'm not allowed to reply directly to you) You're comparing Apple's ecosystem to Earth's. Apple is a private company that makes products that are sold on the commercial markets. The Earth is something entirely different. If Apple made planets, then yes – they could decide how to manage the atmosphere. That's how business works.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      (for whatever reason, I'm not allowed to reply directly to you) It's a cool-off period.
      - 15y ago
smackfu 15y ago
It's silly to pretend that Apple didn't pick and choose which capabilities they would support in the sandbox. It's very similar to their support for "multitasking" on iOS. Handle the common cases well, most others will find some way to make it work, and the rest are out of luck.
pnathan 15y ago
Typically the tradeoff with secureity is usability/features vs. security. It's also important to note that the point of black hat hackers is to get around limitations. Without putting serious teeth into the sandboxing, it's largely pointless and security theater.

zdw 15y ago

Dev tools don't really have a place in managed environments IMO - they just need too low level of access to a system to be able to do their work. Now, say a game or web browser that runs potentially malicious content, sure, sandbox it. But other things like code interpreters, low level Unix tools, or inter process tools like AppleScript, they're still open to (mis)use by anyone. I'm going to guess that most malware for OS X will soon become non-compiled scripts. Sure, the interpreter would be signed, but what it runs is totally arbitrary.

gizzlon 15y ago
Good point. Every interpreter - and program that loads anything - will have to be foolproof. There was a case some time ago where an Xbox (or was it ps3?) game did not correctly check the saved games before loading them. IIRC people where able to exploit this and get the game to run code on their behalf. In theory, all the games and apps have to sign/encrypt/check everything they load. But I can't believe they will all implement this correctly or that Apple will find all the subtle bugs when reviewing.
- roc 15y ago
  The sandbox lessens the risk of said overflows. Instead of exploiting a flaw in an interpreter or file handling function and getting control of the entire machine, you'd only get control of the sandbox's context. The only way to parlay that into control of the system would be to break the sandbox. And then, because OS X default security is fairly sane, the only way to do real lasting damage is to use a further exploit to escalate your permissions.
  - gizzlon 15y ago
    True, but that would be true without signed apps as well. Also, I guess it depends on what the app does and what you mean by "real lasting damage".
- gravitronic 15y ago
  xbox, ps3, wii, psp, gamecube.. this has been a consistent successful attack vector against signed application environments on consoles.

LaGrange 15y ago

I mostly agree, with one exception: "SSH keys and agent configuration are automatically picked up, so access to remotes over SSH ‘just works’" Um, no. If there's one thing that's more private than my address book, it's my ssh keys. The fact that they aren't available to your application by default is a feature. If you need a key, ask me for it. If I want to give you the access, I'll do that.

zdw 15y ago
Under OS X, the Mac Keychain framework hooks into ssh-agent, so you don't have to retype your private key passphrase over and over, just once per session. There are other tools that do similar in other OS's, for example the "keychain" script in Debian. This isn't something weird IMO.
- LaGrange 15y ago
  That would actually be (GUI, it doesn't work like this actually, I think, but what I want would look the same) ideal: you don't get my ssh key. You get an ssh session arranged for by the keychain. Too bad it's probably too much work for something not enough people use (and those who use it are generally security-conscious enough to avoid malware on their own).
  - calloc 15y ago
    If you call `ssh` on the command line it will use Keychain to unlock your private SSH key. That part is done. The application shouldn't be asking for SSH keys, it is completed already. Just use `ssh` as you would before.
    - jackalope 15y ago
      And if you type 'ssh-add' you'll only have to enter your passphrase once. I think this all got sorted out beginning with Leopard; before that, it may not have worked as expected (compared to other *NIX environments).

funkah 15y ago

Good points. I am concerned about this coming sandboxing. I don't use the Mac app store, but the sandboxing seems to be too restrictive, and I'd hate to see apps giving up functionality just to stay in the store. I think long-term Apple will get this sorted out, but it would be a shame for app functionality to regress in the meantime.

icebraining 15y ago

I got a wrong certificate warning and a 403. Does anyone have a mirror?

funkah 15y ago
http://blogs.atlassian.com.nyud.net/2012/02/between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-our-decision-to-abandon-the-mac-app-store/ http://blogs.atlassian.com.nyud.net/2012/02/between-a-rock-a...
mike-cardwell 15y ago
Disable the HTTPS-Everywhere ruleset.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Oh, I don't even remember that I have that installed. Yeah, that was it.

Ryanmf 15y ago

Apple needs to do better than this. For the duration of the company's existence, one of their biggest customer segments has been the creative industry. I can't think of a single pro audio/video/graphic/etc app that doesn't make extensive use of plug-ins, another Mac App Store disqualifier. Do the developers of these apps necessarily have a "right" to iCloud APIs, delta updates, and other benefits of playing in Apple's sandbox? Of course not. But is Apple harming themselves and their customers by excluding the creators of these apps from the party and potentially causing them to focus their development efforts elsewhere? I think they may be.

smacktoward 15y ago
> 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-editors-weigh-in-on-final-cut-pro-x/ 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...
- Ryanmf 15y ago
  Maybe. I hope not. All the filmmakers/editors I know still use a previous version of Final Cut, many of them really like some of the features of Final Cut X (syncing is apparently dead easy, nearly automagic), and remain hopeful that Apple will pull it together and address their needs in future updates. I don't know if you have used/use Final Cut 6/7, but it is a phenomenally ugly, often poor performing, generally unintuitive piece of software. I can see where the motivation for a full reboot would stem from. Now, a reboot that involves consolidating formerly modular panes into a single window when the target market typically works on two, three or more displays is just dumb. A reboot that was, as a practical matter, 0% backwards-compatible may have been necessary, but if it could have been avoided, it should have been. But buried under all the mistakes, I think there was some genuine good intent (yes, I know I'm grasping at straws). I primarily work with music, and you don't need to be as involved as I am or attend as many shows as I do to know that for any artist/band that uses a laptop on stage, the MacBook Pro is the de facto standard. The same applies to Mac Pros in studios (although those boxes may be going the way of the Dodo as well). None of this necessarily makes a difference to Apple; the new features in Mountain Lion which focus on Chinese web portals and social networks serve as a reminder that the emerging Chinese middle class is likely as important a segment to Apple as any, and the number of potential customers in that group already dwarfs the ranks of every DJ, producer, sound engineer, and electronic musician on earth. Still, it would be a great disappointment to me and many others if Apple were to abandon such a loyal group of customers who helped them reach this point.

jcnnghm 15y ago

If Apple is not going to be distributing software updates because of their asinine policies, Apple should refund their 30% cut to their customers.

abruzzi 15y ago

I've been wondering/worried what Gatekeeper, sandboxing, and the rise of the Mac App store in general are going to mean for third party plugin type apps, say for instance Native Instruments virtual synth plugins, or photoshop plugins. iOS can't really handle them, but will they be able to continue to exist on future macs, or will they only work on the non-app store model?

Ryanmf 15y ago
1. By the letter of the law, Mac App Store apps are to be sandboxed, which means no /Library access, which means no plug-ins. In practice, Logic, Mainstage, Final Cut, and others are currently available in the Mac App Store. To me, the only thing that would make these harsh restrictions worse would be uneven enforcement of the rules. We'll see what happens. 2. As of iOS 5, the platform has native Audio Unit support. I haven't seen much use of it, more commonly devs have been porting their work to JUCE (as in the case of the Auria iPad DAW, which features some popular third party plug-ins as in-app purchases).
- twoodfin 15y ago
  > By the letter of the law, Mac App Store apps are to be sandboxed, which means no /Library access, which means no plug-ins. I don't understand: What prevents an app from having an "Add Plugin..." dialog that uses the sandboxed file browser to locate a plugin library in whatever sensible format?
  - Ryanmf 15y ago
    No technical limitation that I can think of prevents the scenario you've described. As a practical matter, it would require anything up to and including a full rewrite of every pro media creation app on the market. The standard to date has been that there is a specified folder for plug-ins, and the host scans the folder for installed plug-ins on startup. One benefit of this arrangement is that the user must install the plug-in only once to have access to it in any application that supports its plug-in format. Let's use pro audio apps as an example. I use Ableton Live and Native Instruments Maschine as my primary compositional tools, but I prefer to mix/master in Reaper. Given your alternative method, when I purchased Madrona Labs' Aalto, one of my favorite virtual instruments released in recent memory, I would have needed to endure three separate installation processes to have access to the plug-in in each app where I might want to use it. Additionally, Maschine happens to have the ability to run both as a standalone application and as a VST plug-in. Let's say I sketched out a beat in Maschine standalone, using Aalto to produce some cool Buchla bongo sounds. Later, in Live, I insert an instance of the Maschine VST and open my project file for further processing. Do I now have nested sandboxes? Will it work at all? Things get even more complicated when one considers the plug-in developers who require iLoks (license verification USB dongles). These seem even less likely to be compatible with Apple's new processes. Don't get me wrong, I hate and refuse to use iLoks, and by extension any software which requires them. But many Pro Tools/Waves/Soundtoys/etc users are just used to the inconvenience of a hardware dongle at this point, and the companies I mentioned have many satisfied customers. It seems to me more likely that rather than rewriting their apps or fundamentally adjusting their license verification practices, many of these developers will simply avoid the App Store altogether. As a consequence, users suffer.

tzs 15y ago

Wouldn't security-scoped bookmarks solve some of the problems he describes? From the sandbox design guide: -------------------------------- Starting in Mac OS X v10.6, the NSURL class and the CFURLRef opaque type each provide a facility for creating and using bookmark objects. A bookmark provides a persistent reference to a file-system resource. When you resolve a bookmark, you obtain a URL to the resource’s current location. A bookmark’s association with a file-system resource (typically a file or folder) usually continues to work if the user moves or renames the resource, or if the user relaunches your app or restarts the system. In an app that adopts App Sandbox, you must use a security-scoped bookmark to gain persistent access to a file-system resource. Security-scoped bookmarks, available starting in Mac OS X v10.7.3, support two use cases: • An app-scoped bookmark provides a specific sandboxed app with persistent access to a user-specified file or folder. For example, if your app employs a download or processing folder, present an NSOpenPanel dialog to obtain the user’s intent to use a specific folder. Then, by creating a security-scoped bookmark for that folder and storing it as part of the app’s configuration (perhaps in a property list file or using the NSUserDefaults class), your app acquires a means to obtain future access to the folder. • A document-scoped bookmark provides a specific document with persistent access to a file. For example, a code editor typically supports the notion of a project document that refers to other files and needs persistent access to those files. Other examples are an image browser or editor that maintains an image library, in which the library file needs persistent access to the images it owns; or a word processor that supports embedded images, multimedia, or font files in its document format. In these cases, you configure the document format (of the project file, library file, word processing document, and so on) to store security-scoped bookmarks to the files a document refers to. (A document-scoped bookmark can point only to a file, not a folder.) A document-scoped bookmark can be resolved by any app that has access to the bookmark data itself and to the document that owns the bookmark. The document can be a flat file, or a document distributed as a bundle. --------------------------------

feralchimp 15y ago
Wow thanks; I had not realized there were 10.7.3 related updates to the Sandboxing Guide.
seanalltogether 15y ago

jobu 15y ago

How could Apple handle sandboxing in Xcode? It doesn't seem possible. Right now they just distribute the installer via the app store, but I thought they were planning to put the whole app in there. I wonder if Apple might give some companies of just distributing the installer via the app store as well.

calloc 15y ago
Xcode was not distributed through the App Store, an Installer for Xcode was distributed through the App Store.
bonzoesc 15y ago
Apple fairly routinely lets themselves be exceptions to rules for their own platform. Lion is distributed via the Mac App Store, and I'd put money on them not allowing Ubuntu or Windows to be distributed via the Mac App Store in a similar fashion[1]. 1: future anti-trust cases or congressional testimonies nonwithstanding
- cbr 15y ago
  Hypothetical rule: "Operating Systems may be distributed through the Mac App Store only if they are capable of running the Mac App Store"
mvelie 15y ago
They just updated xcode today. In the new update they're slightly more in compliance as it is no longer an installer that is downloaded, it's an app package. You can tell they spent some time reworking stuff to get it working correctly within those app store rules.

hemancuso 15y ago

The real question regarding the Mac App Store, IMHO, is whether or not it forbids a broad enough class of still-popular applications that it fails to achieve the goal of becoming the default distribution method for applications on the Mac and instead is relegated to games and simple utilities that fit nicely inside this model. Very very popular apps like: Chrome Photoshop/Adobe CS Fusion/Parallels Microsoft Office Text Editors FTP Clients Dropbox All need to be procured and installed outside the app store. While it's not impossible to imagine some of these asking for the temporary exception and getting in, they would all have to remove features or heavily modify themselves to comply with the rules. The Mac App Store loses a bit of its allure when you get your new MacBook Air [even as a non developer] and can't find basics like Chrome or Dropbox or Microsoft Office in there.

smacktoward 15y ago
Pretend I'm Apple answering these questions for a moment... > Chrome "Safari." > Photoshop/Adobe CS "Creatives? Did you see what we did to Final Cut? Have you noticed how little we talk about the Mac Pro anymore?" > Fusion/Parallels > Text Editors > FTP Clients "We're in the consumer products business, not the 'tools for nerds' business. Ask an XServe customer if you want more information." > Microsoft Office "We could care less if we sell boring-ass business software into enterprises." > Dropbox "iCloud."
- archgrove 15y ago
  Or, far more accurately, "You can get these all apps from the developers directly. We don't support them on the Mac App Store at this time, and we don't discuss future product directions".
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    Two and half, three years ago, people predicted this move for OS X after the locked down nature of the iPhone really took hold. There are people that swore up and down that signed applications would never come to OS X and that there would never be a walled ecosystem on a non-iOS Mac product. Now we know this to be blatantly false. Apple's biggest money comes from devices that have an exclusively walled ecosystem. It seems pretty clear that they want users using what they provide to them. I don't think it's incredibly inaccurate to say that they don't care that they're not supporting major competing applications.

aneth 15y ago

This is the first iteration of something I'm sure Apple will refine over the coming years. It's not surprising they haven't addressed the concerns of some applications, particularly power user and developer applications. Instituting a sandbox with user controlled permissions seems a solid step for usability and safety. For sure every feature will probably not ever be possible in a sandbox - for that we have regular installations which are not going away any time soon if ever. Apple is smartly trying to establish a trusted installation pattern for desktop applications resembling the experience on iOS, recent snafus notwithstanding. So basically, it's notable that some applications are having difficulty with the first iteration of these new restrictions, but it's not surprising and I'm confident the issues will be resolved in time. Meanwhile, we've all survived without the App Store for a long time. I think these applications can survive. This is not the time for outrage.

LinaLauneBaer 15y ago

I like the idea of a sandbox. Apple promotes the sandbox as a security feature but shouldn't Apple try to improve much more important things (security wise) first which are much less invasive? Example: The Keychain application from Apple (used to store certificates, private keys and passwords) is using a encryption algorithm that is too weak for what it is used - namely: DES. You can break it with a reasonable amount of money. Wouldn't it make more sense to improve these kind of things first? We would gain so much more security with a minimal effort.

Someone 15y ago
I could not believe they would use single DES (I would have expected AES), so I googled around. Apparently (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6312871/what-encryption-algorithm-does-the-ios-keychain-use-to-protect-data&#62 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6312871/what-encryption-a...; it is (or at some time was) 3DES; the PDF linked from there states: "All the password data in the keychain is protected using the Triple Digital Encryption Standard (3DES)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_DES#Security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_DES#Security states: "NIST considers keying option 1 to be appropriate through 2030." I am still surprised that it is not AES, but 3DES seems good enough. Also, I am not sure that PDF still describes the current situation.
xp84 15y ago
> "The Keychain application ... using a encryption algorithm that is too weak for what it is used - namely: DES" Source? This is relevant to my interests. Namely, I'm trying to figure out if using something like 1password or other services would be worth it. Thanks!

bconway 15y ago

One thing to be wary of: abandoning the Mac App Store is going to make life much harder for you and your users in the near future. As of OS X 10.8, by default applications cannot be installed outside of the App Store (though a setting exists to change this): http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/16/os-x-mountain-lion/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/16/os-x-mountain-lion/ (scroll down to Gatekeeper) Here's hoping that 10.9 doesn't disallow such installations at all (or void your warranty instead?).

bethling 15y ago
That's not quite true - as shown in your link, gatekeeper's default (at least for now :) is to allow App Store as well as Signed Applications. If a developer is willing to get their application signed, then end users will still be able to install the application outside of the app store.
shinratdr 15y ago
Actually that's incorrect. You can't install completely unsigned applications from the web in 10.8 without changing a setting, but the default isn't the "Only MAS" option, it's the "MAS + identified developers" option. So while you can abandon the App Store without penalty, you shouldn't stop paying Apple the $99 a year you need to do so to get the app signed, even if you aren't going to sandbox it or distribute it through the MAS. They just want the option of pulling a cert for a dev found to be distributing malware, not to personally review and reject every application that runs in OS X.

barryfandango 15y ago

When I think of all the articles that have passed through the HN front page about mobile developers' terrible experience with the app store, I can't imagine why a desktop software developer would voluntarily subject themselves to it. Sure, iDevice developers have no choice. But for desktop software there's this handy thing called the Internet. Why kick up revenue to apple, subject myself to submission rules and arbitrary rejection, absurd technical limitations and switcheroos like the one described in this article, and all the rest?

Steko 15y ago
"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 Amazon when they could just sell all their iPads online through Apple.com? The answer is because lots of people shop at Amazon and Apple will sell way more iPads with Amazon then without them.
- barryfandango 15y ago
  If the app store can truly compete with an open marketplace, why won't apple let me install arbitrary software on my iDevice?
  - Steko 15y ago
    It's common courtesy to announce when one's surrendering an argument and starting a new one. "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?

josephcooney 15y ago

I always got the feeling that once OSX became popular enough it would become an attractive attack target. Apple would have to start caring more about security. And the 'it just works' aspect of a lot of things they do would be reduced or eliminated.

ori_b 15y ago

The problem is that allowing the holes he wants in sandboxing would defeat the security benefits. And that security is the whole point of the ordeal. I don't know what the best solution is. Possibly allowing non-sandboxed apps in the app store, which go under extra review (possibly with a premium charge to defray the cost of extra review), or requiring the user to select a 'do not sandbox this' option when installing the app. However, Apple can't give this app what it wants while keeping the integrity of their sandbox.

adsr 15y ago

I hope Apple relaxes it's policy in regards to the sandbox. I do think it's great to have a sandbox provided by the OS, but IMO the default rule should be: "no access", then the developer could tick all legitimate uses for the application, if this happens to be unrestricted access, so be it. I think this is especially true with the new upcoming code signing feature in Mountain Lion.

tomelders 15y ago

I'm grateful for the iTunes App Store, but I have a bad feeling about the Mac App Store. I think now might be the time for a rival App Store to set up shop before Apple locks developers into only releasing through their approval process. Maybe I'm over reacting, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.