[Macworld]

Post your comments for Sandboxing deadline arrives: What it means for Apple, developers, and you here

[atarikid]

As a developer I can tell you sandboxing will hurt Apple AppStore in the (near) future. Many utility apps will go back selling their app outside the AppStore region.
But stubborn as Apple is known to be .. it will continue make decision not every like.

[DMS0205]

CodeKit is one app that can not be in the app store because of this new sandbox rule. It is a sad because this is a really great web developer tool.

[AaronShep]

I hope BBEdit pulls its app rather than eliminate all the features you mention. Many of them are the reasons I use BBEdit! Without them, maintaining my large Web sites would be impractical.

[hayesk]

There are two solutions to this:

1. Scrap sandbox and rely on digital signatures instead. This is still a step forward from today, but still has potential for malware exploitation. However, with digital signatures, Apple could pull apps from users' machines that have found to contain malware.

2. Let developers suggest entitlements. If Apple hasn't made an entitlement for what an app wants to do, let the developer suggest it. Apple can then approve the entitlement or not.

Something must be done. Apple wants their customers to first and foremost go to the app store to buy software. They are cultivating the attitude that customers should *only* go to the App store for software. Being too restrictive on entitlements hurts Apple (fewer titles on the App Store, perceived fewer titles for the platform), developers (few customers will find them), and the customer (will be disappointed when they can't find software for the Mac that does what they want.)

[Stewsburntmonkey]

hayesk, on 01 June 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

There are two solutions to this:

1. Scrap sandbox and rely on digital signatures instead. This is still a step forward from today, but still has potential for malware exploitation. However, with digital signatures, Apple could pull apps from users' machines that have found to contain malware.

2. Let developers suggest entitlements. If Apple hasn't made an entitlement for what an app wants to do, let the developer suggest it. Apple can then approve the entitlement or not.

Something must be done. Apple wants their customers to first and foremost go to the app store to buy software. They are cultivating the attitude that customers should *only* go to the App store for software. Being too restrictive on entitlements hurts Apple (fewer titles on the App Store, perceived fewer titles for the platform), developers (few customers will find them), and the customer (will be disappointed when they can't find software for the Mac that does what they want.)

As far as I know Apple is still actively seeking developer feedback on the sandbox and what further entitlements are needed.

[FalKirk]

atarikid, on 01 June 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

As a developer I can tell you sandboxing will hurt Apple AppStore in the (near) future. Many utility apps will go back selling their app outside the AppStore region.
But stubborn as Apple is known to be .. it will continue make decision not every like.

As a consumer I can tell you that sandboxing will not hurt Apple AppStore in the least but leaving the App Store will crush the profits of any company foolish enough to do so. In the near future 99% of all App purchases will be made safely, securely, quickly, inexpensively through the App Store. You may not be able to see this but what Apple is doing is good for the consumer. Really, really good.

You can get on the bus or you can get run over by the bus because the bus is not stopping.

[DougAdams]

hayesk, on 01 June 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

1. Scrap sandbox and rely on digital signatures instead. This is still a step forward from today, but still has potential for malware exploitation. However, with digital signatures, Apple could pull apps from users' machines that have found to contain malware.

That's what Gatekeeper in Mountain Lion does.

[heisetax]

FalKirk, on 01 June 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

atarikid, on 01 June 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

As a developer I can tell you sandboxing will hurt Apple AppStore in the (near) future. Many utility apps will go back selling their app outside the AppStore region.
But stubborn as Apple is known to be .. it will continue make decision not every like.

As a consumer I can tell you that sandboxing will not hurt Apple AppStore in the least but leaving the App Store will crush the profits of any company foolish enough to do so. In the near future 99% of all App purchases will be made safely, securely, quickly, inexpensively through the App Store. You may not be able to see this but what Apple is doing is good for the consumer. Really, really good.

You can get on the bus or you can get run over by the bus because the bus is not stopping.

I may be different than most others. It used to be because I use a Mac. It is now because I a have a company policy against purchasing software from the Mac App Store. I went against that policy one time & downloaded Mac OS 10.7 Lion. That was the biggest mistake that I have made in recent years. But actually using Mac OS 10.7 has been the biggest.

I take from this that apps from the Mac App Store will not be as good as those sold elsewhere. So thus no purchases from the Mac App Store. I'm sure that there are many others like me out there. I've purchased thousands of dollars of Mac software either directly from the developer or through 3rd party, non-Apple sales sites or locations. So my purchasing will not change. So if what you say is correct I will get run over by the bus. But most bus drivers are good drivers & will not run over anyone.

Also from an income point of view developers need to know that being on the App Store may mean a lot of business, but how much of it is paying business. I have 6-700 apps between my iToys, iPod Touch, 2 iPads & finally an iPhone. But out of those apps less than half a cozen are paid for apps. So the sales are there, but no income to go along with it. In fact all I have budgeted for iToy software sales this year is $50. So far none of that has been spent. I don't expect to spend much of it.

There is no budget for software from the Mac App Store. Without changing my company policy of no Mac App Store purchase, will another policy of always having the most current Mac OS version available for use will cause a conflict. It will make me think many times before I purchase a piece of software that I will wait a year or more before using. My average time from the time the Mac OS was for sale & the time I purchased it has always been way less than a day. With several versions that I never got out of testing status, one that would not install until Apple finally replaced a video card on my 1st gen Mac Pro, there was over a year wait for any usage.

I don't really expect to be run over unless Apple would restrict the usage of any program that did not come from the Mac App Store. As stupid as many of Apple's decisions are Im not sure they are that stupid. But they've done it in the past & will probably do it a few more times.

[fyngyrz]

"Surely, the sandboxing rule isn't one Apple set lightly or uninformed. "

Yes, it is. Along with the completely busted "full screen app" idea, the broken multi-monitor support, the hiding of the Library, the failure to fix bugs in current OS versions before moving on to the next...

What it means is that (a) I won't be buying anything from the app store, and ( I won't be upgrading from Snow Leopard, and © as a dev I won't be targeting anything beyond Snow Leopard.

Apple has lost its way, confused by the ideas that worked for a handheld gadget -- mainly confused, I think, because that gadget was successful -- ideas which are in no way appropriate for a desktop computer.

The good news is that there is no need whatsoever to follow them down this rabbit hole. Snow Leopard, strangely reminiscent of XP, is a very good OS release. It'll hang in there for many years on your current hardware -- and all of the best developers will support it because it hasn't been broken as later releases have.

Tip to apple: "Hey! We sold lots of iPads! Lets make OSX like the iPad!" is not a brainstorm. The sooner you go back to making OSX *computers*, the better for everyone. Breaking a bunch of software should have been the tipoff you were screwing up; but since it isn't, maybe the loss of sales will do it. I hope so, but as I say... Snow Leopard -- good enough.

[internetworld7]

FalKirk, on 01 June 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

atarikid, on 01 June 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

As a developer I can tell you sandboxing will hurt Apple AppStore in the (near) future. Many utility apps will go back selling their app outside the AppStore region.
But stubborn as Apple is known to be .. it will continue make decision not every like.

As a consumer I can tell you that sandboxing will not hurt Apple AppStore in the least but leaving the App Store will crush the profits of any company foolish enough to do so. In the near future 99% of all App purchases will be made safely, securely, quickly, inexpensively through the App Store. You may not be able to see this but what Apple is doing is good for the consumer. Really, really good.

You can get on the bus or you can get run over by the bus because the bus is not stopping.

I guess it never occurred to you that the consumer does not benefit from stripped down apps and stifled creativity? Because that's exactly what sandboxing will do to the app store. Developers will end up having to offer two versions of their apps: A dumbed down version for the app store and a complete feature rich version through their websites. Sandboxing is not a bad thing if implemented correctly and clearly Apple has not done that so looks like your bus is about to crash and burn.. real soon.

[David_Foster]

Sandboxing is a nice optional feature, but mandating it is just not appropriate for so many diffeent types of apps. Now that Apple has convinced it's vendors to implement it, I think Apple should now consider letting developers give users the choice of turning it on or off. I can hear many developers groaning about the complexity of that, but many already offer more powerful apps through direct sale and thus continue developing non-sandboxed code. And anyway, unlike Apple's policies, my suggestion of providing such a feature is completely optional.

The only reason I've embraced the App Store at all is its common sense approach to licensing, the absence of a need to always search for a serial number while maintaining or updating software, and its overall suppression of overly frequent paid upgrade cycles.

[Robert Bolin]

I'll wait until after WWDC to pass any major judgement, I'm sure this will be a hot topic that week.

[atarikid]

internetworld7, on 02 June 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

I guess it never occurred to you that the consumer does not benefit from stripped down apps and stifled creativity? Because that's exactly what sandboxing will do to the app store. Developers will end up having to offer two versions of their apps: A dumbed down version for the app store and a complete feature rich version through their websites. Sandboxing is not a bad thing if implemented correctly and clearly Apple has not done that so looks like your bus is about to crash and burn.. real soon.

Very true. Nobody needs crippled software. Hence paying for crippled software.

Imo Codesigning applications is a VERY good step in the right direction! Sandboxing is not.

This post has been edited by atarikid: 02 June 2012 - 06:32 AM