4 ms·

This hit me yesterday, I use ScreenInk from the app store to draw on slides with my Wacom tablet. Five minutes before my lecture I get this error. Not amused!

mikeash 11y ago
Yeah, that's bad. It's one thing to put stupid DRM on your entertainment products. If a movie doesn't work, well, that's irritating but not a serious problem. Watch another one or read a book or, worst case, talk to your family. Definitely not something you want to happen, but I can deal with it. Software gets used for practical purposes, and spontaneous breakage causes real problems.
- eridius 11y ago
  Better go uninstall Chrome and anything else that has started doing silent auto-updates in the background too then, because that has the potential for spontaneous breakage as well. I also think you're perhaps extrapolating a bit too much from this incident. Did the MAS breakage really truly suck? Yes, it did. Was it really embarrassing for Apple? It probably was. Did it cause grief for a lot of people? Yes. But the big question is, does this mean we can't trust the MAS to not accidentally break all our apps again? No, I don't think this incident means that at all. I can't think of any other reason for all my MAS-installed apps to suddenly break besides an expired certificate, and Apple's now renewed the certificate. Worst-case, maybe it'll break again in a few years when that certificate expires, but I bet they're putting in place some procedure or mechanism to guarantee that this won't happen again. All that said, there are certainly plenty of legitimate ongoing grievances with the MAS. I won't dispute any of that. But vowing to never again acquire any app from the MAS over this one incident seems somewhat absurd.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    If I used and depended on Chrome, I would at least have the power to fix such a problem myself, by downloading an old version manually, or downloading Chromium instead. There's a qualitative difference here between spontaneous breakage I can fix myself, and spontaneous breakage where the only solution is to wait for others to fix. Before this incident happened, I thought that App Store apps which existed on your computer and had the proper credentials (verified by running the app successfully at least once) were permanently good to go. Verification happens offline, after all, so there's no room for error and no need to trust anybody. Turns out, no, all of these apps come with a built-in expiration date, and you need Apple's cooperation to extend their life. They've fixed that. What else lurks in there? If they didn't actually intend to build a system which is once-and-done, then I really have no idea, and I can't trust that. I don't see why it would be "absurd" to decide not to patronize a system which has demonstrated that it can't be trusted. I mean, what exactly am I losing by no longer buying there? Virtually all of the good apps are available outside of the store anyway. Used to be that I'd lean towards the App Store version because of convenience. Now I see that this is the wrong choice, so I won't do that anymore. So how is this "absurd"? Because it's not the choice you would make?
    - eridius 11y ago
      No, it's absurd because you're stating a very hard-line vow over a single incident. If you had said "I'm not going to buy from MAS when reasonable alternatives exist", that would be a reasonable stance to take. But instead you're saying "If an application is available only on the MAS, I will refuse to purchase it, no matter what the circumstances are". Even for applications that don't provide mission-critical functionality (e.g. that you can tolerate breaking for one day).
      - mikeash 11y ago
        No mission-critical apps currently exist as App Store exclusives. An app can't become mission-critical unless I let it, so the possibility that a new one might show up as an exclusive doesn't make any sense. So really, you're just upset about my wording. That is, to borrow a term, absurd.
        eridius 11y ago
        There's a very significant difference in meaning between "I vow to never purchase anything (free or paid) from the MAS ever again", and "I will prefer to get things direct-sale when I can". And you must know that, or you wouldn't have chosen the more dramatic "vow" statement. If you really meant what you said when you used the word "vow", then stand by your statement. If you didn't, then admit that you actually meant something else. But dismissing my argument as a mere complaint over "wording" is disingenuous.
        mikeash 11y ago
        Where am I saying "when I can"? I'm not going to get apps from the Mac App Store again, period. It will not be very difficult to do this, because I don't need to. But please, continue telling me how my statement about my own actions is "absurd" based on your opinion of the situation.
  - eridius 11y ago
    Can someone please explain why you're choosing to downvote me? I'm taking a very reasonable position here. My only real guess is mikeash fanboys (yes they exist) don't like to see anyone disagree with him, but I really hope that's not the case. If there's some actual problem with my comment besides the personage that I'm disagreeing with, I'd really like to know.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Just speculating here, maybe they don't like seeing sarcastic criticism of somebody's choice to give up a DRM-enabled distribution channel, or derailing the conversation by nitpicking little bits of wording. Nah, can't be, it must be the fanboys who follow me around downvoting you.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - eridius 11y ago
        My comment was not directed at you. I do not appreciate your continued ad hominem attacks. Unless you want to address my actual argument instead of whining that I'm being nitpicky (or apparently sarcastic?), then your reply is not welcome. This is why I stopped responding in the sibling thread too.
        mikeash 11y ago
        None of this is "ad hominem." That would require attacking you perosnally. I'm just attacking your comment. My reply is not welcome? Oh, so sad. Your replies aren't welcome to me, but you don't see me whining about that, because I recognize that this is an open forum where I don't get to decide that.
arm 11y ago
Ugh… yeah, this is exactly why I actively avoid any software with DRM (to the greatest practical extent that I can). Thankfully, there are OS X developers out there that actually do sell DRM-free software¹, and I support them wholeheartedly. ―――――― ¹ — http://sites.fastspring.com/helftone/product/monodraw http://sites.fastspring.com/helftone/product/monodraw

mikeash 11y ago

Yeah, that's bad. It's one thing to put stupid DRM on your entertainment products. If a movie doesn't work, well, that's irritating but not a serious problem. Watch another one or read a book or, worst case, talk to your family. Definitely not something you want to happen, but I can deal with it. Software gets used for practical purposes, and spontaneous breakage causes real problems.

eridius 11y ago
Better go uninstall Chrome and anything else that has started doing silent auto-updates in the background too then, because that has the potential for spontaneous breakage as well. I also think you're perhaps extrapolating a bit too much from this incident. Did the MAS breakage really truly suck? Yes, it did. Was it really embarrassing for Apple? It probably was. Did it cause grief for a lot of people? Yes. But the big question is, does this mean we can't trust the MAS to not accidentally break all our apps again? No, I don't think this incident means that at all. I can't think of any other reason for all my MAS-installed apps to suddenly break besides an expired certificate, and Apple's now renewed the certificate. Worst-case, maybe it'll break again in a few years when that certificate expires, but I bet they're putting in place some procedure or mechanism to guarantee that this won't happen again. All that said, there are certainly plenty of legitimate ongoing grievances with the MAS. I won't dispute any of that. But vowing to never again acquire any app from the MAS over this one incident seems somewhat absurd.
- mikeash 11y ago
  If I used and depended on Chrome, I would at least have the power to fix such a problem myself, by downloading an old version manually, or downloading Chromium instead. There's a qualitative difference here between spontaneous breakage I can fix myself, and spontaneous breakage where the only solution is to wait for others to fix. Before this incident happened, I thought that App Store apps which existed on your computer and had the proper credentials (verified by running the app successfully at least once) were permanently good to go. Verification happens offline, after all, so there's no room for error and no need to trust anybody. Turns out, no, all of these apps come with a built-in expiration date, and you need Apple's cooperation to extend their life. They've fixed that. What else lurks in there? If they didn't actually intend to build a system which is once-and-done, then I really have no idea, and I can't trust that. I don't see why it would be "absurd" to decide not to patronize a system which has demonstrated that it can't be trusted. I mean, what exactly am I losing by no longer buying there? Virtually all of the good apps are available outside of the store anyway. Used to be that I'd lean towards the App Store version because of convenience. Now I see that this is the wrong choice, so I won't do that anymore. So how is this "absurd"? Because it's not the choice you would make?
  - eridius 11y ago
    No, it's absurd because you're stating a very hard-line vow over a single incident. If you had said "I'm not going to buy from MAS when reasonable alternatives exist", that would be a reasonable stance to take. But instead you're saying "If an application is available only on the MAS, I will refuse to purchase it, no matter what the circumstances are". Even for applications that don't provide mission-critical functionality (e.g. that you can tolerate breaking for one day).
    - mikeash 11y ago
      No mission-critical apps currently exist as App Store exclusives. An app can't become mission-critical unless I let it, so the possibility that a new one might show up as an exclusive doesn't make any sense. So really, you're just upset about my wording. That is, to borrow a term, absurd.
      - eridius 11y ago
        There's a very significant difference in meaning between "I vow to never purchase anything (free or paid) from the MAS ever again", and "I will prefer to get things direct-sale when I can". And you must know that, or you wouldn't have chosen the more dramatic "vow" statement. If you really meant what you said when you used the word "vow", then stand by your statement. If you didn't, then admit that you actually meant something else. But dismissing my argument as a mere complaint over "wording" is disingenuous.
        mikeash 11y ago
        Where am I saying "when I can"? I'm not going to get apps from the Mac App Store again, period. It will not be very difficult to do this, because I don't need to. But please, continue telling me how my statement about my own actions is "absurd" based on your opinion of the situation.
- eridius 11y ago
  Can someone please explain why you're choosing to downvote me? I'm taking a very reasonable position here. My only real guess is mikeash fanboys (yes they exist) don't like to see anyone disagree with him, but I really hope that's not the case. If there's some actual problem with my comment besides the personage that I'm disagreeing with, I'd really like to know.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Just speculating here, maybe they don't like seeing sarcastic criticism of somebody's choice to give up a DRM-enabled distribution channel, or derailing the conversation by nitpicking little bits of wording. Nah, can't be, it must be the fanboys who follow me around downvoting you.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - eridius 11y ago
      My comment was not directed at you. I do not appreciate your continued ad hominem attacks. Unless you want to address my actual argument instead of whining that I'm being nitpicky (or apparently sarcastic?), then your reply is not welcome. This is why I stopped responding in the sibling thread too.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        None of this is "ad hominem." That would require attacking you perosnally. I'm just attacking your comment. My reply is not welcome? Oh, so sad. Your replies aren't welcome to me, but you don't see me whining about that, because I recognize that this is an open forum where I don't get to decide that.

arm 11y ago

Ugh… yeah, this is exactly why I actively avoid any software with DRM (to the greatest practical extent that I can). Thankfully, there are OS X developers out there that actually do sell DRM-free software¹, and I support them wholeheartedly. ―――――― ¹ — http://sites.fastspring.com/helftone/product/monodraw http://sites.fastspring.com/helftone/product/monodraw