5 ms·

> more likely that Apple will further lock down the accessibility APIs, possibly even making them unavailable without an Apple-issued, potentially App Store-onl

by pkamb 10y ago

> more likely that Apple will further lock down the accessibility APIs, possibly even making them unavailable without an Apple-issued, potentially App Store-only entitlement. Please feel free to duplicate my radar! Accessibility and Productivity/Utility app developers would love a Sandbox entitlement. rdar://13570189 - Sandbox entitlement for Accessibility API to allow apps for the disabled The Accessibility toolkit has always been off limits to Sandboxed apps, and no entitlement exists. This seems unlikely to change. It's unfortunate, as this keeps many good and useful apps out of the Mac App Store.

voltagex_ 10y ago
Is it worth adding that to OpenRadar? https://openradar.appspot.com/search?query=13570189 https://openradar.appspot.com/search?query=13570189
tinus_hn 10y ago
I don't really see the point of taking a sandbox and then explicitly granting an app inside the privilege to step out of it.
- pkamb 10y ago
  I don't really see the point of banning Accessibility apps that can't be sandboxed but then allowing those same apps to be distributed outside the Mac App Store. Unless you're banning them from macOS entirely, why not allow these potentially "dangerous" apps to operate underneath the additional Reviews and Guidelines of the App Store?
  - tinus_hn 10y ago
    Because an app being on the App Store creates an expectation that cannot be met without the sandbox. Without the source code and large amounts of resources it is not possible to determine whether an app is malicious or not. The only way would be for Apple to trust that developers actually do what they say they do. The unfortunate reality is that they cannot be trusted. I don't blame Apple for not taking that responsibility. Unfortunately that means the responsibility ends up with the user who cannot make the determination either. Such is life.
    - Blaisorblade0 10y ago
      Many app stores (even for smartphone) have sandboxes where you can grant additional privileges. Of course the user (who else) has to decide whether they trust the app or not. But I'd be happier trusting a sandboxed Dropbox, especially because it couldn't have hidden its use of Accessibility.

by pkamb 10y ago

voltagex_ 10y ago

Is it worth adding that to OpenRadar? https://openradar.appspot.com/search?query=13570189 https://openradar.appspot.com/search?query=13570189

tinus_hn 10y ago

I don't really see the point of taking a sandbox and then explicitly granting an app inside the privilege to step out of it.

pkamb 10y ago
I don't really see the point of banning Accessibility apps that can't be sandboxed but then allowing those same apps to be distributed outside the Mac App Store. Unless you're banning them from macOS entirely, why not allow these potentially "dangerous" apps to operate underneath the additional Reviews and Guidelines of the App Store?
- tinus_hn 10y ago
  Because an app being on the App Store creates an expectation that cannot be met without the sandbox. Without the source code and large amounts of resources it is not possible to determine whether an app is malicious or not. The only way would be for Apple to trust that developers actually do what they say they do. The unfortunate reality is that they cannot be trusted. I don't blame Apple for not taking that responsibility. Unfortunately that means the responsibility ends up with the user who cannot make the determination either. Such is life.
  - Blaisorblade0 10y ago
    Many app stores (even for smartphone) have sandboxes where you can grant additional privileges. Of course the user (who else) has to decide whether they trust the app or not. But I'd be happier trusting a sandboxed Dropbox, especially because it couldn't have hidden its use of Accessibility.