4 ms·

The difference is on OSX you have a choice; Mac App Store or adhoc/old way. Besides, Apple are being much more liberal re iOS approval of late - the old times

The difference is on OSX you have a choice; Mac App Store or adhoc/old way. Besides, Apple are being much more liberal re iOS approval of late - the old times are long gone except the odd mistake here and there. EDIT: I wonder if this will act as a proving ground for apple re dual App Store + adhoc distribution ala android market? EDIT2: I'm just going to come out and say it... At times I worry about installing random dmgs I find on the web. If Apple can approve the apps and ensure they are genuine and won't harm my system then I wouldn't be surprised if I'd end up switching to the Mac App Store for all my apps... With exceptions for companies I know well. This is a potentially an awesome social-engineering solution to malware/viruses in the long-run. EDIT3: Final edit as my startup won't launch itself! :P To anyone suggesting Apple will take away adhoc OSX installations and replace purely with Mac store: 1/ On what timescale? This would be very long-term - we'd adapt 2/ Is it really a problem? See Edit2 above for at least one benefit.

tlrobinson 16y ago
Yes, you have a choice... for now. If Apple wanted to take away that choice a Mac App Store is the obvious first step. REPLY TO EDIT2: The iOS App Store's review process doesn't do much for security. As demonstrated by the flashlight WiFi proxy app it's trivial to get code (malicious or not) past the reviewers. The security on iPhone comes from sandboxing of apps.
- slantyyz 16y ago
  That's a little too much FUD. With the phone, it was a new device, and in many ways, it makes sense to lock it down. The Mac has a 25 year legacy, and if they were to take away that choice, so many people would leave the platform. Apple might be jerks a lot of the time, but they're hardly stupid.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    Disagree it's FUD. It's an intelligent observation or prediction of what this might be the first step towards. It's called the slippery slope phenomenon. It happens.
    - slantyyz 16y ago
      It's a knee jerk reaction based on some prior misbehavior on a different platform from the same company. The more realistic outcome out of this is that the App Store will be so popular that it marginalizes any developer who uses any other method of distribution. That, I see as a negative, and more likely outcome than a complete application lockdown on the OS.
    - Tamerlin 16y ago
      On top of that, it's an observation based on past and repeated history. Apple has a long track record of stabbing its own 3rd party developers in the back -- witness 64-bit Photoshop CS4, and what Apple had to do with it. I know CS5 is now 64-bit on both Windows and OSX, but the OSX users had to wait an extra 18 months because of Apple, not because of Adobe.
    - scott_s 16y ago
      Claiming that data point 1 may be the start of the slippery slope certainly sounds like "fear, uncertainty and doubt" to me. It's also worth noting that the slippery slope argument is widely regarded as a fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
    - roc 16y ago
      > "It happens." Absolutely. It's happened (and happening) to Android. Carriers block rooting. Carriers block sideloading. Carriers add apps that can't be removed. They swap search engines and remove the settings. Each time a change flies in the marketplace, they get emboldened. Today, experiencing the "choice" Android promised is contingent on flawless and thorough research, with tomorrow looking increasingly worse. But where's the earnest geek concern about the slippery slope when we talk about Android fragmentation? That ball is busily picking up speed, but we don't talk about it. We talk about how fragmentation isn't real or isn't a big deal. Even while every tom, dick and harry lets loose their plans of an Android future that doesn't include Google's marketplace, likely won't include side-loading, rooting or half the "choice" we like to pretend separates Android from iOS. Yet in the context of Apple --where this change would require Apple reversing momentum, against developer wishes, after having quite publicly reversed the scope-creep of 3.3.1 after developer backlash-- we seem to be unable to talk about anything else. So while an Apple U-turn is a legitimate concern, it's still FUD to put this big a spotlight onto it for those two big reasons: 1. Recent evidence suggests, if anything, it's less-likely than ever. 2. The focus is completely out of proportion with what the issue receives in other contexts.
icey 16y ago
Today you have a choice. Who knows what the next version of iOS/OSX brings. I personally don't think Apple would try to go this way, but I also didn't think they'd be such pains in the ass about cross-compiled applications getting on to iOS devices (i.e. Flash apps compiled down to work on iOS).
- chc 16y ago
  Apple stumbled a lot dealing with iPhone platform developers. It was very much a series of amateur mistakes. They've reversed most of the bad decisions, including the language ban. I really don't think Apple has an evil master plan — I just think they're fumbling around and trying to figure out the right way to do things.
  - icey 16y ago
    I'm not suggesting it would be an evil master plan. I could easily see Steve Jobs deciding that the Mac experience would be much simpler and better if Apple reviewed all software that went on the Mac, exactly the same way he's decided that for the iPhone and iPad.
    - lzw 16y ago
      No, you're just spreading FUD, and it is a dead horse. One thing Apple has over most other businesses is a much higher level of integrity.
      - icey 16y ago
        What does this have to do with integrity? It wouldn't be evil if Steve Jobs / Apple decided to make OSX more iOS like. We may not like it, but it's not evil. Today OSX users are very fortunate that they don't have to deal with viruses or spyware, but the good times will change eventually and Apple will lose the marketing advantage of being able to brag about being worry-free. If they felt that their market would be interested in some kind of Apple version of Microsoft Bob then why wouldn't they pursue that? You clearly seem to be a fan of Apple's products, help me understand how speculating on the possibility of Apple converging its operating systems is even remotely FUD?
bad_user 16y ago
> At times I worry about installing random dmgs I find on the web. You must be terrified by all things in general. Hint: there's an easy fix for that. Search for people reviews on that download service or app ;)
- JofArnold 16y ago
  Ok, you caught me - I was exaggerating for effect. Nonetheless, this is a real problem for OSX security - I'm happy looking at the md5 to double-check etc etc but my granny? She thinks the internet has gone down when she gets a popup because "I can't get on to Yoohoo" (which means in granny-speak: this window is obscuring my web-based mail client). Remember, OSX is mainstream now. And mainstream is not sourceforge/github/aptitude/macports
tensor 16y ago
You don't have to look further than iOS to see that yes, it is a problem. Charging developers a yearly fee aside, excluding apps that Apple is not comfortable with due to competitive reasons is a HUGE problem. Also, a lot of us who develop on OS X actually use the unix tool chain. Something like homebrew or fink just won't fit into the app store framework. Edit: that said, I do see the positive aspects of it. So long as it is permanently optional, I think it's a good thing. Sadly, it seems Apple does not have good relationship with it's developers. At least if you take the number of fearful comments as evidence.
- lzw 16y ago
  The fearful comments are not from Apple developers, but from freetards who have hated apple for the past 20 years and been making the same kinds of comments for that same period. Meanwhile, those of us who have been developers for apple platforms during that time have never seen apple screw us over and find this kind of fear to be asinine. It makes for good press to boost your page views, though, and so any burp eminating from cupertino is used to rationalize wild speculation and assertiosn that it is proof that steve jobs is a control freak who wants to run your life. Apple introduced App signing in Leopard. You've been able to produce signed apps since around that time. That's all the appstore on the mac needs. Apple won't care what toolchain you use...
  - tensor 16y ago
    I've used Apple as a dev platform for the past twelve years, doing mostly UNIX application development. I do not have a blog. Thank you for making baseless assumptions and throwing around childish insulting terms. It really goes a long way towards stimulating good conversation. As a multi-platform developer that doesn't use objective-c, but still finding OS X to be a great development platform, I am very much distrustful of Apple. Why? Because of how they've conducted themselves with iOS. Is such fear reasonable? I feel it is. Mostly because I don't see users such as myself to be in Apples current or future target market. Few to no new features target users like myself, and the iOS platform is almost hostile towards anything that doesn't fit with Apple technologies and apis. Not only that, but iOS has been extremely successful for them in terms of income. It makes a lot of business sense that they would want to push OS X towards the same highly profitable model. I do hope that they keep OS X as open as it is now, but I'd say the mistrust is very reasonable.

tlrobinson 16y ago

Yes, you have a choice... for now. If Apple wanted to take away that choice a Mac App Store is the obvious first step. REPLY TO EDIT2: The iOS App Store's review process doesn't do much for security. As demonstrated by the flashlight WiFi proxy app it's trivial to get code (malicious or not) past the reviewers. The security on iPhone comes from sandboxing of apps.

slantyyz 16y ago
That's a little too much FUD. With the phone, it was a new device, and in many ways, it makes sense to lock it down. The Mac has a 25 year legacy, and if they were to take away that choice, so many people would leave the platform. Apple might be jerks a lot of the time, but they're hardly stupid.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  Disagree it's FUD. It's an intelligent observation or prediction of what this might be the first step towards. It's called the slippery slope phenomenon. It happens.
  - slantyyz 16y ago
    It's a knee jerk reaction based on some prior misbehavior on a different platform from the same company. The more realistic outcome out of this is that the App Store will be so popular that it marginalizes any developer who uses any other method of distribution. That, I see as a negative, and more likely outcome than a complete application lockdown on the OS.
  - Tamerlin 16y ago
    On top of that, it's an observation based on past and repeated history. Apple has a long track record of stabbing its own 3rd party developers in the back -- witness 64-bit Photoshop CS4, and what Apple had to do with it. I know CS5 is now 64-bit on both Windows and OSX, but the OSX users had to wait an extra 18 months because of Apple, not because of Adobe.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    Claiming that data point 1 may be the start of the slippery slope certainly sounds like "fear, uncertainty and doubt" to me. It's also worth noting that the slippery slope argument is widely regarded as a fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
  - roc 16y ago
    > "It happens." Absolutely. It's happened (and happening) to Android. Carriers block rooting. Carriers block sideloading. Carriers add apps that can't be removed. They swap search engines and remove the settings. Each time a change flies in the marketplace, they get emboldened. Today, experiencing the "choice" Android promised is contingent on flawless and thorough research, with tomorrow looking increasingly worse. But where's the earnest geek concern about the slippery slope when we talk about Android fragmentation? That ball is busily picking up speed, but we don't talk about it. We talk about how fragmentation isn't real or isn't a big deal. Even while every tom, dick and harry lets loose their plans of an Android future that doesn't include Google's marketplace, likely won't include side-loading, rooting or half the "choice" we like to pretend separates Android from iOS. Yet in the context of Apple --where this change would require Apple reversing momentum, against developer wishes, after having quite publicly reversed the scope-creep of 3.3.1 after developer backlash-- we seem to be unable to talk about anything else. So while an Apple U-turn is a legitimate concern, it's still FUD to put this big a spotlight onto it for those two big reasons: 1. Recent evidence suggests, if anything, it's less-likely than ever. 2. The focus is completely out of proportion with what the issue receives in other contexts.

icey 16y ago

Today you have a choice. Who knows what the next version of iOS/OSX brings. I personally don't think Apple would try to go this way, but I also didn't think they'd be such pains in the ass about cross-compiled applications getting on to iOS devices (i.e. Flash apps compiled down to work on iOS).

chc 16y ago
Apple stumbled a lot dealing with iPhone platform developers. It was very much a series of amateur mistakes. They've reversed most of the bad decisions, including the language ban. I really don't think Apple has an evil master plan — I just think they're fumbling around and trying to figure out the right way to do things.
- icey 16y ago
  I'm not suggesting it would be an evil master plan. I could easily see Steve Jobs deciding that the Mac experience would be much simpler and better if Apple reviewed all software that went on the Mac, exactly the same way he's decided that for the iPhone and iPad.
  - lzw 16y ago
    No, you're just spreading FUD, and it is a dead horse. One thing Apple has over most other businesses is a much higher level of integrity.
    - icey 16y ago
      What does this have to do with integrity? It wouldn't be evil if Steve Jobs / Apple decided to make OSX more iOS like. We may not like it, but it's not evil. Today OSX users are very fortunate that they don't have to deal with viruses or spyware, but the good times will change eventually and Apple will lose the marketing advantage of being able to brag about being worry-free. If they felt that their market would be interested in some kind of Apple version of Microsoft Bob then why wouldn't they pursue that? You clearly seem to be a fan of Apple's products, help me understand how speculating on the possibility of Apple converging its operating systems is even remotely FUD?

bad_user 16y ago

> At times I worry about installing random dmgs I find on the web. You must be terrified by all things in general. Hint: there's an easy fix for that. Search for people reviews on that download service or app ;)

JofArnold 16y ago
Ok, you caught me - I was exaggerating for effect. Nonetheless, this is a real problem for OSX security - I'm happy looking at the md5 to double-check etc etc but my granny? She thinks the internet has gone down when she gets a popup because "I can't get on to Yoohoo" (which means in granny-speak: this window is obscuring my web-based mail client). Remember, OSX is mainstream now. And mainstream is not sourceforge/github/aptitude/macports

tensor 16y ago

You don't have to look further than iOS to see that yes, it is a problem. Charging developers a yearly fee aside, excluding apps that Apple is not comfortable with due to competitive reasons is a HUGE problem. Also, a lot of us who develop on OS X actually use the unix tool chain. Something like homebrew or fink just won't fit into the app store framework. Edit: that said, I do see the positive aspects of it. So long as it is permanently optional, I think it's a good thing. Sadly, it seems Apple does not have good relationship with it's developers. At least if you take the number of fearful comments as evidence.

lzw 16y ago
The fearful comments are not from Apple developers, but from freetards who have hated apple for the past 20 years and been making the same kinds of comments for that same period. Meanwhile, those of us who have been developers for apple platforms during that time have never seen apple screw us over and find this kind of fear to be asinine. It makes for good press to boost your page views, though, and so any burp eminating from cupertino is used to rationalize wild speculation and assertiosn that it is proof that steve jobs is a control freak who wants to run your life. Apple introduced App signing in Leopard. You've been able to produce signed apps since around that time. That's all the appstore on the mac needs. Apple won't care what toolchain you use...
- tensor 16y ago
  I've used Apple as a dev platform for the past twelve years, doing mostly UNIX application development. I do not have a blog. Thank you for making baseless assumptions and throwing around childish insulting terms. It really goes a long way towards stimulating good conversation. As a multi-platform developer that doesn't use objective-c, but still finding OS X to be a great development platform, I am very much distrustful of Apple. Why? Because of how they've conducted themselves with iOS. Is such fear reasonable? I feel it is. Mostly because I don't see users such as myself to be in Apples current or future target market. Few to no new features target users like myself, and the iOS platform is almost hostile towards anything that doesn't fit with Apple technologies and apis. Not only that, but iOS has been extremely successful for them in terms of income. It makes a lot of business sense that they would want to push OS X towards the same highly profitable model. I do hope that they keep OS X as open as it is now, but I'd say the mistrust is very reasonable.