5 ms·

Developers vs. users is a false dichotomy. Users need software. Without software, there's nothing to use. The native Mac software ecosystem is slowly dying. Eve

by lapcat 4y ago

Developers vs. users is a false dichotomy. Users need software. Without software, there's nothing to use. The native Mac software ecosystem is slowly dying. Eventually everything on the Mac will just be a cross-platform afterthought.

Maursault 4y ago
[flagged]
- lapcat 4y ago
  > only in your little dreams Please don't violate the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > 21.5% of developers used macOS in 2015,[1] increasing to 27.5% in 2020. I said the native Mac software ecosystem is slowly dying, and eventually everything on the Mac will just be a cross-platform afterthought. The total number of registered Apple developers (not Mac specifically) isn't really relevant to that. Every iOS developer has to use macOS in order to access Xcode, but that doesn't mean they're making native Mac software.
dcow 4y ago
Developers are really lazy. We have terms like DX and UX. It’s not a false dichotomy at all.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Developers are really lazy. Speak for yourself. > We have terms like DX and UX. It’s not a false dichotomy at all. It's still a false dichotomy, because they're not necessarily opposed. Making the native Mac software DX worse can also make the UX worse, and making the DX better can make the UX better. When I said "Eventually everything on the Mac will just be a cross-platform afterthought", I meant that the UX is becoming totally crappy. We get Electron, we get Catalyst, we get iOS apps on macOS. Crap. Bad UX. Lack of powerful software, due to excessive security restrictions, is also a bad UX. Endless "Cancel or Allow" dialogs are a bad UX.
  - dcow 4y ago
    Lazy in this context doesn't mean “lacks work ethic”. You might be unfamiliar with the Gates quote. Point is devs often whine when they have to take the scenic route even if it’s safer for the user. Anyway, I’m not saying they’re at odds and you can only pick one. So we seem to agree. I’m saying devs should be applauding better security and not whining about the transition away from user-domain security which is kinda what is implied in the OP. We should be whining about not having access to to the system in ways we need. Better security needs to accommodate valid use cases not stifle creativity. We probably also agree there. Opining Linux because it’s still the wild west of software and you can do shit like zip up the user’s browser history, logins, and cookies, or idk dump entire hardware profiles without any user interaction, or prompt the user to install a new boot loader or drop your rootkit into initrd because your program “just needs their password to update” is just that.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > I’m saying devs should be applauding better security and not whining about the transition away from user-domain security which is kinda what is implied in the OP. It's not better security, it's security theater. Security researchers roll out of bed in the morning and find bypasses to macOS TCC (Transparency, Consent, and Control). I've done it myself, and I'm not a professional security researcher. The so-called "security" doesn't actually stop real malware, it only stops honest developers from making a living.
      - dcow 4y ago
        People discover vulns all the time. A vuln is not theatre. You patch the vuln and you are secure. A vlun does not security theatre make. A fundamental design flaw in the security model or system which renders it irrelevant, on the other hand, is a problem. Are you saying there’s a fundamental flaw in Apple’s implementation of secure boot, code signatures, and sandboxing that makes it irrelevant?
        lapcat 4y ago
        > You patch the vuln and you are secure. Except you aren't, because there's an endless series of them. > Are you saying there’s a fundamental flaw in Apple’s implementation of secure boot, code signatures, and sandboxing that makes it irrelevant? I said TCC, and you said everything except TCC. (Although sandboxing is pretty insecure on the Mac too.) The fundamental design flaw is that Mac OS X started as an open system, and Apple tried to tack all of these security features on afterward, without otherwise redesigning the operating system. There are two many legacy features, including "must not break" features, too many openings, too much interoperation, too much complexity. Moreover, it often seems to me that Apple security engineers are not particularly experienced with Mac OS X, which is why an old hack like me can relatively easily find things that they've overlooked.
nonethewiser 4y ago
But, increasingly, users don’t need desktop software. In fact, the move towards sandboxes apps makes native apps closer to browser apps. I’m not even saying it’s a good thing. Just that gimping native apps isn’t the footgun it would have been 10 years ago.
- lapcat 4y ago
  What do you mean by "need"? Increasingly, users are force-fed cross-platform web apps. I wouldn't say that's what they need, and you're not even saying it's a good thing. If users don't need desktop software, then why do they need desktop hardware?
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    Take Figma for example. Couldn’t have been a web app 10 years ago. Users would have needed a desktop app in that case. You emphasize “need” but it seems you mean “want.” You bring up a great point about hardware too. People don’t need as much hardware given the increased connectivity and cloud computing. Again, I’m not suggesting all this is good. But of course users _need_ local compute and native apps less than 10 years ago.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > Again, I’m not suggesting all this is good. But of course users _need_ local compute and native apps less than 10 years ago. Isn't this a problem for the future of Mac, though? It seems to me that dumbing down the Mac is the opposite of what Apple should do. Why not place emphasis on what makes desktop special, rather than morphing the Mac into an overpriced iOS device that only runs web apps?
      - nonethewiser 4y ago
        That’s an interesting point. I don’t necessarily think it will go that far for the record. But Mac is probably comparatively well suited to make a profit off fancy devices with low computing power.

by lapcat 4y ago

Maursault 4y ago

[flagged]

lapcat 4y ago
> only in your little dreams Please don't violate the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > 21.5% of developers used macOS in 2015,[1] increasing to 27.5% in 2020. I said the native Mac software ecosystem is slowly dying, and eventually everything on the Mac will just be a cross-platform afterthought. The total number of registered Apple developers (not Mac specifically) isn't really relevant to that. Every iOS developer has to use macOS in order to access Xcode, but that doesn't mean they're making native Mac software.

dcow 4y ago

Developers are really lazy. We have terms like DX and UX. It’s not a false dichotomy at all.

lapcat 4y ago
> Developers are really lazy. Speak for yourself. > We have terms like DX and UX. It’s not a false dichotomy at all. It's still a false dichotomy, because they're not necessarily opposed. Making the native Mac software DX worse can also make the UX worse, and making the DX better can make the UX better. When I said "Eventually everything on the Mac will just be a cross-platform afterthought", I meant that the UX is becoming totally crappy. We get Electron, we get Catalyst, we get iOS apps on macOS. Crap. Bad UX. Lack of powerful software, due to excessive security restrictions, is also a bad UX. Endless "Cancel or Allow" dialogs are a bad UX.
- dcow 4y ago
  Lazy in this context doesn't mean “lacks work ethic”. You might be unfamiliar with the Gates quote. Point is devs often whine when they have to take the scenic route even if it’s safer for the user. Anyway, I’m not saying they’re at odds and you can only pick one. So we seem to agree. I’m saying devs should be applauding better security and not whining about the transition away from user-domain security which is kinda what is implied in the OP. We should be whining about not having access to to the system in ways we need. Better security needs to accommodate valid use cases not stifle creativity. We probably also agree there. Opining Linux because it’s still the wild west of software and you can do shit like zip up the user’s browser history, logins, and cookies, or idk dump entire hardware profiles without any user interaction, or prompt the user to install a new boot loader or drop your rootkit into initrd because your program “just needs their password to update” is just that.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > I’m saying devs should be applauding better security and not whining about the transition away from user-domain security which is kinda what is implied in the OP. It's not better security, it's security theater. Security researchers roll out of bed in the morning and find bypasses to macOS TCC (Transparency, Consent, and Control). I've done it myself, and I'm not a professional security researcher. The so-called "security" doesn't actually stop real malware, it only stops honest developers from making a living.
    - dcow 4y ago
      People discover vulns all the time. A vuln is not theatre. You patch the vuln and you are secure. A vlun does not security theatre make. A fundamental design flaw in the security model or system which renders it irrelevant, on the other hand, is a problem. Are you saying there’s a fundamental flaw in Apple’s implementation of secure boot, code signatures, and sandboxing that makes it irrelevant?
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > You patch the vuln and you are secure. Except you aren't, because there's an endless series of them. > Are you saying there’s a fundamental flaw in Apple’s implementation of secure boot, code signatures, and sandboxing that makes it irrelevant? I said TCC, and you said everything except TCC. (Although sandboxing is pretty insecure on the Mac too.) The fundamental design flaw is that Mac OS X started as an open system, and Apple tried to tack all of these security features on afterward, without otherwise redesigning the operating system. There are two many legacy features, including "must not break" features, too many openings, too much interoperation, too much complexity. Moreover, it often seems to me that Apple security engineers are not particularly experienced with Mac OS X, which is why an old hack like me can relatively easily find things that they've overlooked.

nonethewiser 4y ago

But, increasingly, users don’t need desktop software. In fact, the move towards sandboxes apps makes native apps closer to browser apps. I’m not even saying it’s a good thing. Just that gimping native apps isn’t the footgun it would have been 10 years ago.

lapcat 4y ago
What do you mean by "need"? Increasingly, users are force-fed cross-platform web apps. I wouldn't say that's what they need, and you're not even saying it's a good thing. If users don't need desktop software, then why do they need desktop hardware?
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Take Figma for example. Couldn’t have been a web app 10 years ago. Users would have needed a desktop app in that case. You emphasize “need” but it seems you mean “want.” You bring up a great point about hardware too. People don’t need as much hardware given the increased connectivity and cloud computing. Again, I’m not suggesting all this is good. But of course users _need_ local compute and native apps less than 10 years ago.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Again, I’m not suggesting all this is good. But of course users _need_ local compute and native apps less than 10 years ago. Isn't this a problem for the future of Mac, though? It seems to me that dumbing down the Mac is the opposite of what Apple should do. Why not place emphasis on what makes desktop special, rather than morphing the Mac into an overpriced iOS device that only runs web apps?
    - nonethewiser 4y ago
      That’s an interesting point. I don’t necessarily think it will go that far for the record. But Mac is probably comparatively well suited to make a profit off fancy devices with low computing power.