6 ms·

Coda 2.5 and the Mac App Store

72 points by alexbilbie 12y ago

rpwilcox 12y ago
Wait... WTH is Panic Sync?
- relaxatorium 12y ago
  "What about iCloud Sync of my sites? iCloud requires the App Store, so that’s out. But we have great news. We never want to short-change our paying customers, so we’ve spent many months working on Panic Sync, our own super-easy, super-secure syncing solution that gives you power over your data. And Panic Sync will work between Panic apps—Coda and Diet Coda to start. And Panic Sync is free. In short, we’ll trade you iCloud for something great."
harrystone 12y ago
Coda is a great editor and although I didn't really use it for what it was designed for, I really liked it.
jimmcslim 12y ago
It strike me as a bit punitive that only Mac App Store applications are permitted to access iCloud and is probably a barrier to further adoption of iCloud by developers; particularly in light of the fact that there are certain legitimate classes of app for which the sandboxing restrictions have egregious impacts on a user's workflow. Consequently developers are forced to implement their own sync solutions (e.g. Panic Sync, and Omigroup's OmniSync) - which can be a hard component to get right and increases the overall attack surface of the application + its server-side sync solution. Or rely on Dropbox, etc which I'm sure Panic had good reasons to avoid (most likely 3rd-party vendor lock-in). Hopefully the WWDC will show Apple being more accommodating on this front, but I won't hold my breath.
- cageface 12y ago
  Apple's refusal to even consider making their cloud services cross-platform is already a very serious limiting factor in their adoption. Requiring these extremely restrictive sandboxing controls might very well turn out to be the final nail in iCloud's coffin.
  - astrange 12y ago
    Which cloud services? http://support.apple.com/kb/dl1455 http://support.apple.com/kb/dl1455 iTunes is another large cloud service which is cross-platform.
- ryanobjc 12y ago
  Well, considering the low quality of iCloud, no real loss.
bridger 12y ago
In short, we’ll trade you iCloud for something great. Love this subtle dig at iCloud.
- Watabou 12y ago
  I don't get it. iCloud has its faults but I rather like it a lot. What's better about Panic Sync? To me it seems it's actually much worse than the simple to use (and never having to think about it) iCloud sync. Its also free and isn't tied to Panic. Panic sync on the other hand is is tied to Panic app so you will likely have to make a new account so it actually adds more hassle to the end user with no real extra features. Something great indeed!
  - iancarroll 12y ago
    You make it sound like it was a choice they made.
    - Watabou 12y ago
      Well, they sort of did.
Fr0styMatt 12y ago
It's a shame that this stuff happens really; I think it relegates the Mac App Store to a certain niche more than anything else. I was surprised at the limited selection I found in the store. Having just got a new Mac, I went searching for the usual suspects - no VMware or Parallels? I understand why as these apps can't be sandboxed. Hardly any commercial 3D authoring tools? Where's Illustrator and their ilk (not the Lite versions, the actual full versions). I was really surprised at the lack of big creative and high-end apps on the store - at least in the sense the big apps that the Mac is known for. It seems to be a bit of a wasteland in that regard. I'm sure there are many gems in the store from smaller developers, but I found the app discovery experience roughly on par with that of the iOS app store, which isn't a compliment :) The convenience factor is wonderful though - it's been a few years since my last Mac and apps I purchased were right there waiting. Setting up the new machine was bliss. Hopefully many of these issues can be worked out as the store evolves. Slightly off-topic; where do I go to find the gems on the store? What are the good review sites (something like what TouchArcade is for iOS games)? Any with a focus on creative apps?
- gress 12y ago
  Pixelmator, Sketch, Omnigraffle, Logic, FCP, Motion, are pretty solid creative tools.
  - hippee-lee 12y ago
    And Blender too.
    - pornel 12y ago
      Blender is GPL and sadly Apple's T&C forbid publication of Free Software in the App Store.
      - gress 12y ago
        No. People who choose GPL choose not to publish their software in the App Store.
abruzzi 12y ago
Frankly the only Mac App store apps that I have bought are Apple branded apps, and that's because that is the only place to get them. When I look for a new app, the Mac App store is the absolute last place I look. The iOS mentality of apps simply does jive with how I use a computer, a tablet maybe, but not a desktop/laptop.
- hashtag 12y ago
  I've found some great apps that were Mac App Store ONLY options, at least as far as I could tell at the time. That said, by default I generally find apps via recommendations, random packaged deals, or via their website so I don't necessarily "go looking" for them in the Mac App Store either. All of the above mentioned apps that I found that were App Store only falls into this category. If there is an option for both (App Store and direct purchase), usually what I do is check if there is a price difference (usually not but some times can be). Go with the lower price. If there is no price difference, I go with the Mac App Store version, then proceed to email the developer/company with proof for a copy of the non-Mac App Store version anyway. Usually this isn't a problem. I agree with everyone about the whole sandboxing issues and how frustrating it can be, but I definitely recommend taking a look at the App Store anyway as a user. You never know what you're missing out on.
- webwielder 12y ago
  I love the Mac App Store. No worrying about licenses, zip files, DMGs, or updates. The Featured tab always highlights some cool app I wasn't aware of. Aside from these kinds of developer headaches, I think it's a huge win for the platform.
  - tonyedgecombe 12y ago
    It isn't healthy to have one organisation become the gate keeper for all the 3rd party software.
    - noir_lord 12y ago
      It is pretty healthy for the gatekeeper though and I think that is the problem.
himhckr 12y ago
Had similar experience with a project that I was responsible to release a couple of months ago. We already had an app available on Mac App Store. We then spent about 2 months adding new features and fixing bugs. Turned out, because of stupid sandboxing, we could no longer add any new features. Only bug fixes were accepted. Release got stalled for about 2 weeks trying to find a workaround. It was really depressing 2 weeks. Eventually we decided to release on our own. We notified our existing customers and gave heavy discounts for those who wanted to get the new version. Received few angry emails from our existing customers but most of them understood our problems. Other than that, it's been going smooth. We are happy we did it. We don't have to pay 30% to Apple (there is a little cost associated with licensing but it is just like 3% of the total cost). We now can release bug fixes as soon as we want. In fact, the first bug fix we did was within an hour! I'd recommend everyone to skip MAS if possible.
SurfScore 12y ago
I remember Tim Cook saying that hybrid tablets devices were doomed to fail because they tried to do two things and failed at both. That the desktop and mobile experience were separate experiences and should be treated as such. Yet it seems like this is the exact mistake they're making trying to make the Mac App Store into aa iOS App Store - Mac Edition.
mmuro 12y ago
I certainly hope their new syncing is better than their Transmit Dropbox implementation. I had to stop using sync it was so bad. I prefer MAS apps because of how easy it is to purchase, install and update. I'm particularly annoyed when an app is available in the App Store and is then pulled out later. By then, I've already purchased and have to transition, awkwardly, to a non App Store version. This isn't the first developer tool that's done this for me.
pbreit 12y ago
So it seems that syncing was the feature or a primary feature that presented sandboxing problems? Are there any other features that are problematic?
- comex 12y ago
  No, sandboxing doesn't pose a problem to syncing, and it's not difficult to use iCloud to sync between multiple applications. Rather, since only Mac App Store apps can use iCloud, syncing was a problem after abandoning sandboxing.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    So does anyone know what features were a challenge because of sandboxing?
    - josephlord 12y ago
      Not a OS X developer but I will have a go at answering. To open a file that isn't in the application's private space the user must select it through the default OS X file picker dialogue (the app then gets permanent access to the file). This will work well for apps working on single user selected files but doesn't work well when major parts of an app are file navigation, management and generation(which is typically the case for an IDE). I'm not sure whether full access can be granted to whole directories or what the rules on running/debugging generated binaries are. Sand boxing is a good thing that combined with the Apple review process means little utilities from providers you have never heard of trustable as local apps that aren't going to read your contacts and documents without your permission but it does make life hard for an IDE. It sounds like Coda haven't given up on supporting the sandbox yet but they did not want to delay product release for it.
comex 12y ago
On one hand, developer tools really are a worst case situation for sandboxing, as they are the most closely tied to a rich Unix heritage that happens to have been designed with security only to protect users from each other, not from their own compromised applications. (I suspect it would work much better if Unix were designed with capabilities in mind from the beginning, though I'm not sure exactly how such a system would work.) Plus, sending people compromised source code to build isn't exactly a common attack vector - although to be fair, if you think about how often people download random source tarballs and run the shell scripts inside, and the known existence of "watering hole" attacks targeting developers, someone somewhere has probably tried it. And of course, Apple does not require itself to implement sandboxing in Xcode. On the other hand, sandboxing in general is definitely a good thing - you can't constantly bring up the security threat posed by the NSA et al. and then complain about the most effective type of anti-exploitation measure we know of today. Apple's sandbox implementation on OS X is reasonably flexible, and the post itself seems to concede that given more time, Panic could have come up with a reasonable experience that runs under it, perhaps with some features more awkward than without but essentially intact. So is it really that evil?

72 points by alexbilbie 12y ago

rpwilcox 12y ago

Wait... WTH is Panic Sync?

relaxatorium 12y ago
"What about iCloud Sync of my sites? iCloud requires the App Store, so that’s out. But we have great news. We never want to short-change our paying customers, so we’ve spent many months working on Panic Sync, our own super-easy, super-secure syncing solution that gives you power over your data. And Panic Sync will work between Panic apps—Coda and Diet Coda to start. And Panic Sync is free. In short, we’ll trade you iCloud for something great."

harrystone 12y ago

Coda is a great editor and although I didn't really use it for what it was designed for, I really liked it.

jimmcslim 12y ago

It strike me as a bit punitive that only Mac App Store applications are permitted to access iCloud and is probably a barrier to further adoption of iCloud by developers; particularly in light of the fact that there are certain legitimate classes of app for which the sandboxing restrictions have egregious impacts on a user's workflow. Consequently developers are forced to implement their own sync solutions (e.g. Panic Sync, and Omigroup's OmniSync) - which can be a hard component to get right and increases the overall attack surface of the application + its server-side sync solution. Or rely on Dropbox, etc which I'm sure Panic had good reasons to avoid (most likely 3rd-party vendor lock-in). Hopefully the WWDC will show Apple being more accommodating on this front, but I won't hold my breath.

cageface 12y ago
Apple's refusal to even consider making their cloud services cross-platform is already a very serious limiting factor in their adoption. Requiring these extremely restrictive sandboxing controls might very well turn out to be the final nail in iCloud's coffin.
- astrange 12y ago
  Which cloud services? http://support.apple.com/kb/dl1455 http://support.apple.com/kb/dl1455 iTunes is another large cloud service which is cross-platform.
ryanobjc 12y ago
Well, considering the low quality of iCloud, no real loss.

bridger 12y ago

In short, we’ll trade you iCloud for something great. Love this subtle dig at iCloud.

Watabou 12y ago
I don't get it. iCloud has its faults but I rather like it a lot. What's better about Panic Sync? To me it seems it's actually much worse than the simple to use (and never having to think about it) iCloud sync. Its also free and isn't tied to Panic. Panic sync on the other hand is is tied to Panic app so you will likely have to make a new account so it actually adds more hassle to the end user with no real extra features. Something great indeed!
- iancarroll 12y ago
  You make it sound like it was a choice they made.
  - Watabou 12y ago
    Well, they sort of did.

Fr0styMatt 12y ago

It's a shame that this stuff happens really; I think it relegates the Mac App Store to a certain niche more than anything else. I was surprised at the limited selection I found in the store. Having just got a new Mac, I went searching for the usual suspects - no VMware or Parallels? I understand why as these apps can't be sandboxed. Hardly any commercial 3D authoring tools? Where's Illustrator and their ilk (not the Lite versions, the actual full versions). I was really surprised at the lack of big creative and high-end apps on the store - at least in the sense the big apps that the Mac is known for. It seems to be a bit of a wasteland in that regard. I'm sure there are many gems in the store from smaller developers, but I found the app discovery experience roughly on par with that of the iOS app store, which isn't a compliment :) The convenience factor is wonderful though - it's been a few years since my last Mac and apps I purchased were right there waiting. Setting up the new machine was bliss. Hopefully many of these issues can be worked out as the store evolves. Slightly off-topic; where do I go to find the gems on the store? What are the good review sites (something like what TouchArcade is for iOS games)? Any with a focus on creative apps?

gress 12y ago
Pixelmator, Sketch, Omnigraffle, Logic, FCP, Motion, are pretty solid creative tools.
- hippee-lee 12y ago
  And Blender too.
  - pornel 12y ago
    Blender is GPL and sadly Apple's T&C forbid publication of Free Software in the App Store.
    - gress 12y ago
      No. People who choose GPL choose not to publish their software in the App Store.

abruzzi 12y ago

Frankly the only Mac App store apps that I have bought are Apple branded apps, and that's because that is the only place to get them. When I look for a new app, the Mac App store is the absolute last place I look. The iOS mentality of apps simply does jive with how I use a computer, a tablet maybe, but not a desktop/laptop.

hashtag 12y ago
I've found some great apps that were Mac App Store ONLY options, at least as far as I could tell at the time. That said, by default I generally find apps via recommendations, random packaged deals, or via their website so I don't necessarily "go looking" for them in the Mac App Store either. All of the above mentioned apps that I found that were App Store only falls into this category. If there is an option for both (App Store and direct purchase), usually what I do is check if there is a price difference (usually not but some times can be). Go with the lower price. If there is no price difference, I go with the Mac App Store version, then proceed to email the developer/company with proof for a copy of the non-Mac App Store version anyway. Usually this isn't a problem. I agree with everyone about the whole sandboxing issues and how frustrating it can be, but I definitely recommend taking a look at the App Store anyway as a user. You never know what you're missing out on.
webwielder 12y ago
I love the Mac App Store. No worrying about licenses, zip files, DMGs, or updates. The Featured tab always highlights some cool app I wasn't aware of. Aside from these kinds of developer headaches, I think it's a huge win for the platform.
- tonyedgecombe 12y ago
  It isn't healthy to have one organisation become the gate keeper for all the 3rd party software.
  - noir_lord 12y ago
    It is pretty healthy for the gatekeeper though and I think that is the problem.

himhckr 12y ago

Had similar experience with a project that I was responsible to release a couple of months ago. We already had an app available on Mac App Store. We then spent about 2 months adding new features and fixing bugs. Turned out, because of stupid sandboxing, we could no longer add any new features. Only bug fixes were accepted. Release got stalled for about 2 weeks trying to find a workaround. It was really depressing 2 weeks. Eventually we decided to release on our own. We notified our existing customers and gave heavy discounts for those who wanted to get the new version. Received few angry emails from our existing customers but most of them understood our problems. Other than that, it's been going smooth. We are happy we did it. We don't have to pay 30% to Apple (there is a little cost associated with licensing but it is just like 3% of the total cost). We now can release bug fixes as soon as we want. In fact, the first bug fix we did was within an hour! I'd recommend everyone to skip MAS if possible.

SurfScore 12y ago

I remember Tim Cook saying that hybrid tablets devices were doomed to fail because they tried to do two things and failed at both. That the desktop and mobile experience were separate experiences and should be treated as such. Yet it seems like this is the exact mistake they're making trying to make the Mac App Store into aa iOS App Store - Mac Edition.

mmuro 12y ago

I certainly hope their new syncing is better than their Transmit Dropbox implementation. I had to stop using sync it was so bad. I prefer MAS apps because of how easy it is to purchase, install and update. I'm particularly annoyed when an app is available in the App Store and is then pulled out later. By then, I've already purchased and have to transition, awkwardly, to a non App Store version. This isn't the first developer tool that's done this for me.

pbreit 12y ago

So it seems that syncing was the feature or a primary feature that presented sandboxing problems? Are there any other features that are problematic?

comex 12y ago
No, sandboxing doesn't pose a problem to syncing, and it's not difficult to use iCloud to sync between multiple applications. Rather, since only Mac App Store apps can use iCloud, syncing was a problem after abandoning sandboxing.
- pbreit 12y ago
  So does anyone know what features were a challenge because of sandboxing?
  - josephlord 12y ago
    Not a OS X developer but I will have a go at answering. To open a file that isn't in the application's private space the user must select it through the default OS X file picker dialogue (the app then gets permanent access to the file). This will work well for apps working on single user selected files but doesn't work well when major parts of an app are file navigation, management and generation(which is typically the case for an IDE). I'm not sure whether full access can be granted to whole directories or what the rules on running/debugging generated binaries are. Sand boxing is a good thing that combined with the Apple review process means little utilities from providers you have never heard of trustable as local apps that aren't going to read your contacts and documents without your permission but it does make life hard for an IDE. It sounds like Coda haven't given up on supporting the sandbox yet but they did not want to delay product release for it.

comex 12y ago

On one hand, developer tools really are a worst case situation for sandboxing, as they are the most closely tied to a rich Unix heritage that happens to have been designed with security only to protect users from each other, not from their own compromised applications. (I suspect it would work much better if Unix were designed with capabilities in mind from the beginning, though I'm not sure exactly how such a system would work.) Plus, sending people compromised source code to build isn't exactly a common attack vector - although to be fair, if you think about how often people download random source tarballs and run the shell scripts inside, and the known existence of "watering hole" attacks targeting developers, someone somewhere has probably tried it. And of course, Apple does not require itself to implement sandboxing in Xcode. On the other hand, sandboxing in general is definitely a good thing - you can't constantly bring up the security threat posed by the NSA et al. and then complain about the most effective type of anti-exploitation measure we know of today. Apple's sandbox implementation on OS X is reasonably flexible, and the post itself seems to concede that given more time, Panic could have come up with a reasonable experience that runs under it, perhaps with some features more awkward than without but essentially intact. So is it really that evil?