Developers React to OS X Mountain Lion(macobserver.com)
macobserver.com
Developers React to OS X Mountain Lion
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/developers_react_to_os_x_mountain_lion/
24 comments
People are looking at Gatekeeper the wrong way. Apple could have made App store only the default. Or they could have prevented all non-signed apps completely. There would have been a backlash but they still could have done it. Instead they went to the trouble of creating Gatekeeper which helps protect users and will only minimally affect devs.
Enough of the 'slippery slope' argument. If it really is one and they start down that path use a different product. Use Windows or Linux.
Enough of the 'slippery slope' argument. If it really is one and they start down that path use a different product. Use Windows or Linux.
> If it really is one and they start down that path use a different product. Use Windows or Linux.
That makes no sense. I'm an Android developer for a number of reasons, freedom being the primary one. Developers are fighting about this and warning of the future because we don't want to be forced into a specific development system due to artificial limits. Apple, Google and Microsoft are building the future of operating systems right now, and that future defines much of the way I will live for the next 50 years.
Don't tell me not to care about this and brush this topic off as "just switch". I don't even use this system, I never will, and I care a lot about what happens to it.
That makes no sense. I'm an Android developer for a number of reasons, freedom being the primary one. Developers are fighting about this and warning of the future because we don't want to be forced into a specific development system due to artificial limits. Apple, Google and Microsoft are building the future of operating systems right now, and that future defines much of the way I will live for the next 50 years.
Don't tell me not to care about this and brush this topic off as "just switch". I don't even use this system, I never will, and I care a lot about what happens to it.
> Apple could have made App store only the default. Or they could have prevented all non-signed apps completely.
No, they couldn't. They actually need and want people to upgrade and you can't do that if their existing apps won't run out of the box.
This is also the reason why the first version of OS X had the classic mode and why the Carbon API exists.
No, they couldn't. They actually need and want people to upgrade and you can't do that if their existing apps won't run out of the box.
This is also the reason why the first version of OS X had the classic mode and why the Carbon API exists.
.. and both are gone in 64-bit intel macs.
Or Apple could have sandboxed unsigned apps by default instead of telling you to trash them. Too bad they don't have any sandboxing experts[1] on hand....
[1] http://radian.org/
[1] http://radian.org/
I don't understand your second paragraph. If Apple does lock down the Mac like iOS, I certainly will look into using a different product. But I'd really much prefer that it never come to that. To that end, I will add my voice to those complaining about this, in the hopes of encouraging Apple never to let things get that far.
I'm concerned about what happens when the RIAA and the MPAA push pressure on Apple to revoke developer certificates for things they don't like, ie: VLC and HandBrake.
BluRay ripping software? Sorry, your developer certificate has been revoked. It might be legal to write that software in your country, but not in the USA.
BluRay ripping software? Sorry, your developer certificate has been revoked. It might be legal to write that software in your country, but not in the USA.
Didn't apple come inches from extinction going down this road once in history already?
I'm very afraid that Apple is on slippery slope towards AppStore-only Mac.
They've added GateKeeper. "It's only an option!" people say.
They might switch default to AppStore-only. "You're free to change it if you like!"
And then when other software is a hard to install suspicious minority, they'll remove the option. "Nobody used it anyway. Who wants to invite malware?"
They've added GateKeeper. "It's only an option!" people say.
They might switch default to AppStore-only. "You're free to change it if you like!"
And then when other software is a hard to install suspicious minority, they'll remove the option. "Nobody used it anyway. Who wants to invite malware?"
To show that they are actually on a slippery slope you have to point to facts that would lead Apple to make decisions to that effect. You have to substantiate why they are slipping. It still remains only a prediction, but it at least becomes more than a fallacy.
Here is why I think a slippery slope is very unlikely: I can’t think of any examples where Apple gradually limited the freedom of developers, at least not in the grand scheme of things. The restrictions were always in place from day one and in general tended to become less restrictive, not more. Yeah, the sample size is two, but still.
Here is why I think a slippery slope is very unlikely: I can’t think of any examples where Apple gradually limited the freedom of developers, at least not in the grand scheme of things. The restrictions were always in place from day one and in general tended to become less restrictive, not more. Yeah, the sample size is two, but still.
How about the part where some APIs are App Store only?
Funny thing you would write that, I actually wanted to include that in my comment but completely forgot about it when I finished the second paragraph.
Yes, the exclusive access to those APIs is indeed pretty clear evidence to the contrary. I don’t think it’s really decisive, though.
Yes, the exclusive access to those APIs is indeed pretty clear evidence to the contrary. I don’t think it’s really decisive, though.
"whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect" - we can
"Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity." [continuum fallacy] - apple loves vague communications
"Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity." [continuum fallacy] - apple loves vague communications
The slippery slope that bothers me is iCloud.
The App Store is a very successful distribution engine and marketing service, most devs I know are quite pleased with it's existence and Gatekeeper ultimately will make it stronger. I would be extraordinarily disappointed if Apple ever went 'App Store only' though.
I think it's more likely they'll add ever more developer hurdles and effectively ghettoize unsigned apps than ever just flip a switch and announce "App Store only!"
Unless they change gears and hype up OS XI as a game-changing iOS/OS X merger.
They've certainly taken some steps that are perfect to tease out slippery slope paranoia. It would be a bit scary if there weren't easily accessible alternative OSes.
Unless they change gears and hype up OS XI as a game-changing iOS/OS X merger.
They've certainly taken some steps that are perfect to tease out slippery slope paranoia. It would be a bit scary if there weren't easily accessible alternative OSes.
How will Gatekeeper make it stronger?
Whats really interesting to me is the possibility of Gatekeeper's flexibility flowing back into iOS. I've hoped for years that Apple would offer an official jailbreak which basically would make you click through a bunch of disclaimers and give you an easy rollback but then let you run non-app-store code. I know its very low probability but it shows that Apple is open to the idea of a middle ground on signed code. Maybe iOS 6?
Macs will eventually be more like PS3 and less like a general purpose computer.
I sandboxed my application last night and turned on code signing. Including reading up on it and running tests afterwards, it took me 30 minutes.