Michal Ždanský Since sandboxing notification for apps in the Mac App Store, there have been heated discussions about how Apple is making things difficult for developers. However, only the first casualties and consequences have shown how big a problem this move is and what it could mean for developers in the future. If sandboxing doesn't tell you anything, in short it means restricting access to system data. Apps in iOS work in the same way - they practically cannot integrate into the system and affect its operation or add new functions to it.
Of course, this step also has its justification. First of all, it's security - in theory, such an application cannot affect the stability or performance of the system or run malicious code, if something like this were to escape the team that approves the application for the App Store. The second reason is the simplification of the entire approval process. Applications are more easily verified and reviewed, and the team thus manages to give the green light to a greater number of new applications and updates per day, which is a logical step when there are thousands to tens of thousands of applications.
But for some applications and their developers, sandboxing can represent a huge amount of work that could otherwise be devoted to further development. Instead, they have to spend long days and weeks, sometimes having to change the entire architecture of the application, only to be eaten by the wolf. Of course, the situation varies from developer to developer, for some it just means unchecking a few boxes in Xcode. However, others will have to painstakingly figure out how to work around the restrictions so that existing features can continue to work, or will have to remove features with a heavy heart because they are not compatible with sandboxing.
Developers are therefore faced with a difficult decision: either leave the Mac App Store and thus lose a significant part of the profit associated with marketing that takes place in the store, at the same time give up the integration of iCloud or the notification center and continue to develop the application without restrictions, or bow your head, invest time and money to redesign applications and shield themselves from criticism from users who will miss some features they used often but had to be removed due to sandboxing. "It's just a lot of work. It requires huge, often demanding changes to the architecture of some applications, and in some cases even the removal of features. This battle between safety and comfort is never easy.” says David Chartier, developer 1Password.
[do action=”quote”]For most of these customers, the App Store is no longer a reliable place to buy software.[/do]
If developers eventually decide to leave the App Store, it will create an unpleasant situation for users. Those who purchased the app outside of the Mac App Store will continue to receive updates, but the Mac App Store version will become abandonware, which will only receive bug fixes at most due to Apple's restrictions. While users previously preferred to make purchases in the Mac App Store due to the guarantee of security, a unified system of free updates and easy access, due to this phenomenon, trust in the App Store could rapidly decline, which would bring far-reaching consequences for both users and Apple. Marco Arment, creator Instapaper and co-founder Tumblr, commented on the situation as follows:
“The next time I buy an app that's available in the App Store and on the developer's website, I'll probably buy it directly from the developer. And almost everyone who gets burned by banning apps due to sandboxing — not just the affected developers, but all of their customers — will do the same for their future purchases. For most of these customers, the App Store is no longer a reliable place to buy software. This threatens the assumed strategic goal of moving as many software purchases as possible to the Mac App Store.”
One of the first victims of sandboxing was the TextExpander application, which allows you to create text abbreviations that the application then turns into whole phrases or sentences, system-wide. If developers were forced to apply sanboxing, the shortcuts would only work in that application, not in the email client. Although the app is still available in the Mac App Store, it will no longer receive any new updates. A similar fate awaited the Postbox application, where the developers decided not to offer the new version in the Mac App Store when the third version was released. Because of sanboxing, they would have to remove several functions, for example integration with iCal and iPhoto. They also pointed out other shortcomings of the Mac App Store, such as the absence of an opportunity to try the application, the inability to offer a discounted price for users of older versions, and others.
Postbox developers would have to create a special version of their application for the Mac App Store in order to be compatible with the restrictions imposed by Apple's guidelines, which is impossible for most developers. Thus, the only major advantage of offering applications in the Mac App Store lies only in marketing and ease of distribution. "In short, the Mac App Store allows developers to spend more time creating great apps and less time building the infrastructure of their own online store," adds Sherman Dickman, CEO of Postbox.
The outflow of developers from the Mac App Store could also have longer-term consequences for Apple. For example, it could also threaten the fledgling iCloud platform, which developers outside of this distribution channel cannot use. "Only apps in the App Store can take advantage of iCloud, but many Mac developers won't or won't be able to because of the political instability of the App Store," claims developer Marco Arment.
Ironically, while restrictions on the iOS App Store have become more benevolent over time, for example developers can create apps that directly compete with native iOS apps, the opposite is true for the Mac App Store. When Apple invited developers to the Mac App Store, it set certain barriers that applications had to adhere to (see the article Mac App Store – it won't be easy for developers here either), but the restrictions were nowhere near as critical as current sandboxing.
[do action="quote"]Apple's behavior towards developers has a long history on iOS alone and speaks to the company's arrogance towards those who have a major impact on the success of the given platform.[/do]
As users, we can be happy that, unlike iOS, we can also install applications on Mac from other sources, however, the great idea of a centralized repository for Mac software is getting a total beating due to increasing restrictions. Instead of growing and giving developers some of the options they've long been calling for, such as demo options, a more transparent claims model, or discounted pricing for users of older versions of apps, the Mac App Store instead restricts them and adds unnecessary extra work, creating abandonware and thus frustrates even the users who bought the software.
Apple's treatment of developers has a long history on iOS alone, and speaks to the company's arrogance toward those who have a major impact on the platform's success. Frequent rejection of applications for no reason without subsequent explanation, very stingy communication from Apple, many developers have to deal with all this. Apple offered a great platform, but also a "help yourself" and "if you don't like it, leave" approach. Has Apple finally become a brother and fulfilled the ironic prophecy of 1984? Let's answer each one ourselves.
Apple has definitely become a brother. And sister and father-in-law too.
nice article and holy truth!
It's true, but based on experience from other areas, I know that it's better to first ban everything and then gradually allow it, than, on the contrary, to allow everything and then ban only what is abused :)
Exactly. Given that at first you couldn't even install apps on iOS, and after that option was added, these apps could get more and more into the system every year, it makes a lot of sense. Especially slowly. And it was accepted as a whole normally (that is, by those who had time to read the newspaper before their browser started up - that's another chapter) thanks to the fact that it worked with the competition, but... - Java applications, that was one big misfortune – everyone downloaded it from somewhere on the net, then the resolution didn't fit, sometimes it didn't even start, the same with Symbian, not to mention that ordinary people didn't do such activities.
It works like that on a computer and people just got used to it a long time ago, and because I've been on Windows for a long time, I can say that I probably don't really know a person who used Windows Media Player to play media, the bubble is screaming at you quickly you install an antivirus, another one wants to install a driver after connecting something - and this is how it starts, as soon as we bring the computer home, something is already installed and it's going crazy and it seems normal to everyone, hey .exe click-click and then it works, so how is it turns out But if Apple wants to change this area for the better, which I believe and in my opinion it has been doing for a long time, then it just has to say no and start from scratch, just like with iOS, on the other hand, it will again be able to introduce 200 new options in the future :) no, it probably won't work like that, but it seems to me simply as a step in the right direction, if they took a big bite, it could turn out badly or take a long time, and each of us is definitely waiting for the autumn, spring and summer keynote, etc., so that would hurt even more.
On the other hand, if new options are released gradually, there is a greater chance that developers will use them more than if they released 10x as many, then some, but good ones, could fit in (view of smaller development teams).
The only thing that could happen is that the developers wanted more money for extra work (which seems unlikely to me). But if it only works in such a way that the developers will work at their desks, but do it anyway in the end, I don't see a problem with it, it would be difficult for Apple to change anything if they went to everyone begging if they could throw out this and that feature, because power interferes with the system.
And they should do the same with Flash in cooperation with someone, just bye. I believe that if it were just "Steve doesn't like it" and it would work on both iPhone and iPad, here mobile Flash is in full force and even more voracious.
Holt Those who want to drive have to take into account such situations, which you write about here. They have my full support. And I'm begging you (with all due respect) to put your hat on that big brother and 1984. I don't see at all how the increased security in the Mac App Store has anything to do with IBM's actions in the 80s.
In my opinion, it is more about the dynamics of who needs whom more. While Microsoft has to do what they can to the developers in order to promote Windows Mobile, Apple can afford (without my approval) a certain arrogance with iOS because thanks to the previous development it has reached the position of the most profitable mobile platform.
Regarding the Mac App store, the author forgot two reasons defending Apple. First, if the rules are changed, those who are disabled protest the loudest. The others adapt without a word (if you really only need to fix a few lines in Xcode). So if out of 1000 apps 980 pass and 20 don't, the developers of those XNUMX will scream louder than most. Let's wait and see what percentage of applications will actually drop because of this. Perhaps an alternative App Store will be created for them, as is the case with official apps and jailbreaks for iOS
Secondly, it should be mentioned that Apple does not only need apps, but also the entire OS X system. If it wants to maintain the reputation of OS X as a "virus free" environment, then let's just take it as a strategic decision about the security of the system, because of which even a few applications will die. In the early days of iOS, everyone was also talking about how Apple was limiting them and how many billions of dollars the App store had already brought developers. However, Microsoft sees the 30 percent for Apple and will try to push for something similar for Windows 8
Personally, I think that the other issues (demo version, discounts for existing clients) are much more important in the long term than sandboxing
Today, on the other hand, I would think twice about buying something outside the Mac App store. I am definitely not saying that they are perfect, not even by chance, I miss exactly what was mentioned, a demo version is needed, a paid update for developers (maybe something like that exists), discounts, etc.
But for me, the advantages clearly outweigh:
1) everything in one place
2) updates
3) ease of purchase, installation, uninstallation (even if it is still far from perfect)
4) not having to backup installation files, license numbers...
5) even sandboxing - it's not bad when some application is too "integrated" into the system and this can only cause instability, slowdown, etc. (I'm not saying that this applies to everything in general) - but I understand that in certain cases it bothers someone maybe, that's just my point of view
And if we're talking about the outflow of developers from the App store back to their websites, where would most iOS developers be today if it weren't for the App store? It's certainly not possible to compare it directly like this, but I think the future is bright for the App store, whether the developers like it or not. And I believe that in a couple of years it will be the only possibility to install the application (which does not mean that I fully approve of it). It's only necessary because iCloud will play a bigger and bigger role and Dropboxes and others will go into seclusion.
Is this article based on any numbers? What percentage of apps are affected by this? I have the impression that so far it is just a hoax without facts. And then, the question is whether, by chance, the development of an application that meets the sandboxing rules and is subsequently sold through the App Store is still more profitable than the developer's own distribution channel.
If Apple doesn't allow ……, you will soon run away from it.
For dots, fill in any of the following:
- Flash
– the freedom of the application in the device
– demo version
- refund within 24 hours
– licensing of own OS to other manufacturers
– alternative purchase of the application on iOS rather than the App Store
...
As a developer, I have to say that most of us will only appreciate the advantages of the App Store (icloud, note center, sandboxing, ease of communication,...). Yes, a couple of developers who create applications that interfere with the system in some way will lose $$$, but it is definitely not a representative sample. Most developers did it without bullshit.
Flash is the thing that annoys me, the average user. I see no reason why they should allow it on iOS. I've been working with iOS daily for a little over a year and I've never missed it.
OS licensing under very very strict conditions yes, but it's been working like that for quite some time and it's not exactly Apple's style.
"Most developers did it without bullshit"
This is exactly what interests me about sandboxing. As we know, for 80% of the money, everywhere, 20% of the crier can be made. The fact that someone from Instapaper doesn't approve of the sandbox is enough information for me. I am interested in how big a problem this is on a global scale, if it can already be said after such a short period of time. Apple only requires sandboxing from 1.6. 2012. Of course, a certain sort of application will never meet the Apple rule. If I install a program that does something through the system, I have to take the risk of lower security, and Apple doesn't want that in the Store.
The very first sentence - is Apple complaining or is Apple making things difficult for someone? After fixing the error, please delete my post ;)
And the iron curtain? I think it's not so far back in history that we can use it as a joke.
Is this an article for SEO? Otherwise, I don't really understand... Those who want, look for ways, those who don't want, look for reasons. And compared to the iron curtain? Way off.
It's definitely a problem when I look at which apps it affects - at least for me, it's at least three essential apps that greatly advance the user-friendliness of the daily work. I'm one of those people who will now think twice about buying an app through the App Store if it's available directly from the developer. The installation convenience from the App Store would definitely not replace the loss of the mentioned applications.
I'm sure it could have been arranged differently even while maintaining security. If Apple forces users to make purchases outside the App Store in this way, it will certainly not add to security in general.
It seems to me that you increase the security of the windows by walling them up... The security of the house against unauthorized entry will certainly improve, there is no doubt about that.
I don't normally comment on active articles, but this time I have to respond.
1, the part about sandboxing requiring a change in architecture... that's probably clear, that's the point! And that it will mean a lot of extra coding? I personally don't think so. However, it will be ideal mainly for new applications. But let's be honest - with existing applications, it is not a matter of time to do a "cut to the living" as the application has gotten out of control and is difficult to maintain... this is how we are forced to do it. I take it as increasing the sanity of coding and reducing the space for using certain potentially dangerous "design patterns"... Nothing is perfect, so even in the sandbox it is currently possible to create a Keylogger-type application... However, I personally think that Apple will expand the sandbox with additional proxies in the future – an analogy here can be, for example, the way in which development for iOS devices is carried out. BTW: Apple has already announced a strategy for the future, where the possibility of developing universal applications intended for iOS and MacOS is being considered. One bundle for all devices - that sounds lame ;-)2, if Apple wants to have control over how our applications access system resources, I rate it very positively. It's part of their closed business model - It's what makes Apple unique. It's like that on iOS and it'll be like that on Mac OS. 3, TextExpander as a case study of a "free application" does not stand here - utilities, like controls, are an extra chapter. In the case of the Appstore, Apple used the good old 20/80 rule. About 80% of applications do not require access to resources outside the sandbox. And the AppStore is designed for them... It's great to search for applications in one place instead of time-consuming Googling. In addition, there is a guarantee of SW quality - Apple has a fairly strict policy for publishing to the appstore, so the risk when downloading unknown applications is incomparably lower than it would be when downloading from an untrusted website. Personally, I prefer applications from the App Store, in addition to the already mentioned, because there is a central system for updating them. Finally! Next time I ask for a more balanced view of the issue and especially with a less provocative title...