This is why I hate the MAS
 

I read this article in Macworld today: Why developers, customers should be wary of the Mac App Store and found myself agreeing wholeheartedly. As just one example, I have never purchased 1Password's MAS version because it loses some features; I've stuck to the last version they sell themselves (and upgrade frequently via Sparkle). I use the App store for my iPad, obviously, because you can't get iPad apps any other way, but if a developer offers a MAC version on their own site I always get it that way.

Same here. But here's my question that no one seems to be addressing: If there's going to be a Mac App Store as part of the platform—and any computer platform today needs to prioritize security—what is a viable, alternative approach?

In my case, at least for now, I'm sticking to Lion. Having said that, the "viable, alternative approach" I use, as I said, is to upgrade many of my apps via Sparkle, or by going directly to the developer's site. I don't even know if some of these are available in the MAS, I have never looked. Graphic Converter, MarsEdit, 1Password (agile bits.com), Script Debugger, all BareBones software, Soulver, HoudahSpot, MailPlane, NetNewsWire, ClamXav, Audacity, DropCopy, ShareTool, Speed Download, Black Ink, Keyboard Maestro, Typinator, VLC, TypeStyler, and a bunch of other apps I use daily are all available from their developer's websites, in most cases because they can't squeeze them into MAS requirements without losing functionality. Agilebits gave themselves some grief by offering a version upgrade that was only available in the MAS, and then discovered that a large fraction of their users wouldn't upgrade so they have to continue to support the older version and they have upgraded it several times while the MAS version is static.

I wasn't clear. I meant my question in this manner: Apple hires (the royal) you as a consultant to help them design a Mac App Store. In an age of connectivity where security is a primary concern, what do you recommend?

Better entitlements. And an interface that exposes this to the user. Heck, apps could register two sets of entitlements. The first set is approved by Apple and available by default. The second isn't recommended by Apple, but can be enabled on a case by case basis by the user.

Sure, Apple doesn't want TextWrangler being able to authenticate and edit system files. I do want this and understand the implications of this capability. Let me specifically allow TW to request this authentication.

I don't think we'll get there, it's specifically straying away from Apple's ease of use goal, but I do think we'll see a bit of relaxing on entitlements that are and will be available.

Then again, we may not. Apple may go whole hog on sandboxing and restricting apps and solve some of the current problems with better app communication and file sharing.

Ahh; I'll think about that on the road this afternoon. If I have a bright thought :eek:, I'll report back.

Isn't this basically what is in Mountain Lion, just without Mac App Store purchasing? Is there really much gain for the broad user base and for platform security if applications like this have the capability to edit system files? The only gain that comes to mind for me is the potential economic benefits it may offer developers of such applications. I say that as someone who can't imagine using a Mac without Keyboard Maestro (or something similar). On the other hand—just to pick two examples—Bare Bones and Rogue Amoeba seemed to be doing okay before the MAS and there's been nothing public to suggest economic problems have emerged for them since the store was introduced a year and a half ago. Also, there appear to be more successful software developers than ever. Is the MAS part of the reason?

From Apple's perspective, there's got to be some Pareto Principle in effect here. How much risk to security should there be for the clear minority of users who might use TextWrangler like you described? If you followed the links from the Macworld article, Marco Arment argued for quite a bit of leniency toward these types of power-user applications, largely on the basis of how the advanced users are often influencers. I wasn't convinced by his examples.

He cited power users getting average users to use Google search instead of Yahoo, Gmail instead of AOL, and Firefox instead of alternatives. Notice all of those are a service or application type that everyone uses (web, email, and search). Relatedly, he discussed the App Store being incomplete. For this he cited Office, a bit of software that everyone has used and knows. And he cited Adobe. I assume he didn't mean Creative Suite, just things like Flash and Reader. But those are two pieces of software which are essentially handed to users since web pages direct you to a download page if you don't have them installed.

But maybe Marco is correct. His examples didn't convince me, and I haven't been able to think of better supporting ones. Neither mean he is definitely off the mark.

Broadly speaking, folks like us, the advanced users who may help the average ones, aren't pointing many people to applications like TextWrangler, Keyboard Maestro or Audio Hijack Pro. I've used all three for years, and I can count on one hand the people I know for whom I've recommended they add those (or similar) applications to part of their regular use of computers.

(Just so there's no confusion, I'm not arguing for anything here. I'm just poking at the issue.)

I don't really understand the way that sandboxing is capable of allowing actions. I thought an app could "request" certain privileges or abilities. Surely, those abilities should include anything that an app might want to do?

The support staff at the University was complaining about MAS in a similar way - how he can't get the new OS on a disc anymore. I pointed out that he and I won't have any problems putting the ML installer on a thumb drive, and the average user doesn't care.

I think they've got a good balance. 90% can live in the gated community, the rest are not seriously inconvenienced: change one setting and then download stuff as we have done for 15 years.

As an unreasonable user (TM) what I want is TextWrangler, updated through the MAS, and able to edit system files and including their command line tools. I know I can get this by downloading TextWrangler directly from BareBones (does TextWrangler this way have an included updater?), but it sure is nice to have updates and installers managed and tracked in one place.

Apple doesn't have entitlements for everything an app might want to do and those apps are aren't in the MAS. Apple has created new entitlements at the request of some developers, but there are still areas that are lacking.

My version of TextWrangler self-updates via Sparkle. Works fine. And I find out about updates quickly rather than waiting for a Software Update reminder to run.

Good to know. TextWrangler is the only app I use that dropped features that I care about in order to go to the MAS. I'll probably switch back. I do wish there was a way to specify the prefix that you want the command line tools to go in though (they use /usr/local, but I'd prefer /usr/local/stow/text-wrangler), maybe a feature request is in order.

Speaking of updates: one thing that really annoys me is that practically every time I launch an app, I'm flagged about some new update which I should download and install now, rather than get on with doing what I wanted to do.
NeoOffice is quite bad. Flash seems constant. And then I can usually rely on one app a day to want changing.

Rapid response to security and timely bug fixes are good things, obviously, but ..... !!!!

So I like the idea of transparent updates, though of course new updates have been known to break things.

That's progress for you.

Stay away from internet. Do not connect. And use dedicated computer with all gates open and without any sensitive data for net. Then clean install frequently. I find this approach MUCH less trouble then dealing with myriad of obstacles introduced by security settings.

I like Little Snitch.

I think MAS should NOT hamper existing power-user apps --for those of us who do need or want those features.

I'll submit, that maybe those app might need a more rigorous review process by Apple --and, adequate warnings in the app that "Using Feature X could cause severe damage to your disks data..."

We are seeing a repeat of a very old pattern here. Some Apple II power users were disappointed because Apple stopped putting schematic diagrams in the reference manuals of their newer computers.

Given a choice between existing power users and brand new users, Apple will favor the new users every time.

The counter arguments are that Apple could satisfy the power users by burying the options they want in obscure menus, putting warning screens before they are enabled, etc. If you haven't supported new users you would be amazed at the state they can get a computer into. Apple just doesn't want to give them a chance to mess things up.

You've seen the posts on this forum from advanced Windows users who are frustrated by what they see as a lack of options or choices on the Mac. The advice to them fits here - you just have to let go of stuff, get used to spending less time thinking about the computer. It may take a little longer to do certain things, but that's the tradeoff for lower mental overhead generally.

The view of some that it is perfectly reasonable to hobble the 10% for the benefit of the 90% is disturbing.

Unfortunately, the public school system in the U.S. operates on the same basic general principle.

I'm one of the 10%, and I don't find the MAS hobbling in the slightest. The other side of that comment is building your system for the 10% and hopefully the 90% will read the manual.

(wait - there is a system that does exactly that: it's called "Linux")

Bruce: Ah, schematics. And source code. Back in the days when most computer users could both find pin 1 on a DIP and use a soldering iron.

I'd say those who are "hobbled" are more like one percent than ten. Which leads us from education into economics in the US...

I worked in the administrative department of a large public school system. The only principle I saw at work among the administrators was the law of tooth and fang. Oh, and the Jerry Maguire principle: "Show me the money!"

What about the rule of all bureaucracies that I saw frequently as a university dean: "Protect Thine Ass".

Farmers have a similar slogan.

ASIDE: I actually know a shepherd who keeps an ass with his flock to keep coyotes at bay.

A case of his ass saving his flock, rather than his flock saving his ass.

One donkey is aggressive enough to deter a coyote that likes mutton? Or is it there as a sacrificial lamb?

Well, if that's the general idea, he would be sacrificing his ass to save his lamb.

Usually one is more interested in saving one's ass - although some just want to cover it.

"Donkeys are generally docile to people, but they seem to have an inherent dislike of dogs and other canids, including coyotes and foxes. The typical response of a donkey to an intruding canid may include braying, bared teeth, a running attack, kicking, and biting. Most likely it is acting out of aggression toward the intruder rather than to protect the sheep."


All donkeys free to download, for a limited period only, on the Mac Ass Store... ;)