http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/features.html#gatekeeper
One step closer to requiring all devs to register and/or only sell on the Store.
And not much else except “look at the iApps we ported to the desktop! wowee!”
Mirroring the desktop to a TV will be nice.
Maybe I’m an optimist, but the new options suggest to me that fears of being required to use the store were unfounded.
The name “gatekeeper” is a bit ominous but it indeed sounds like one has options. i wonder which will be the default option though? I suppose that novice users would choose “safest” but if they look outside the “Store” would know enough to turn it off.
What bothers me is the aura of fear that these constant reminders of malicious intent are instilling. I have always been curious - does anyone know what the actual numbers are on malicious software being downloaded on the Mac these days? How often does this really happen? By regular users - not teenagers using torrents. I know it has happened and the possibilities are there for sure. I have downloaded thousands of apps, often ones that tinker with the System at all levels, and never had a problem. Fingers crossed just to be sure!
I also wonder what they mean by Developer Id. Hopefully just that you have one and not that everything is sandboxed and packaged according to the “Store” guidelines.
I’m about to submit to the “Store” so maybe I’ll feel better if I am accepted.
Cheers, Rob
According to Daring Thunderball, the middle one. But you can override it for a particular app at any time.
That you have one, and have signed your apps with it.
Got the new beast up and running and in reality it doesn’t feel like such a big deal, the GateKeeper. Just a preference in System Prefs. It seems to ship with the number three choice “download anything” which may change for the final release.
I didn’t see anywhere to change that on a per/app basis but may have missed something.
I didn’t read between the lines for the ID, that it is code signed. Ok.
I haven’t even switched over to Lion yet, still running on partitions mainly for xcode, but for some reason ML is looking better to me. Haven’t found anything unusual yet about xcode 4.4.
Back to sandboxing my app.
Cheers, Rob
Despite being basically a pessimist, I am glad to note that I agree with you on this, i.e that we may still live a life outside the Store while still being welcome to the Mac! Code signing by a registered (free) developer seems to be a very reasonable requirement for being accepted by the middle security setting in GateKeeper.
I really don’t want to go to the Store with my app, since I don’t see the advantages for me, and would prefer to stay clear of sandboxing. I’m conservative, so I still happily run Snow Leopard and Xcode 3, despite I nowadays mostly do Objective-C rather than ASOC. (But relatively soon, I will hopefully have a new computer, and that one will run the new OS and Xcode 4.)
I was surprised that I got a direct mail from Apple that invited me to participate in this software seeding project – historically, I don’t think Apple let members of their free Developer program to participate, but this time, they obviously let in a larger group (unless my invitation is a result of someone making a referral specifically to me). Although I am not a paying member of Apple’s developer club, I have been a free member for much more than a decade and I have sent numerous bug reports on various topics to the bug reporter, mostly related to AppleScript though.
Greetings from snowy Sweden
From the Macworld article: “Gatekeeper is also really easy to override. If you right-click on an app in the Finder and then choose Open, you’re prompted with a different dialog box”one that also offers to open the offending app. If you choose Open, the app launches normally, and that’s it.”
That must have something to do with it because logging in with my free dev account tells me that I’m not authorized and must be part of the paid dev program. Oh well.
Oh! So maybe I should have kept quiet about the invitation?
It indicates that Apple’s philosophy on this matter may not have changed as much as I thought.
And it does seem to show that they value seriously written bug reports also from free dev accounts, and for that I think Apple should have credit. For some (few) of the bug reports, I have had feedback, which I think is encouraging. There are some other big companies with not-so-good-reputation in this matter (hint: one of them has a name that also starts with “A”, and sending bug reports to them is akin to sending matter into a black hole).
[And, yes, I did sign-up]
Unfortunately you are right.
I (unfortunately) wrote:
I have to take back the optimism in this statement, since the claim of “Code signing by a registered (free) developer” turned out to be unfounded.
I have asked around, and it seems that Apple has no intentions whatsoever to allow a free developer account to get a Developer ID certificate. That means that the default setting in Mountain Lion will prevent install of any software that does not come from the App Store or from a developer who has payed Apple a yearly fee (USD 99) for a Developer ID certificate!
I personally think that is VERY bad! Why do we in practice have to buy the certificate? And with a yearly subscription!? In contrast to what many developers think, the Developer ID only says that this software comes from a registered developer whose certificate is not (yet) revoked by Apple, so neither the developer, nor the software is endorsed in any way, but it is still a very powerful way to stop malicious software, since revoking a certificate will prevent all software signed with that key from being run. I think the Developer ID should receive a wider audience.
Yes,
I also have had an email as I am a free member.
Requiring developers to pay a yearly subscription of $99 stinks.
There are a lot of developers out there who provide their apps for free so why should they have to pay?
I know the standard reply, your users can authorise it.
But… The initial response when trying to run an app that does not have a developer ID is for the dialogue box to tell you that the software is unsafe and it offers to trash it for you.
That is pathetic.
So we are now in a situation where perfectly good free software is going to be branded unsafe all because Apple is charging $99/annum for a developer ID.
NOT everyone can afford this.
They should provide the ID for free.
But… I can here the calls now, All the bad people out there will apply for one.
So what, does Apple really believe that $99 will stop the baddies, it could stop those providing free software.
Aha, I wonder.
It’s another revenue stream for Apple. Force all the free software providers to sell their product via. the MAS and we can rake off 30%.
I wonder how many software writers there are out there at $99 per head per year = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This is just the start, within 5 years the only way to sell any product for a Mac will be through the MAS.
THE FUTURE IS LOOKING BLEAK.
All the best
Terry
I sort of agree with you, tellboy. I’m in the MAS and I have seen, over the last 6 months, that most of my sales come from there and my website traffic has decreased. I don’t do any advertising at all, so I can’t say for certain that I simply wouldn’t have lost sales outright. But the signs point one direction, at least for mass market apps.
Us long time Mac users usually bristled when non-Maccies said there was an “Apple tax”. This $99 dev fee is clearly the Apple tax, put upon us Devs, not even the end users! You could call it “cost of doing business”. You could also say that Apple is making 35+% profit on the iDevices AND taking 30% from MAS/iTMS store, AND taking $99 a year from Devs. When does it stop? Aren’t they doing well enough that they could provide Devs with free tools?! If the sale price of an app is $1 it takes 130 sales just to break even on Apple’s take. My sales are no where near that quantity (but higher price point).