New Mac OS X: Mountain Lion roars at unauthorised apps Apple released a developer preview of Mountain Lion today before the new operating system is let out of its cage in the summer. It's the ninth major iteration of the Mac OS X operating system, replacing Lion, and from Apple's roundup of its features, version 10.8 marks a much closer integration with iOS devices. Apple goes so …
It's optional. They've providing the ability for certain paranoid people to only get software from specific sources which are validated.
This isn't much different to the "official" package repositories for Linux.
If it ever becomes mandatory then you will have a point. But I would imagine that nobody would upgrade and it wouldn't be mandatory for long.
Unfortunately, while "slippery slope" is in theory a fallacy, in practice it all too often turns out to be true. Apple wouldn't just turn their Macs into toy games consoles like the iWotsits, but little bit by little bit?
I'll just say I'm watching to see what happens.
Slippery slope indeed. Even though you can turn it off it's a bluff that's designed to force developers who are serious about creating apps for OS X that aren't in the app store to sign up for it and give Apple 30% of their hard work. Then once they've managed to reel in a few more independent developers then we'll see the option to turn it off vanish.
>>Then once they've managed to reel in a few more independent developers then we'll see the option to turn it off vanish.
Hard to see that happening while anyone wants to develop corporate apps for Mac. Or do/will they provide a special way to do that as they already do for private iPad apps?
Or if you're that serious, get your code signed and dont add to the App store. Your customer wont notice anything different to what they do now.
What is it with all the conspiracy theories?
BTW: Can you please show me any retail outlet that lets a developer keep 70% of the purchase price?
And how many regular broswers do they get JDX. Anything like the traffic flow on the Mac App store?
How much do they have to pay to run a merchant account?
How much is Visa/Mastercard skimming from the top?
How much are they losing in chargebacks?
30% a bloody cheap price for what you get.
Gatekeeper was the name of a freeware (or shareware) antivirus application for the Mac back in the mid to late 1980s. It was a little difficult to setup because you had to authorize individual applications to create executable files (or else your downloads would not be executable) but it was capable of blocking viruses and trojans that were brand new.
"It's not just about virus protection. Apple's iOS and iTunes experiences have taught the tech titan that there's money to be made by "gatekeeping""
The default is certainly still free as developers can get a free certificate to sign their apps, so I don't see how this is an attempt at making money?
Not sure which level of developer they will require, but the link implies $99/year. This is still far below "App Store and Apple taking 30%", but not free.
It seems to me there are two key questions in all of this:
1. Which of the settings will be used for new Macs that ship with Mountain Lion? If it's "Store or Signed Developer" then for most people this probably makes sense to disable malware, and I would probably recommended this to those non-technical Mac owning friends/relatives who do not know what "compiler" means. But if the default is ever "App Store only" then there's a problem.
2. Whether, if someone runs with one of the restricted settings but then control-clicks (or whatever) to enable a specific app, is that app then authorized permanently without overrides each time? If so, this may not be much different from the "This app is downloaded from the internet; are you sure you want to run?" popup that you get now, although with a different UI. If an override is needed each time then that's a problem for those of us who do compile stuff.
PS: looks like the setting is per-user, so you can lock down some family members but not others.
It's entirely free, but don't bother looking at the existing plans because it's not out yet.
Quoting John Gruber of Daring Fireball, who was at the announcement: "developers can sign up for free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications."
As to the default setting, it's "Store or Signed Developer"
Once installed (eg via the right click->open) the app will remain authorised. Gatekeeper only checks files with the quarantine bit on, i.e. the ones just downloaded from the web.
"developers can sign up for free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications."
And wanna bet there will be developer "guidelines" one have to follow (restrictions set by Apple no doubt). If one do not follow those but do something Apple thinks to be politically INcorrect, how long do you think it'll take for apple to cancel certain ID? ;)
I hated the iPad appearance of iCal and Address Book in Lion and hoped against hope that they would see sense and remove (or at least make it optional) with the next iteration of OSX after Steve died but no, they are continuing with this 'convergence' rubbish.
I'll now be moving everything from iCloud to Yahoo or Google (god help me) and going back to Snow Leopard.
I DON'T WANT A BLOODY MAC / IPAD HYBRID APPLE - ARE YOU LISTENING?
Soon or later, Apple will stop updating the older os with new major versions of apps like safari. System updates (that includes drivers) will follow and one day, security updates will stop. 3rd party developers? They will get couple of mandatory xcode updates and somehow, supporting the older os will become extremely hard.
I am glad that I could stop myself from buying another apple product since they switched to Intel or I could be doing a very weird thing as using windows 7+ open bsd on apple branded hardware. Until, that requires jail breaking of course.
I have Lion on my desktop and Snow Leopard on the laptop. I haven't bothered to upgrade the laptop as other than a number of apps that stopped working I can't see much difference with Lion.
As for the gatekeeper option. On the upside it is a good way of stopping idiots from installing malware. On the downside is this the start of something more sinister?
I recall people saying it's the start of something more sinister for the Mac, well since the first App store appeared on the iPhone, 4 years ago. Then it was the start again when Apple introduced application signing in Leopard, followed by another start when the Mac App store appeared (by now the "sky was falling" already)
It seems it's still the start of the something sinister today.
If we're still at the start in another 4 years time I'm fine with it.
I've got mine the other way around as I like the idea of the laptop using the whole disk encryption. The gestures and hot corners etc. work ok. Don't want to update the main machine although I submit that I will need to when this new version comes out just for support reasons. The versions concept doesn't fill me with joy, neither does the locking part of it.
The integrated messages across devices will delight Macheads in the same way it's been a delight for Gmail/Android users for all this time.
The Share Sheets will make sharing on a Mac as easy as it is on Android (though maybe Apple will find a way to avoid duplicates sometimes appearing in the list).
Syncing contacts across gadgets has made life easier for Gmail/Android users for ages. I'm sure Macheads will appreciate the magical and revolutionary invention.
Etc.
I hope they've patented all this so they can ban everyone else from doing it. Go Apple!
This post has been deleted by its author
"The integrated messages across devices will delight Macheads in the same way it's been a delight for Gmail/Android users for all this time."
Well not in the same way, since I can now text any iPhone from my computer using it's phone number, don't need to know Google IDs.
Also the user doesn't need to be logged in. Messages appear just like other text messages. It's part of the system, not a separate app.
Maybe Google can use some of these ideas?
--ath
http://support.google.com/chat/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=106015
You can call phones from a Gmail window too. And you can send messages to people who are not online. But to be fair, you can't SMS to a gmail account (AFAIK, though it may be available in Google Voice) - you'll just have to hope they have their phone with them.
I thought I should point out that the functionality apple has belatedly introduced has been available in other services for a long time, because Apple users tend to think they are always first to get this stuff and everyone else just copies Apple's ideas. Then we get a load of idiot comments from people with no idea what's available outside their aluminium prisons. You've demonstrated the general iGnorance perfectly.
Craigness you're being incredibly childish and abusive in your comments, I suggest you take a deep breath. I'm haven't insulted you personally and I'm not going to.... yet.
As to your SMS link, it says "Click here for the list of supported countries " and guess what: THE UK ISN'T SUPPORTED. How useful is that to me then? Not at all! I don't need to send SMSs to Kazakhstan. However Apple's message is in fact useful to me. Capiche?
I also never said the messaging concept was new. Blackberry had this BBM service YEARS before Android - if anything Android and iOS copied them.
However my point is that none of these services is actually the same, and Apple's does have some interesting features which interest me as I explained in my previous comment.
Errm, you can already do this in GTalk...
Infact GTalk will always be superior, as I can use it to message pretty much anyone with an computer or mobile, regardless of what it runs. GTalk is available universally and platform agnostic, using open protocols.
Of course none of those words will mean anything to an Apple owner, as they are clearly too thick to understand the importance of open protocols. I'm guessing they will be content sat in their walled garden where they can chat with their locked in messaging app to 1% of the world who also feel the need to demonstrate in public that they have "made it" by carrying an Apple product on show.
"Errm, you can already do this in GTalk..."
So how can I send a message to someone e.g. in the UK +44790777777 for free via GTalk?
Don't bother answering, I know you cannot. You have to use e-mail addresses. Great!
There's also no centralised messaging, not even in Android 4.0: it's the message app, then another GTalk app...
And skip the idiotic insults, you're Barry Shitpeas. Everyone here knows how Google-obcessed you are - to the point of being pathetic.
--ath
Gmail and Apple both have integrated messages which allow you to see and continue conversations across devices. But the Mac one can only be used for people with expensive hardware whereas the Gmail one can be used by anyone with hardware. The Mac one can SMS in the same app but with Gmail that's a different app. The Mac one can't send email - that's a different app. The Mac one can't send facebook messages - that's a different app. The mac one can't send twitter messages - that's a different app. The mac one can't send messages to AOL users - that's a different app. The mac one can't send messages to MSN - that's a different app. etc.
What you've got is a message app which can only reach a very small portion of the planet and is less horizontally integrated than Gwibber, which is free and is available on laptops with no expensive aluminium. You've passed the point of being pathetic.
Incidentally, google's contatcs sync across devices (icloud is a bit like it) so if you have someone's phone number and google id then you have them everywhere. If you don't have their phone number you won't be sending them an SMS nomatter what app you're using.
Is it just me or have telco services just become the "priority" system? Email is everywhere but if you need to get someone's attention fast you have to text/call them.
At least apple is trying to do something innovative, even if you don't like it and/or its been done before. I'm pretty sure most telcos do text->email so that should be an instant sync between devices. MS are still basically sitting back on their corporate laurels. My concern with the sync thing is that its all moving to the cloud which ties me to a provider who knows everything about me. I'd rather have the data on my own host and sync when available.
OK people, lots of hysterics as usual but just read that apps matching the criteria below will not be checked at all by the Gatekeeper.
* Anything already on your system is grandfathered in.
* Files transferred or installed using fixed media like DVDs, USB drives, and other portable media.
* Files downloaded by applications that don’t set the quarantine bit.
* Scripts and other code that isn’t executable.
https://securosis.com/blog/os-x-10.8-gatekeeper-in-depth
So if your favourite file download client (e.g. BitTorrent) doesn't set the quarantine bit, Apple's gatekeeper doesn't get involved at all.
gcc doesn't exist on that UNIX terminal you talk about.
Also, with every major update to osx, forking methods popular in open source software which are running even on selinux of nsa are considered unsafe resulting horrible crashes if you dare to try gnome for example.
Enjoy defaults hacking with your ios terminal ;)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
