Apple’s new app restrictions could cost developers and hamper
the Mac App Store
When you hear the term 'sandbox' in relation to something
digital, two things typically spring to mind: freedom and the lack thereof.
Freedom regarding sandboxing is usually a term that aligns with open-form
gaming, whereas a lack of freedom is to do with the compartmentalization of
data and features. At the time of writing, Apple has ventured down the latter
path with the Mac App Store, and it could have huge ramifications for the OSX
platform.
with and without a
Sandbox
Sandboxing restricts Mac App Store apps to Apple supplied
entitlements regarding system features and resources. It isn't something
Apple's suddenly foisted upon developers, having twice extended the deadline,
but as of 1st June, Apple appears to think it's provided enough lead-time for
developers to deal with its new rules. From Apple's perspective, sandboxing is
a logical and progressive step, aping the kind of security evident on iOS,
which has so far proven far more robust than Android. However, OS X developers
now find themselves in a situation where apps submitted to the Mac App Store
have to comply with comparatively rigid restrictions.
For example, window managers that rely on Accessibility APIs
are now stuffed, as are utilities that simulate key presses (i.e. any textexpansion tools). And even venerable veterans of the Mac
platform wonder what the future holds: Rich Siegel of Bare Bones Software
recently told Macworld that even BBEdit might soon have to start stripping
features, including multi-file search and replace, multi-application
automation, and disk browsers. I also had a very straight response from one
developer about the future of its app—a
favorite I use daily: “Unless
Apple changes the sandboxing rules (unlikely but theoretically possible),
[redacted] will never again gain new features."
The solution for such developers is to pull the Mac App
Store product and sell direct, but that means no longer getting the exposure
they once enjoyed, or the hosting and payment facilities Apple provided. And
for those who can still get updates on to the Mac App Store, there's the hardly
wonderful option of creating a stripped-back alternative to the direct-sales
version of an app. For power users, this marks a major turning point for the
Mac App Store, in that trust has gone. What is the point in buying something on
the store, if Apple will possibly on a whim decide the app includes features it
shouldn't have? And in a more general sense, the Mac has always had a
reputation for being a bit of a toy compared to 'proper' computers available elsewhere;
sandboxing could exacerbate this opinion.
Some argue iOS showcases how a very locked-down platform can
punch above its weight and smash expectations, but that comparison isn't
relevant. iOS is a maturing platform, coming from a place just a few years ago
where third-party applications didn't even exist. That we now have fantastic
iOS apps like Garage Band and Omni Focus says more about the dedication and
skills of developers than the platform itself. By contrast, the Mac is already
a mature platform, but is now being hamstrung by Apple itself.
Sandboxing will
reduce the number of utilities on the Mac App Store and also the feature-set of
remaining apps
The real long-term question is whether any of this actually
matters. On Twitter, software developer Krishna Kotecha (@kenshi) suggested to
me that Apple's moves with sandboxing were a painful transition to a more
secure platform, adding, “Talk
to mainframe guys about PC operating systems and they'll consider them all toys
anyway - maybe we'll consider the computers that the next generations use as
toys compared to our idea of what a desktop PC is." Time will tell if
volume sales from less advanced apps will be enough, or whether Apple has gone
too far this time in alienating advanced users and developers alike. The
company certainly doesn't want anyone playing in its sandbox - experimentation
time for the platform is over, and you must abide by Apple's strict rules or
leave.
