Apple to restrict games/apps on next OS X update "Mountain Lion"

**Alundil** · 03-17-12, 11:07 AM

Next Apple OS update to block unregistered games | Game Development | News by Develop

Apple's next mac OS update will block games not downloaded from the App Store or made by registered developers.
The move is intended to unify the experience of Mac users, and bring more consistency and security to the platform.
OS X Mountain Lion includes a feature called Gatekeeper that prevents software not registered with Apple from running

I'm not sure that this is a good move on their part for customers.

**SapiensErus** · 03-17-12, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Alundil

Next Apple OS update to block unregistered games | Game Development | News by Develop

I'm not sure that this is a good move on their part for customers.

I think it is keeping with what Mac has been doing (a licensed and special machine to run their OS guarantees stability); it does not make it a good idea, but most people claim to use Mac for the ease of use. If all software is licensed then it is more likely tested and guaranteed to work right.

Meh, more of the same from apple.

**CivilWars** · 03-17-12, 11:24 AM

Not shocking, and I would bet based on the few Mac users I know there won't be a great uproar about it. Apple users are much less likely to be hard core nerds that want open source everything.

**SapiensErus** · 03-17-12, 11:30 AM

It might be an optional thing, like the way UAC works on windows.. woouldn't that be rewarding? If Macs are now popular enough to warrant malware and viruses so they have to ask if you want to proceed?

In the mac/PC argument one of the things I hear these days are: "the mac is better against viruses" in which case I need to tell them it's because not enough people use a mac to make writing viruses for them as fun as for the PC. Wait until they have more users and then you will see all the same problems. Maybe it is the dawn of my prediction!

**Alundil** · 03-17-12, 11:31 AM

Good points, both. And I agree. I've had to support mac users in the past, and co-work with mac users for years. Far fewer of them a computer geeks than on the windows side. More of the "it works and it's clean and cool" crowd.

Geekiness in order of saturation:
Unix -> Linux -> Windows -> Mac

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

**AetheLove** · 03-17-12, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

Good points, both. And I agree. I've had to support mac users in the past, and co-work with mac users for years. Far fewer of them a computer geeks than on the windows side. More of the "it works and it's clean and cool" crowd.

Geekiness in order of saturation:
Unix -> Linux -> Windows -> Mac

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

I've seen a non-trivial leakage from *nix to MacOS, which means there has been a growing segment of Mac users that are hard-core geeks. MacOS makes a full-blown unix available to you. You can run X, and X-ish things, if you like. You can live on the command line of a proper shell. You can manipulate iTunes with perl. Apple's unix has its quirks, but that's long been the tradition of *nix. If what you care about is hacking around in the OS, the Mac is a fine tool.

But I think the real value is that you mostly don't have to do those things:

Grown-up Computing

[It has long been a mystery to me that Windows continues to be so popular. I boot to Windows only to play games. These forums are full of people who - still - routinely re-install Windows on a regular basis, or "fix" their software problems by uninstalling and reinstalling bits of software, sometimes with admin privs. It is beyond my comprehension that anyone could accept this state of affairs as reasonable.]

I think the original link mischaracterizes what Gatekeeper is. The headline singles out games. It's not about games. It's about all applications.

As I understand it, the system allows developers to sign up for a free Apple Developer ID. They can use this ID to cryptographically sign their apps. If an app is found to be malware, Apple can revoke the certificate.

Users get to set their Macs to:

A) run only things from the App Store.

B) run only things signed with an ID (App Store plus registered Devs)

C) run anything they install.

This system in no way restricts users any more than the current system. It allows devs to opt in to Apple's security model. If a dev with an ID releases software, and someone re-bundles it with a trojan (Windows users know what I'm talking about here), that modified app will fail it's crypto check and the user will be told that the app they tried to install is NOT what they wanted. If the dev is the malicious party, then as soon as that's discovered Apple can revoke the certificate and anyone who has installed the malware will have it disabled on their machine (given that they're connected to the 'net).

If, as a user, you want to depend only on the standard security model of MacOS (which is pretty good) then you are free to do so. If you install malware, and give it elevated privileges, then you get what you get - which is no different than what you have now.

I won't say that problems might not crop up. If most users run in (B), then any devs who have a pathological mistrust of Apple and refuse to get an ID to sign their apps will be at a disadvantage. The system will tend to force devs into an authentication system (that Apple administers). While there are certainly opportunities for abuse, I'm not sure I think that's a bad thing.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**Alundil** · 03-17-12, 01:23 PM

I completely understand what you're saying Ae. As I mentioned, I used to support Mac users, and now work as colleagues with quite a few mac users.

From my experience (academic hospital/research hospital) there are less techie people using the mac than there are techie people using PCs (this goes for faculty as well as techs). Most of the faculty who are using macs are not, themselves, techs or devs and have no justifiable "work" purpose for the mac (and it's higher costs to the state). It just happens to be what they like. Laggy can attest to the same behavior as we work together at the same place and used to support the same people.

There are valid reasons for mac, imo, but that is not the most common reason for purchase among our client base. I do, also, realize that *nix like things are readily available through mac and the various shells. It just goes unused by most users and I think that applies to the entire mac user base not just ours.

As for the Apple "restriction" I think that it will act as a restriction in truth although it might not be itself uniformly restrictive. Think of it this way: If most users never deviate from "default" (and I think that this is overwhelmingly the case across Windows and Macs - it's an assumption true but 15 years into the tech career the norm is to not dabble) then most users will never know what lives outside of the "default" areas. So, those apps that aren't from the App Store never get noticed.

If I hide the outside world from you and you never know that there is this huge and interesting ecosystem outside of my borders, have I not restricted you, even if it is only by omission?

I am all for safer computing, the strategies to get there are as varied as the failed implementations have been.

**AetheLove** · 03-17-12, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

I completely understand what you're saying Ae. As I mentioned, I used to support Mac users, and now work as colleagues with quite a few mac users.

From my experience (academic hospital/research hospital) there are less techie people using the mac than there are techie people using PCs (this goes for faculty as well as techs). Most of the faculty who are using macs are not, themselves, techs or devs and have no justifiable "work" purpose for the mac (and it's higher costs to the state). It just happens to be what they like. Laggy can attest to the same behavior as we work together at the same place and used to support the same people.

There are valid reasons for mac, imo, but that is not the most common reason for purchase among our client base. I do, also, realize that *nix like things are readily available through mac and the various shells. It just goes unused by most users and I think that applies to the entire mac user base not just ours.

As for the Apple "restriction" I think that it will act as a restriction in truth although it might not be itself uniformly restrictive. Think of it this way: If most users never deviate from "default" (and I think that this is overwhelmingly the case across Windows and Macs - it's an assumption true but 15 years into the tech career the norm is to not dabble) then most users will never know what lives outside of the "default" areas. So, those apps that aren't from the App Store never get noticed.

If I hide the outside world from you and you never know that there is this huge and interesting ecosystem outside of my borders, have I not restricted you, even if it is only by omission?

I am all for safer computing, the strategies to get there are as varied as the failed implementations have been.

Agree on the "default" thing. That's what makes setting reasonable defaults so important.

Further, users are manipulated by devs adding options where none are needed and setting defaults that no user would choose.

Last I knew, the setting I listed as (B) was the default for Mountain Lion.

I also don't want to come off as an apologist for Apple. Some of what they do strikes me as overly paternalistic and controlling. The danger for Apple will always be that they slip into the same pattern of mediocrity and abuse that any rich, successful, company is tempted towards.

There was a time that I thought Apple's stuff was overpriced. I don't think that anymore. I don't think they're always the best choice for any particular situation, but the real cost of any hardware/software combo is calculated over time; not by the invoice that comes with the delivery.

I get the sense you feel the same way. If fact, it's been a long time since I had anything to do with supporting desktop users. I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**Alundil** · 03-17-12, 02:07 PM

I've been out of the direct user support side for about 4 years now, but nothing magical has happened that I am aware of that changed support from what I remember it being.

I think that there are far too many layers of rights needed when it comes to installing/operating/maintaining systems. In a perfect world (speaking only of cost, control and maintenance) Citrix, or some other thin-client technology would be ideal. No local workstations, of any flavor, to support. It's all centrally managed right down to the approved settings of everything (profile, applications, etc). Updates are extremely simple from a personnel and time perspective. It's backend expensive in terms of server horsepower to make it all work on a large scale and bandwidth intensive depending on the application and UI "depth", in the long run, I think that the ROI on that is better than 1000s of systems in some kind of fleet leasing agreement typical of most large enterprise environments.

But then doing that cuts many someones jobs, potentially entire departments, and that gets politically "sticky" in many companies. Additionally, the high upfront of the server hardware and network infrastructure to support that robustly is enough to give the bean counters apoplexy in the quarter by quarter, or FY over FY, view that they typically view these expenditures. Instead, they will rationalize that a slower and lower workstation fleet is more cost effective in the short term (and if the short term were all they looked at they'd be right).

\o/

**Warprosper** · 03-18-12, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Alundil

I've been out of the direct user support side for about 4 years now, but nothing magical has happened that I am aware of that changed support from what I remember it being.

I think that there are far too many layers of rights needed when it comes to installing/operating/maintaining systems. In a perfect world (speaking only of cost, control and maintenance) Citrix, or some other thin-client technology would be ideal. No local workstations, of any flavor, to support. It's all centrally managed right down to the approved settings of everything (profile, applications, etc). Updates are extremely simple from a personnel and time perspective. It's backend expensive in terms of server horsepower to make it all work on a large scale and bandwidth intensive depending on the application and UI "depth", in the long run, I think that the ROI on that is better than 1000s of systems in some kind of fleet leasing agreement typical of most large enterprise environments.

But then doing that cuts many someones jobs, potentially entire departments, and that gets politically "sticky" in many companies. Additionally, the high upfront of the server hardware and network infrastructure to support that robustly is enough to give the bean counters apoplexy in the quarter by quarter, or FY over FY, view that they typically view these expenditures. Instead, they will rationalize that a slower and lower workstation fleet is more cost effective in the short term (and if the short term were all they looked at they'd be right).

\o/

Al,

I think there is a magic number in there somewhere in which the ROI does become greater and over the years I have estimated that number to be 1000+. We have tried remote solutions like citrix and the like over the years and it has for the most part saved us money, however we lost a ton of functionality on the client side.

As far as the Macs go, its more of a personality thing than it is a user experience thing. I think it would be fair to say that 99% of Mac users have no idea that it's built off of a variance of *nix.. Frankly they dont care... It's shiny the bar on the bottom that moves all stylish, it's overall appearance is appealing,and the misconception that "It just works". Those are the concerns of 99% of Mac users.

Taking Mac into the Enterprise leads to higher budget requests, lower functionality within departments and central management issues. I do believe that Mac has a home in the market and it's target is clear.. it's just not for the enterprise..