Comments on: The Sandbox’s Big Red Button http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/2438/the-sandboxs-big-red-button Mac & Technology Writings by Daniel Jalkut Sun, 16 Mar 2014 19:39:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.1 By: Jesper http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/2438/the-sandboxs-big-red-button/comment-page-1#comment-271494 Sat, 12 May 2012 22:07:34 +0000 http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/?p=2438#comment-271494 Daniel: That’s just one possible outcome. It depends on how and why they use this. Either they use it while they build a matching entitlement or they use it to give you a reprieve.

Getting a script runner would indeed be a good way of solving the problem, but solving the problem isn’t the only outcome, and I think that bears repeating. Everything related to the process of determining what to additionally permit and officially sanction in the future is at least as interesting and relevant as the app review process from which it has to be separate (although complementary).

Insofar the existence of a red button means that they are more willing to accommodate developer wishes, it’s a good sign. But if it’s the extent to which they are willing to do that, it’s not.

]]>
By: Daniel Jalkut http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/2438/the-sandboxs-big-red-button/comment-page-1#comment-271493 Sat, 12 May 2012 21:33:50 +0000 http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/?p=2438#comment-271493 Jesper – the idea with the temporary exceptions is that eventually the legitimate activities will have sanctioned, non-temporary entitlements that adequately cover the behavior. I agree with you that it’s a tall order for an app like FastScripts, because not only does it AppleEvent arbitrary apps, but it gets into the nitty gritty of how AppleScript handles the AppleEvents. But for example, they could provide a sanctioned “script runner” app that takes the permissions level up a notch so that a temporary entitlement for many apps becomes a sanctioned “script runner” entitlement.

]]>
By: Dad http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/2438/the-sandboxs-big-red-button/comment-page-1#comment-271491 Sat, 12 May 2012 21:18:30 +0000 http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/?p=2438#comment-271491 But they still haven’t provided a way to have the “digital hub” actually work for non-apple apps – i.e., let the user use their iPhoto Library or iTunes Library in non-apple apps. And filing a bug about this hasn’t gotten any “big red button” magic scripts or even a suggestion that this will be provided. Still SOL if you want to let the user access the photos the have in iPhoto from any other application (like apple does with iMovie, Pages, etc), for example. This will sort of work if you assume the images/music files are copied to the library and assume the library is located in Pictures, but those are both false assumptions in *many* real-world user scenarios.

Product is still killed due to sandboxing. :-(

]]>
By: Jesper http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/2438/the-sandboxs-big-red-button/comment-page-1#comment-271490 Sat, 12 May 2012 21:17:48 +0000 http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/?p=2438#comment-271490 Poking a hole as an out is one thing, but that thing is also explicitly labelled a “temporary exception”. What about apps, like your own FastScripts, that work in a way that’s fundamentally incompatible (Apple events to other, pre-unknown, apps) and that won’t change any time soon?

What if you have to continually explain your predicament with every submitted update? What if they’ll cut you off after a while? What if they introduce some new replacement technology and you will be unable to retrofit FastScripts to work with it, or will force you to leave the older technology behind?

Maybe having the exception there is admirable as it is the end result of careful planning, expecting that things can go wrong and wanting the world to go on despite that. But there are more obstacles remaining than just getting it approved.

]]>
By: Daniel Jalkut http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/2438/the-sandboxs-big-red-button/comment-page-1#comment-271489 Sat, 12 May 2012 21:17:15 +0000 http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/?p=2438#comment-271489 Guan Yang – no, the apps are the two that ARE sandboxed by Apple.

]]>
By: Jon H http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/2438/the-sandboxs-big-red-button/comment-page-1#comment-271488 Sat, 12 May 2012 21:01:09 +0000 http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/?p=2438#comment-271488 I thought at some point they said you’d be able to request additional access, as long as it was well-justified. This seems like it is how they intend to support that.

]]>
By: John Brayton http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/2438/the-sandboxs-big-red-button/comment-page-1#comment-271487 Sat, 12 May 2012 20:59:45 +0000 http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/?p=2438#comment-271487 This could provide an interesting way to “sandbox” non-MAS builds but still allow them to use Sparkle. Both the MAS and non-MAS editions of an app would (I assume) keep their preference files and Application Support directories in the sandbox container.

]]>
By: Guan Yang http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/2438/the-sandboxs-big-red-button/comment-page-1#comment-271486 Sat, 12 May 2012 20:55:39 +0000 http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/?p=2438#comment-271486 “the two notably sandboxed apps from Apple remain Preview and TextEdit, two apps that would be relatively simple to sandbox”

Do you mean *non*-sandboxed apps in this sentence?

]]>