
Goodbye Mac App Store - mpweiher
http://www.stclairsoft.com/blog/2017/03/02/goodbye-mac-app-store/
======
ThomPete
I have said it before.

I pulled my app from the mac app store after 5-6 months and haven't looked
back since.

My sales were quite good but the sandboxing made it impossible to do any real
innovation on the OS X platform which my app is trying to do. Getting any help
from support was impossible and so I decided to sell from my own website
instead.

Whether pulling it was the reason why my sales have gone up I don't think
there is a way to validate but it had no negative effect on my sales quite the
contrary.

I was in the top 10 on the app store for a while and it had no effect on my
sale. Only getting featured means anything for your sales which makes me
conclude that the mac app store add no value what so ever to either user nor
developer.

Apple should shut it down and simply focus on featuring apps they think are
worth featuring instead of creating an app store which create a million apps
with no value to anyone not even the developers yet they still create a lot of
noise.

If not that they they should at least allow the user to decide whether they
want to give access for the specific app to things outside the sandbox.

~~~
danudey
Anecdotal evidence but…

I've been a Mac user since almost forever and an iOS user since also almost
forever. I never use either store for discovery, largely because I can't
imagine any way to do that and get good results. If I open the App Store on
iOS and see something neat, I'll check it out. If I open the App Store on
macOS, then either I'm going to my 'purchased apps' or 'updates', or I'm
following a link from someone's website.

Both stores are terrible places to find apps; I think it was John Gruber who
said that the Mac App Store is a warehouse, not a storefront, and I think
that's only become more true on macOS. People find good apps on the webs via
Google and then click through to the app store.

Getting featured is neat, but beyond that you have to do all the hustle
yourself, and if you're doing all the hustle I don't see the point in paying
Apple a 30% cut if you can avoid it.

~~~
Terretta
Agree about warehouse vs discovery and finding links elsewhere.

But contrary anecdata -- if I have a choice between a great app not in App
Store and a just ok app in store, I buy from the Mac app store.

The experience across multiple Macs and new Macs is too convenient to give up.

I'd imagine this is even more true with a multi-Mac family with family
purchasing enabled.

I will happily pay 2x for "don't make me think" features like one stop
updates, purchase history and new machine restores, etc. Time is money, in the
long run this convenience is cheaper.

OTOH, I buy a ludicrous number of apps so maybe my problems aren't typical.

~~~
kalleboo
I used to do the same, but then...

1) I moved countries, now half my apps are on a separate account I have to log
into separately randomly (sometimes updates need it, sometimes not...) and
logging in and out of Apple IDs always confuses their system mightily.

2) Several of the apps left the app store...

So now if I see an app in the app store I'll look for it on the web to buy
from the dev directly.

~~~
glandium
IIRC (from when I moved countries, but that was close to 4 years ago), you can
change the country associated with an Apple ID.

~~~
danieldk
When I moved countries (also 4 years ago), you could. However, you would lose
the list of all applications that you purchased (this also happens with
purchased music). However, when you repurchase them, you get the application
for free. Of course, it is a bit difficult to guess for each application if
you already had it and at the same version.

Even after re-purchasing an app that you already bought, it does not always
show up in your purchases list. E.g., I bought Pixelmator before I moved. It
won't show up in my purchases list. I have to purchase it again (for free)
every time I install a Mac.

The next time, I will just try to keep a local bank account and will not
migrate the account.

------
apeace
> For both applications, complying with Apple’s sandboxing and feature
> constraints to get them approved for sale would have required significant
> rewrites.

As a user, this makes me want to get apps from the app store rather than
downloading directly. It bothers me that apps can write arbitrary files. I'd
much rather they be sandboxed so that when I tell the OS to delete the app,
everything goes with it.

~~~
cortesoft
But what about apps that you are downloading that are SUPPOSED to do things to
files outside of the 'sandbox'? I can think of a million use cases that
require access to arbitrary files or system functions - a backup app, an app
that compresses infrequently used files, a network analyzer, etc. The blog
post talks about an app that needs access to things beyond the sandbox - the
jettison app requires the ability to eject disks. Sure, there are a lot of
apps that CAN work in a sandbox, but not all of them. There should be a way to
grant apps permissions beyond the sandbox.

~~~
theWatcher37
An iOS-like approach seems natural.

-download from App Store; app runs normally

-function in app hits boundary

\- OS: "app Example has request access to <files: all/this directory/this
folder> this time/always/not now/never"

Would solve this problem pretty quick right?

I don't want handbrake to have access to my photos, I'd love Native fine-tuned
permissions like this.

~~~
ams6110
Haven't we learned that users will click "yes" on any dialogs that get in the
way of what they want to do?

If you put an exit door on a sandbox and give the user the key, it isn't a
sandbox anymore.

~~~
baddox
Have we learned that? I don't have any data, but my impression is that
granular permission dialogs in iOS (and Android) are considered good things,
at least in the tech community.

~~~
geofft
iOS's permission dialogs are great, but they're not very granular; it's just
stuff like "Foo wants to use your camera", "Foo wants access to your
calendar", etc. It doesn't ask you about individual files, and the questions
are very clear.

But this sort of thing is universally considered a bad idea:
[https://i.imgur.com/H0uVqFe.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/H0uVqFe.jpg)

~~~
gurkendoktor
The image you've linked to doesn't really imply that iOS' dialogs are a bad
idea because, as you said, Apple's dialogs ask very clear questions. They
don't intimidate the user with tech voodoo.

[http://nshipster.s3.amazonaws.com/core-location-always-
autho...](http://nshipster.s3.amazonaws.com/core-location-always-
authorization.png)

Anecdotally, my tech-adverse friends choose Don't Allow when in doubt.

------
kartickv
It doesn't make sense for Apple to enforce sandboxing at the store level,
since it merely incents developers to distribute outside the store. And some
apps that remain in the store have a worse UX, like not having certain
capabilities, or requiring a helper app, which is a horrible solution.

Instead, permissions should be implemented at the OS layer, not just for Mac
app store apps. Here's how it would work:

\- An app could specify a list of permissions, like on Android.

\- One of the permissions would be "unrestricted", which is equivalent to
today's unsandboxed apps.

\- The first time you try to run an app that requires unrestricted permission,
macOS will tell you the app could be dangerous and ask for confirmation. This
is similar to how Gatekeeper warns about unsigned apps, but here the focus is
on what the app can do, not who made it.

\- If a legacy app didn't specify a list of permissions, it would be treated
as "unrestricted".

That way, there's no incentive for developers to leave the Mac app store.
Security is increased for all users, no matter where they download the apps
from. This mechanism doesn't restrict the power of the platform, what
developers can do.

~~~
johncolanduoni
UAC is basically that except only for when administrator permissions are
required, and apps still abuse it. Most users just click through things like
that without reading, and don't really have the knowledge to evaluate whether
it makes sense for an app to need such access in the first place.

I don't see how your idea would lead to anything else when it asks in even
more cases that UAC does. Most developers will just not specify a list or just
specify restricted, like they did on Windows when UAC came out.

~~~
kartickv
I haven't used UAC, so I can't comment about it, but permissions on iOS work
fine. I'm asked only once, usually the first time I use an app, or access
certain functionality in an app, not constantly.

~~~
johncolanduoni
Yes, but there's no broad "catch all" permission, and the permissions are
things every user will understand (e.g. access contacts). Additionally you
don't have the option to pretend your app is older than it is and bypass
permissions altogether. Your proposal is very different from the iOS model.

~~~
kartickv
Broadly, my proposal is the iOS model + a catch all permission. Apps that try
to bypass permissions are treated the same as apps that request unrestricted
permission.

You're right that the permission prompts need to be expressed in an
understandable way. For example, don't ask "Do you want to allow Skype to open
TCP port 800?", which sounds like gobbledygook to non-technical users. Instead
ask, "Do you want to allow Skype to expose your device on the Internet?" or
something along those lines. Or maybe skip this prompt, since if Skype is
sandboxed, the danger of opening a port is reduced. Basically, make an
intelligent tradeoff between security and usability.

You're right that it will be harder for users to understand than iOS, but it's
still better than the "anything can happen?" status quo.

------
eladx
I'm not familiar with Apple's guidelines for publishing apps to the Mac App
Store, but this post highlights an interesting point--

Traditionally, the burden of security was on consumers: which emails or files
to open, programs to run/install, actions to approve, etc. Efforts to enhance
the security of third-party software have been sporadic and limited, e.g.
SELinux policies, changes to ports to use OpenBSD's pledge (systrace before)
and FreeBSD's capsicum.

This is the first time I see a mainstream OS vendor forcing third-party
software authors to use advanced security mechanisms (like sandboxing) as a
prerequisite for software distribution through official channels.

I think it's great. I hope similar policies make it to Android and Windows.

~~~
ThomPete
It's not great because it basically hinders any real development and
innovation on the platform.

It's not felt as much on iOS because so much effort goes into building new
features, tools and improve hardware that it feels like you are innovating
even though you are sandboxed.

The OS X haven't had any real love for a long time so Sandboxing it is slowly
suffocating the entire ecosystem.

~~~
kartickv
As implemented, yes, sandbox is a hindrance. But it could be implemented
better:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13844014](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13844014)

~~~
ThomPete
I completely agree have also been my suggestions.

------
Khaine
As a user this frustrates me no end.

I want my apps to be sandboxed to protect my computer. I want my apps to all
be in a central repository that automates a bunch of painful processes
(buying, updating, etc).

But the Mac App Store is a dumpster fire at the moment. Its impossible to find
the thing you want, its hard for developers to comply. Its the worst possible
outcome of the store concept.

Apple really needs to lift its game.

~~~
emodendroket
If you think it looks rough check out the Windows app store.

------
twhb
The Mac App Store provides real benefits: reduced app permissions, effective
malware screening, improved auto-update, and easy uninstallation.

I do see that it's incompatible with many OS augmentation programs, but for
the App Store to reduce security would be pyrrhic. What we need is a user-
granted sandbox opt-out, so that I can unencumber only programs I believe need
it and won't abuse it, without taking the App Store's benefits from those
programs.

------
unit91
My app store is homebrew. It's extremely seldom that I don't find what I need
there.

------
bsaul
As an iOS developper, i feel really jealous. I see those mac developpers
running away from the jailhouse, dancing and chanting about their freedom,
while i miserably keep giving 30% of my revenues to a company that keep
looking at third party developpers as a burden.

------
cdransf
At this point Apple may as well just shutter the Mac App Store and bring back
the software update utility. The restrictions the place on apps in the store
are too onerous and are inconsistent with the nature of the platform.

------
endemic
A common theme I'm noticing in these comments is that the MAS provides value
by 1.) allowing easy reinstallation of all apps on a fresh system, and 2.)
mitigating malware risk. I'm very surprised by these opinions, to be honest.
Reinstallation of applications on a fresh OS is such an infrequent event that
it makes no sense to optimize for it. And malware? Really? Was it such a
problem before the MAS? I agree these things have value, but not enough to
give away so much power to Apple.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Many users don't seem to agree :)

I'd add a third one: buying is 1-click and shares no info with the seller. As
opposed to the usual "navigate this crappy checkout process and get spammed
forever" one.

------
addicted
I am increasingly against sandboxed platforms on the desktop. We have a
perfectly great sandboxed platform on every desktop already. It's called the
browser.

What our OS overlords need to do is create great App Stores which are intended
to promote the apps that explicitly cannnot do things within a sandbox, etc.,
and for the rest, increase hooks that are provided to web apps so they can act
as first class citizens as well.

------
oneplane
Just because you can't or won't use the sandboxing required by the AppStore,
that doesn't mean that you should just not go to the MAS and ignore
sandboxing... maybe you should _always_ sandbox?

------
frusciante29
If any developer thinks that in a few years, sandboxing won't be mandatory and
fundamental on macOS, I don't know what to tell you. So running away from it
now is prolonging the inevitable.

------
kilon
I am against any form of sand boxing and crippling my control of a system as a
developer. Which is one of many reason I hate web developing with a vengeance.
Even more than I hate Windows ( though win 10 seems to have potential ).

I am a big , not huge, but big fan of Apple but in this case of me
surrendering control.

Μολων λαβέ

------
zimbatm
There is a big opportunity for Homebrew Cask[1]. It's already a fully-fledged
app catalog. It's only missing a GUI for normal people to use it.

[1]: [https://caskroom.github.io/](https://caskroom.github.io/)

------
nthState
It would be interesting to do a study of what features developers require no-
sandbox for, then maybe Apple could address those specific areas.

Most of the apps I make use the sandbox with no problem.

------
searchfaster
The other day I tried PixelMator and loved it right away. Only thing holding
me back from buying it is the 'Mac App Store' :(

------
simplehuman
Ultimately, it comes to these apps not making money from the App Store and
it's not worth the hassle anymore

~~~
chvid
The company's products looks like a bunch of simple utilities; I would be
surprised if they any made any money at all from the App Store.

~~~
charlesdm
You'd be surprised with what you can actually make money on the App Store.
Yes, there's money in utilities.

------
__mp
Jettison looks like a nice app.

------
smpetrey
Apple should shut down the Mac App Store and open a Product Hunt style website
for all Mac Apps instead.

------
emersonrsantos
Please replace this title, it's misleading.

~~~
ThomPete
Thats the title of the post, so not misleading at all.

~~~
kylec
The title makes sense on that company's blog, but in the context of HN it
could appear to mean that the Mac App Store itself is going away.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Not with the domain indicated right next to it.

~~~
tiglionabbit
It's what I thought at first though.

------
stevefeinstein
>let’s just say that while the Mac App Store is convenient for consumers, it
doesn’t really serve the needs of some developers

Boo f __king hoo. If you didn 't want to sell to consumers then the choice of
selling your app in a less consumer convenient way would make sense. If you
just don't want to do a little extra work or are put off by Apple's consumer
focused restrictions, you can just go away if you ask me.

------
danm07
This post just goes to show how many people use the upvote button as a way
save articles without reading them first.

The flywheel of clickbait titles in action.

