The new OS X Gatekeeper requires desktop apps to be registered with Apple, with users warned against installing unsigned software unless they disable the prompts.
The benefits—and the potential pitfalls—are obvious. It's intended as as an anti-malware system (with a whitelist rather than a blacklist), and the registration process will be simple and inexpensive. It'll destroy the nascent market for sleazy Windows-style antivirus subscriptions.
On the other hand, it's under the OS vendor's control, and once established, offers it certain temptations. Will Apple be tempted to use it to anti-competitively influence the desktop software market? Will OS X end up as closed to unapproved developers as iOS? Will the controls end up co-opted by governments?
Jason Snell wrote a detailed explanation of Gatekeeper and the issues, pointing out how easy it will be to override.
Dustin Curtis, however, cites the following warning message (from an early dev build of OS X Mountain Lion) as evidence that Apple's up to no good.
This is a fear mongering dialog. The vast majority of apps people download will not damage their computer, and mere mortals have no idea what "signed by a recognized distributor" means. The word "signed" in relation to security certificates is a very technical term and no one ever calls developers "distributors." Also, saying "You should move it to the Trash" is weirdly strong wording.
Maybe it could say: "The app Adium hasn't been checked by Apple. It can't be trusted. Use the App Store to find trusted apps."
This looks like an immediate early red flag of Apple's intentions. If it was indeed up to no good, this would be diabolical. But it struck me that this sort of messaging is consistent with Apple's claim that Gatekeeper's purpose is only to stop harmful code. It's an appropriate warning given the presumption of malware.
If the message had been as Curtis suggests, however, it would prove that Apple was already thinking about Gatekeeper as an iOS App Store-style imprimatur, rather than as a safety warning. Implicitly addressing these criticisms would be a sign of the devil at such an early stage of development.
So, the thing that unnerves me is not the prospect of Gatekeeper as a crude tool to herd OS X developers into a walled garden and crush freedom. It's the fact that code-controlling technologies tend to have unintended consequences that harm, rather than guarantee, the quality of user experiences.
Macs don't currently suffer much from malware. DRM doesn't work. So what's the point of a DRM-esque system for malware prevention?
The prospect of Apple becoming a desktop control freak and going full Sony on its own community to stop them using it the way they're used to? Fun, but let's wait until it happens. If you want to be cynical, think of Gatekeeper as a marketing move designed to deal with analyst-fed malware hysterics in the tech press. For everyday users, Gatekeeper's more likely to echo the good old days of "Cancel or Allow" than to save them from themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment