Is Apple's Mac App store a game changer?

The Mac App Store is coming in roughly 90 days. Steve is excited, and so are quite a few other people. According to two articles with brief developer interviews on Cult of Mac Most developers are looking forward to it. (1, 2) They also aren't sure exactly how it's going to work into their business strategies, yet, but they're excited about figuring it out.

What does an App store on Mac mean to the rest of us, though? It's hard to say right now, but the idea of high quality software for $0 and up is enticing. The software in the iPhone/iPad app store is generally of high quality. Apple's App review policy ensures that it stays that way.

Will the App store put an end to traditional software distribution? I doubt it. Not in the near future anyway. Apple wants 30% of the apps sale price, which won't fly with companies like Adobe or Microsoft. Not to mention that internet speeds are still slow enough in many places that downloading the installer for something like the Adobe Creative Suite - especially the Master Collection - would take too long for most people. But Adobe and Microsoft may find themselves left in the cold if they continue to push bloated programs that no one can truly master because no one uses most of the 'features' they have. Why spend $150 for a program that does more than you'll ever need if you can spend $20 and get a compatible program that will do everything you do need?

Another good thing for consumers is that Apple's approval process, while flawed, does create a minimum quality that developers won't be allowed to fall below. It will put a dent in shareware on the Mac, if not kill it. Why hunt for shareware of questionable quality when you can go to the app store and download an app you know will at least do what it says, and probably cheaper than a shareware program.

What about competitors? Will Microsoft create an App store for desktop Windows? For all versions? What about Google and the Chrome OS? If they do, will either have an approval process similar to Apple's? I can already answer that last question. They won't. Google's Android has an app store, but there is no review process that I'm aware of. Microsoft won't because it's not in the companies DNA. Steve Jobs has always been a micromanager, at least of projects he's really interested in. He has always wanted to control as much about the Mac's user experience as he can. The App store is one more step to total control.

If successful the Mac App store will have a profound change on software delivery on the Mac, and quickly. It's already having an effect. The effect it will have on other OS's is harder to predict, but unless it totally flops, it will have an effect. If it is as popular as the iPhone app store, Microsoft will have an App store for Windows by Summer 2011 at the very latest. They're probably already working on one. So the Mac App store has kept a few Microsoft software engineers employed for a few more months even if it flops.

(1) http://www.cultofmac.com/mac-app-store-what-do-developers-think/64859

(2) http://www.cultofmac.com/mac-app-store-more-developer-reaction/65036.

Surviellance law needs updating

Scott M. Fulton, III, managing editor of betanews.com, wrote an in-depth article on technewsworld.com about the need to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), an ancient (in technology terms) law that sought to update the code covering telephone communications so that it also covered computer communications. But it was written in 1986, almost a quarter of a century ago. Computer communications now are radically different than they were then. In 1986 most computer communications were between universities, government agencies and government contractors. Today the communication between those three segments is a fraction of the communications between private companies and citizens.

The Digital Due Process (DDP) group, led by the Center for Democracy and Technology, has defined some principles for Congress to take into consideration when they look at updating the ECPA. The goal is to get internet communications the same protection given to wiretapped telecommunications. This isn't the first time that the DDP has tried to influence policy, but this time they've enlisted two of the more visible company in recent privacy discussion, Microsoft and Google. Their involvement should put some weight behind the DDP's suggested principles.

Internet communications are in dire need of legislative protection. Despite recent court rulings, just how protected online communications such as email are is uncertain. And with more of individuals critical data being stored online or in third party cloud services, the current laws and precedents make the Fourth Amendment moot. By use of the Third Party Doctrine law enforcement can deny Fourth Amendment protections to anything you store online. That includes email, financial data (if you access your bank account online...) and even your dropbox account.

Check out Mr. Fulton's article to learn a lot more about this issue. I've only touched the surface of what he covers. Before I finish, I want to include one quote to emphasize how important it is that current laws be updated, and the standard of how much privacy protection is afforded online data be updated:

"The Supreme Court has said that you can issue a subpoena -- not because you believe the law is being violated, but merely to assure yourself that the law is not being violated." Jim Dempsey, CDT Vice President for Public Policy

I don't know about you, but to me that sounds a lot like assuming guilt without evidence. Kind of flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't it?

OS X: Safer but less secure than Windows

Darren Murph at Endgadget reports that Charlie Miller is going to expose 20 zero day exploits for OS X at the upcoming CanSecWest. Mr. Miller has been exposing holes in OS X for years, and has twice won the PWN 2 OWN hacker contest by taking control of Apple computers. A third time he took control of an iPhone.

A zero day exploit is a piece of malware that takes advantage of a vulnerability that is not generally known, so there are no patches, updates, or workarounds to keep it from being used. Unless the person who discovers the zero day exploit informs the creators of the software being exploited the vulnerability probably won't patched until after someone writes some type of malware that takes advantage of the exploit.

If you, like me, are a big fan of Apple Macs, you know that Apple likes to tout the security of OS X and the Mac. If you are an honest Mac user you realize that OS X has vulnerabilities. Some have even been exploited, if not very successfully.

Charlie Miller is very good at what he does - find security holes so they can be patched before the bad guys can take advantage of them. His years of work in computer security have given him a good perspective on the state of Mac security vs Windows security, and that insight produced one of my favorite quotes on the subject:

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town."

In other words, Macs are safer, because there aren't that many people trying to break into them. Windows computers are more secure because the security holes are constantly being patched. As much as I wish it weren't so, the analogy works.

OS X: Safer but less secure than Windows for now

Darren Murph at Endgadget reports that Charlie Miller is going to expose 20 zero day exploits for OS X at the upcoming CanSecWest. Mr. Miller has been exposing holes in OS X for years, and has twice won the PWN 2 OWN hacker contest by taking control of Apple computers. A third time he took control of an iPhone.

A zero day exploit is a piece of malware that takes advantage of a vulnerability that is not generally known, so there are no patches, updates, or workarounds to keep it from being used. Unless the person who discovers the zero day exploit informs the creators of the software being exploited the vulnerability probably won’t patched until after someone writes some type of malware that takes advantage of the exploit.

If you, like me, are a big fan of Apple Macs, you know that Apple likes to tout the security of OS X and the Mac. If you are an honest Mac user you realize that OS X has vulnerabilities. Some have even been exploited, if not very successfully.

Charlie Miller is very good at what he does – find security holes so they can be patched before the bad guys can take advantage of them. His years of work in computer security have given him a good perspective on the state of Mac security vs Windows security, and that insight produced one of my favorite quotes on the subject:

“Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town.”

In other words, Macs are safer, because there aren’t that many people trying to break into them. Windows computers are more secure because the security holes are constantly being patched. As much as I wish it weren’t so, the analogy works. Hopefully Apple is working to change that.

Ford: First Online Road Devices

Or maybe First Online Road Death? That last is a little unlikely, but in the realm of possibility. Ford is bringing a new meaning to "mobile device," and adding to the list of web-enabled devices. With Microsoft, Ford developed Sync and started putting it in some Ford vehicles in 2008. Sync allows you to connect bluetooth phones or USB devices like MP3 players to your car and control them with voice commands. It's a really neat bit of technology, but Ford wasn't satisfied to rest on their laurels.

Kevin Spiess report on Neoseeker.com, "Ford to use Windows CE in some 2011 models." With the functionality of a full OS, Sync will become more powerful, offer more control options, and will provide wifi connectivity for web browsing when parked. As delivered from the factory the web browsing will only work when the vehicle is in park, but I figure about 2 weeks (or less) after the first wifi enabled Ford is delivered there will be a way to activate browsing while driving.

But as surprising and innovative as wifi enabling a car may be, what is more impressive is that Ford is thinking about security long before implementing wifi in the cars - both to protect users data and to protect the system from malware that might endanger the car and it's occupants. That's important since connectivity will include social networks and other high risk locales.

The security features are pretty decent. A hardware firewall between the engine computer and the entertainment computer is one nice thing. They can't totally separate the two because they need to share things like GPS data and highway speed, to name a couple of things. To help protect from malware Sync will only accept software from Ford, and it won't allow installation through the wifi connection. There are other features to keep your data safe in your car.

And the security doesn't just cover electronic assets. There are features that will make Ford vehicles with Sync unattractive to thieves, too. Engine immobilizer keeps the engine from turning over unless a coded key is used, and a keycode allows the car to be opened even if the keyfob is left in the car.

Ford is taking a lead position in bringing the automobile to the internet, and vice-versa. It will be interesting to see where this trend goes over the next few years.

Microsoft, Champion of Privacy?

Microsoft has a pattern in the way it does things. When it wants something done a certain way, it does it, and damn anyone who tries to go another direction. Now Microsoft has decided that it's time to let go of information instead of hording it. In a column at Information Week, Microsoft Boosts Bing Search Privacy, Thomas Claburn tells us that Microsoft is going to remove the IP data from searches after six months rather than the eighteen that Google does. But Microsoft falls short of Yahoos commitment to delete most search info after 3.

And there lies the rub. Microsoft is used to being the big dog on the block when it decides on a move. According the seoconsultants.com Bing is third in the search engine race. Google is first with over 70% of the search engine traffic. Yahoo is a very distant 2nd with a little under 15%, and Bing is relatively close behind Yahoo at a little under 10%. In other endeavors Microsoft can bring it's massive OS dominance to bear. In search that dominance is less helpful. If they can't give the results that Google or even Yahoo can, they won't dominate.

Search isn't the only area Microsoft is coming forth as a privacy champion. Cloud computing, which is an area Microsoft might be able to influence, is another area the Redmond giant is preparing to address. In her PCMag.com article, Microsoft Urges Cloud-Computing Privacy Bill, Chloe Albanesius reports that Microsoft's lead council, Brad Smith, lobbied (she said urged - sounds nicer) Congress for a modern privacy bill and unveiled a report that shows the vast majority of people are worried about their data in the cloud. In a keynote at the Brookings Institute in Washington D.C. he said:

"As we move to embrace the cloud, we should build on that success and preserve the personalization of technology by making sure privacy rights are preserved, data security is strengthened and an international understanding is developed about the governance of data when it crosses national borders."

He went on to say that the government needs to modify and pass laws to protect data and privacy as we move to cloud computing.

This all sounds very good. Microsoft may have realized that protecting data in the cloud is in it's own best interest. Crooks might go after my data, but they're more likely to go after Microsofts if we are both equally insecure. Only time will tell if Microsoft legitimately wants better privacy controls, or if they're preparing to exploit loopholes.