However, I would like to point out that Apple isn't totally wrong here because the accessibility API unfortunately is way too broadly scoped, and because of that you literally get access to everything on the computer like you you can screenshot listen and and move the cursor... This is completely ridiculous and the proper engineering solution would actually be to phase out the accessibility API and replace it with something that is narrowly scoped so you can grant specific permissions individually.
However, Apple, being Apple, is obviously not doing anything, and instead says no accessibility permission for anything that isn't demonstrable accessible. Now, there are obviously some exceptions because Apple is not particularly well known for applying its rule consistently and granting big exceptions for itself. However, they do have a valid point on privacy and data protection. And I say that as somebody who ended up distributing my MacOS app outside the App Store because I only got approval for iOS.
That said, I would definitely appreciate if Apple would gradually improve its developer program experience, because compared to its hardware lineup, the developer program is nothing short of abysmal.
If you don't have use of your hands you want that. The whole point of accessibility APIs is allowing arbitrary control of your computer via novel means. One of the big selling points of Dragon Natually Speaking is the ability to tell your computer to do things based on descriptions without a mouse. "open outlook", "click compose", "select subject", "type foo", etc. Unfortunately modern software breaks this a lot. Chrome and anything electron based don't provide any accessibility information to the OS. The interior of the window excluding the tab bar is a void. Yes chrome has an inbuilt screen reader as do a number of electron apps. But if you aren't blind and want to use something like Dragon it doesn't work. Canvas based apps are often the same.
And no the solution here is not computer vision with an LLM. Text and buttons rendered on my computer exist in memory somewhere as text and buttons. We should not need to convert them to pixels and back lossily to recover text and buttons. We should just expose things to the accessibility API and not guess.
Also, even if you hypothetically wanted to use computer vision with an LLM… what API is that LLM going to use to take screenshots and click on stuff?
I want apps to be able to do that!
Is there an opinionated reason not to break out capabilities?
If you have a disability and need tools to use your computer the last thing you want to do is have those things not only off by default but complicated and involved to turn on.
If you're worried about people not trusting payment to you, might be worth seeing if you could implement this, so anyone who bought on the app store can still access the full feature set. Cuts you out 30% like, but better than nothing maybe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinDirStat#Version_history[10]
Everything I ever added was kept, and I was permanently banned. I created [ciation needed], started the admins noticeboard, reworked the USA Patriot Act article, wrote numerous articles for WiR with extensive referencing, contributed to peer review and good article reviews, and a shitload more, but nope. Not good enough.
Why anyone would contribute to that cesspool is anyone’s guess.
I can assure you, there are those on Wikipedia who committed far worse offenses and they remain.
Like I say - a cesspool that doesn’t respect article writers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...
In other words, Apple is abusing their position by defining overly broad permissions so that they can deny them and pressure people to fork over more cash to them.
Where I was more frustrated was how much this limited the potential usability of the iPhone app. Because of app store restrictions it is a far worse app ... though like in your example, still useful to a degree.
I can only hope they use the new CEO as an opportunity to seriously re-evaluate their entire approach to how they work with developers, though I'm not actually expecting them to. If anything, with the increase in apps being created via AI tools I worry they will go the other way.
Lots of shady and well-known developers (like Dropbox) are notorious for trying to weasel their way into getting Accessibility permissions, so they can do god knows what with them to your system.
Worried about grandma installing shady apps? Enable parental controls on her phone.
On top of that, the app is completely optional: if you aren't comfortable giving it those permissions, don't install it?
Those two desires should both be fulfilled.
If you're not, ask your representatives why you don't get the same rights.
Install some GNU/Linux distro and you can do whatever you want.
I just installed PopOS on a laptop recently, and… it just worked. There’s an app store for noobs that I think installs flatpaks. GPU drivers just work. Whole disk encryption. Everything just works.
I don’t see what else my grandma that just uses Facebook would need. Maybe automatic updates?
If you and your grandma only rely on the computer for its web browser, then good for you. You have flexibility that is not afforded to most people. But that's not how a person's phone works; phones dig a lot deeper into one's lifestyle, intentionally so. The walled garden was constructed to keep outsiders out, but now it seems the primary purpose is keeping those inside hostage.
She loves it. Zero problems. It's been a week and she's using it just fine. No lifestyle upheaval.
i call bullshit. i have worked in very big orgs. changing a single icon can cause a deluge of support tickets.
I own more (and have them running right now) machines with linux than anything else and yet I'm not saying people can just switch. The problem is usually not "can do at all costs" but "can do with a reasonable addition of extra steps/relearning/tool does not exist/etc". There's some nuance and when I have some spare time I will (again) try to switch that one machine, but "it just works" maybe can also mean you're not using it for a diverse enough set of things.
In my case the reasons are actually quite boring: some hardware I couldn't get running and some (maybe minor) things that drive me nuts. The hardware is kind of a deal breaker atm. And yes, some people do a lot more weird things at home, my work machines were running Linux for 90% of the time since 2010ish.
I couldln't imagine having the time to set it up as a daily driver that handles my daily workflows, hardware needs, etc. Terminal in OS X is a close enough approximation out of the box and goes beyond it in DX (IMO) with very little additional setup.
I know this will be an unpopular opinion.
No - moving to far away areas is not the right analogy. After all you need to have use cases where those huge companies do not control your business. So the alternative is to avoid becoming dependent on them; or cut off the dependency when possible.
I'd argue that installing and updating apps on MacOS is simpler than on Linux distros because most apps have built-in auto-updates (or you can just drag the app to the applications folder) instead of having to rely on snap / apt / insert your package manager which may a lot of outdated and unmaintained packages and apps.
I tried very hard to switch to Linux full time some months ago, but I couldn't find a way of getting Microsoft Office to work satisfactorily. There are clever packaged versions of Outlook and Teams, but I need full native installed versions of Word/Excel/Powerpoint, and there just wasn't a good solution. That was a deal breaker, sadly, so I'm back on Mac for the time being.
Other examples would be some of the popular games with anti-cheat that requires Windows.
You get a channel for installing apps, where someone vetoes random apps that want to have access to control your whole computer and potentially steal sensitive data?
>Install some GNU/Linux distro and you can do whatever you want.
And any random app can get total control and steal your data, unless you know how to enable restrictions. I'd rather have restrictions as the default, and for the most naive users who'd follow every app prompt, and then cry about their lost work/private documents/money, no way to bypass them.
I dont wanna start a war over this btw, even though it may not seem :)
Then don't install apps and use the web, mobile sandboxing is much weaker compared to any modern browser.
I get that some people are unfairly targeted but some other times it's people being (extremely) naive or just playing dumb
"Hey you know what would be cool? If we named our bluetooth speaker company bee oh emm bee!!11"
Build system woes are almost always solved by deleting build cache & artifacts and trying again. Often necessary after messing around with deeper dependencies.
This API is sensitive. I imagine Apple is particularly stringent as to how the access is justified. Not how it uses it but how the reason for using it is explained.
It's not like someone tests the app and all api calls to deem them reasonable or not.
I got an ortholinear keyboard that looks like a rectangular grid, just 12 by 4 keys around 10-15 years ago.
I don't recall the last time I felt pain in my hands, completely gone.
Have fought similar demons lately, feel your pain.
update: You're right, this is a real bug. The Direct version's auto-paste hardcodes the QWERTY keycode for V instead of translating for the active layout, so Dvorak / Colemak / AZERTY users would all hit it. The MAS version is unaffected (clipboard-only; the user presses their own Cmd+V, which is layout-correct). Fix is going into the next release. Thanks for the careful read.
[0]: https://boltai.com
Imagine a banking app, and for example an IBAN field.
I'm using https://github.com/cjpais/Handy whichseems to be doing exactly what this app does, and has a very similar background story (author couldn't type die to injury).
The problem from Apples perspective could be that there is a ton of tools that require access to the accessibility API because they want to do stuff that Apple have deemed a security risk and the only way to do it is by abusing the API. Some of these are also because macOS simply lacks certain APIs.
I think Apple overreacting due to previous API misuse by other apps.
OP’s description in the linked article doesn’t say much more than this, so what am I missing with this particular app?
Screw Apple and their persnickety, controlling myopia.
Make apps for device, which are 100% owned by people.
I just wish they weren’t so obstinate about people installing from other sources without signing/notarization. I understand it from a security standpoint but it’s also nakedly self-serving.
I’m glad that they’re fine with signing in this case.
I have no idea what they’re thinking. Insanity.
Microsoft was almost broken up over not allowing third party programs to use certain APIs. Apple abuses their dominant position to suppress competition.
Edit: Ah, it's in the article, this is about AppStore distribution. Walled gardens are going to walled garden.
If anyone here has more direct experience with this guideline, especially from the App Store review side, I would like to hear it. I would rather understand the policy than just guess at it.