Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 249 posts

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#81

Post by kristofferR »

efsavage wrote: post #73
archgrove wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would instantly kill the Mac as a development platform, and render all previously purchased software irrelevant. This just won't happen, though I can see a version of OS X that does this by default (perhaps on all "non-pro" models).

"render all previously purchased software irrelevant" Remember how much business they lost last time they did this (the intel switch, or even the os x switch)? Oh wait...

But they didn't - they made Rosetta and supported it a couple of years just to give the developers and the users time to update their apps/computers to Intel versions.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#82

Post by jopt »

mikejarema wrote: post #38

I'm wondering how soon until we see OSX being jailbroken. I suspect system level choices like this are bound to continue in order to push users in the direction of iCloud and AppStore usage (ie. vendor lock-in). Though such moves appear draconian from our perspective, I believe Apple times such moves around when some internal metrics indicate a tipping point has happened, namely the developer backlash won't be substa…

It's bad enough that apps are leaving the App Store because of sandboxing. You don't have to make shit up. The owner of a Mac can enable root access through the Directory Utility, completely legit, and can install and run code from any source without even doing so. Jailbreaking OS X makes no sense; there's no jail.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#83

Post by mistercow »

Terretta wrote: post #33
jawngee wrote: post #26

I'm pulling my video editor Shave ( http://shavevideo.com ) out of the Mac App Store for these reasons, though most specifically the lack of paid upgrades. For a $10 video editor that, quite frankly, beats the pants off a lot of crap out there for day to day editing tasks, I can't afford to devote the time and resources it requires to maintain it without it having a baseline level of income. Not having an upgrade pat…

Have you tried purchasing the "latest" version of World of Warcraft? You can't. There is no standalone "latest version". You have to purchase the original, and each version since, and finally the current version. Correlate those game content / game mechanics updates with In-App Purchases, and it's clear how someone could offer "major upgrades" if they stop thinking in terms of version numbers and start thinking in te…

There are a lot of problems with that idea, but the biggest I can see is that the user experience is horrendous. You're basically describing a world of itemized crippleware, where buying an app that's more than a few years old involves a half hour-long process of adding on feature packs.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#84

Post by kristofferR »

technomancy wrote: post #80
Aloisius wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That will be the day I go back to Linux.

Why wait? It's clear they would love to do this and are just holding off until they think they can get away with it.

Since OS X is a better/simpler choice for many people and has WAY more quality supported apps than Linux has. If Linux became the superior choice for most people, a lot of those people would switch.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#86

Post by jonknee »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #54
Terretta wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By default, you can right click anything from anywhere and choose "Open". It will install/run, and you will never be asked about that program again. But you have to make a conscious decision to run it.

That wasn't the case for me. Gatekeeper was on for appstore and signed applications and I had to disable it to install something I downloaded (ironically because OS X told me to - X11).

Right click and choose open. Don't double click the app. It definitely works.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#88

Post by mikejarema »

jopt wrote: post #82
mikejarema wrote: post #38

I'm wondering how soon until we see OSX being jailbroken. I suspect system level choices like this are bound to continue in order to push users in the direction of iCloud and AppStore usage (ie. vendor lock-in). Though such moves appear draconian from our perspective, I believe Apple times such moves around when some internal metrics indicate a tipping point has happened, namely the developer backlash won't be substa…

It's bad enough that apps are leaving the App Store because of sandboxing. You don't have to make shit up. The owner of a Mac can enable root access through the Directory Utility, completely legit, and can install and run code from any source without even doing so. Jailbreaking OS X makes no sense; there's no jail.

True enough, and I'm probably abusing terminology here, sorry for that.

It's more me wondering out loud if there will be some alternative to OSX, largely built off of OSX in order to get around limitations like sandboxing.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#89

Post by archgrove »

efsavage wrote: post #73
archgrove wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would instantly kill the Mac as a development platform, and render all previously purchased software irrelevant. This just won't happen, though I can see a version of OS X that does this by default (perhaps on all "non-pro" models).

"render all previously purchased software irrelevant" Remember how much business they lost last time they did this (the intel switch, or even the os x switch)? Oh wait...

OS 9 -> OS X was supported by the Classic runtime for years. PPC to Intel was supported by Rosetta for years.

I suppose if the announced that this was the plan, and gave people years to migrate across, it might be something they'd do. But it would kill basically any technical use of the platform (development, scientific computing). I find it much more likely they'll evolve iOS "up" to support users for whom a closed appliance approach is helpful, whilst adding options to OS X to cater for those who want a more traditional computer but need a bit more help.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#90

Post by jopt »

tadhgk wrote: post #17

Future of irrelevance to who exactly? The 1-in-10000 users who like to play with root level access and scripts and stuff perhaps, but do the other 9999 even notice the change? I'm thinking not. Granted it's a big change from earlier times, the strategy of sandboxing works really well for security and general OS integrity (as iOS has proved) in a world that has no patience for fragmented and exploitative software. Per…

The concern is not the user experience of developers. As you point out, that's a small crowd with little market significance.

But sandboxing cripples, besides our ideals and personal experience, the apps we make. Users (of powerful, hard-to-sandbox apps) will suffer from this. Those users far outnumber the developers, and have great market significance.

Post reply on HN