Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was painful about it?
Installing software has no consistency. The built-in terminal is basically broken: -page-up and page-down don't work unless you hold shift -It uses CTRL-C instead of Command-C, unlike the rest of the OS. -I still can't find hotkeys to jump to the beginning of end of line, or skip over entire words (home, end, ctrl-arrow in Linux and Windows) Home and End are COMPLETELY USELESS on OS X. I have never, in decades of com…
The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance
161–170 of 249 posts
Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance
#162There are two issues that are coming up here: sandboxing and paid upgrades. They are quite different. As a consumer I am completely for sandboxing for myself and for other consumers. In a world where malware is increasingly a problem sandboxed apps will become the norm. That's the reality we live in. Sandboxing being a requirement means that I can fairly safely install anything from the (future) Mac App Store. The OP…
As a consumer, I only buy from the App Store when it's absolutely required.
I vastly prefer to live outside the App store and the Sandbox. I haven't gotten malware in years, and I don't particularly expect I'll get it in years to come; if I do, it'll probably be a zero-day in Flash, OpenSSH or HTML5.
So, anecdotally, as one consumer, if you have a program in the Mac App Store, I really won't be buying it unless its an OS upgrade or I really want it.
Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance
#163The iOS App Store does the same thing with changing the rules in the middle of the game, but it is not subject to potential irrelevance because it is the only place to get software for iOS devices. So the obvious solution for Apple is to make the Mac App Store the only place to get software for MacOS. I'm actually a little surprised this didn't happen in 10.8.
The day they do this is the day that I will partition my disk, install another OS and never look back. OSX is the only Apple product that is still attractive to me, but I fear that I will have to jump out sooner or later.
With the shift towards iOSness and sandboxing for Windows & OSX, I don't see myself using anything but Linux - or recommending anything but Linux - for the future.
Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the following set-up avoids that problem: app is always the same price to download and has a few basic features unlocked. App has an upgrade view or screen where users can unlock additional features via in-app-purchase. It works like this: developer releases the app for, say, $10. People buy it and use the basic features for a while. So far there's no upgrades available. Developer codes up a premium feature a…
This does away with everyone-is-on-newest-version paradigm of automatic updates that makes support easy - in fact, it makes it much worse. Instead of five old versions of the app, you might have 1 base + 12 permutations = 13 different combinations of functionality to support.
Good point. This approach probably wouldn't work for some apps. However if the app lent itself to a very modular design it could work. Certainly would take some creativity on the developer's part. For example premium features that are troublesome if only some people have them could be included in a free bug-fix update to make things easier.
Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance
#165Somewhat related anecdote in light of 10.8: I never properly upgraded from OS 10.5. I pirated 10.6 and skipped 10.7, partially because I'm a cheap college student and partially because the changes between versions never seemed that dramatic to me.
I had to re-install my OS and thus downgraded from 10.6 to 10.5. All of a sudden, none of my iLife apps are working, plus a host of others, and I can't download Apple ones designed for 10.5. I lose momentum scrolling, and realize that, hey, an upgrade once every three years is a good idea. I wait for 10.8 to come out, so I can buy it like a good, normal consumer, and soon discover I need 10.6 to install it.
So I'm buying two upgrades? Alright...wait, I can't buy 10.6 anymore. 10.8 is the only OS available, and I don't have 10.6 on a disc. So it looks like I'm pirating again.
Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance
#166There are two issues that are coming up here: sandboxing and paid upgrades. They are quite different. As a consumer I am completely for sandboxing for myself and for other consumers. In a world where malware is increasingly a problem sandboxed apps will become the norm. That's the reality we live in. Sandboxing being a requirement means that I can fairly safely install anything from the (future) Mac App Store. The OP…
As a consumer, I only buy from the App Store when it's absolutely required. I vastly prefer to live outside the App store and the Sandbox. I haven't gotten malware in years, and I don't particularly expect I'll get it in years to come; if I do, it'll probably be a zero-day in Flash, OpenSSH or HTML5. So, anecdotally, as one consumer, if you have a program in the Mac App Store, I really won't be buying it unless its a…
you gave absolutely no reason why you prefer going outside the app store.
Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a world where malware is increasingly a problem I don't see that as the case. There is malware out there in torrent land, sure. But if you acquire software from reputable sources (like a paid app store, referral from a friend, heard about it on a forum like HN, package repository), malware just isn't a concern. If you put malware on an app store, the world will notice, its rating will tank, and people will stop…
It's funny , for years Apple were all like "Macs can't get viruses!" now they're saying "we need app store lock in too prevent malware!". I guess there's a distinction to be made between actual malware and software that co-installs crap (Ask toolbar etc) but often end users do not see that difference. Besides, if something has passed app store verification then surely Apple are happy that it is not malware? Therefor…
>Besides, if something has passed app store verification then surely Apple are happy that it is not malware?
I'm not so sure. What is their process for verifying that an app is not or does not contain malware? If it's simply to run the software and see what it does then they can really only verify that apps aren't immediately misbehaving. What if the app is set to do its misdeeds after the 100th time it is run, or after being installed for a month? There is really only so much a reviewer can do in order to push an app out within a reasonable time frame.
Sandboxing in a way is just as much protection from liability for Apple as it is protection from malware for its users.
Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Developers could very well re-architect their application so that when you download the update to v2, you have to unlock the new features with an in-app purchase, but to be honest, it's a lot of extra work for the developer, and there is no way to make it less painful for the users, who will feel like they are getting nickel and dimed by the developer. Also, for those users that are brand new on the v2 version, it's…
The idea to have new features exist as unlockable extras actually is an advantage to users: if they don't need it, they still get updates for the feature set they bought. So all that's missing is a way to give customers of "date X or later" unlockable features as part of the baseline sale.
For the developer, now they need to re-sell every single feature of their app. Why would anyone choose that over just bundling them together?
Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the same thing as I was reading John Siracusa's review of Mountain Lion. My stomach sunk when I saw the default 'gatekeeper' options. [ ] Mac App Store [x] Mac App store and identified developers [ ] Anywhere Seems likely at some point down the road the third option will no longer exist. My next project is getting Linux to run on an old MBP. I still love their hardware, but OSX is getting fuckin' uppity. I…
I seriously doubt it. Can you imagine Adobe's Creative Suite in the Mac App store? Never going to happen.
Adobe's binaries are already signed, they're an 'identified developer'.
Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Developers could very well re-architect their application so that when you download the update to v2, you have to unlock the new features with an in-app purchase, but to be honest, it's a lot of extra work for the developer, and there is no way to make it less painful for the users, who will feel like they are getting nickel and dimed by the developer. Also, for those users that are brand new on the v2 version, it's…
I think you misunderstood. He's suggesting that instead of releasing v2.0 on the App Store, you release an in-app purchase option in the original app that upgrades it to v2.0. A similar idea would be to release new features a la carte as in-app purchases instead of releasing new numbered versions. I'm not sure if the marketing hit would be worth it, but it is one way to a consistent revenue stream.
Diner Dash follows this model. They update the app periodically and add new content available via in app purchase.