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

181–190 of 249 posts

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#181

Post by ori_b »

runjake wrote: post #176
bluesnowmonkey wrote: post #128

Earlier 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…

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. Are you kidding me? Have you missed the large number of browser-based vulnerabilities, from Flashback and MacDefender, to the huge number of vulnerabilitie…

Would having a sandboxed app store help with any of these? The point I think he's making is that a curated app store isn't going to be a significant malware source.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#182

Post by runjake »

ori_b wrote: post #181
runjake wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Are you kidding me? Have you missed the large number of browser-based vulnerabilities, from Flashback and MacDefender, to the huge number of vulnerabilitie…

Would having a sandboxed app store help with any of these? The point I think he's making is that a curated app store isn't going to be a significant malware source.

I don't think that was his whole point. He's speaking in much broader terms in his first paragraph, which is what I quoted. He does make mention of reputation and the app store specifically in the second paragraph.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#183

Post by jopt »

Garwor wrote: post #177
jopt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about where we buy our apps, it's about where we sell them. If the App Store doesn't work for developers, it won't work for users. The users can't buy stuff that isn't there just because they outnumber the developers.

Other developers will happily come along, work within Apple's guidelines, and sell to the giant slice of the pie chart. It's obviously a radically different model of software development, and one that's probably far less appealing to current developers, but that's what happens when industries change. The incumbents never like it. The same thing's coming to Windows, too, thanks to the Windows Store. The whole industry…

That makes it sound like sandboxing is a matter of personal taste, and that if I as a developer consider my self "too good to sandbox" someone else will eat my lunch.

I fully agree with your line of reasoning in many other debates about the App Store, and I'm not against appliance computing. Take the 30% cut, for instance. If Smile had discontinued TextExpander's App Store presence because they didn't like the 30-70 split, I would be the first to point out that this leaves money on the table for someone who runs a lower-margin business, and that everything is in order as per the free market.

Sandboxing is different in that many features can't be done; not because of price point or some rms-esque FOSS principle, but because policy is holding the technology back. Developers are not given a choice.

It's not about "a different model" where incumbents refuse to compete and lose their foothold because of stubbornness. It's about limiting what any developer can do; they're not given a choice.

We will have perfect competition in the realm of distraction-free writing environments, but we will have no third-party backup tools. Nobody can happily come along and write one, because nobody is allowed, incumbent or otherwise.

TL;DR: No, I'm not speaking out of fear of competition. Sandboxing doesn't just hurt incumbents. It limits products, not development models.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#184

Post by eridius »

pnathan wrote: post #178
ohhmaagawd wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you gave absolutely no reason why you prefer going outside the app store.

It should be obvious, but to make it even clearer. - Centralization of control. Apple has frequently jacked around with iOS programs being allowed/disallowed; why should we let some central authority control what we have on our computing devices? - Centralization of malware. Monocultures are subject to waves of viruses. - Limitations. The more interesting your app, the more places it needs to touch. A "fun" limitatio…

> Centralization of malware. Monocultures are subject to waves of viruses.

This is a completely nonsensical argument. Malware has absolutely nothing to do with the distribution mechanism of the program in question.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#185

Post by ricardobeat »

ori_b wrote: post #181
runjake wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Are you kidding me? Have you missed the large number of browser-based vulnerabilities, from Flashback and MacDefender, to the huge number of vulnerabilitie…

Would having a sandboxed app store help with any of these? The point I think he's making is that a curated app store isn't going to be a significant malware source.

Mountain Lion already prevents those, by default it won't let you install anything unsigned.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#186

Post by jopt »

mikejarema wrote: post #88
jopt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's quite another story. If I have to write Sci-Fi: Perhaps an underground scene that use and code for older versions of OS X, patching the system themselves to get only the good parts of system updates, while staying out of Apple's redefinitions of the computing experience.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#187

Post by ricardobeat »

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…

Shave does less than iMovie for $10 more. Maybe that's why it's not providing decent income? It's hard to compete with free, even more a good free app.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#188

Post by dasil003 »

crag wrote: post #97

Again, Apple doesn't really care what developers feel. What matters are the masses. Which don't care about these issues. The App Store is easy to use, accessible and allows them to download their apps on multiple Macs. It's a win win from their point of view. Apple's thinking is simple: You (us developer) don't like it, PayPal is that way". Just that simple. And since The App Store is where most non-developer mac use…

Sure developers will play ball as long as Apple is where the money is. There's no doubt that iOS's amazing run of exponential growth and the creation of a distribution platform as frictionless as the App Store have been irresistible to developers.

However I think it's also fair to say that early adopters and developers were key to Apple's recent success. For instance, OS X lured me back to Macs from Windows in 2000 largely on the promise of unix under the hood. Many early iPhone users were jail breakers either to develop apps or to use them. Developers were on the forefront of Apple success, and I think it's impossible to quantify the impact that we had, and thus extremely easy to underestimate it.

It's true that Apple is very mass market and could not achieve it's design excellence by listening to geek feature requests, but I think they'd better tread lightly on the larger issues. If they turn OS X into a toy OS that doesn't allow serious development and pushing the technological envelope, and all future innovation comes exclusively in the form of Apple new APIs, then I think that will be a harbinger of Apple decline as the geeks and early adopters look for the next frontier. Apple without the hacker community is not nearly as strong as it is today.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#189

Post by jopt »

runjake wrote: post #182
ori_b wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would having a sandboxed app store help with any of these? The point I think he's making is that a curated app store isn't going to be a significant malware source.

I don't think that was his whole point. He's speaking in much broader terms in his first paragraph, which is what I quoted. He does make mention of reputation and the app store specifically in the second paragraph.

I agree. It's a better point, but it's not the one he made, and it doesn't support the one he made.

Shifting the goalposts seems to have become so ingrained in how we debate that we now do it on the behalf of others.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#190

Post by ricardobeat »

cloverich wrote: post #52
89a wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think the problem is policing it. Apple doesn't want it to become the standard that people are being charged for bug fixes every version.

Can't people decide not to purchase the app then? They have a content review system - 10 recent 1 star "Bug fixes cost $$$" and the app is dead, no? Or am I overlooking something?

That's right. Then the app is dead and users are dissatisfied. No one wins.
Post reply on HN