Live data from Hacker News

The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

marco.org

191–200 of 249 posts

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#191
post #120

There 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…

> 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…

Wow. You should get out and talk to the person on the street and what they think about this.

The only reason your sources are "safe" is because they are not the popular ones.

Malware goes after the high volume targets. If your OS has 2% of the market, yes, your binary packages are probably relatively safe.

But the situation is different for the Microsft's, the Google's (Chrome will no doubt be targeted as it gets more popular) and, eventually, the Apple's.

Apple was always safe because it was not the OS of choice for most of the population. It was niche. If you haven't noticed that is changing.

It's funny because some of the stuff I'm working on is, by design, "sandboxed", but I never think of this as it's most valuable "feature".

Sometimes we do not see the obvious. I'm sure in my case I'm missing something, and I think in yours too. Malware is ++huge problem. And there's no solution on the horizon. If your OS relies on people outside the OS developers contributing "apps", which users prefer to download and install as opposed to reading code and compiling themselves, then your "app store" is vulnerable.

A friend of mine recently got a virus. The kind that starts emailing all your contacts. I've seen this happen to family and friends repeatedly over the years. Nothing has improved.

When I mentioned it to him, his comment to me was along the lines of "Yeah, it was especially difficult to deal with because it was a Mac."

It's not easy to get at the innards of anything Apple makes, expecially these days when they are trying as hard as ever to prevent you from understanding how it works. If something goes wrong, you're fsck'ed. Unless of course "Customer Service" can help you. But when you become the next MS, there is no such thing. Customer Service, the human kind, does not scale.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#192
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suspect it would be much nicer for both the dev and the users if there was just a single "Upgrade to the latest version for $5" option. Don't try to splinter the upgrade path into features or sub-steps. So, as a consumer story: you buy v3 for $10. Over the next year, v4,5,6 come out and you pass on them. V7 finally convinces you to upgrade and you shell out $5 to go from 3->7 with a single click. Meanwhile, if you were a power-user, you might have been impatient and shelled out $5 each for v4,5,6 along the way. But, I think that's a pretty reasonable way do perform price discrimination.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#193
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…

World of Warcraft is a bad example of this. The client you have downloaded is always patched to the latest version, even if you haven't bought the expansions.

Each expansion unlocks content. So once you buy The Burning Crusade, you get access to the Outlands zone. That only matters if you have a character that's level 58 or higher.

Blizzard redid the entirety of the Vanilla WoW experience in the Cataclysm expansion. Even if you did not buy that expansion, the level 1-60 are still the new content.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#194
post #120

There 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…

> On the one hand paid upgrades can produce the wrong incentive on the developer The incentive to continue development? > ... Steam ... You can't compare traditional software to games. A game is finished at some point. There are only bug fixes to come. Traditional software is expected to get feature updates. If you want to see what happens when software gets to the "finished" status take a look at the outcry Sparrow…

>> You can't compare traditional software to games. A game is finished at some point. There are only bug fixes to come.

>> Traditional software is expected to get feature updates.

One might make the argument that DLC might be the gaming equivalent of a feature update. There are quite a few games that are released with the promise of new functionality via DLC.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#195

Really think he's missing the part where laypeople will see the Mac App Store as their main portal for software. Sure us geeks will always know what the best option is, but what about from a common majority consumer's perspective?

Exactly. There are probably plenty of consumers who spend 90% to 100% of their time in iLife, iWork (or MS Office), iTunes and Safari.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#196
post #120

There 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…

> I think developers do get too concerned with turning a user into a perpetual revenue stream however. This is really an old business model that is somewhat outdated.

Outdated?!?! I thought it was more relevant than ever with all the web apps out there.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think he was driving at the idea that people who make malware tend to go for larger ecosystems.

The reality is that everything you do on a network involves some form of risk. You can mitigate these risks by performing tasks in a standardized way using only approved software, but a packaged Zero-Day that's tuned for your environment will generally succeed.

Getting a Kaspersky Payload isn't that hard to find any more; preventing hackers from knowing what anti-virus you're running is your responsibility.

In short, everything is about risk mitigation. Running the same software as everyone else exposes you to the same risk.

By the way, this point is tangential to the larger point at hand which is: Apple doesn't care about its developers.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#198

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…

"It should be obvious", followed by a semi-paranoid rant just makes you sound like a wild-eyed conspiracy nut. "Monocultures are subject to waves of viruses." Whoo! Actual waves! That is scary. And buying from the App Store lets Apple know what you have bought. I never thought of that, that is really scary too. But the following non-sequitor just baffles me.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#199
post #28

Really think he's missing the part where laypeople will see the Mac App Store as their main portal for software. Sure us geeks will always know what the best option is, but what about from a common majority consumer's perspective?

They'll find out about software the same way that the "majority consumer" used to; reading magazines like Macworld, seeing advertisements in various places, and talking to friends. If anything, the App Store is the one trying to break into the old model of buying software (find something, pay for it, buy it). In fact, the two conveniences offered by the App Store (visible to users) is ease of finding stuff and securi…

>> They'll find out about software the same way that the "majority consumer" used to; reading magazines like Macworld, seeing advertisements in various places, and talking to friends.

I don't know many "consumerish" Mac users who read Mac magazines, Daring Fireball, etc. Hell, I know a lot of more sophisticated Mac users who don't read any Mac related content except when they have problems. Many of the consumer Mac users I know don't pay attention to ads for Mac software either.

On your third point (word of mouth), that one has a lot of validity, assuming that a consumer mac user has a mac nerd or two in his/her circle of friends.

If I look at what most of my consumer Mac friends and acquaintances use, most of their time is spent in Safari, iTunes, iLife, iWork and maybe something like Parallels or VMWare to run "work stuff". A few might install some apps here and there, but few would even know that there was anything outside the App Store that was worthwhile.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#200
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.

iMovie isn't free. It's $14.99. It's also slow as shit where Shave is fast as you know what - for a very specific type of editing.

Trust me, I've done the comparison of same editing tasks in both and I can do in a minute in Shave what takes 20-30 minutes to do in iMovie. It's the reason I wrote it in the first place. And good luck opening a DiVX or another weird codec in iMovie. Or editing an Mpeg-2/4 movie without having to re-encode. Or editing at all without re-encoding.

Post reply on HN