Live data from Hacker News

The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

marco.org

221–230 of 249 posts

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#221

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…

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? Therefor they can be somewhat more lenient with sandboxing restrictions?

It's about minimizing the attack vectors. Sure, Acrobat, for example, is not malware and could be sold in the App Store. But there are tons of viruses and malware that targets holes in Acrobat. If Acrobat was also sandboxed, they could not do much harm.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#222
post #181

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.

>Would having a sandboxed app store help with any of these?

A sandboxed app can only write/damage it's sandbox.

That's kind of the whole point.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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!". Yeah, it's funny because: 1) Apple never said that explicitly. 2) It was (and still is true), i.e not that Macs could not technically get viruses, but that they had got no viruses, with the exception of some lame trojans. In all, a minuscule number of OS X Macs were ever affected…

Apple never said that explicitly.

Yes, they did. "Macs are safe and don't get PC viruses" to an expert means "it is possible that attack vectors still exist", but to the general public means "no viruses".

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#225
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…

Perhaps another model worth considering is to start the price of your app low and as it improves and gains popularity, steadily (and predictably) raise the price. . Has anyone tried this? Did it work?

I believe Pinboard.in does exactly this.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If a developer is going to offer a version upgrade, it's the fact of a previous version purchase that signifies eligibility. The app store clearly has this purchase information. So why not give the developer the option to set previous versions to act as "coupons" reducing the price of the new version by a developer specified amount? When version 5 is released at $20, let old versions be set so they can no longer be purchased anew. Let the developer set owners of version 4 as seeing the price of version 5 as $10. If you own version 3, then perhaps 5 is $15. Let previous versions themselves be upgrade coupons.

In-app purchases are left as orthogonal to these upgrades. The developer could perhaps be allowed to continue to push out bug fixes for older versions, or even old version DLC.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, you can get around that. Store the version of the app that is first run. Those that have the new version as the first run get the new additions.

How would this work? I mean, even assuming Apple let you get away with it: If you store the version on the device, the user would simply have to delete the app (which wipes all data the app has stored on the device) and re-download from the app store (which is free) to get the latest version. It's not going to take long for users to notice that and then you'll never sell an upgrade again. So you'd need to move away f…

Anyone who has purchased any IAP content at all has an IAP receipt that you have access to even across installs.

This leaves the problem that v>1 first time buyers will have to IAP something immediately after buying the app, kind of pushes you to have a free trial mode.

Hopefully apple will eventually introduce time-limited free trials and upgrade options. If their history with iOS and Mac versioning is any hint, the current simple system is not a religious thing for them and they will listen if they see enough negative feedback. Which we should provide.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#228
It seems like there's a market opening here for a third party App Store equivalent, that offers the single-point-of-payment / ease of upgrades advantages for the consumer, but eliminates the developer pain points (sandboxing and paid upgrades).

This is viable for as long as third party applications can still be downloaded and installed outside of the Apple App Store.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#229
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!". Yeah, it's funny because: 1) Apple never said that explicitly. 2) It was (and still is true), i.e not that Macs could not technically get viruses, but that they had got no viruses, with the exception of some lame trojans. In all, a minuscule number of OS X Macs were ever affected…

Apple never said that explicitly. Yes, they did. "Macs are safe and don't get PC viruses" to an expert means "it is possible that attack vectors still exist", but to the general public means "no viruses".

Apple didn't say "Macs don't get OS X viruses".

The very next sentence was "a Mac isn’t susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers".

Which it wasn't.

As for custom viruses targeting OS X, none had been seen in the wild for a decade (only some trojans did exist). So the general public's assumptions "Macs are safe" was grounded in pragmatic reality.

That something is theoretically possible (e.g a meteor hitting my house) doesn't make it a real threat.

Now, one could argue that an OS X virus is not only theoretically possible but, unlike the meteor example, also easily achievable.

But still, something being both theoretically possible and easily achievable doesn't make it a real threat.

E.g a neighbour setting my house on fire. I'd rather start worrying about it when it starts happening frequently (instead of never).

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#230
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…

As someone who makes a living on the app store, I have to say having an ARPU of 70 cents really sucks. Also, that people expect updates forever because they gave you 70 cents also sucks. Had an absurd conversation today giving customer support for someone with unbelievable expectations for half the price of a cup of coffee.

You will have to work really really hard to convince me that this race to the bottom is a good thing for software devs.

Post reply on HN