How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#1

Post by naish » Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 1:12 AM UTC

How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?
daringfireball.net

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#2

Post by bkudria » Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 3:27 AM UTC

With apt-get.

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#3

Post by wmf » Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 3:53 AM UTC

bkudria wrote: post #2

With apt-get.

If you have one repository you've just created a monopoly. If you have multiple repositories (probably one per app) then you've just shifted the problem to installing new repositories.

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#4

Post by atlbeer » Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 4:07 AM UTC

Simple proposal.. How about a zipping an application and merely naming it .appz (or just plain zip)

The only reason why Mac application can't be distributed like Windows .exe files is that Mac applications are actually directories. Excluding .pkg installers 99.99% of the time the .dmg file is merely just a container for the single .app directory.

Safari automatically unpacks .zip files by default on download. Where's the mystery here. Why bother with dmg in the first place

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#5

Post by fortepianissimo » Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 4:32 AM UTC

If Apple can be persuaded to do something, either prompting user to move an unzipped .app to Applications folder or treat .appz (zipped app) as an .app should work.

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#6

Post by bobius » Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 4:36 AM UTC

On launch, your application can check to see what directory it's in. If the directory is mounted as the same name as the .dmg image you shipped, then you could prompt the user. "You appear to be running this application from a disk image. This will make the application run slower. You should copy the application to your Application Folder. Do you want to move it there now automatically Y/N/don't show this again." or whatever.

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#7

Post by andrewtj » Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 5:01 AM UTC

As it stands, they’re following the common pattern of delivering the Firefox app on a disk image, which, when mounted, uses a background image and alias to the /Applications/ folder to encourage users to copy the app from the mounted image to their startup drive.

I'd bet this pattern would be a whole lot more effective if there were text prompting the user to take this action. It seems like most implementations of this pattern focus on bling rather than usability.

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#8

Post by andrewtj » Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 5:06 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #3

bkudria wrote: post #2

With apt-get.

If you have one repository you've just created a monopoly. If you have multiple repositories (probably one per app) then you've just shifted the problem to installing new repositories.

Zero Install attempts to resolve that issue amongst others: http://0install.net/

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#9

Post by bkudria » Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 5:19 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #3

bkudria wrote: post #2

With apt-get.

If you have one repository you've just created a monopoly. If you have multiple repositories (probably one per app) then you've just shifted the problem to installing new repositories.

What's wrong with a monopoly? The common iPhone user has no problems with the App Store...

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#10

Post by pwmanagerdied » Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 5:34 AM UTC

bobius wrote: post #6

On launch, your application can check to see what directory it's in. If the directory is mounted as the same name as the .dmg image you shipped, then you could prompt the user. "You appear to be running this application from a disk image. This will make the application run slower. You should copy the application to your Application Folder. Do you want to move it there now automatically Y/N/don't show this again." or…

Some, I think Adium is one, already do this. It's really nice, very use-friendly.