Live data from Hacker News

The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

marco.org

141–150 of 249 posts

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#141
I tend to buy small utility apps in the range of $10 on the app store. But I would never buy "serious" software on the Mac app store.

The MAS already has this flea market feeling to me and so I'd rather have a real license from the original vendor than this app store receipt thingy.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#142
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…

Having version 2 as in-app purchase means your version 2 app has to include version 1 in it. Good luck with implementing that. What if my version 2 is a major rewrite and I change software architecture or want to use new features. Can you imaging writing an application with 2 different interfaces, database formats and feature sets, just to make it possible to upgrade with in-app purchase? No, thank you.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#143
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 created. They halted development of new features and people went crazy.

As a developer I'm perfectly fine with no paid upgrades but then don't expect updates for your already bought software - you got what you paid for.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#144
post #17

Future of irrelevance to who exactly? The 1-in-10000 users who like to play with root level access and scripts and stuff perhaps, but do the other 9999 even notice the change? I'm thinking not. Granted it's a big change from earlier times, the strategy of sandboxing works really well for security and general OS integrity (as iOS has proved) in a world that has no patience for fragmented and exploitative software. Per…

The 9999 who go "ugh, there are no good apps on the Mac" because they were all removed from the app store.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#145
post #8

What software besides Postbox has pulled out? The author makes it sound like there is a mass exodus. I've bought most of my software outside the App Store, so I'm not tuned in.

A lot of software can't be sandboxed, full stop. So they joined the App Store before sandboxing even existed, but Apple won't approve any more updates so they will have to be sold outside the store.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#146

All these problems could be solved if there were a way for companies to transfer your existing non-App-store licenses to the App Store, allow for paid upgrades on the App Store, and allow App Store licenses to be associated with real serial numbers (or something else) that could be used to "take" your license with you, in the event the App Store suddenly becomes too restrictive. Basically make it seamless, monetarily…

Who would pay the Apple tax in case of license transfers? I can't imagine Apple simply letting go of their cut.

Well I imagine you'd only ever need to move to the App Store because of an upgrade which required it (because certain features are only available to App Store-distributed applications). So Apple would get their cut of the upgrade fee, and future upgrade fees as well. Obviously it's not as much as the full app immediately, but ideally over time it would add up for them with paid upgrades.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#147
post #139

The lack of paid upgrades is irrelevant. I never understood what people are missing here. Apple has shown how to do it: Phase out the old version and offer the new version as a new product.

And lose any app store rankings in the process. A bit similar to launching a new site every time you release a new version of your product.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#148
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…

Huh? What apps are you installing? I've never seen an app use an increasing upgrade cycle or attempt to make arbitrary changes to my system (or toolbars).

I guess I'm just used to Mac being a professional platform.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#149
post #135

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…

I'm surprised Ctrl-C is a problem for you, especially since you come from a nix background. I'm super ok with it, especially since Cmd-C is the copy command.

Mouse acceleration does suck. It's directly led to a big decrease in the number of amusing photoshops I make; on the plus side, I've started using the keyboard much more.

I haven't had any issues showing hidden files; I just always show them. Going to a specific folder is as simple as either Cmd-Shift-G or typing "open /Some/Folder/Name" in terminal.

You make a lot of good points. I hated OS X at first, but I got used to it; I could probably move to a nix machine, but there would definitely be a long and painful adjustment period, much as there was for you. And as far as the cost, I'm paying for the OS X design, not the hardware - something not everyone agrees with.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#150
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…

"malware just isn't a concern." - beg to differ. The fiasco over Path (of which I continue to be an avid user) shows that Malware is an issue even in the iOS store. Sandboxing, and absolute limitations over what data any given application has access to, is the future for OS X applications.
Post reply on HN