or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple issues review guidelines for Mac App Store
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple issues review guidelines for Mac App Store - Page 4

post #121 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

No they won't. Complex applications that install files outside their own bundle are not eligible for inclusion in the store.

So MS Word, for example will never be in the app store because it installs fonts on your computer.

That alone should debunk the whole "the mac store is going to be the only option to install software someday" conspiracy theories. Apple knows darn well that there is no way all apps can install and operate in that way and no way they should. Any application that has any sort of work-flow design that involves separate programs (like Adobe products, Microsoft products and even Apples own Final Cut Software) would not work that way. There is no way that Apple would be so dumb or even so controlling as to basically give a competitor such an advantage by killing off programs that customers use. I cannot imagine that Apple would ever do such a thing - it would be nonsensical that they would even want to do this.
post #122 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by nine9nin View Post

Thank you for protecting me and putting a big condom on my computer

More like they put it over the head of unscrupulous developers.
post #123 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

No lockdown. App store is one channel, not the only channel.

Realistically, do you expect folks with a $4000 Mac Pro to be limited to app store??

Or scientific researchers who use lots of open-source software??

No. The Mac is not going to be locked down like an iPhone.

Nevertheless it makes me nervous that Lion is headed to make the Mac a consumer focused machine at the detriment of the professional users. It will be sort of what happened to Windows XP after Vista. None of the pros upgraded preferring to continue with proven no frills solution to the candy coated new version.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #124 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Nevertheless it makes me nervous that Lion is headed to make the Mac a consumer focused machine at the detriment of the professional users. It will be sort of what happened to Windows XP after Vista. None of the pros upgraded preferring to continue with proven no frills solution to the candy coated new version.

Why do you think that Apple would compromise such users that they currently have by crippling their most powerful product? Especially with such a low market share to boot>.

Do you think that Apple is just going to say to established customers that have been buying their products that they are no longer needed?
post #125 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I disagree.

"Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them. Apps that are not very useful or do not provide any lasting entertainment value may be rejected. Apps that are primarily marketing materials or advertisements will be rejected. Apps that are intended to provide trick or fake functionality that are not clearly marked as such will be rejected."

As long as they stick to that rule (and there's no reason to believe that they won't), I don't see a problem. I'm definitely looking forward to a 'safe' store. It's one of the things I love about the App store on the iPhone.

That rule is simply to push developers to rush into the App Store before any of their competitors do.

Ambrosia and others (many, many others) have expressed deep concerns about the App Store requirements, and I'm sure most would prefer to take a wait-n-see approach with this new paradigm.

But Steve's not stupid. He put in that clause to take care of the fence-sitters.
post #126 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

This is clearly an attack on the browser.

You're not alone in that opinion:

Firefox director says Apple is “looking to bypass the web”
http://www.slashgear.com/firefox-dir...-web-21109568/


Quote:
The first thing developers will do is create a native version of their web apps.

No, that's the second thing they'll do.

The first thing they'll do is raise prices by 30% to spread the love around.
post #127 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomMcIn View Post

More like they put it over the head of unscrupulous developers.

Why is every developer who distributes their apps over the web -- as pretty much ALL of them do right now -- necessarily "unscrupulous"?

Man, the Kool-Aid doesn't take long to kick in, eh?
post #128 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

Why do you think that Apple would compromise such users that they currently have by crippling their most powerful product? Especially with such a low market share to boot>.

Do you think that Apple is just going to say to established customers that have been buying their products that they are no longer needed?

We don't need no stinking swipe gestures. I just can't ignore the warning signs. The full screen mode is scary. Next thing you know that will be the only mode. They use the "existing" control of the green button to initiate the view but then you need to use the full screen icon at the bottom to undo it. What's next, click your heels together to get back home?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #129 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

I wonder if Macs will be locked down just like iOS devices. If not, why should we have to jailbreak iOS devices to add apps we want apart from the App Store?! The App Store is a good idea, but not at the exclusion of other apps outside of the sanctioned channel!


Any time that a user tries to install uncurated software, there is a chance that their entire User Experience will be ruined.

People will blame Apple for that.

It makes a LOT more sense not to let users install uncurated software that they find somewhere on the bowels of the internet.

There will be fewer headaches that way, both for users and for Apple. The problem is nipped in the bud, rather than the way it does with Windows, which is a mess.

Our friends at AppleCare will be happier too!!
post #130 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Also app store on a computer, do people not realise that this has been available on linux like forever and all the software is frrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

This is clearly an attack on the browser. The first thing developers will do is create a native version of their web apps. All about trying to kick google ads off the mac as much as possible by making popular services available as apps with iAd included. Clever but completely the wrong direction.

It is interesting that Netflix, Flickr, Google Maps are all available on my computer through the browser. But on the iDevice it's an app for each of those things.
post #131 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

And how can Steve prevent you going to a web site such as Version Tracker and downloading software from there?

Hey, what if an app is available in both places, app store and versiontracker? There is no rule against that.
post #132 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

Several clauses make me worry
"Apps that do not run on the currently shipping OS will be rejected."

So utilities that fix deficiencies in older OS'es or make older OS's more tolerable (Onyx comes to mind) are now verbotten? Nice, Apple. \

To put it in iOS terms - if your app actually doesn't run on iOS 4.1, it will be rejected from the app store. I get what you mean about an app fixing an old OS... but generally speaking they don't want underlying utilities anyway.

Quote:
"cannot install code or resources in shared locations."

OS X is a multi-user environment. It drives me nuts when I install an app as one user and the next user logs in and cannot run the app because the installer put all the config. files in ~/Library instead of /Library. This clause, strictly interpreted, means apps can no longer store their data in/Library. It remains to be seen if that's how Apple reviewers will interpret it. \

They have to do it this way (and I suspect once developers understand why they wouldn't allow use of the shared library).

Old way: I install an app on my mac. Another copy on my wife's mac. Another on our old Mac. 2 users on 3 Macs means 3 copies. And the good thing is that a guest login can use my apps while there.

New way: I install an app on my user account. I install another on my wife's account. It now self installs and works on any machine we log into (including logging in on my parents machine). 3 Macs and 2 users means 2 copies. The bad thing is that if I do allow a "guest" login it won't have any app store apps (though they could log in as themselves and get their own apps).

Once this is working for all my main apps I won't take my laptop when visiting my parents, I'll just log in as me on their new iMac and have everything I need.
post #133 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

No they won't. Complex applications that install files outside their own bundle are not eligible for inclusion in the store.

So MS Word, for example will never be in the app store because it installs fonts on your computer.

I don't think Microsoft needs to be in the app store. If you want Microsoft Word, you will be get it app store or not. Same for Firefox, Adobe.
post #134 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

Hey, what if an app is available in both places, app store and versiontracker? There is no rule against that.

There isn't?

I would double-check that before I bank on it...
post #135 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Simple, sandbox apps just like they do on the iphone. Make no mistake, if Jobs had the internet to easily install applications in an appstore from day 1 of the mac then he would have done. There would be no such thing as being able to install your own software

Thank god the technology has caught up.

Is this why Apple built the big data center? I thought that was going to be used to revolutionize the entire entertainment industry via AppleTV.
post #136 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

There isn't?

I would double-check that before I bank on it...

There is no rule in the Apple issued guidelines, which is available for double checking. However, I wouldn't bank on it as Apple can change their rules anytime they want.
post #137 of 176
Come on all you "pro-user" guys and gals... calm down your egotistical me-first attitudes towards your wants and wishes for Lion, and think for a minute.

There is absolutely NO reason why an iOS-user type interface OPTION, and iOS-friendly styled and synced App Store can't be an OPTION on the Mac. OPTION being the key word there (really?)

Considering the posted SW requirements, I personally will give Apple the benefit of the doubt that they
  • a) know what they're doing and what they're pushing towards; and
  • b) don't even WANT pro apps, utilities, suites etc. to even think about getting on the App Store, or start developing for it, only to be rejected. We've seen that movie recently about spurned developers, bloggers, etc. No re-run or sequel necessary, thank you.

I believe the App store is going to be for all of the "add-ons" for iOS device Apps, and for easy and friendly consumer computing Apps for your Mom.

+1 props go to the poster who mentioned this previously.

What's the average person going to do with a drive utility anyway, other than accidentally erase their drive.

Will Apple forget the "pros" and devs that make those iOS Apps with "pro-category" software/suites...on a Mac... and push them to go to Windows?... stay out of date with an old version of MacOS?.... boot Ubuntu?

I just don't think so. Even if I do love a good tech-conspiracy once in awhile.

And may I add: we pro users here should never forget that, without the casual Apple consumers, users, and buyers of iOS devices, starting with the iPod and the iTunes Store... we would definitely NOT be having this discussion, now would we? Leave the communal panic-attack to Lemmings United.

Summary: yer gettin' yer jockstraps and panties... or both ... in a bunch over nothin'.

Patience. Wait and see... because surely they'll be twisted deep enough if I'm wrong!
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #138 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

There is no rule in the Apple issued guidelines, which is available for double checking. However, I wouldn't bank on it as Apple can change their rules anytime they want.

I may have misunderstood the original poster's intent. By listing in VersionTracker did he mean that the link would go to Apple, or that one could sell their Mac software at their own site's store while it's also listed in the App Store?

I suspect the latter would not be allowed.
post #139 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

I may have misunderstood the original poster's intent. By listing in VersionTracker did he mean that the link would go to Apple, or that one could sell their Mac software at their own site's store while it's also listed in the App Store?

I suspect the latter would not be allowed.

If you look at the Apple guidelines, there is no rule to prevent selling on multiple sites. I would think the "Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store" rule would be a bigger issue. Most of my apps have its own auto update mechanism. I already have the app so I wouldn't go buy it at the app store. They really would need 2 different versions.

And why would any app have a link to the Apple app store? To go out of the way and pay 30% when it can be downloaded directly from version tracker?
post #140 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by strobe View Post

Uuuuh, more developers doesn't make more sales.

Well I'll tell you what, Einstein .... you buy a store with 10 developers and give me a store with 1000 developers and let's see who has "more sales."
Quote:
Originally Posted by strobe View Post

I thought his point was $ going into a developer's pocket (in which case he needs to multiply it by 0.7, then 0.7 again due to Apple's with-holding BS).

Put a $$ amount in place of "it" so we can try to figure out ... what in hell you're talking about. ... and while you're at it please "splain" why you are muliplying by 0.07 TWICE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strobe View Post

Again, are any developers outside of iPhone development salivating at this proposal?

"Absolutely, this will be disruptive to the traditional software distribution model," said Scott Schwarzhoff, vice president of marketing for Appcelerator, a company that produces tools that let developers recompile their software so it runs on Macs, Windows PCs, iPhones and iPads.

"But this is a net-net positive for almost everyone," said Schwarzhoff, particularly developers.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...taxonomyId=11v
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #141 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Put a $$ amount in place of "it" so we can try to figure out ... what in hell you're talking about. ... and while you're at it please "splain" why you are muliplying by 0.07 TWICE

Ever try to extract your money from Apple? They not only skim 30%, they with-hold another 30% until you can prove to them and the IRS it's yours.

Corporations don't pay this. The only reason for this extra reaming is because the app store was made for individual developers who are self-employed.

Anyway, even if you don't understand such implications Apple's initial 30% skim is enough to make this project a joke.
post #142 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by strobe View Post

Ever try to extract your money from Apple? They not only skim 30%, they with-hold another 30% until you can prove to them and the IRS it's yours.

Ever work for a paycheck? Guess what, they withhold $$$ for income tax that you "might" have to give to the government. S.O.P. ... AFAIK
Quote:
Originally Posted by strobe View Post

Anyway, even if you don't understand such implications Apple's initial 30% skim is enough to make this project a joke.

Apparently there are 100s of thousands of developers who don't think so ... and then there's you ... Oh well.
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #143 of 176
Next week I'll be buying the long awaiting 2.0 version of Scrivener, a writer's tool. The developer has expressed an interest in getting on Apple's app store and that'd be a handy way for me to keep up-to-date.

But how are he and I going to transition from a free-standing app to one that's on the store? Buying it all over again doesn't make much sense. Will existing owners be grandfathered into a store licensed one for free or a small fee? If so, how with that be done?
post #144 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

If you look at the Apple guidelines, there is no rule to prevent selling on multiple sites. I would think the "Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store" rule would be a bigger issue. Most of my apps have its own auto update mechanism. I already have the app so I wouldn't go buy it at the app store. They really would need 2 different versions.

And why would any app have a link to the Apple app store? To go out of the way and pay 30% when it can be downloaded directly from version tracker?

That's a good question. Why would Apple allow that?

And if your interpretation is correct, that inclusion in the App Store is non-exclusive, then what's to prevent a developer from selling the same product at their web site for 30% less than the price in the App Store?

That would seem the most sensible, so those customers who feel that the convenience of the installation and the illusion of greater security would be the ones picking up the tab for that, rather than requiring that their vendors surrender a third of their annual income to Steve Jobs.

But is that really the case? Does Apple allow a developing submitting to the App Store to also sell anywhere else they like at any price?

I'd double-check that before I based any business plans around it.
post #145 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

That's a good question. Why would Apple allow that?

And if your interpretation is correct, that inclusion in the App Store is non-exclusive, then what's to prevent a developer from selling the same product at their web site for 30% less than the price in the App Store?

That would seem the most sensible, so those customers who feel that the convenience of the installation and the illusion of greater security would be the ones picking up the tab for that, rather than requiring that their vendors surrender a third of their annual income to Steve Jobs.

But is that really the case? Does Apple allow a developing submitting to the App Store to also sell anywhere else they like at any price?

I'd double-check that before I based any business plans around it.

Sounds like Apple needs to update their guidelines?
post #146 of 176
I think the more disturbing point going on here is the basic idea that the mac should be like iOS.

Isn't the point of making iOS to make a good OS that works for small devices? Otherwise apple could have just squeezed the Mac into a small form factor and called it done. This direction even goes against previous comments by Steve that the reason microsoft failed in the mobile space was because they tried to squeeze windows into a small box instead of redesigning. Now they are going to go the other way, and take an OS that's clearly not an OS that works for the desktop and force people into it? Not good.

Obviously there's a lot of hype going on in apple for iOS because that's where all apple's growth has been. Naturally it seems like iOS works so that's where development should go. But not all iOS features work on the desktop. Hopefully apple will get enough feedback to that affect before making any longterm critical mistakes.
post #147 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

This is indeed a rather massive pile of fail, as another poster said.

If it was the sole way to install software on Mac OSX, you might have a point.

Since it isn't, you assertion is just plain silly.
post #148 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

+1 Insightful

-2 for baseless hope and extreme obtuseness
post #149 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

The kind of change that you outline is not a 180 - it's abandoning 30 years of precedent. It just won't happen that way - Jobs is too pragmatic.

Pragmatic indeed - all the tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists have yet to outline a cogent reason why Apple would desire to lock down Mac OSX or even think they could get away with it.

Other than Apple is evil and loves to control things
post #150 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

The astute reader will note that I'm not the one who made an unsupportable claim. Thank you for proving my point.

The astute reader will note that if it was such an unsupportable claim, you should be able to counter it trivially

Thank you for proving my point.

Quote:
You wrote:

A more astute reader would not that I did not write that, Akac did (whom you originally challenged with your inane challenge).

So you challenged him for three, I ask again - provide just one that doesn't. Go for it.
post #151 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post

I think the more disturbing point going on here is the basic idea that the mac should be like iOS.

Isn't the point of making iOS to make a good OS that works for small devices? Otherwise apple could have just squeezed the Mac into a small form factor and called it done. This direction even goes against previous comments by Steve that the reason microsoft failed in the mobile space was because they tried to squeeze windows into a small box instead of redesigning. Now they are going to go the other way, and take an OS that's clearly not an OS that works for the desktop and force people into it? Not good.

The idea here is to make OS X more simple. Having an App Store and a home for your apps is better. Having apps auto-save and auto-resume is better. They aren't simply trying to make OS X like iOS, they are just Trying to bring over some of the good ideas. That said, Lion looks very messy and is a pretty big let down in my opinion. They could have gone further and also better spent their time on different things like the dock.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #152 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by strobe View Post

Even if there was no policy against that, you won't see any non-Apple flagship products in the app store given the revenue split.

It's not just the revenue split, established players like Microsoft and Adobe don't need the app store - their, well, large and established. Duh!

If you weren't so busy trying to explain why the app store will fail because it doesn't fit all situations you might have noticed where Apple specifically said it's just another supplemental way for people to distribute software.

Good god, I would hate to see the reactions for other new concepts try to be introduced to day. Just think if shareware suddenly was introduced for the first time to day - I can only imagine the hysterics and hand-wringing about how it threatens the value proposition for software developers and will drive the "race to the bottom".

Ha! I finally figured out what sounds so familiar about the hysterics about the App Store - you people sound just like the RIAA whining about digital distribution. Talk about myopic!

Let's see if we can get it across, yet again: It's an alternate software distribution method.

That's it. Nothing more.

It's another choice, not the end of Mac OSX as we know it The arguments otherwise don't even make sense - there is no advantage other than wild conspiracy theorist fantasies...
post #153 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

That alone should debunk the whole "the mac store is going to be the only option to install software someday" conspiracy theories [...] it would be nonsensical that they would even want to do this.

No kidding.... excellent post!
post #154 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Nevertheless it makes me nervous that Lion is headed to make the Mac a consumer focused machine at the detriment of the professional users.

How is anything that has been demoed in Lion so far to "the detriment of the professional users"?
post #155 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

Firefox director says Apple is looking to bypass the web
http://www.slashgear.com/firefox-dir...-web-21109568/

I would say the "Firefox director" is the victim of his own hubris. To imply Apple is bypassing the web would imply that the overwhelming majority of computing, happens "on the web" - and that's simply not true.

He needs to stop reading the propaganda from Google and pay attention to reality more. When MS no longer mints money from Windows and Office hand over fist, he may have a point - until then he's merely suffering from a sever case of hyperbole.
post #156 of 176
OFFTOPIC for a sec:

Quote:
Originally Posted by randyhyde@me.com View Post

Wow. If this happens once a month to you, you might want to consider purchasing an automatic password generator program and use that :-) You obviously don't know how to choose good passwords :-)

Actually, I have that problem occasionally myself: see, my AppleID is my nickname, which I grabbed within minutes of Jobs announcing iTools/dotMac way back when. Suffice it to say its not uncommon.

Someone has gotten the notion that it is the Apple ID/address they picked, so they keep trying to reset the password and I keep getting reset notifications. This has been going on for years now. I wish I knew what their actual mail address is to tell them to get a clue

Back ON-TOPIC

I'm probably shelling out 25% for backend and advertising, so a 5% difference for the additional 'foot-traffic' is a no-brainer. There's still a few (big) questions to be answered in the coming days and some thinking to do, as many apps will have to be tailored into/spin-off distinct AppStore versions in light of technical requirements and the 'family-pack' licensing/pricing equation.
post #157 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

At least the big developers don't have to use the store. Companies like Microsoft, Adobe, and Autodesk.

And how unfortunate that is, given that they are precisely the companies most like to release self-serving interfaces that have nothing to do with the rest of the user's virtual environment. I've all the latest and greatest from the three companies you mention. AutoCAD for OS X is a true interface horror, and Office 2011 a disgraceful, bloated mess. Creative Suite 5 is tolerable, but at Adobe's obscenely inflated prices, tolerable is a long way from acceptable.
post #158 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Also app store on a computer, do people not realise that this has been available on linux like forever and all the software is frrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

This is clearly an attack on the browser. The first thing developers will do is create a native version of their web apps. All about trying to kick google ads off the mac as much as possible by making popular services available as apps with iAd included. Clever but completely the wrong direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

And Steve has NEVER backpedaled before or turned around 180 degrees on his past statements? Riiiight.

Two years from now, this will be our only choice for software.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Simple, sandbox apps just like they do on the iphone. Make no mistake, if Jobs had the internet to easily install applications in an appstore from day 1 of the mac then he would have done. There would be no such thing as being able to install your own software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

and it may be removed in future releases of OS X.

http://developer.apple.com/library/m...010380-CH4-SW1

First, no flash with the new Backbook Airs, then no Java, then app store and all the restrictions and then in a few more releases, no app installs outside of app store.

Good bye OS X, it was a nice ride while it lasted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by strobe View Post

Even if there was no policy against that, you won't see any non-Apple flagship products in the app store given the revenue split.

When MS sells you Office, your money goes directly into their account, not some Apple bank. Not only are their costs lower, but they handle their own taxes and pocket nearly all of it. Everyone else gets shafted by Apple and the IRS.

Expect to see a lot of freeware and silly gimmicks on the app store. A race to the bottom. For useful commercial apps it will be an abysmal failure.

I know Steve's wet dream is to sandbox the OS and only allow app store installs. It won't happen with Lion, but at some point there will be a sanitized iMac-OS like the iOS only for desktop Macs and it will be sandboxed and made to run on cheap hardware (possibly a netbook?). It won't be installed on Mac Pros initially (if they even exist at that point), but the beginning of the end will be clear.

Hopefully by then the patent system will die and some other megalomaniac billionaire will come out with something all together better (perhaps an OS without a filesystem) and we can run OS X in a VM and move on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

That rule is simply to push developers to rush into the App Store before any of their competitors do.

Ambrosia and others (many, many others) have expressed deep concerns about the App Store requirements, and I'm sure most would prefer to take a wait-n-see approach with this new paradigm.

But Steve's not stupid. He put in that clause to take care of the fence-sitters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

You're not alone in that opinion:

Firefox director says Apple is “looking to bypass the web”
http://www.slashgear.com/firefox-dir...-web-21109568/



No, that's the second thing they'll do.

The first thing they'll do is raise prices by 30% to spread the love around.

You know, I hadn't quite realized that we can really get our Apple hate on by making up shit that they'll maybe-probably-you-know-they're-just-dying-to on account of the evilness, and parading it around like it had already happened and the rest of of us our just too dumb/sheep to notice.

But why so half-assed? If we can just make shit up, why not grimly warn of the day the Jobs will demand each and every Mac developer live in Apple's shanty towns, the better to control all aspects of the user experience? Why not hysterically describe the no doubt any day now deployment of permanently on, permanently reporting to Cupertino iSight cameras, with a big Jobs controlled kill switch right next to the monitors so he can fry your computer if you use it wrong? I mean, just look at the iPhone! It's practically already true! Wouldn't put it past 'em!

I'm also intrigued to learn that Apple, provider of Web Kit that powers the entire mobile internet and arguably the owner of the best mobile browser going is trying to "kill the internet" by providing some apps that replicate web site functionality. I'm assuming that Google is also trying to kill the internet with the Netflix app on their Google TV, or their forthcoming Chrome OS.

Oh, no, wait, Google is super cool because they're "open" and Eric Schmidt is a really nice guy, unlike that bastard Jobs. I bet he'll try to kill me in my sleep. Bank on it.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #159 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaughnsc View Post

I'm probably shelling out 25% for backend and advertising

That fee doesn't include advertising. Advertising is up to you. Ask any iPhone developer.
post #160 of 176
HA, I just realized something obvious. If Apple have Mac developers a better split, they could no longer justify shafting iPhone developers.

It's all so comical
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple issues review guidelines for Mac App Store