Apple issues review guidelines for Mac App Store - Page 4

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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!!

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.

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

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.


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.

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.

There isn't?

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

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.

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.

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!

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?

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."

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.

"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

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.

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

Apparently there are 100s of thousands of developers who don't think so ... and then there's you ... Oh well.

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?

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?

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.

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.

-2 for baseless hope and extreme obtuseness

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

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.


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.

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.

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...

No kidding.... excellent post!

How is anything that has been demoed in Lion so far to "the detriment of the professional users"?

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.

OFFTOPIC for a sec:


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.

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.

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.

That fee doesn't include advertising. Advertising is up to you. Ask any iPhone developer.

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