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 5

post #161 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.


At the end of the day apple is insanely scared of cross platform applications as it means there is no benefit in buying apple hardware. Hence their huge walled garden. Their strategy is simple: make something cool but slightly limited (so it really really appeals to those that aren't that tech literate) then make it a bit cooler every year so people keep coming back again. Before you know it you have a huge amount of people in your walled garden. Now imagine if platform independent web apps came along to the same standard as your native apps, you would switch. The benefits of switching far outweigh you using all your native apps and eventually the walled garden comes tumbling down. This is what apple doesn't want because it means they lose again. Hence them pushing the app store onto every bit of apple hardware they can to try and make it ubiquitous. I am pretty certain they will put an app store on apple tv before they put a browser on it.

The whole model people have suggested here as being great where you sign into your mum's iMac and you download all the apps you have bought and then you use them is completely flawed. It is far far far more useful to login to any device, mac, pc, iphone, android phone and open the browser and have all your apps and no downloading. Unfortunately, this will never happen with apple...
post #162 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

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.

For my part, I've already explained how most developers aren't paying "between 10 and 50%" for simple transaction processing.

If you think that post had such a valuable point, why are you so consistently unable to support it?
post #163 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by strobe View Post

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

That's an important point that the many here who don't publish software keep overlooking. They think that simply getting into the App Store means instant money, and somehow you won't have to do any more marketing. But given that more than 90% of the current App Store developers' wares are pulling in less than minimum wage, the facts suggest otherwise. Simply being one record in a database of hundreds of thousands with a search engine that even the most die-hard Apple fans complain about does not translate into free money.
post #164 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by appl View Post

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.

*facepalm*

People WILL blame Apple? You do realize that the non-app store situation is the status quo. In other words people SHOULD ALREADY be railing against Apple if this was the case.

However, this isn't the case. If someone releases a program that sucks it gets poor reviews. Even if it gets mixed reviews, one can always delete an app. It's really easy. Sure, it could be made easier, but a LOT less costly than 30%.

The problem Steve has is it's the Mac community's standards being used, not HIS

Quote:
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!!

Well, this final solution of yours (to a NON-PROBLEM!) will only work if the app store is the ONLY venue to download apps.

What I find most amusing by your spectacularly wrong-headed analysis is the reason most people download software in the first place: missing functionality. For the most part they aren't downloading silly iPhone-like gimmicks which will no doubt populate Apple's fail store. They are downloading video players better than QuickTime (or plugins like perian to fix it...oops can't have those in the app store!), missing features like disk cloning, better chat clients than iChat, better network filters than Apple's flawed firewall, missing notifications like growl and it's various plug-ins (oops, no app store) like unplugged, better media servers than Front Row, disk utilities better than Disk Utility that can actually do things like recover files...

I'll take all these "uncurated" wares (whatever the hell the non-word uncurated is supposed to mean) over Apple's failware any day! Not only do they not cause problems, they solve problems which keep me from having to bother with Apple's tech support (which I don't think I have ever called since I started using Macs in 1986)
post #165 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

At the end of the day apple is insanely scared of cross platform applications as it means there is no benefit in buying apple hardware.

People have been preaching this since the web took off - and yet Apple is a major supporter of webkit!

Now if they are so scared of cross platform applications, why would they introduce a smartphone with the best web browser to date? By your rational, mobile safari should be worse than mobile IE to encourage - nay, force - people to use native apps. Or heck, ship with no browser at all!

And yet that didn't happen! Amazing! Probably because Apple isn't concerned about cross platform apps? Probably because Apple understands they don't have to cripple the web to compete, they can compete with web apps by providing better tools that enable developers to provide a superior experience via native apps than can be delivered via the web?

Naw, that's too simple and logical! It's much more likely that Apple is scared of the web and has this huge hidden agenda

People can hype a web-only existence all they want but it's not happening any time soon. When I can launch Civilization V out of a web browser without relying on some third party plug-in like Java or Flash, you might have the beginnings of an argument that Apple is concerned about "cross platform applications".

But you can't. And I doubt Apple is that concerned about them. And not because they are arrogant, but because they simply don't have to be. Web-only experiences suck. It's probably why Apple is watching Google with Chrome with some bemusement - and probably laughing out loud when people insist that if Google looses their upcoming showdown with Oracle over Android that they can "just pull out Chrome". What a farce....

Quote:
Hence their huge walled garden.

And yet they actively develop Safari. And not only that, they actively develop web kit and GIVE IT AWAY.

Yup, they are shaking in their boots about cross platform web apps that they created such a "walled garden" that it's missing a big chunk of the "wall". Absolutely brilliant strategy to defeat web apps there...

Quote:
Their strategy is simple: make something cool but slightly limited (so it really really appeals to those that aren't that tech literate)

Actually, their strategy is simple - release products (hardware, software, services) that people want to use. Not just because they are cool, but because they empower their users to do things with minimal fuss. Sure, cool doesn't hurt, but you can't live on "cool" forever. Cool = Fad and fads are fickle. Apple's meteoric growth since Steve's return is anything but fickle.

Quote:
then make it a bit cooler every year so people keep coming back again.

I never understood this "incremental" criticism.

Where's the outcry against Microsoft for incrementally dolling out features. Why didn't they release Areo with Windows 3.1?!? They were holding back forcing incremental upgrades all this time - those bastards!

Seriously, I can't believe people even think arguments like these are feasible to others on the outside of their circle-jerk echo chambers that they express them in public. Embarrassing, really...

Quote:
Before you know it you have a huge amount of people in your walled garden.

Before you know it, you will have the current iOS ecosystem. Millions of happy customers who are there because they love the products they are using because of what they do for them and the way they function, not because they were duped into the ecosystem by "ooh, shiny"!

Quote:
Now imagine if platform independent web apps came along to the same standard as your native apps, you would switch.

"Now imagine you found a lamp, rubbed it and a Genie popped out and gave you three wishes"

Fairy tales, while often entertaining, are not the sound basis for a rational argument.

Quote:
The benefits of switching far outweigh you using all your native apps and eventually the walled garden comes tumbling down.

And theoretically open sourced web standards bodies will continue their political infighting, real web standards will remain stalled and the web will remain the modern equivalent of the VT100 terminal compared to native applications.

Now granted, I'm not saying the web isn't useful (tons of business was and is still carried out via VT100 terminals) but to imply that native apps days are numbered soon is stupid. It may be an accurate statement in the context of the life of the universe, but if you are implying it's going to happen even within the next five years I'd say you are crazy or wildly optimistic.

Quote:
This is what apple doesn't want because it means they lose again.

If having the second largest market cap is your definition of loosing...

Quote:
Hence them pushing the app store onto every bit of apple hardware they can to try and make it ubiquitous.

Damn them for trying to make things easy and consistent for end users! Why only True Geeks™ should be able to unlock the secrets of computing

Of course they are going to push the App store model! It makes too much sense! The Linux guys have been doing it for years with package managers. Decades, actually.

The real question is what is taking Microsoft so long? Patching applications on Windows is a NIGHTMARE - then again they and their partners wouldn't be able to sell you as many management solutions and consulting hours if it just worked. Personally I find that a more likely conspiracy than your walled garden theories...

Quote:
I am pretty certain they will put an app store on apple tv before they put a browser on it.

Duh - because for most people a browser on a TV is a pretty lame experience whereas applications tailored for a devices user interface are fare more useful. Especially if you have a laptop or iPad. Especially if you have an iPad

And if the web is the solver of all and the end all be all technology, why was Google going out of their way to point out as a positive that certain web sites had created GoogleTV specific pages?

Quote:
The whole model people have suggested here as being great where you sign into your mum's iMac and you download all the apps you have bought and then you use them is completely flawed. It is far far far more useful to login to any device, mac, pc, iphone, android phone and open the browser and have all your apps and no downloading.

Huh? Native apps aren't going away any time soon - so having a store where you can push a button and download all your apps, or at least easily get to the ones you really need at the moment is a bad thing and "completely flawed"? Yup, convenience sucks. I would much rather rub two sticks together instead of striking a match

Quote:
Unfortunately, this will never happen with apple...

Because of the walled garden, right? Never mind Apple develops and prompts web kit and Safari? Ugh. Nevermind - I'm not sure why I'm bothering with such flawed circular logic...
post #166 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

At the end of the day apple is insanely scared of cross platform applications as it means there is no benefit in buying apple hardware..

+1 Insightful.

Unable to innovate their way beyond a <10% market share on their own, they're now banking on differentiating themselves through their developers' work - and making those developers hand over a third of their annual income to Steve for the privilege.

Cojones. Almost admirable in its scope. Makes Bill Gates look like an amateur at the ecosystem manipulation game.
post #167 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

People have been preaching this since the web took off - and yet Apple is a major supporter of webkit!

Now if they are so scared of cross platform applications, why would they introduce a smartphone with the best web browser to date? By your rational, mobile safari should be worse than mobile IE to encourage - nay, force - people to use native apps. Or heck, ship with no browser at all!

And yet that didn't happen! Amazing! Probably because Apple isn't concerned about cross platform apps? Probably because Apple understands they don't have to cripple the web to compete, they can compete with web apps by providing better tools that enable developers to provide a superior experience via native apps than can be delivered via the web?

Naw, that's too simple and logical! It's much more likely that Apple is scared of the web and has this huge hidden agenda

People can hype a web-only existence all they want but it's not happening any time soon. When I can launch Civilization V out of a web browser without relying on some third party plug-in like Java or Flash, you might have the beginnings of an argument that Apple is concerned about "cross platform applications".

But you can't. And I doubt Apple is that concerned about them. And not because they are arrogant, but because they simply don't have to be. Web-only experiences suck. It's probably why Apple is watching Google with Chrome with some bemusement - and probably laughing out loud when people insist that if Google looses their upcoming showdown with Oracle over Android that they can "just pull out Chrome". What a farce....



And yet they actively develop Safari. And not only that, they actively develop web kit and GIVE IT AWAY.

Yup, they are shaking in their boots about cross platform web apps that they created such a "walled garden" that it's missing a big chunk of the "wall". Absolutely brilliant strategy to defeat web apps there...



Actually, their strategy is simple - release products (hardware, software, services) that people want to use. Not just because they are cool, but because they empower their users to do things with minimal fuss. Sure, cool doesn't hurt, but you can't live on "cool" forever. Cool = Fad and fads are fickle. Apple's meteoric growth since Steve's return is anything but fickle.



I never understood this "incremental" criticism.

Where's the outcry against Microsoft for incrementally dolling out features. Why didn't they release Areo with Windows 3.1?!? They were holding back forcing incremental upgrades all this time - those bastards!

Seriously, I can't believe people even think arguments like these are feasible to others on the outside of their circle-jerk echo chambers that they express them in public. Embarrassing, really...



Before you know it, you will have the current iOS ecosystem. Millions of happy customers who are there because they love the products they are using because of what they do for them and the way they function, not because they were duped into the ecosystem by "ooh, shiny"!



"Now imagine you found a lamp, rubbed it and a Genie popped out and gave you three wishes"

Fairy tales, while often entertaining, are not the sound basis for a rational argument.



And theoretically open sourced web standards bodies will continue their political infighting, real web standards will remain stalled and the web will remain the modern equivalent of the VT100 terminal compared to native applications.

Now granted, I'm not saying the web isn't useful (tons of business was and is still carried out via VT100 terminals) but to imply that native apps days are numbered soon is stupid. It may be an accurate statement in the context of the life of the universe, but if you are implying it's going to happen even within the next five years I'd say you are crazy or wildly optimistic.



If having the second largest market cap is your definition of loosing...



Damn them for trying to make things easy and consistent for end users! Why only True Geeks should be able to unlock the secrets of computing

Of course they are going to push the App store model! It makes too much sense! The Linux guys have been doing it for years with package managers. Decades, actually.

The real question is what is taking Microsoft so long? Patching applications on Windows is a NIGHTMARE - then again they and their partners wouldn't be able to sell you as many management solutions and consulting hours if it just worked. Personally I find that a more likely conspiracy than your walled garden theories...



Duh - because for most people a browser on a TV is a pretty lame experience whereas applications tailored for a devices user interface are fare more useful. Especially if you have a laptop or iPad. Especially if you have an iPad

And if the web is the solver of all and the end all be all technology, why was Google going out of their way to point out as a positive that certain web sites had created GoogleTV specific pages?



Huh? Native apps aren't going away any time soon - so having a store where you can push a button and download all your apps, or at least easily get to the ones you really need at the moment is a bad thing and "completely flawed"? Yup, convenience sucks. I would much rather rub two sticks together instead of striking a match



Because of the walled garden, right? Never mind Apple develops and prompts web kit and Safari? Ugh. Nevermind - I'm not sure why I'm bothering with such flawed circular logic...


Market cap is not a definition of winning for the end consumer, it only is for investors which is what apple care about. This is exactly why releasing an iPad with no camera makes sense to apple. All wall street know that come January the camera and wooohooo face time model is coming and all the apple disciples will be out again to replace theirs, so it's a risk less investment. How does that benefit the consumer?

Flash is a cross compatible web platform now and apple refuse to give people the CHOICE of using it! End of. Until recently they wouldn't even let you compile an flash app to iPhone app, what a joke that is for developers and consumers. Apple won't be happy until they have all the developers developing for their platform first and only their platform. This does NOT benefit the consumer.

Webkit is great - well done apple but it is not a reason for apple's commitment to cross compatible web apps. Don't criticise chrome either, it dicks all over safari on every platform!
post #168 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

People have been preaching this since the web took off - and yet Apple is a major supporter of webkit!

Right, because their own independent efforts at trying to come up with a decent HTML rendering engine amounted to a fail, so the only way they could make their own browser was to borrow an engine like the one from the KDE project.

Like Carnegie Mellon's Mach kernel that NeXT and eventually Apple used as the core of the OS, some of the best parts of the Mac experience come from things that are now part of the FOSS movement.

With KDE's WebKit, Apple has no choice but to give back to the community. It's part of the license.
post #169 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

Right, because their own independent efforts at trying to come up with a decent HTML rendering engine amounted to a fail, so the only way they could make their own browser was to borrow an engine like the one from the KDE project.

Like Carnegie Mellon's Mach kernel that NeXT and eventually Apple used as the core of the OS, some of the best parts of the Mac experience come from things that are now part of the FOSS movement.

With KDE's WebKit, Apple has no choice but to give back to the community. It's part of the license.

"KDE's WebKit"? Your zeal to deny Apple authorship makes you seem clueless.
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 #170 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

"KDE's WebKit"? Your zeal to deny Apple authorship makes you seem clueless.

Quote:
The code that would become WebKit began in 1998 as the KDE projects HTML layout engine KHTML and KDE's JavaScript engine (KJS).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webkit

If you feel that's incorrect you can edit that page with better sources.

Good luck.
post #171 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webkit

If you feel that's incorrect you can edit that page with better sources.

Good luck.

WebKit specifically refers to what happened after Apple shaped KHTML to their own ends. Calling it "KDE's WebKit" is like referring to "Macromedia's Final Cut Pro", i.e. zealously denying Apple authorship to the point of cluelessness.
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 #172 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

WebKit specifically refers to what happened after Apple shaped KHTML to their own ends. Calling it "KDE's WebKit" is like referring to "Macromedia's Final Cut Pro", i.e. zealously denying Apple authorship to the point of cluelessness.

Your getting hung up on nomenclature doesn't change WebKit's history.
post #173 of 176
It could use some tweaks and evolution (which it will get, just as the iOS App Store keeps getting). But it sounds like a good start to me!

Without those pro-user limitations, theres less benefit to the user in even having/using the App Store in the first place.

And on the flip-side, having it be relatively strict isnt just good for users, but for developers toobecause it will help make the traditional NON-App Store sales models remain strong!

The App Store will have a welcome place, but so will the ways we buy now (Amazon, Steam, direct download with PayPal, whatever).
post #174 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

Right, because their own independent efforts at trying to come up with a decent HTML rendering engine amounted to a fail, so the only way they could make their own browser was to borrow an engine like the one from the KDE project.

Like Carnegie Mellon's Mach kernel that NeXT and eventually Apple used as the core of the OS, some of the best parts of the Mac experience come from things that are now part of the FOSS movement.

With KDE's WebKit, Apple has no choice but to give back to the community. It's part of the license.

No, the best parts of the Mac experience come from completely Apple proprietary libraries. The FOSS stuff is mostly commodity capability. If this was not true then Linux wouldn't suck on the desktop.

Also Apple was not required to release WebKit...just WebCore and javaScriptCore. The rest of the code Apple released under BSD. As far as Apple's independent efforts failing you'll have to provide a credible link.
post #175 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

Right, because their own independent efforts at trying to come up with a decent HTML rendering engine amounted to a fail, so the only way they could make their own browser was to borrow an engine like the one from the KDE project.

Like Carnegie Mellon's Mach kernel that NeXT and eventually Apple used as the core of the OS, some of the best parts of the Mac experience come from things that are now part of the FOSS movement.

With KDE's WebKit, Apple has no choice but to give back to the community. It's part of the license.

Webkit is as related to KDE today compared to KDE of yesteryear as IE is. KDE owes it's continuing relevance to Webkit contributions.

As for the kernel, I wouldn't poo-poo hiring the preeminent OS designer on the planet. Torvalds created a great community, but he didn't design the whole thing in his head. Windows is flat-out design by committee in the pejorative sense; Gates is a business genius, not so much a software one. Avie made the entire Mach idea what it is, it may have stated as a project before him, but he completely reworked it into 3.0 and made it technologically relevant. It was easily 15 years ahead of it's time, now it's just coming into its own.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #176 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

Your getting hung up on nomenclature doesn't change WebKit's history.

Your personal rewriting of history doesn't change actual history. This isn't a case of winning by getting to the blackboard first, unless you are winning the creative redefinition contest [go see appl for that prize].
.
Reply
.
Reply
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