Apple won't allow demos, trials, betas on Mac App Store - Page 2

There are users like your mom and the MAS will be beneficial to them. I don't think that currently these users make the largest part of all Mac OS X users. This may change after a few years of existence of the MAS, but right now I think that most Mac OS X users can install apps.

Why you guys keep talking about dmg and stuff? You download an app, and Mac OS X automatically mounts the dmg file and launches the installation script. No need to know what a dmg file is.

Regarding quoting other posts - I did not remove the reference, I just quoted the post differently.

I think this article points to Apple having no plans to disallow non-MAS app installations. If they did, wouldnt they be allowing for the demos and trials (at least) without reminding devs that they should use their website to promote these types of apps?

QFT

PS: I originally had grandmother in my post, too.

Actually, sadly, no--or, at least, most computer users have little or no clue how to do so. There's a LOT more "moms" out there than us.

Example: Awhile back, I was doing some temp work at a standard "Dilbert-style" cubicle farm office, filling in for a woman for a couple of weeks. I'm left-handed, so the first thing I did was to switch the mouse buttons on the Windows machine.

My co-workers freaked out. They chastized me for "hacking the computer" and immediately called the IT dept to "fix" the problem. They finally "compromised" by letting me switch the buttons, but only until the end of the day--I had to switch it back before I left, even though I was the one who would be working at the same cubicle the next morning.

I've seen 24" CRTs set to 800x600 resolution--the icons are life-size!--because the user didn't know that they could change the resolution to anything higher.

There's a million stories like this, and each of those stories represents a potential MAS user.

The average Mac user is not in any way tech savvy. Neither is the average PC user. These have been the majority users for a very long time. What makes the iPhone and iPad popular is that all the complex stuff has been ironed out or removed completely, yet desktop OSes are still using a 4 decade old mindset. People want their computers to work, be intuitive and feel natural. The MAS offers this option.


Most apps dont auto-mount and launch scripts and install. Most dont even have scripts, you are meant to drag-and-drop where you wish to place them. They also dont auto-unmount. You mention this as if its common sense when its not.

BTW, which Apps would you like to see in the Store?
What apps are worth it, to let others to find them easily?Please share the info.

Of course, this implies it was 'thought' to begin with.

Here are a few paid and free apps from my 3rd-party app folder that I think could make it to the MAS.

1. 1Password
2. Adium
3. Comic Life
4. Dropbox
5. Google Chrome
6. iBank
7. iStat Menus
8. Movist
9. Nike+ Connect
10. OmniGraffle Lite
11. OpenGL Extensions Viewer
12. Paintbrush
13. Soulver
14. TextWrangler
15. Transmit
16. Transmission (would that be allowed?)
17. WhatSize
18. Xbench
19. (A good note/flashcard app)
20. (A good mass file name renamer app)

Currently, the main problem with the App Store is discoverability. From the developer perspective, if the app somehow manages to make a top apps list, or one of the other featured lists (which probably helps immensely in making a top list) , it's likely it will be noticed. But, if it doesn't, it's likely to not do so well. From the user perspective, it can be difficult to feel confident that you've really found the best app for your particular purpose. One of the problems is that App Ratings don't appear in search results. Another problem is inadequate categorization. The Genius feature is not at all useful in this regard. Apple needs to address these issues or the situation will only become worse as the total number of apps continues to grow.

So, it could be huge, but, without some improvement in discoverability, it may not help small/new developers as much as it potentially could.

This is all academic.

There is no way that Adobe is going to put the CS Suite in the app store for any price unless Apple changes large amounts of the rules they have already published, and unless Adobe wants to also radically alter it's product in several key ways.

It ain't going to happen.

Why? This is Mac we're talking about. If you want the beta or demo you go directly to the developer's site to get it. The Mac app store will be optional, unlike the iOS app store.

Agreed. I downloaded Evernote and was testing the free side version of what it does. Then I downloaded DevonThink Pro Office for a Free Trial that has limitations placed on it like 150 hours of use before you have to buy or trash cuz it will no longer work. I appreciate that since Evernote was FREE so no love lost if I never use again, HOWEVER, DevonThink Office Pro is $150.00. If I did not get to try before you buy, I would have exited that web page before it even finished downloading! As it stands, DevonThink Pro Office meets my needs better then Evernote and they have a $150.00 sale. Whereas, if I could not kick the tires so to speak, I would have passed for a lesser product with lower results, expectations and satisfaction on purchase. Plus Apple, unless your app store is going to sell .99¢ Fart apps for the Mac client! You would have missed out on... what's 30% or Apples cut of $150.00, oh yeah, $45.00. Alone, that's not much money, but multiply that by the same number of sales that the iPhone/iPad store is selling and now you are talking some serious coin!

Why have 30 second to 90 second song snippets to listen to or movie trailers, huh Apple?! I wonder if the developers can pool together and send Apple a letter saying, "We the undersigned agree to the following, "Any digital app store provider who wants to host, sell and profit from our content, agrees to our terms of free download trial offers." Hey it worked for Apple when they sent out that letter saying they were increasing the song sound bites to 90 seconds and if they didn't hear from the record companies, it was tacit approval of Apples move. And surely Apple doesn't want developers going over to Android camp, let alone MS when they too follow suite a year later!

I guess Apple has nothing better to do then keep track of returns and credits. Man who would have thought that Apple's accounting dept was up there with Apple Legal and Apple R&D with regards to job security and activity?!

Can you purchase from the devloper's site too and bypass Apple's monetory cut? Even though it's a few mouse clicks away, that's stupid. Come to my store but go some place else to try it before you buy it, huh?!

So, why is this different from the way any other retail store sells software? I mean, when was the last time you got a demo, beta or anything not being the full retail version on BestBuy, Amazon, NewEgg or your local software store?

If you want the demo, etc.. you always visit the developers web site.. right?

On the iPhone store it is a whole different ballgame. They needed more control because it is an actual phone which we don't want hackers or viruses threatening your main communications device.
On a Mac, they don't need that tight of a control.
This particular store is more of a convenience for the developers and the customers... and a whole new way for Apple to monetize on this business... distribution on the Mac platform. So, it is just a win-win-win situation for all involved.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

And for developers... keep concentrating your marketing efforts... don't depend on Apple and the store. Shelf space is always a fight on any physical store. Just make sure you have a link on your website. If customers want your product, and are looking for it... they will find it. Make sure you have links all over the place pointing to your MacApp Store page.

30% is not a bad margin to get software listed in the app store. I doubt they can get any other software retailer to do it for any less. In fact I would bet that the margins at the Apple retail store for 3rd party software are much higher. Developers have always dealt with wholesale verses retail pricing when marketing their software. Software margins have to be high or retailers would not carry it. Some retailers like Amazon will even discount software up to 30% off the retail prices, so they must have a greater margin than 30% to be able to do that.

I am guessing that YES.. you can buy from wherever you want. It is just another store.. not the ONLY store. As a customer it shouldn't cost you more. They take the cut from the developers set price.

For a customer... with the account active on iTunes/AppleID, then it is a matter of a single click and boom.. the download starts. On other sites you will probably have to go through the whole purchasing process.

Of course.. I am just guessing here with my limited logic. It would not make any sense to force developers to ONLY use the MacApp store... at least for the next couple of years.

Right. So having viruses and hackers using my main computing device is fine. I get it.
Oh, and let me tell you my credit card number: 5486 2456 4426 2465, expiry date 12/12.

Besides the fact that buying software from a B&M or warehouse stores is dying, there is no user installation of these apps, just click to buy and the rest is down for you including updates. It also allows you to buy a lot of very useful and simple apps that you simply wouldnt find in box stores. Where exactly could Best Buy sell an iStatMenus DVD? it would be silly.

Ill need the 3 digits on the back of the card and if you tell me your limit that would be swell. Id hate for you to have to pay any overage fees.

I'm on the "bad decision" side of this one, simply because I've actually bought apps in the market place after liking the demo (also in Steam.)

Steam is a great example of where demos made me buy software. Plenty of game demos even allow a taste of the multiplayer portion of it. Left4Dead for instance had a LOT of people go from the demo to the game.

It makes sense to me to allow people to get a taste of what they will be getting, and clearly it makes sense to software companies. Forcing people to go navigate for these demos might prove to be a bad decision because people might just be lazy enough to not go to the website to download it. Not only that, but not everyone has a demo of their software, so people have to go and CHECK basically.

In the end, people will end up deciding to pass on that app they might have bought if they had seen how cool it was with the demo that they were too lazy to go check for.

I suspect in time once the other pieces are all in place and working this may come back within certain specific guide lines or at least perhaps in a separate section of the store. I do agree that the strict compliance rules make total sense. Using a Mac should be about consistency and no application should do something out of the ordinary with libraries and databases especially in these times of attacks on computers.

How is that thinking differently? lol. The capability is there, so why NOT use it?

Also, the first example that comes to mind is the food samplers at Cosco or BJ's but maybe that's because I'm hungry

The ones from developers we would never of heard of without this. The wealth of talent this will open up to us. I am excited

Like what?

I agree, 30% is a great margin for developers, even developers of expensive software, especially if you think of the MAS as compared to a physical retailer. To sell software at any physical retailer (such as something like Best Buy) they not only have to give Best Buy at least 30%, they also have the cost and labor of creating and shipping the physical product with a box, dvd, printed manuals, etc.

For starters, the code base. I bet the MAS require it to be compiled using their SDK. Isn’t Adobe still using Carbon in some of their apps?

I agree. I think we also won't really know what the result is going to be until it actually launches. To the degree that it puts the consumer back in the driver seat in terms of software choices, and also raises the confidence level of the average person in terms of purchasing software, it could easily spur massive sales. Products that were previously thought to be popular by the pundits might not turn out to be actually popular when the end consumer is making all the decisions.

In my workplace for instance, licensing is strictly controlled. Support is doled out based on who paid for what and what contract it's on. At the same time, it's a University, so we are unable to lock down the machines the way a business might.

All of our Professors and Researchers are now going to have a store on their desktop. They are certainly going to be buying "unsupported" products, that we will now have to support. For example although we strongly encourage it's use on the sly, we don't officially support iWork at all, but now anyone with a computer and a credit card is going to be able to buy the suite in a few minutes.

I think we might see popular programs spread like viruses based on word of mouth reviews etc., and whether we "officially" support one product or another will be essentially irrelevant. How many people will download Pages and try it out for instance when it's a ten dollar download that takes less than a minute?

It might be another back door into the enterprise in that way. IT departments will have to specifically and completely disable the store to have any control whatsoever, and many of them (like mine) won't, or won't be able to for some reason.

If Apple provides information about any trial/demo/sample on their store and where such may be available, then of course there is no need to post the actual one there. It seems that many apps sell when folks have a chance to 'try before buying'. This, I think, would be especially true for new applications that do not already have an established customer base.

Well, it's all shaking out as we speak so we don't know exactly at the moment. Some of the early "rules" announced by Apple that would get in the way are:

- standard installer required
- no serial numbers or authentication
- no suites
- no plug-ins

I think it might happen eventually, and Apple could change any of those rules tomorrow or simply not go with them when the store opens. My argument was that the store would have to change and the CS suite would have to change so much, that it would essentially be a different product or a different store by the time it appears.

My feeling (guess) is that Adobe will initially stay out of the store for those reasons and make a lot of noise about how "unfair" and "closed" it is, and how the store is going to be a giant fail, but then when it succeeds they will issue some special version of their products for the store, (probably a "lite" version or something) and still try to rape their regular customers with the original suite.

Eventually they will cave on everything because money talks, but Adobe has such a stick up the butt about Apple, that they will almost certainly blind themselves to the opportunity for a while at first.

Like the fact that they won't be able to use license keys, and probably any number of terms in the App Store license that Adobe wouldn't care to abide by. Maybe some of their consumer products will end up in the app store (And it would be a huge improvement if they distributed Reader through the App Store.) but they aren't going to change their entire licensing practices any time soon just to sell CS through the App Store. Besides, given the cost and customer base, there would be little or no benefit to them doing so.

Elimination of software piracy is a HUGE advantage the app store will have over developers each trying to implement their own cumbersome registration processes that, in the end, don't really work. This should more than make up for Apple's percentage. I think Apple's store will also draw a lot of attention and sales to developers who don't otherwise get it. I think the advantages are huge to be in the store. Those that turn their nose up will soon have a change of heart when they see their customers turn to competing software vendors because they are selling where the buyers are shopping.

Most likely you know what and why you are buying in that case.

No one knows my mind....

Steve Jobs is not stupid, he will never do this.

He has stated as much. And I'm aware that beta and demo software is different. Thank you for the patronising (and unnecessary) comment though.

Users on this site once again getting worked up about nothing - if you want a demo version the company will provide a link to their web site to go and get it. The App Store will be for final version, tested, vetted software, it will be a very safe environment (relatively) for the average computer user and a good method of distribution for independent/smaller software developers.

Apple is not a monopoly, it is a tiny player in terms of computer software and hardware, this is just another way of obtaining software for the end user. It's really not worth the column inches it's attracting, or the typical hysteria that's flared up here.

Apple isn't telling people not to offer demos, it's telling them not to distribute the demos through the store. Why can't people understand that? Just provide a link to your web site for people to download a demo. It's a really easy concept and not a big deal.

Usually download sites are ad-supported and membership-supported so the prices of the software comes direct from the developer. In fact, the sites sometimes direct you straight to the purchase page of the developer.


It won't prevent it from selling though if they sell it direct to the consumer. The developers of Transmit would make either $34 via their site or $24 via the App Store. If they have an alternative transaction model that makes them an extra $10 per sale, that quickly adds up. If it was say 30% for apps under $10 and 10% and up to a fixed value of $50 beyond, the difference is negligible.


Quite the opposite. The low volume apps need as much exposure as they can get. High volume ones tend to get exposure via word of mouth. I'm thinking about Final Cut, Motion, AE and Photoshop effects plugins. It is so difficult to find those because they are low volume so the chances of a Mac user (10% marketshare) stumbling on a company website that uses the software package supported and can afford it are slim to none so a lot of companies don't even bother making Mac versions. I hope the App Store changes that.


Yeah, I've seen that problem often. One way they can encourage use of the App Store is that the updates feature/notifications will only work if you purchase through the App Store.

I wonder what's going to happen on the games front. The movement with Steam seems to have died down a bit - no Modern Warfare, Bioshock and others. I could see World of Warcraft + expansions going on the App Store but it's a bit disappointing that publishers haven't supported Steam more. The Steamplay idea seemed really good and a way to get games developers on board with porting games over.


That makes me wonder if that means the OS will require an update that contains some encryption mechanism to verify a valid app (e.g embedded in the OS kernel). You could of course jailbreak it like iOS but I don't think many people will want to risk screwing with their OS kernel which prevents updates. They can't distribute non-copyprotected apps so I would assume that's the case and I think it's a selling point they can use as users don't have to store them or type them in, nor can they resell apps or distribute serial codes for others.

It's also an easy way to install all your apps on a new machine as they are linked to your iTunes.


That would be my eyesight that needs checked. I used the calculator for it but read it as $999.30. I corrected the post to read $899.


True, although a minor point would be that with the App Store, both options are a click away and I think people are accustomed to Googling. My mother is and that's the first place she goes for anything even sites she knows where they are. The strongest part of the App Store is the centralisation as it will eventually become known as *the* place to get Mac software. It's certainly better than their own software listing on apple.com.


I think file sharing apps won't be allowed but I really hope Apple lightens up on some restrictions. Like the use or emulated software. Blocking Python would prevent most 3D apps getting in which is just plain silly. They can block apps that use technology they don't bundle with the OS though (that includes Flash and Java now).


Try r-name:

http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/12259/r-name

It doesn't have an undo but it gives you a good preview before renaming. You can get the source code and compile it as a universal binary.

Actually, they are telling people to go ahead and offer whatever demos they want to, but that they'll have to distribute those from their own websites.

For now.

Demos, free wares, beta versions, add supported softwares can be installed directly on mac. Mac app store does not kills direct installation options.

Paid software can be purchased on app store. This will allow developers to earn more money, than they do by selling software directly.

So lot of resources of apple get saved. They don't have to host free softwares. Direct installation is always available. Plus apple are not earning anything from it.

Its a smart decision.

Surely you jest ... 100% "lockdown will never happen ... you should know that. I'll say one thing for you Ben ..... you don't say much, but when you do, it usually doesn't mean anything .