Originally Posted by SSquirrel
I did notice they were careful not to try calling this an App Store tho
However, if you look at their page, they have simply traded one copyright problem for another. They do not acknowledge Apple's trademarks, so their use of 'Mac' without trademark notice is a violation of copyright laws.
Originally Posted by Goldenclaw
No, the original comment was correct because apps developed for Leopard are generally compatible with Snow Leopard.
Snow Leopard = 68% base
Leopard = 24% + the 68% from Snow Leopard = 92%
92% > 68%
Therefore Leopard is the better target.
Foolish logic. By that logic, Windows developers should be programming for Windows 95 since Win95 apps (if properly coded) will run on more machines than modern apps.
In the real world, developers want to take advantage of the features of new operating systems. This is particularly true since anyone running an OS that's more than 3 years old probably isn't spending a lot of money on software, anyway.
Originally Posted by Smiles77
I wouldn't say his comment was really correct as you shouldn't first code for Leopard and then ensure support for SL and Lion, but rather code for the latest release(s) and then look into providing legacy support as needed. That ensures optimal code running for the users most likely to want/need/(that are willing to pay) for the latest features while not alienating your other users. It will depend on the requirements and performance of your app to decide how much legacy support you give.
Originally Posted by chabig
Are you suggesting that there are no costs to pay when delivering software in normal retail channels? Of course there are. Apple's cut for distribution is probably in line with what other retailers charge.
Actually, it's lower. Normal wholesale discounts are about 50%.
Originally Posted by chabig
I don't know much about retail, but I don't think that's the way it works. If it did, you'd see the same products priced differently in different outlets. Instead, what we usually see is a fixed retail price.
Not at all. Start pricing software at various outlets and you'll find that the price can vary.
Originally Posted by pt123
It would make sense to use Mac API's that is available on all Mac OS X. Bigger audience, more sales opportunity. As a consumer, I am not sure what version of Mac OS I am running. I buy software for the Mac and I just expect it to work. I don't want to have to upgrade my OS when I buy software. I am ok with this mediocrity.
As stated above, that's foolish. By that logic, developers should limit themselves to the few APIs that are on ALL systems. So Windows software should be written using only about 20% of all the Windows APIs- so that those people still using Windows 95 can run the software.
Originally Posted by MacRulez
It's a lot like Android, where most devs simply target 2.1:
...but on Android, Mac folks call it "fragmentation", and with OS X they call it "not a problem".
There are major differences:
1. Newer versions of OS X will generally run the older apps. That's not the case with Android.
2. Older Macs will run newer versions of OSX while older phones may or may not run newer versions of Android (my daughter has a phone that's less than a year old which won't run anything higher than Android 2.1).
3. Applications in Android are VERY limited in terms of the OS version they will run on.
You almost never run into people having problems running Mac apps on different systems (other than the very old apps when Apple stops supporting something). It is very, very common to hear of people running into problems with Android. For example, see what the Angry Birds developer has to say about it.