Well, there you have it. Steve Jobs has seized full control over your user experience. Thus ends the best computing experience in existance. It was good while it lasted.
From now on you will do exactly what Steve Jobs wants you to do. No porn, no reading of any magazines that do not meet Jobs' and Gore's political agendas, no watching of any content that doesn't come from iTunes or Netflix. And I would expect that partnership to go by the wayside eventually since Apple can't partner with anyone for very long.
No flash, no matte screen, no software unless Apple approved. Terrible.
Although I'm sure all of you will love it since you're basking in the glow of the reality distortion field.
Oh well. Back to Windows and Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bibbler
No - Strange logic YOU have there if you can't see the writing on the wall. Trust me, "OPTIONAL" will last a year or two. By the time Lion's successor comes out, all software will have to be approved by Steve...
Pathetic,.,,,
Reading this kind of FUD is becoming really very irritating. The only ones who can possibly believe this tripe are either trolls or have an IQ lower than their shoe size, probably both.
So, um, how does apple preclude people from installing on an OS with a file system from any place they want to?
Steve Jobs' Special Powers, which he obtained when he broke bread with Beelzebub himself.
Have you ever seen Jobs out in sunlight? No, because he's an EVIL VAMPIRE who survives by sucking all the choice out of the world. The less we can do with our Macs, the more powerful he becomes.
Radically enhanced findability, purchase-ability and usability. When Apple looks at the majority of their users - not so techy, busy with other things, not interested in the system only the apps... this is perfect.
Prices will come down, innovation will go up, revenue will go up. Prices won't go to iPhone levels but many things will be very happy at iPad levels or higher - $5-25 with $2-5 introductory or sale prices.
More developers will get in since they don't need to know much more than how to code to run their business (like most iPhone devs).
Big SW houses can stay out but I'm not sure they will stay away (except for the expensive stuff) if that means they might lose out to the smaller guys with similar products.
My parents don't buy any apps for their Macs - I buy something for them, show them, etc. They have bought many apps for the iPad already and I predict they will do the same under the App store.
You make way too much sense for this site .... good post!
So, um, how does apple preclude people from installing on an OS with a file system from any place they want to?
Given they can't even do this with the current walled garden devices they will likely have similar success (failure) in attempting to do so with their traditional computers. I also called this a very long time ago and at that time the apologists cry was... The iPhone App Store is ENTIRELY different and Apple could never would never attempt such a thing with their desktop OS X...
So... Now those very same apologists are still in the RDF are screaming ... OK so they did do an OSX App Store... But please note that Steve makes it perfectly clear that this is only an OPTIONAL method of software distribution...
Let me save people like Mel some time for the next time a shoe drops... Cut and paste the following and keep it handy...
Quote:
Look we can ALWAYS jailbreak OS X if we really felt the need to install unapproved OS X apps.
Given they can't even do this with the current walled garden devices they will likely have similar success (failure) in attempting to do so with their traditional computers. I also called this a very long time ago and at that time the apologists cry was... The iPhone App Store is ENTIRELY different and Apple could never would never attempt such a thing with their desktop OS X...
So... Now those very same apologists are still in the RDF are screaming ... OK so they did do an OSX App Store... But please note that Steve makes it perfectly clear that this is only an OPTIONAL method of software distribution...
Let me save people like Mel some time for the next time a shoe drops... Cut and paste the following and keep it handy...
You quoted from me. I wasn't being rhetorical, nor cynical. So let me repeat, and I want a technical answer to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
So, um, how does apple preclude people from installing on an OS with a file system from any place they want to?
My take on this - and it is the correct one - is they can't. They also dont want to. But they cant. There is no technical way to stop a binary from being distributed in any of the ways it is now so distributed for the Mac, not without removing the filesystem. If you have an idea on how they would do it - and it better be good - explain it.
You quoted from me. I wasn't being rhetorical, nor cynical. So let me repeat, and I want a technical answer to this:
My take on this - and it is the correct one - is they can't. They also dont want to. But they cant. There is no technical way to stop a binary from being distributed in any of the ways it is now so distributed for the Mac, not without removing the filesystem. If you have an idea on how they would do it - and it better be good - explain it.
+1. It won't ever happen. Get the idea out of your head.
Yes, but those aren't multi GB suites with many install options.
So? Are we trying to say size of the app is a preluder, or that enterprise options are? Because both of those are red herrings.
Some enterprise software already comes with customizable XML personality files that direct the installation, so much for the option problem--before the program configures you get to choose/tweak the personality file. But even moreso if an app developer gets out of the MS/Linux mold of installing junk all over the place and just does App bundles that include any custom libraries, or learn to use the Application Support folder if they want some shared libraries in a suite of their apps.
As for size, how many of those GB are actually needed to launch the application, and how much are passive content files useful only in specific instances. Making the content downloads more cloud based solves that and reduces bandwidth requirement immensely. It also gets the content part off the front page of the store. Just let the program pull what it needs when a user indicates it will be needed.
I wonder what the folks at Valve are saying about this right now... they just got Steam up and running on MacOS X this year, now Apple is looking to ship the same basic thing as part of their next OS.
I just hope Apple gave them a heads-up on this (or maybe offered to collaborate on the Games side), since it's been great having a major games developer finally embrace the Mac.
Steam has a lot more to offer than the Mac App Store, I think Valve can keep it's place quite nicely as long as they keep focused and innovate in the gaming space. Steam may even be able to be distributed on the Mac App Store.
So? Are we trying to say size of the app is a preluder, or that enterprise options are? Because both of those are red herrings.
Some enterprise software already comes with customizable XML personality files that direct the installation, so much for the option problem--before the program configures you get to choose/tweak the personality file. But even moreso if an app developer gets out of the MS/Linux mold of installing junk all over the place and just does App bundles that include any custom libraries, or learn to use the Application Support folder if they want some shared libraries in a suite of their apps.
As for size, how many of those GB are actually needed to launch the application, and how much are passive content files useful only in specific instances. Making the content downloads more cloud based solves that and reduces bandwidth requirement immensely. It also gets the content part off the front page of the store. Just let the program pull what it needs when a user indicates it will be needed.
It's a matter of the store guidelines. Apple wants the pgm to just install. Period. While SOME enterprise programs may allow that, many don't. CS5, while not an enterprise pgm asks what you want to install first, as it must. There are a bunch of pgms that have to do that. If that doesn't meet the stores specs, then they may not be able to be sold there without the company rejiggering their software.
And while you say that much may be files that aren't required, yes, that's sometimes true. But multi app suits with large pgms can take GB's themselves.
And, what people are forgetting, is that companies don't HAVE to sell their wares this way, and it's not likely Apple will eventually make them do it. I don't know why you would want to assume otherwise.
It's a matter of the store guidelines. Apple wants the pgm to just install. Period. While SOME enterprise programs may allow that, many don't. CS5, while not an enterprise pgm asks what you want to install first, as it must. There are a bunch of pgms that have to do that. If that doesn't meet the stores specs, then they may not be able to be sold there without the company rejiggering their software.
And while you say that much may be files that aren't required, yes, that's sometimes true. But multi app suits with large pgms can take GB's themselves.
And, what people are forgetting, is that companies don't HAVE to sell their wares this way, and it's not likely Apple will eventually make them do it. I don't know why you would want to assume otherwise.
I'm not saying Apple will make anyone do anything they don't want to do with deployment. I'm saying this mode of distribution is a form of incentive for companies to look at vastly simplifying their installations, rather than continue to make them more nasty and complicated. The dollars they can save in distribution and wholesale discounts will more than make up for tasking a couple build specialists with rethinking the installation strategy.
I give it a year before MS tries to launch an equivalent store with similar simplifying guidelines.
I'm not saying Apple will make anyone do anything they don't want to do with deployment. I'm saying this mode of distribution is a form of incentive for companies to look at vastly simplifying their installations, rather than continue to make them more nasty and complicated. The dollars they can save in distribution and wholesale discounts will more than make up for tasking a couple build specialists with rethinking the installation strategy.
I give it a year before MS tries to launch an equivalent store with similar simplifying guidelines.
That doesn't read like your earlier post. That seemed to be saying that Apple would require this, and everything would have to work that way. I can agree with what you're saying here, as long as the software doesn't require secrecy or security that companies and government won't want to risk in an app store.
Comments
Well, there you have it. Steve Jobs has seized full control over your user experience. Thus ends the best computing experience in existance. It was good while it lasted.
From now on you will do exactly what Steve Jobs wants you to do. No porn, no reading of any magazines that do not meet Jobs' and Gore's political agendas, no watching of any content that doesn't come from iTunes or Netflix. And I would expect that partnership to go by the wayside eventually since Apple can't partner with anyone for very long.
No flash, no matte screen, no software unless Apple approved. Terrible.
Although I'm sure all of you will love it since you're basking in the glow of the reality distortion field.
Oh well. Back to Windows and Android.
No - Strange logic YOU have there if you can't see the writing on the wall. Trust me, "OPTIONAL" will last a year or two. By the time Lion's successor comes out, all software will have to be approved by Steve...
Pathetic,.,,,
Reading this kind of FUD is becoming really very irritating. The only ones who can possibly believe this tripe are either trolls or have an IQ lower than their shoe size, probably both.
So, um, how does apple preclude people from installing on an OS with a file system from any place they want to?
Steve Jobs' Special Powers, which he obtained when he broke bread with Beelzebub himself.
Have you ever seen Jobs out in sunlight? No, because he's an EVIL VAMPIRE who survives by sucking all the choice out of the world. The less we can do with our Macs, the more powerful he becomes.
Trust me(tm).
+1
Radically enhanced findability, purchase-ability and usability. When Apple looks at the majority of their users - not so techy, busy with other things, not interested in the system only the apps... this is perfect.
Prices will come down, innovation will go up, revenue will go up. Prices won't go to iPhone levels but many things will be very happy at iPad levels or higher - $5-25 with $2-5 introductory or sale prices.
More developers will get in since they don't need to know much more than how to code to run their business (like most iPhone devs).
Big SW houses can stay out but I'm not sure they will stay away (except for the expensive stuff) if that means they might lose out to the smaller guys with similar products.
My parents don't buy any apps for their Macs - I buy something for them, show them, etc. They have bought many apps for the iPad already and I predict they will do the same under the App store.
You make way too much sense for this site .... good post!
So, um, how does apple preclude people from installing on an OS with a file system from any place they want to?
Given they can't even do this with the current walled garden devices they will likely have similar success (failure) in attempting to do so with their traditional computers. I also called this a very long time ago and at that time the apologists cry was... The iPhone App Store is ENTIRELY different and Apple could never would never attempt such a thing with their desktop OS X...
So... Now those very same apologists are still in the RDF are screaming ... OK so they did do an OSX App Store... But please note that Steve makes it perfectly clear that this is only an OPTIONAL method of software distribution...
Let me save people like Mel some time for the next time a shoe drops... Cut and paste the following and keep it handy...
Look we can ALWAYS jailbreak OS X if we really felt the need to install unapproved OS X apps.
Given they can't even do this with the current walled garden devices they will likely have similar success (failure) in attempting to do so with their traditional computers. I also called this a very long time ago and at that time the apologists cry was... The iPhone App Store is ENTIRELY different and Apple could never would never attempt such a thing with their desktop OS X...
So... Now those very same apologists are still in the RDF are screaming ... OK so they did do an OSX App Store... But please note that Steve makes it perfectly clear that this is only an OPTIONAL method of software distribution...
Let me save people like Mel some time for the next time a shoe drops... Cut and paste the following and keep it handy...
You quoted from me. I wasn't being rhetorical, nor cynical. So let me repeat, and I want a technical answer to this:
So, um, how does apple preclude people from installing on an OS with a file system from any place they want to?
My take on this - and it is the correct one - is they can't. They also dont want to. But they cant. There is no technical way to stop a binary from being distributed in any of the ways it is now so distributed for the Mac, not without removing the filesystem. If you have an idea on how they would do it - and it better be good - explain it.
You quoted from me. I wasn't being rhetorical, nor cynical. So let me repeat, and I want a technical answer to this:
My take on this - and it is the correct one - is they can't. They also dont want to. But they cant. There is no technical way to stop a binary from being distributed in any of the ways it is now so distributed for the Mac, not without removing the filesystem. If you have an idea on how they would do it - and it better be good - explain it.
+1. It won't ever happen. Get the idea out of your head.
What agenda? Think I'm crossing a line? Just tell the moderator. I'm used to it.
It's far more effective to let the trolls cut their own throats. It always happens.
Yes, but those aren't multi GB suites with many install options.
So? Are we trying to say size of the app is a preluder, or that enterprise options are? Because both of those are red herrings.
Some enterprise software already comes with customizable XML personality files that direct the installation, so much for the option problem--before the program configures you get to choose/tweak the personality file. But even moreso if an app developer gets out of the MS/Linux mold of installing junk all over the place and just does App bundles that include any custom libraries, or learn to use the Application Support folder if they want some shared libraries in a suite of their apps.
As for size, how many of those GB are actually needed to launch the application, and how much are passive content files useful only in specific instances. Making the content downloads more cloud based solves that and reduces bandwidth requirement immensely. It also gets the content part off the front page of the store. Just let the program pull what it needs when a user indicates it will be needed.
I wonder what the folks at Valve are saying about this right now... they just got Steam up and running on MacOS X this year, now Apple is looking to ship the same basic thing as part of their next OS.
I just hope Apple gave them a heads-up on this (or maybe offered to collaborate on the Games side), since it's been great having a major games developer finally embrace the Mac.
Steam has a lot more to offer than the Mac App Store, I think Valve can keep it's place quite nicely as long as they keep focused and innovate in the gaming space. Steam may even be able to be distributed on the Mac App Store.
There are a number of obvious problems with the Mac App Store:
#1 - It doesn't exist yet.
So? Are we trying to say size of the app is a preluder, or that enterprise options are? Because both of those are red herrings.
Some enterprise software already comes with customizable XML personality files that direct the installation, so much for the option problem--before the program configures you get to choose/tweak the personality file. But even moreso if an app developer gets out of the MS/Linux mold of installing junk all over the place and just does App bundles that include any custom libraries, or learn to use the Application Support folder if they want some shared libraries in a suite of their apps.
As for size, how many of those GB are actually needed to launch the application, and how much are passive content files useful only in specific instances. Making the content downloads more cloud based solves that and reduces bandwidth requirement immensely. It also gets the content part off the front page of the store. Just let the program pull what it needs when a user indicates it will be needed.
It's a matter of the store guidelines. Apple wants the pgm to just install. Period. While SOME enterprise programs may allow that, many don't. CS5, while not an enterprise pgm asks what you want to install first, as it must. There are a bunch of pgms that have to do that. If that doesn't meet the stores specs, then they may not be able to be sold there without the company rejiggering their software.
And while you say that much may be files that aren't required, yes, that's sometimes true. But multi app suits with large pgms can take GB's themselves.
And, what people are forgetting, is that companies don't HAVE to sell their wares this way, and it's not likely Apple will eventually make them do it. I don't know why you would want to assume otherwise.
It's a matter of the store guidelines. Apple wants the pgm to just install. Period. While SOME enterprise programs may allow that, many don't. CS5, while not an enterprise pgm asks what you want to install first, as it must. There are a bunch of pgms that have to do that. If that doesn't meet the stores specs, then they may not be able to be sold there without the company rejiggering their software.
And while you say that much may be files that aren't required, yes, that's sometimes true. But multi app suits with large pgms can take GB's themselves.
And, what people are forgetting, is that companies don't HAVE to sell their wares this way, and it's not likely Apple will eventually make them do it. I don't know why you would want to assume otherwise.
I'm not saying Apple will make anyone do anything they don't want to do with deployment. I'm saying this mode of distribution is a form of incentive for companies to look at vastly simplifying their installations, rather than continue to make them more nasty and complicated. The dollars they can save in distribution and wholesale discounts will more than make up for tasking a couple build specialists with rethinking the installation strategy.
I give it a year before MS tries to launch an equivalent store with similar simplifying guidelines.
I'm not saying Apple will make anyone do anything they don't want to do with deployment. I'm saying this mode of distribution is a form of incentive for companies to look at vastly simplifying their installations, rather than continue to make them more nasty and complicated. The dollars they can save in distribution and wholesale discounts will more than make up for tasking a couple build specialists with rethinking the installation strategy.
I give it a year before MS tries to launch an equivalent store with similar simplifying guidelines.
That doesn't read like your earlier post. That seemed to be saying that Apple would require this, and everything would have to work that way. I can agree with what you're saying here, as long as the software doesn't require secrecy or security that companies and government won't want to risk in an app store.