The fact I can't try before I buy makes it a deal killer. I want to try out several personal finance apps to decide which one I like, but my only choice is to buy all of them?...
This is a strawman argument.
Just because there are no previews, it doesn't follow at all that your "only choice" is to buy all of them. Another choice might be going to the website of each product and doing some research, and there is nothing stopping the producers of the apps from having a demo copy on their websites anyway.
Personally, if the apps were a bit cheaper, I wouldn't care about a preview before buying it and if there are any developers listening, I think this is true of most people. if you buy the wrong app for five bucks it's not really a big deal, but a lot of the apps are closer to a hundred. If the developers kept everything under 20 bucks or so I think they'd sell the same amount (dollar-wise) on a higher volume.
No installers: it has been known to happen that sometimes Internet service goes down or your in a location with no connection.
No installers: it has been known to happen that you want to install a compatible version of software on an older OS machine.
Resale: it has been known to happen that you want to sell your older software if you upgrade etc...
No installers: having your Internet cut off because you used 4 months worth of bandwidth re-loading your software could be an issue.
Sounds like a great idea on the surface - for fart app consumers.
I would never trust this service for my professional software and business critical software. If Apple only starts releasing software this way- they are going to loose a lot of customers.
Apple reserves the right to Change their policies at whim, reserves the right to pull their software at will - reserves the right to boot apps from the store on a whim - reserves the right to deny service at will - could be hacked etc...
Anyone willing to put their business in the hands of Apple will get what they deserve. The problem with a walled garden is that while it keeps things out - it also keeps you in... Eventually becoming a prison.
I see this as yet another red flag that Apple is abandoning professionals in favor of the fart app masses. How long before they force all applications to go through the store? You know it's coming.
I don't understand any of those complaints. None of them are real. None are any different than what's going on now. It's just an easier way of doing things. Most apps don't have installers anyway. it's just a drag and drop. The apps that will need installers will have them built-in.
You're not allowed to sell software without getting the permission of the owner of the copyright, so unless you don't mind doing something illegal, which I guess you don't, it's a moot issue. The software you buy is in your applications folder, so you can back them up all you want. no need to re-download them.
As for conditions changing, do you know of any developer, such as MS who doesn't have conditions that are at least as complex and difficult? I don't. Apple is much better in this regard.
Apple didn't come up with the idea of an app store; several other platforms had something like this before, including the Danger Hiptop and Linux distributions. App stores have also been available from third parties, for example Steam.
Unfortunately, Apple's version is still inferior since it doesn't handle dependency management and doesn't (appear to) allow the use of third party channels.
I know it must be painful to watch Apple get all the press over these popular Linux distributions, but Apple will probably have a few more users actually buying software.
As far as dependency management, there won't be any dependencies. If your software doesn't run on download, it isn't approved for the store. That's the best way to manage dependencies, eliminate the problem. Linux dependencies are a mess and one big reason why it will never be more popular than it is today.
And, third party channels? Huh? A) Why would they. No one actually cares.
I don't understand any of those complaints. None of them are real. None are any different than what's going on now. It's just an easier way of doing things. Most apps don't have installers anyway. it's just a drag and drop. The apps that will need installers will have them built-in.
You're not allowed to sell software without getting the permission of the owner of the copyright, so unless you don't mind doing something illegal, which I guess you don't, it's a moot issue. The software you buy is in your applications folder, so you can back them up all you want. no need to re-download them.
As for conditions changing, do you know of any developer, such as MS who doesn't have conditions that are at least as complex and difficult? I don't. Apple is much better in this regard.
I think rain is one of the serial trolls who pulled an old alias out of the bag. tekstud did that a few times, as I recall.
You mean you can now buy and download apps directly from the internet and install them on your PC. WOW, That is priceless!!!! ....and it is so, so cool that Father Apple gets a cut on every sale. That is magical!!!!! The innovation just keeps coming, and coming!!!!!
As posted in earlier topic on this today ... the term 'Update' is to be read with caution. If updating any existing 3rd party software go to the web site of the vendor, Apple do not allow upgrade prices and you will pay full retail even if you are eligible for an upgrade discount. I was told by a representative Cabel Sasser at Panic Software and I quote: "? this is definitely a shortcoming of the Mac App Store that we hope Apple will address in the future."
I can quite understand it seems excessive paying Apple 30% and offering discounts to Apple for an update however it seems to me that 30% of a much lower price for an update is not totally unreasonable given the other advantages. The system needs to offer two products in a simple illustration; an update version at one price and a full version.
I think that this is overblown as an issue. First of all, 30% is not a big cut. All developers have to pay a cut to sell their software unless they can afford to have a site that can do it directly, and that's expensive.
The solution is to do what Apple has done with iLife and iWork. Price every copy at an upgrade price. iLife comes free for a new machine, but the "upgrade " price isn't high. iWork has always been priced low. All upgrades are priced the same.
I see no problem. Developers are going to have to get used to the idea of pricing the app the same as the upgrade.
The fact I can't try before I buy makes it a deal killer. I want to try out several personal finance apps to decide which one I like, but my only choice is to buy all of them?
I could go to the developer site and download the trials. Then I have to delete them and purchase through the app store since it seems the app store recognizes "trials" as installed already. I don't konw if the app store would allow me to "update" software I purchased directly from the developer as that situation hasn't happened for me yet.
I've found a lot of software over the years won't allow you to install the "real" version until you uninstall the trial version. So that won't be anything new. It happens with Office and has happened with Adobe's products, for example. It's annoying, but likely no worse than bfore.
Fortunately for Apple, nobody's ever heard or or gives a hoot about "Danger Hiptop" and nearly zero percent of Apple's target market (ie, everyone) uses linux.
Actually, 2.04% of Wikipedias pageviews are from Linux devices, and rising. Additionally, 5% of school PCs now run Linux, also rising fast.
s far as dependency management, there won't be any dependencies. If your software doesn't run on download, it isn't approved for the store. That's the best way to manage dependencies, eliminate the problem. Linux dependencies are a mess and one big reason why it will never be more popular than it is today.
Agree with the dependencies remark. But to be fair, to eliminate the problem, Apple has forced users to be running 10.6.6. Comparing the App store to Yum is not very logical anyway. Linux is very powerful and with that power comes complexity. Linux is very popular with web server folks but it is highly unlikely it will ever see a dumbed down version suitable for the masses. Still, I would hesitate to call it "a mess".
I don't understand any of those complaints. None of them are real. None are any different than what's going on now. It's just an easier way of doing things. Most apps don't have installers anyway. it's just a drag and drop. The apps that will need installers will have them built-in.
You're not allowed to sell software without getting the permission of the owner of the copyright, so unless you don't mind doing something illegal, which I guess you don't, it's a moot issue. The software you buy is in your applications folder, so you can back them up all you want. no need to re-download them.
As for conditions changing, do you know of any developer, such as MS who doesn't have conditions that are at least as complex and difficult? I don't. Apple is much better in this regard.
If you buy a disc of iLife, you can sell that legally. Anything purchased digitally via itunes cannot be. Same goes for anything on Amazon as far as music is concerned.
If it is cheaper, then that's a fair trade off.
Sorry, but Apple and their banning apps on a whim even when they approved them to begin with iOS is proof enough. Microsoft copied this for their mobile app store so they are not any better, and they themselves wanted to lock down the PC many times, but the public refused, thankfully.
The walled garden nutcases are out in force. Let me put your concerns to rest. The walled garden can't exist as long as you have a filesystem and an Internet connection.
I don't understand any of those complaints. None of them are real. None are any different than what's going on now. It's just an easier way of doing things. Most apps don't have installers anyway. it's just a drag and drop. The apps that will need installers will have them built-in.
You're not allowed to sell software without getting the permission of the owner of the copyright, so unless you don't mind doing something illegal, which I guess you don't, it's a moot issue. The software you buy is in your applications folder, so you can back them up all you want. no need to re-download them.
As for conditions changing, do you know of any developer, such as MS who doesn't have conditions that are at least as complex and difficult? I don't. Apple is much better in this regard.
What you can re-download the apps as long as it's tied to your itunes account.
I know it must be painful to watch Apple get all the press over these popular Linux distributions, but Apple will probably have a few more users actually buying software.
As far as dependency management, there won't be any dependencies. If your software doesn't run on download, it isn't approved for the store. That's the best way to manage dependencies, eliminate the problem. Linux dependencies are a mess and one big reason why it will never be more popular than it is today.
And, third party channels? Huh? A) Why would they. No one actually cares.
Do you actually use Linux? No, you don't, because "dependency hell" no longer exists for the majority of users.
It should be clarified that "install on all the computers you own" means "all of the 10.6.6 computers you own".
Also, I downloaded the free game Gold Strike and as an experiment tried copying it to another 10.6.6 machine, not using the App Store. It would not work. It is expected and required that you download and install from the Mac App Store; there are probably bits and pieces you could copy but it may activate via machine serial number or some other method.
You mean you can now buy and download apps directly from the internet and install them on your PC. WOW, That is priceless!!!! ....and it is so, so cool that Father Apple gets a cut on every sale. That is magical!!!!! The innovation just keeps coming, and coming!!!!!
No,***** This is a dedicated app downloaded
for macs. Mac users could always download from the Internet. *****
Do you actually use Linux? No, you don't, because "dependency hell" no longer exists for the majority of users.
Depends on your definition of hell. The package managers handle most of the dirty work now, but it is still very time consuming to install a program that has dozens of dependencies that need to be installed before it will work. And even then you're not guaranteed that it will compile and run properly.
Just because there are no previews, it doesn't follow at all that your "only choice" is to buy all of them. Another choice might be going to the website of each product and doing some research, and there is nothing stopping the producers of the apps from having a demo copy on their websites anyway.
Personally, if the apps were a bit cheaper, I wouldn't care about a preview before buying it and if there are any developers listening, I think this is true of most people. if you buy the wrong app for five bucks it's not really a big deal, but a lot of the apps are closer to a hundred. If the developers kept everything under 20 bucks or so I think they'd sell the same amount (dollar-wise) on a higher volume.
Well if that's your solution then that just defeats the whole purpose of browsing and buying for apps in one central location.
Depends on your definition of hell. The package managers handle most of the dirty work now, but it is still very time consuming to install a program that has dozens of dependencies that need to be installed before it will work. And even then you're not guaranteed that it will compile and run properly.
You don't download stuff like that nowadays.
For instance, if you want VLC, you get the repository address, add it via one click, then it installs itself AND its dependencies. Sames goes for apps like Transmission, Handbrake, Chromium, etc.
Comments
The fact I can't try before I buy makes it a deal killer. I want to try out several personal finance apps to decide which one I like, but my only choice is to buy all of them?...
This is a strawman argument.
Just because there are no previews, it doesn't follow at all that your "only choice" is to buy all of them. Another choice might be going to the website of each product and doing some research, and there is nothing stopping the producers of the apps from having a demo copy on their websites anyway.
Personally, if the apps were a bit cheaper, I wouldn't care about a preview before buying it and if there are any developers listening, I think this is true of most people. if you buy the wrong app for five bucks it's not really a big deal, but a lot of the apps are closer to a hundred. If the developers kept everything under 20 bucks or so I think they'd sell the same amount (dollar-wise) on a higher volume.
A few concerns:
No installers: it has been known to happen that sometimes Internet service goes down or your in a location with no connection.
No installers: it has been known to happen that you want to install a compatible version of software on an older OS machine.
Resale: it has been known to happen that you want to sell your older software if you upgrade etc...
No installers: having your Internet cut off because you used 4 months worth of bandwidth re-loading your software could be an issue.
Sounds like a great idea on the surface - for fart app consumers.
I would never trust this service for my professional software and business critical software. If Apple only starts releasing software this way- they are going to loose a lot of customers.
Apple reserves the right to Change their policies at whim, reserves the right to pull their software at will - reserves the right to boot apps from the store on a whim - reserves the right to deny service at will - could be hacked etc...
Anyone willing to put their business in the hands of Apple will get what they deserve. The problem with a walled garden is that while it keeps things out - it also keeps you in... Eventually becoming a prison.
I see this as yet another red flag that Apple is abandoning professionals in favor of the fart app masses. How long before they force all applications to go through the store? You know it's coming.
I don't understand any of those complaints. None of them are real. None are any different than what's going on now. It's just an easier way of doing things. Most apps don't have installers anyway. it's just a drag and drop. The apps that will need installers will have them built-in.
You're not allowed to sell software without getting the permission of the owner of the copyright, so unless you don't mind doing something illegal, which I guess you don't, it's a moot issue. The software you buy is in your applications folder, so you can back them up all you want. no need to re-download them.
As for conditions changing, do you know of any developer, such as MS who doesn't have conditions that are at least as complex and difficult? I don't. Apple is much better in this regard.
Apple didn't come up with the idea of an app store; several other platforms had something like this before, including the Danger Hiptop and Linux distributions. App stores have also been available from third parties, for example Steam.
Unfortunately, Apple's version is still inferior since it doesn't handle dependency management and doesn't (appear to) allow the use of third party channels.
I know it must be painful to watch Apple get all the press over these popular Linux distributions, but Apple will probably have a few more users actually buying software.
As far as dependency management, there won't be any dependencies. If your software doesn't run on download, it isn't approved for the store. That's the best way to manage dependencies, eliminate the problem. Linux dependencies are a mess and one big reason why it will never be more popular than it is today.
And, third party channels? Huh? A) Why would they.
I don't understand any of those complaints. None of them are real. None are any different than what's going on now. It's just an easier way of doing things. Most apps don't have installers anyway. it's just a drag and drop. The apps that will need installers will have them built-in.
You're not allowed to sell software without getting the permission of the owner of the copyright, so unless you don't mind doing something illegal, which I guess you don't, it's a moot issue. The software you buy is in your applications folder, so you can back them up all you want. no need to re-download them.
As for conditions changing, do you know of any developer, such as MS who doesn't have conditions that are at least as complex and difficult? I don't. Apple is much better in this regard.
I think rain is one of the serial trolls who pulled an old alias out of the bag. tekstud did that a few times, as I recall.
As posted in earlier topic on this today ... the term 'Update' is to be read with caution. If updating any existing 3rd party software go to the web site of the vendor, Apple do not allow upgrade prices and you will pay full retail even if you are eligible for an upgrade discount. I was told by a representative Cabel Sasser at Panic Software and I quote: "? this is definitely a shortcoming of the Mac App Store that we hope Apple will address in the future."
I can quite understand it seems excessive paying Apple 30% and offering discounts to Apple for an update however it seems to me that 30% of a much lower price for an update is not totally unreasonable given the other advantages. The system needs to offer two products in a simple illustration; an update version at one price and a full version.
I think that this is overblown as an issue. First of all, 30% is not a big cut. All developers have to pay a cut to sell their software unless they can afford to have a site that can do it directly, and that's expensive.
The solution is to do what Apple has done with iLife and iWork. Price every copy at an upgrade price. iLife comes free for a new machine, but the "upgrade " price isn't high. iWork has always been priced low. All upgrades are priced the same.
I see no problem. Developers are going to have to get used to the idea of pricing the app the same as the upgrade.
The fact I can't try before I buy makes it a deal killer. I want to try out several personal finance apps to decide which one I like, but my only choice is to buy all of them?
I could go to the developer site and download the trials. Then I have to delete them and purchase through the app store since it seems the app store recognizes "trials" as installed already. I don't konw if the app store would allow me to "update" software I purchased directly from the developer as that situation hasn't happened for me yet.
I've found a lot of software over the years won't allow you to install the "real" version until you uninstall the trial version. So that won't be anything new. It happens with Office and has happened with Adobe's products, for example. It's annoying, but likely no worse than bfore.
Fortunately for Apple, nobody's ever heard or or gives a hoot about "Danger Hiptop" and nearly zero percent of Apple's target market (ie, everyone) uses linux.
Actually, 2.04% of Wikipedias pageviews are from Linux devices, and rising. Additionally, 5% of school PCs now run Linux, also rising fast.
s far as dependency management, there won't be any dependencies. If your software doesn't run on download, it isn't approved for the store. That's the best way to manage dependencies, eliminate the problem. Linux dependencies are a mess and one big reason why it will never be more popular than it is today.
Agree with the dependencies remark. But to be fair, to eliminate the problem, Apple has forced users to be running 10.6.6. Comparing the App store to Yum is not very logical anyway. Linux is very powerful and with that power comes complexity. Linux is very popular with web server folks but it is highly unlikely it will ever see a dumbed down version suitable for the masses. Still, I would hesitate to call it "a mess".
I don't understand any of those complaints. None of them are real. None are any different than what's going on now. It's just an easier way of doing things. Most apps don't have installers anyway. it's just a drag and drop. The apps that will need installers will have them built-in.
You're not allowed to sell software without getting the permission of the owner of the copyright, so unless you don't mind doing something illegal, which I guess you don't, it's a moot issue. The software you buy is in your applications folder, so you can back them up all you want. no need to re-download them.
As for conditions changing, do you know of any developer, such as MS who doesn't have conditions that are at least as complex and difficult? I don't. Apple is much better in this regard.
If you buy a disc of iLife, you can sell that legally. Anything purchased digitally via itunes cannot be. Same goes for anything on Amazon as far as music is concerned.
If it is cheaper, then that's a fair trade off.
Sorry, but Apple and their banning apps on a whim even when they approved them to begin with iOS is proof enough. Microsoft copied this for their mobile app store so they are not any better, and they themselves wanted to lock down the PC many times, but the public refused, thankfully.
Tin foiled hats need to be put away now.
I don't understand any of those complaints. None of them are real. None are any different than what's going on now. It's just an easier way of doing things. Most apps don't have installers anyway. it's just a drag and drop. The apps that will need installers will have them built-in.
You're not allowed to sell software without getting the permission of the owner of the copyright, so unless you don't mind doing something illegal, which I guess you don't, it's a moot issue. The software you buy is in your applications folder, so you can back them up all you want. no need to re-download them.
As for conditions changing, do you know of any developer, such as MS who doesn't have conditions that are at least as complex and difficult? I don't. Apple is much better in this regard.
What you can re-download the apps as long as it's tied to your itunes account.
I know it must be painful to watch Apple get all the press over these popular Linux distributions, but Apple will probably have a few more users actually buying software.
As far as dependency management, there won't be any dependencies. If your software doesn't run on download, it isn't approved for the store. That's the best way to manage dependencies, eliminate the problem. Linux dependencies are a mess and one big reason why it will never be more popular than it is today.
And, third party channels? Huh? A) Why would they.
Do you actually use Linux? No, you don't, because "dependency hell" no longer exists for the majority of users.
Also, I downloaded the free game Gold Strike and as an experiment tried copying it to another 10.6.6 machine, not using the App Store. It would not work. It is expected and required that you download and install from the Mac App Store; there are probably bits and pieces you could copy but it may activate via machine serial number or some other method.
You mean you can now buy and download apps directly from the internet and install them on your PC. WOW, That is priceless!!!! ....and it is so, so cool that Father Apple gets a cut on every sale. That is magical!!!!! The innovation just keeps coming, and coming!!!!!
No,***** This is a dedicated app downloaded
for macs. Mac users could always download from the Internet. *****
******
Do you actually use Linux? No, you don't, because "dependency hell" no longer exists for the majority of users.
Depends on your definition of hell. The package managers handle most of the dirty work now, but it is still very time consuming to install a program that has dozens of dependencies that need to be installed before it will work. And even then you're not guaranteed that it will compile and run properly.
Actually, 2.04% of Wikipedias pageviews are from Linux devices, and rising. Additionally, 5% of school PCs now run Linux, also rising fast.
I'd like to see the information about school PCs.
This is a strawman argument.
Just because there are no previews, it doesn't follow at all that your "only choice" is to buy all of them. Another choice might be going to the website of each product and doing some research, and there is nothing stopping the producers of the apps from having a demo copy on their websites anyway.
Personally, if the apps were a bit cheaper, I wouldn't care about a preview before buying it and if there are any developers listening, I think this is true of most people. if you buy the wrong app for five bucks it's not really a big deal, but a lot of the apps are closer to a hundred. If the developers kept everything under 20 bucks or so I think they'd sell the same amount (dollar-wise) on a higher volume.
Well if that's your solution then that just defeats the whole purpose of browsing and buying for apps in one central location.
Depends on your definition of hell. The package managers handle most of the dirty work now, but it is still very time consuming to install a program that has dozens of dependencies that need to be installed before it will work. And even then you're not guaranteed that it will compile and run properly.
You don't download stuff like that nowadays.
For instance, if you want VLC, you get the repository address, add it via one click, then it installs itself AND its dependencies. Sames goes for apps like Transmission, Handbrake, Chromium, etc.