Btw at first glance in the Amazon store, the prices seem really expensive. I won't buy a download of a product if I'm not getting a significant discount from the price of the retail boxed version.
A man of integrity. Yes, it's not an app store. It's just a website with downloads.
Yeah.
Still has advantages, though. In addition to having software that's not available on the Mac App store, they have some good deals. I mentioned Portal 2 being available for $30.00. It's $50.00 on Steam, not available on the Mac App Store (or if it is, I can't find it), and $50.00 and not available for download from the Apple web site store.
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.
I see your point and I can agree with your arguments. However, if the OP had meant that I?d expect him to have qualified his statement to that point. Without the qualification the OP?s implication does seem to be that Leopard has a larger installed base than SL.
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.
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.
I see your point and I can agree with your arguments. However, if the OP had meant that I’d expect him to have qualified his statement to that point. Without the qualification the OP’s implication does seem to be that Leopard has a larger installed base than SL.
It's not an "App Store" in the way that most Apple users think of it: it's only a download site, like CNet. This doesn't in almost any way make any competition to Apple's Mac App store.
No app that serves as a central repository, just a webpage
No central automatic updating system
Horrible interface for browsing: only good if you come in knowing what you want
Downloads are standard install packages such as you can get on any developer's website, not simple "all-in-ones"
Did I mention ugly?
If I'm not buying from the Mac App Store with its advantages, it's because it's either not available there or I can get it very cheaply when in a bundle. Neither of these times will I think of going to Amazon.
Looks like fail to me.
Unless you want to learn a new language and hate people
Well, to be fair, they probably simply have different rules. Microsoft can be in the Mac App Store if Apple updates their rules to allow them, as can Adobe. They just don't want to (so far).
If it's the 30% commish they're worried about they can just put their products on the Mac App Store at a markup to cover Apple's share. There is nothing inherent in the App Store that the 30% can't be passed on to the user.
If it's the other restrictions such as not spewing files all over the system, I'm sure MS Office could keep all it's fonts and what not inside it's own app bundle and still work fine.
I think the problem is that Apple are using the same growth model they used with the iOS app store, where they just provide the ecosystem and sit back and let the magic happen. But with the Mac App Store there is already a competing ecosystem and they need to do some work to woo people over. I'm sure users would appreciate it if they did.
I see your point and I can agree with your arguments. However, if the OP had meant that I?d expect him to have qualified his statement to that point. Without the qualification the OP?s implication does seem to be that Leopard has a larger installed base than SL.
Perhaps he's new here and assumed some minimum level of common sense on behalf the folks who post here.
If Amazon does this right -- doesn't limit it to Snow Leopard / Lion, etc., allows incremental/OEM upgrades instead of making us download the entire app+installer again from the store just to fix a bug -- they could do well here.
From what it looks like, they won't provide updates at all. It will be up to each application to update itself.
If Amazon does this right -- doesn't limit it to Snow Leopard / Lion, etc., allows incremental/OEM upgrades instead of making us download the entire app+installer again from the store just to fix a bug -- they could do well here.
And frankly, as Apple has made such a mess of it and has been utterly unresponsive to Leopard users... I hope Amazon really makes some inroads. I'll be happy to support them. I'm really kind of peeved at Apple, frankly; first the horribly incompatible Snow Leopard, then the jump away from Leopard users, then the SL-only app store, now Lion wants, apparently, to turn my desktop into my iPad with modal(!) full-screen applications... lately, Apple's really left a pretty sour taste in my mouth.
Luckily, Leopard is a pretty good release, and I feel no pressure to upgrade. And as a developer, Leopard is a better target than Snow Leopard or Lion; you get a much broader customer base.
I'm not particularly excited about Lion, but SL had fantastic upgrades to the kernel and the GCD APIs for multithreading that gave a significant performance boost - I saw rendering speeds increase by about 30% across 4 cores on an unmodified app. I get that it wasn't a thrilling end-user release, but that's why it was $30 - get some performance improvements and some application UI tweaks & performance improvements as well. I wouldn't target Leopard just because setting up solid threading is so much easier now with blocks and the other threading API improvements. (And yes, I did use various threading APIs before, but Apple really hit the nail on the head with the SL release... and with machines largely having 4+ cores nowadays, that's worth having.)
For Lion, on the other hand, the Dashboard that doesn't appear over the desktop seems incredibly irritating - when I use the widgets, I often want to refer to an email / web page in the background to read data out of, and putting it on the 'left' screen really kills it for me. The removal of colors also doesn't really excite me. (Uh, I mean from seeing leaked screens, of course.)
What I don?t understand is why Amazon doesn?t have a Windows app store.
I imagine a Windows App Store is in the works, but they don't have the infrastructure in place to handle that much traffic. It's one thing to have millions of people browsing your website for birthday gifts, but playing online download source for every PC user in the world would require quite a bit of ground work. It seems like they just don't want Apple to get too big of a jump on the Mac App store like they did with the iPhone App Store.
As for Amazon and Microsoft, they have been sleeping together in the Northwest for a long time. Working out little promotions here and there. I'm not surprised to see Office available at Amazon. After all, that's where most people would have purchased it for their Mac anyway.
For Lion, on the other hand, the Dashboard that doesn't appear over the desktop seems incredibly irritating - when I use the widgets, I often want to refer to an email / web page in the background to read data out of, and putting it on the 'left' screen really kills it for me.
That is a preference setting in one of the controls panels (can't remember which, saw it on the web).
For Lion, on the other hand, the Dashboard that doesn't appear over the desktop seems incredibly irritating - when I use the widgets, I often want to refer to an email / web page in the background to read data out of, and putting it on the 'left' screen really kills it for me. The removal of colors also doesn't really excite me. (Uh, I mean from seeing leaked screens, of course.)
That is a preference setting in one of the controls panels (can't remember which, saw it on the web).
Uncheck "Show Dashboard as a Space" under Mission Control.
If it's the 30% commish they're worried about they can just put their products on the Mac App Store at a markup to cover Apple's share. There is nothing inherent in the App Store that the 30% can't be passed on to the user.
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.
Well, to be fair, they probably simply have different rules. Microsoft can be in the Mac App Store if Apple updates their rules to allow them, as can Adobe. They just don't want to (so far).
Yeah, I was just trying to be brief.
Specifically the "no serial numbers" rule, and the "no software suites" rule are what stops Microsoft and Adobe from being in the Mac App store.
I'm happy with the Mac App store rules though. The only software that's excluded is all stuff that I can't stand for one reason or another. Mostly because it's old or poorly designed or both.
The days of the "giant integrated software suite that tries to do everything" can't end soon enough for me. I also think that places like Adobe and Microsoft are making a foolish move in sticking with the suite of apps approach.
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.
No, I'm suggesting that whatever differences in distro costs exist or don't exist, it shouldn't factor in to MS's decision. If there is a difference just pass it on.
Comments
goes off to install Amazon app store on his Mac
Just got back from their store and you're right. It's not at all like the Mac App store.
A man of integrity. Yes, it's not an app store. It's just a website with downloads.
This chart would say otherwise:
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.
A man of integrity. Yes, it's not an app store. It's just a website with downloads.
Yeah.
Still has advantages, though. In addition to having software that's not available on the Mac App store, they have some good deals. I mentioned Portal 2 being available for $30.00. It's $50.00 on Steam, not available on the Mac App Store (or if it is, I can't find it), and $50.00 and not available for download from the Apple web site store.
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.
I see your point and I can agree with your arguments. However, if the OP had meant that I?d expect him to have qualified his statement to that point. Without the qualification the OP?s implication does seem to be that Leopard has a larger installed base than SL.
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.
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.
I see your point and I can agree with your arguments. However, if the OP had meant that I’d expect him to have qualified his statement to that point. Without the qualification the OP’s implication does seem to be that Leopard has a larger installed base than SL.
ditto
It's not an "App Store" in the way that most Apple users think of it: it's only a download site, like CNet. This doesn't in almost any way make any competition to Apple's Mac App store.
- No app that serves as a central repository, just a webpage
- No central automatic updating system
- Horrible interface for browsing: only good if you come in knowing what you want
- Downloads are standard install packages such as you can get on any developer's website, not simple "all-in-ones"
- Did I mention ugly?
- If I'm not buying from the Mac App Store with its advantages, it's because it's either not available there or I can get it very cheaply when in a bundle. Neither of these times will I think of going to Amazon.
Looks like fail to me.Unless you want to learn a new language and hate people
Well, to be fair, they probably simply have different rules. Microsoft can be in the Mac App Store if Apple updates their rules to allow them, as can Adobe. They just don't want to (so far).
If it's the 30% commish they're worried about they can just put their products on the Mac App Store at a markup to cover Apple's share. There is nothing inherent in the App Store that the 30% can't be passed on to the user.
If it's the other restrictions such as not spewing files all over the system, I'm sure MS Office could keep all it's fonts and what not inside it's own app bundle and still work fine.
I think the problem is that Apple are using the same growth model they used with the iOS app store, where they just provide the ecosystem and sit back and let the magic happen. But with the Mac App Store there is already a competing ecosystem and they need to do some work to woo people over. I'm sure users would appreciate it if they did.
I see your point and I can agree with your arguments. However, if the OP had meant that I?d expect him to have qualified his statement to that point. Without the qualification the OP?s implication does seem to be that Leopard has a larger installed base than SL.
Perhaps he's new here and assumed some minimum level of common sense on behalf the folks who post here.
If Amazon does this right -- doesn't limit it to Snow Leopard / Lion, etc., allows incremental/OEM upgrades instead of making us download the entire app+installer again from the store just to fix a bug -- they could do well here.
From what it looks like, they won't provide updates at all. It will be up to each application to update itself.
If Amazon does this right -- doesn't limit it to Snow Leopard / Lion, etc., allows incremental/OEM upgrades instead of making us download the entire app+installer again from the store just to fix a bug -- they could do well here.
And frankly, as Apple has made such a mess of it and has been utterly unresponsive to Leopard users... I hope Amazon really makes some inroads. I'll be happy to support them. I'm really kind of peeved at Apple, frankly; first the horribly incompatible Snow Leopard, then the jump away from Leopard users, then the SL-only app store, now Lion wants, apparently, to turn my desktop into my iPad with modal(!) full-screen applications... lately, Apple's really left a pretty sour taste in my mouth.
Luckily, Leopard is a pretty good release, and I feel no pressure to upgrade. And as a developer, Leopard is a better target than Snow Leopard or Lion; you get a much broader customer base.
I'm not particularly excited about Lion, but SL had fantastic upgrades to the kernel and the GCD APIs for multithreading that gave a significant performance boost - I saw rendering speeds increase by about 30% across 4 cores on an unmodified app. I get that it wasn't a thrilling end-user release, but that's why it was $30 - get some performance improvements and some application UI tweaks & performance improvements as well. I wouldn't target Leopard just because setting up solid threading is so much easier now with blocks and the other threading API improvements. (And yes, I did use various threading APIs before, but Apple really hit the nail on the head with the SL release... and with machines largely having 4+ cores nowadays, that's worth having.)
For Lion, on the other hand, the Dashboard that doesn't appear over the desktop seems incredibly irritating - when I use the widgets, I often want to refer to an email / web page in the background to read data out of, and putting it on the 'left' screen really kills it for me. The removal of colors also doesn't really excite me.
What I don?t understand is why Amazon doesn?t have a Windows app store.
I imagine a Windows App Store is in the works, but they don't have the infrastructure in place to handle that much traffic. It's one thing to have millions of people browsing your website for birthday gifts, but playing online download source for every PC user in the world would require quite a bit of ground work. It seems like they just don't want Apple to get too big of a jump on the Mac App store like they did with the iPhone App Store.
As for Amazon and Microsoft, they have been sleeping together in the Northwest for a long time. Working out little promotions here and there. I'm not surprised to see Office available at Amazon. After all, that's where most people would have purchased it for their Mac anyway.
For Lion, on the other hand, the Dashboard that doesn't appear over the desktop seems incredibly irritating - when I use the widgets, I often want to refer to an email / web page in the background to read data out of, and putting it on the 'left' screen really kills it for me.
That is a preference setting in one of the controls panels (can't remember which, saw it on the web).
For Lion, on the other hand, the Dashboard that doesn't appear over the desktop seems incredibly irritating - when I use the widgets, I often want to refer to an email / web page in the background to read data out of, and putting it on the 'left' screen really kills it for me. The removal of colors also doesn't really excite me.
That is a preference setting in one of the controls panels (can't remember which, saw it on the web).
Uncheck "Show Dashboard as a Space" under Mission Control. PS: See my sig to show your user library folder without using the Show All Files terminal command.
If it's the 30% commish they're worried about they can just put their products on the Mac App Store at a markup to cover Apple's share. There is nothing inherent in the App Store that the 30% can't be passed on to the user.
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.
Well, to be fair, they probably simply have different rules. Microsoft can be in the Mac App Store if Apple updates their rules to allow them, as can Adobe. They just don't want to (so far).
Yeah, I was just trying to be brief.
Specifically the "no serial numbers" rule, and the "no software suites" rule are what stops Microsoft and Adobe from being in the Mac App store.
I'm happy with the Mac App store rules though. The only software that's excluded is all stuff that I can't stand for one reason or another. Mostly because it's old or poorly designed or both.
The days of the "giant integrated software suite that tries to do everything" can't end soon enough for me. I also think that places like Adobe and Microsoft are making a foolish move in sticking with the suite of apps approach.
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.
It would make more sense to target Snow Leopard and then do whatever is necessary after the fact to "make it work" on Leopard.
Targeting an old OS is like building mediocrity into your product on purpose.
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.
No, I'm suggesting that whatever differences in distro costs exist or don't exist, it shouldn't factor in to MS's decision. If there is a difference just pass it on.