I think there was a rumor about this circulating around here some time ago. This morning I read that Thawte, a company that sells certificates, is issuing Apple Developer Certificates for that exact purpose: Link.
Hmmm... could be handy, but I'm not sure I want to *trust* just one source for ease of software distribution.
Okay, so I want to buy *fill in the blank* shareware app, cool, I can buy and DL via software update.
Okay, so now I want to buy Photoshop. Do I *really* want that controled by Apple? Particularly since what if they are developing their own photo App.
Do you get my drift? Not that DLing software is bad, but do we want an ALREADY narrow market to be free market data to Apple Developers? Sounds like a way of squashing what little competition there is...
Apple doesn't - and can't - control software distribution. I can go to ACD/Deneba's site and download a full version of Canvas (after paying for it, of course ) right now, and some apps, like Omni* and BBEdit, have similar functionality right now.
Apple can offer their own framework for Software Update. They could even make it a plug-in framework using certificates, so that for example Software Update would know to check an Adobe.com server for updates and download them from Adobe. Alternately, I suppose they could host software at Apple. That would be more secure, and a boon to smaller publishers for whom bandwidth fees are painful and hard to predict.
But if Apple finks out and drops the ball, there are many alternatives to a centralized SU mechanism. Many of them are currently in play, and there's nothing Apple could do to stop them from working. Omni could just add their update mechanism to their frameworks (if they haven't already) and that's about that.
Anything that avoids retail distribution is a boon to publishers, especially small publishers. Also, given that most people run whatever version they buy, this would at least make vendor efforts to push out bugfixes and feature enhancements more effective. But, again, a generalized SU feature is not the only way to accomplish this.
Amorph, I'm not sure how this gets around the issue I brought up. This is the same reason Microsoft doesn't do it (and they HAVE the framwork with Windows updates) they applied it to Office updates too.
Fact is, if they start issuing updates and certificates etc, now the are in the pipe for clean and easy to read statistics for who is using what. I'd rather stick with the *unsecure* method of dling updates on my own. As soon as Apple is in the loop, I smell antitrust issues.
I could be wrong (but I don't tend to think so). How else do you get around the 'big brother' feel of a centralized software update system?
Amorph, I'm not sure how this gets around the issue I brought up. This is the same reason Microsoft doesn't do it (and they HAVE the framwork with Windows updates) they applied it to Office updates too.
Fact is, if they start issuing updates and certificates etc, now the are in the pipe for clean and easy to read statistics for who is using what. I'd rather stick with the *unsecure* method of dling updates on my own. As soon as Apple is in the loop, I smell antitrust issues.
Well, first of all, Apple is safe from antitrust issues. Nobody at Justice blinked when they killed the clones, nor when they rolled out Safari. The point of antitrust law is that there are certain actions which are suspicious when they are done by a company so dominant that there is no meaningful competition. Those same actions performed by a company with 2% market share - which is as small as it is in no small part because of the existence of a monopoly - are just fine.
Second, Apple's numbers wouldn't be reliable, because they can't force anyone to use it. In fact, last I heard they were going to charge for the privilege. They'll have numbers for the people who use their service, but if Tiger is like Jaguar (don't know about Panther) then SU is off by default, and people looking for an Adobe update might still go to Adobe.com. Or they might never update. This is another place where security runs headlong into convenience, unfortunately. Right now, security is winning as is right and proper, and SU is off by default.
Any company which doesn't want to give Apple any sort of sales information can simply roll their own SU, or license someone else's. That's already a common practice as it is. It's not a difficult feature to implement.
I'd like to emphasize that I'm very sympathetic to your general position. Apple should be held at arm's length, because they can and do play hardball with people. In this case, though, I just don't see how they'd be able to exert that much influence. Do people really are if the new BBEdit comes through SU or through BBEdit?
Quote:
I could be wrong (but I don't tend to think so). How else do you get around the 'big brother' feel of a centralized software update system?
Leave it off, and get your updates the old fashioned way. You can do that with SU right now, and d/l your Apple updates from their support site. It's not in any company's interest to make it difficult to find and download their patches.
I am not sure if any of you use the Adobe Creative Suite, but Adobe now has a automatic update system within the Creative Suite that will update the applications through their own download manager.
I am not sure if many companies will actually use it. We for one, would be interested in using it for the applications we are developing. It gives end-users the familiarity that makes using a OS easy.
Comments
Okay, so I want to buy *fill in the blank* shareware app, cool, I can buy and DL via software update.
Okay, so now I want to buy Photoshop. Do I *really* want that controled by Apple? Particularly since what if they are developing their own photo App.
Do you get my drift? Not that DLing software is bad, but do we want an ALREADY narrow market to be free market data to Apple Developers? Sounds like a way of squashing what little competition there is...
my .02
Apple can offer their own framework for Software Update. They could even make it a plug-in framework using certificates, so that for example Software Update would know to check an Adobe.com server for updates and download them from Adobe. Alternately, I suppose they could host software at Apple. That would be more secure, and a boon to smaller publishers for whom bandwidth fees are painful and hard to predict.
But if Apple finks out and drops the ball, there are many alternatives to a centralized SU mechanism. Many of them are currently in play, and there's nothing Apple could do to stop them from working. Omni could just add their update mechanism to their frameworks (if they haven't already) and that's about that.
Anything that avoids retail distribution is a boon to publishers, especially small publishers. Also, given that most people run whatever version they buy, this would at least make vendor efforts to push out bugfixes and feature enhancements more effective. But, again, a generalized SU feature is not the only way to accomplish this.
Fact is, if they start issuing updates and certificates etc, now the are in the pipe for clean and easy to read statistics for who is using what. I'd rather stick with the *unsecure* method of dling updates on my own. As soon as Apple is in the loop, I smell antitrust issues.
I could be wrong (but I don't tend to think so). How else do you get around the 'big brother' feel of a centralized software update system?
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Amorph, I'm not sure how this gets around the issue I brought up. This is the same reason Microsoft doesn't do it (and they HAVE the framwork with Windows updates) they applied it to Office updates too.
Fact is, if they start issuing updates and certificates etc, now the are in the pipe for clean and easy to read statistics for who is using what. I'd rather stick with the *unsecure* method of dling updates on my own. As soon as Apple is in the loop, I smell antitrust issues.
Well, first of all, Apple is safe from antitrust issues. Nobody at Justice blinked when they killed the clones, nor when they rolled out Safari. The point of antitrust law is that there are certain actions which are suspicious when they are done by a company so dominant that there is no meaningful competition. Those same actions performed by a company with 2% market share - which is as small as it is in no small part because of the existence of a monopoly - are just fine.
Second, Apple's numbers wouldn't be reliable, because they can't force anyone to use it. In fact, last I heard they were going to charge for the privilege. They'll have numbers for the people who use their service, but if Tiger is like Jaguar (don't know about Panther) then SU is off by default, and people looking for an Adobe update might still go to Adobe.com. Or they might never update. This is another place where security runs headlong into convenience, unfortunately. Right now, security is winning as is right and proper, and SU is off by default.
Any company which doesn't want to give Apple any sort of sales information can simply roll their own SU, or license someone else's. That's already a common practice as it is. It's not a difficult feature to implement.
I'd like to emphasize that I'm very sympathetic to your general position. Apple should be held at arm's length, because they can and do play hardball with people. In this case, though, I just don't see how they'd be able to exert that much influence. Do people really are if the new BBEdit comes through SU or through BBEdit?
I could be wrong (but I don't tend to think so). How else do you get around the 'big brother' feel of a centralized software update system?
Leave it off, and get your updates the old fashioned way. You can do that with SU right now, and d/l your Apple updates from their support site. It's not in any company's interest to make it difficult to find and download their patches.
I am not sure if many companies will actually use it. We for one, would be interested in using it for the applications we are developing. It gives end-users the familiarity that makes using a OS easy.
It sounds like a software version of this web service, which Apple has had for some time.