Apple Bundling must STOP!

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
According to Independent Developers.



<a href="http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,52452,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,52452,00.html</a>;





<a href="http://www.whiterabbits.com/MacNetJournal/2002/05/06.html#a1228"; target="_blank">http://www.whiterabbits.com/MacNetJournal/2002/05/06.html#a1228</a>;



I think Apple should Bundle Apps. Apple's not forcing you to use their iApps and they make them good enough to be useful but 3rd party developers always have areas where they can offer more features.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>I think Apple should Bundle Apps. Apple's not forcing you to use their iApps and they make them good enough to be useful but 3rd party developers always have areas where they can offer more features.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    I agree. It makes life simple for newbies if all the little apps they need are already installed on their new iMac. Which is the whole point of the iApps, and a cornerstone of Apple's attempt to improve the whole Mac experience (and increase sales).



    When people become a bit more experienced, they can look elsewhere. No doubt many will want a more advanced alternative to iPhoto, and I'm pretty certain Watson will always be a better product than Sherlock 3.



    Developers aren't doing themselves any favors, either. As I pointed out in another thread, not one of the iTunes alternatives has been updated with iPod support. In seven(?) months.
  • Reply 2 of 23
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Bah.



    Developers, it would seem, are either simply too lazy or too incompetent if they can't come up with software that is as good as or better than Apple's offerings. Remember, kids, competition is a Good Thing?. Why can't Apple include their own basic set of tools, especially if third parties still aren't up to it?



    Belle is quite right here. Many novice and first-time users probably don't *want* to have to scour the web looking for shareware tools that perform such basic functions. These people want to be able to do some things out of the box.



    This debate over iChat is utterly ridiculous. Apple isn't forcing you to use their product; it isn't integrated into the OS like Microsoft's Internet Explorer is in Windows. Adium offers far more extensive customization and Fire and Proteus offer multi-service abilities. Again, competition is a Good Thing?! Now Adium, Fire, and Proteus' developers just can't allow their products to stagnate. They need to keep updating to keep their products above Apple's.



    [ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 23
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,125member
    True



    As Good as Sherlock is I'll be purchasing Watson when I move to OSX



    iTunes may be all I need for a MP3 player unless a company like Panic can put a feature into Audion that I just have to have.



    I think Apple's job is to promote awareness of these tools. Developers need to be keying into what consumers are ASKING Apple to add to their products and them beat Apple to the punch.



    I don't even mind FCP competing with Premiere because I'm a Mac user first and foremost and frankly I don't care about Adobe's Windows conquests...I want the BEST software for my Mac.
  • Reply 4 of 23
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>I don't even mind FCP competing with Premiere because I'm a Mac user first and foremost and frankly I don't care about Adobe's Windows conquests...I want the BEST software for my Mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    That's really what it comes down to. As consumers we benefit from competition, and the fact that Apple is giving away reasonable, but by no means phenomenal, software for free should be incentive for developers to innovate to earn our dollars.
  • Reply 5 of 23
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    I just bought Watson because of the Sherlock 3 preview. Watson does not enjoy its popularity on its own merits alone...it has been publicized greatly by Apple.



    As well Sherlock 3 won't be here for months, and Watson will probably still do more. Watson's a great app for demos too...
  • Reply 6 of 23
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    Yea, Apple sucks!! I don't want awesome free iapps!!
  • Reply 7 of 23
    prestonpreston Posts: 219member
    Apple should honestly go open source with the iApps. I can't imagine that they make that much money on them, since they bundle them, then only charge minimal amounts for upgrades. Besides, it would be a tremendous PR move that would not only benefit sales, but the Mac platform aswell.



    They'd have to beat the developers off with a stick!!!



    Pres
  • Reply 8 of 23
    chris cuillachris cuilla Posts: 4,825member
    There is another angle on this whole thing...one I'd like to see anyway. Not necessarily a wholesale "competition" with Apple-bundled products...



    Why not extending and enhancing these bundled products through (possibly for $) plug-ins. We've seen a bit of this with iMovie and iTunes. OmniGroup did a quickie for iPhoto (reverse-engineering the plug-in API).



    Apple has openly supported some of this (iTunes, iMovie). I'd like to see Apple do it with ALL of their apps...Mail, AddressBook, iChat, Finder...etc.



    Surely there are plug-ins worthy of paying some $ for in some cases. I believe this has happened for Photoshop.
  • Reply 9 of 23
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    open-source?



    Not everything benefits from open-source. Apple doesn't want people messing with its code and making it potentially worse, or having people using a hundred different iApp clones with inconsistent behavior and features.
  • Reply 10 of 23
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>open-source?



    Not everything benefits from open-source. Apple doesn't want people messing with its code and making it potentially worse, or having people using a hundred different iApp clones with inconsistent behavior and features.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    out of the total Mac OS (X) users out there, how many of them would d/l an open source variant of an iApp, unless they knew what they were doing? they would always be able to reinstall from apple's website with a up-to-date "apple" version. IMHO i think open sourcing iTunes and iPhoto is a good idea... but iMovie and iDVD should stay closed as Apple still charges $ for them... any free iApp should be open sourced... whats the big deal--its free anyways... any inconsistancies wouldnt make it into the "apple" build of the software...
  • Reply 11 of 23
    metacommetacom Posts: 32member
    [quote]Originally posted by preston:

    <strong>Apple should honestly go open source with the iApps. I can't imagine that they make that much money on them, since they bundle them, then only charge minimal amounts for upgrades. Besides, it would be a tremendous PR move that would not only benefit sales, but the Mac platform aswell.



    They'd have to beat the developers off with a stick!!!



    Pres</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I totally agree. This way, the community can participate and add features into the iApps to extend their functionality. Apple can approve the changes and redistribute the enhanced software with their software updates. That would definately put Apple on the good side of the open source community.
  • Reply 12 of 23
    dwsdws Posts: 108member
    [quote]Originally posted by Paul:

    <strong>

    IMHO i think open sourcing iTunes and iPhoto is a good idea...

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    In a way, Apple is already doing this, by making API's available. This allows developers to extend the functionality beyond the Apple norm, into whatever little niche that the developer desires. The best example of this (currently) is QuickTime; which has a nice set of API's attached to it (even nicer in the Jaguar API set!). Also, the new and improved (actually, completely rewritten!) Address Book will be an open API set that all developers will be able to utilize for their own programs. There's no real need for (what you call) open source. Why reinvent the wheel, when all the people really want is unique hubcap designs!
  • Reply 13 of 23
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]out of the total Mac OS (X) users out there, how many of them would d/l an open source variant of an iApp, unless they knew what they were doing? they would always be able to reinstall from apple's website with a up-to-date "apple" version. IMHO i think open sourcing iTunes and iPhoto is a good idea... but iMovie and iDVD should stay closed as Apple still charges $ for them... any free iApp should be open sourced... whats the big deal--its free anyways... any inconsistancies wouldnt make it into the "apple" build of the software...<hr></blockquote>



    You really underestimate people, don't you? How many people will click on an e-mail message carrying a virus just because it said "Re: your mail" or "how have you been?"



    Or all the people who still don't know they've been infected by Code-Red, which is still running on IIS, which they also have no idea is running?



    open-source doesn't mean binary-executables are hard to come by. Someone could easily distribute a buggy or malicious version of an iApp as an easily installed package.



    I don't see a real reason to open-sourcing apps like this, other than pleasing the rabid linux fanboys on Slashdot.
  • Reply 14 of 23
    dtremitdtremit Posts: 2member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>

    Or all the people who still don't know they've been infected by Code-Red, which is still running on IIS, which they also have no idea is running?



    open-source doesn't mean binary-executables are hard to come by. Someone could easily distribute a buggy or malicious version of an iApp as an easily installed package.



    I don't see a real reason to open-sourcing apps like this, other than pleasing the rabid linux fanboys on Slashdot.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually, you've seized upon one of the most important arguments for open-sourcing software -- security. Software with known code is, in the end, more secure, because it opens the system to greater scrutiny. This is why the Department of Defense requires source code before approving an application for trusted use.



    One of the major reasons that IIS -- and other Microsoft software -- is such a problem is because no legitimate security professionals can review the source. Compare it with the open-source Apache web server: while some security holes have been found in Apache, they have been identified and patched quickly thanks to the thousands of people who interact with the source code. IIS, in contrast, doesn't get patched until Microsoft is embarrased enough to admit a problem and release an update.



    Does this argument have anything to do with the iApps? Not really; I honestly think a well-designed plugin architecture might be a better solution. Nonetheless, the point remains that open source software is anything but a security risk.
  • Reply 15 of 23
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    The only iApp that might require security is iPhoto (because it transmits sensitive information,) and while open-source projects often get bugs squashed faster, they also get more bugs introduced faster.



    In addition, Apple would probably have to create a new license to complement the APSL, which would probably not be appropriate for iApps. Legal hell.



    And its a bit unattractive to have several distributions of iApp based software...it would be a nightmare to support.
  • Reply 16 of 23
    astra4astra4 Posts: 46member
    Hmm...

    The whole point of the iApps is to have something exclusive, something Mac-Only, to get people interested in buying a Mac.



    If it was open sourced, there´s a chance it´d get ported to Windows and there´d be one reason less to buy a Mac. So they must not be open sourced.



    The second thing is that I don´t believe OSS would even work for this type of software; OSS is for geeks and geeks want to fiddle with tech stuff and not with iApps. I mean, see Mozilla or the OpenOffice project, are they doing well? I don´t know actually, but can´t imagine it...
  • Reply 17 of 23
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I'm just going to say:



    what Belle said (and dws re: plug-in architecture).



    OK, OK, I'll also say that the ability for software authors to embrace the plug-in nature of most of these apps is a very good point. I use PhotoToWeb as my web page creator with iPhoto since it has (and will likely continue to have) better options and flexibility for web page output. great idea. I use PixelNhance and TIFFany with iPhoto too. iPhoto is a hub in its own right, and it does a little more than Curator on its own. I do the same with iMovie plug-in packs, and I think a lot of authoring tools could tap into it, especially for exporting on top of the already available extra editing plug-ins. The idea of these iApps as media hubs in their own right a very promising one from a developer's perspective.



    To me, one thing Apple could start to do is include optional plug-ins for these apps from third parties on their web site next to the iApps. They could include them on the software CDs and in some cases pre-install them on new Macs. Seems like the small houses at Stone, Omni and Caffeine do some pretty smart and substantial work within this digital hub setup from Apple.



    [ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 23
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I've always though that a plug-in system would be a great thing to turn AppleWorks from a nice office suite into a full fledged Office killer.



    The same could go for all Apples other content creation/management apps. I know nothing about programming or Apple's current developer suppport ethos, but I say if Apple made a plug-in framework easily accesible (maybe it already is?), then it is very possible that things like iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, Appleworks, possibly even iTunes could be turned into professional or near professional quality apps. You just need plug-ins up the wazoo!



    Maybe Apple doesn't want that for iMovie and iDVD. They do, afterall, have expensive FCP and DVD studio pro packages to sell. Yet there's really no need for Apple to miss out on the plug-in party either.



    Adobe is still huge, whatever Apple does. And it's cross platform. Apple could go a long way to keeping Adobe customers on macs by creating fast/fully optimized mac exclusive plug-in packs for everything from PE to AE. Why not? Your a digital artist on a budget. Macs aren't cheap, and the apps you use can be run just as fast on a PC. But... there's a few dozen highly useful plugins for the mac version -- not just little trinkets, but things that let you cut whole steps out of your work -- that you just can't get on your Adobe for PC.



    Same thing for AppleWorks. You could turn it into an extensive Web Page tool, or a complete office compatible integrated alternative as your needs and budget allow.



    It's a party everyone can join! Especially cause all your new macs come with this basic but expandable software. On a PC people might be using one of any dozen or more apps with suspect integration. If Apple does anything well it's application interoperability and functionality. A developer knows that about 15 Million or more (yearly sales times a lifespan of about 3-4years) users who are much more likely to utilize multimedia content creation tools are out there. It's a good market for which to publish plug-ins and associated tools.



    Funny, that aside from IE, no one is asking M$ to stop including Media player or M$ paint ???



    Apple may kill a developer here and there, but it's through competition and innovation, not the brute force of integration x market presence x a healthy dollop of back-room intimidation



    These apps are the best thing Apple does. If they aren't letting people in to enhance them, then they ought to, but under no circumstances should they stop developing their own solutions.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    i think plugins would be much better than open source, especially a plugin for iChat that allows me to use MSN messenger, and a plugin for iPhoto that lets me read photos off a PhotoCD, instead of my Hdd, to save space, and a plugin for Sherlock that let's me search Google and <a href="http://teoma.com"; target="_blank">Teoma</a>
  • Reply 20 of 23
    cdhostagecdhostage Posts: 1,038member
    When Jobs said iChat was bundled iwth the OS, I said "Doh!" They're pulling a Microsoft!



    At least App[le wioll make it an OPTIONAL install. OR easily removeablew. WIndows sucks giant penguin balls./
Sign In or Register to comment.