... As with IOS apps, Apple warns that title that are simply web clippings, content aggregators, or a collection of links, may be rejected. ...
I think the author hasn't been to the app store lately if they think this is "like iOS." At least a third of the apps in the app store are exactly these kind of crappy web-link apps.
This sounds like the beginning of the end of Mac as general computing platform and entry into a non-portable Mac appliance. Couple this with "auto-save" (i.e. hide file system from the user) and a few more OS iterations and Apple will get there.
I think it's really time to move on to more open and free platforms and attempt to save the world from corporations with the goal to own the world, before owning a compiler becomes illegal.
I'd like to see them actually, but I don't think they will because of this:
"... Apps that require license keys or implement their own copy protection will be rejected. "
That leaves out a lot of big Mac developers right there. I'm not sure how Omigraffle and Pixelmator (who have both said they were looking forward to the store AFAIK), are going to work around that.
Try before you buy. Must be there. Our app comes in three different flavors ranging from US$49 to $249. The size of our market, even with App store distribution, is such that we can't move much on these price points - we have spent over $4m developing the product, and need to recoup our investment (and make a profit), and with the App store potentially having hundreds of thousands of other software titles there competing for people's attention, and considering the niche nature of our software, dropping the price significantly really doesn't work.
The way it works for us now is that people download our software, fall in love with it and buy it. It is so extensive and immersive that a few screenshots will not sell a product like this at the price point we need to charge.
I think the "race to the bottom" approach that has happened on iPhone and iPad sets a dangerous precedent for desktop apps. It gives a huge incentive to develop small utility type apps instead of more fully featured applications. The platform is different, and anything that pushes us away from those high investment fully featured applications is doing both the users and developers a huge disservice.
The other thing is that we have a cross platform licensing model where if you purchase a license key, you can use it on both Mac and that other operating system so if we had to lower prices it would cannibalize our Windows revenues.
Actually the store rules seem to imply that you can't use any form of license keys anyway, so I just don't know how it would work for our cross platform licensing model.
In many ways, I wish they had put a longer timeframe on this and had some place set up where we could ask questions about these sorts of things (I've looked on the developer forums etc but haven't found anywhere so far).
I'd like to see them actually, but I don't think they will because of this:
"... Apps that require license keys or implement their own copy protection will be rejected. "
That leaves out a lot of big Mac developers right there. I'm not sure how Omigraffle and Pixelmator (who have both said they were looking forward to the store AFAIK), are going to work around that.
Actually, my greatest interest in the limitations document was this statement. Thank God. I'm so tired of typing in 32 characters of gobbledygook to activate a piece of software I paid for.
This, along with $0.99 apps, might convince me to buy Mac software again.
OTOH, I really see the death of traditional software distribution on the Mac and I consider this to be a BAD THING. No, I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat and worrying that Apple will close off other methods of Mac distribution; I simply agree with other people who've pointed out that this will quickly become the *default* mechanism for Mac software distribution and people won't even bother looking at software from other sources (other than for the standard "big packages"). I seriously believe that this will have a big impact on software innovation on the Mac. The Mac App Store will quickly fill up with crapware (like the iOS App Store) and other sources of Mac software will find that it's becoming too expensive to support the traditional sales/marketing models.
I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I can certainly understand some developer's concerns, however, about the race to the bottom.
This could be very cool. Right now it seems Mac developers (heck, computer developers) have to jack their prices up quite high in order to turn the type of profit they want due to piracy and distribution issues. If they're able to distribute and advertise far more extensively through the app store (and if it helps them defend against privacy?not holding my breath on that) it will drives prices down for everyone and profit up for them. Lower prices will also help to further reduce piracy. There are many great Mac apps out there, but they're just not worth $20, $40, or more...
So we can get many of the benefits of the App Store without some of its worst aspects (the walled garden). Everyone can still release their apps through all the old-school traditional means. I'll be watching this one hopefully.
Oh, and death to license keys and shady upgrade cycles.
As of current its not much different than buying an app from Steam or Aspyr's service.
Brick and Mortar software for apple is not going to change that much. We'll still have a small collection of pro and consumer apps people need from the Apple Store itself (Office, Creative Suite). And Mac & PC releases of some software (Starcraft II).
What this does is collect what many people generally have to go to tuaw, macupdate,macheist and various blogs, google sites, etc to find which are mostly online distributed anyhow.
But I wonder if they'll reject what has been a standard which is using /Library/ApplicationSupport and ~/Library/ApplicationSupport for certain shared or custom assets. The idea of keeping everything inside the app worries me from a multiuser perspective.
This sounds like the beginning of the end of Mac as general computing platform and entry into a non-portable Mac appliance. Couple this with "auto-save" (i.e. hide file system from the user) and a few more OS iterations and Apple will get there.
I think it's really time to move on to more open and free platforms and attempt to save the world from corporations with the goal to own the world, before owning a compiler becomes illegal.
I'm having the same sinking (no pun intended) feeling. In some ways, it may be what is necessary for the evolution of computing. I do truly admire the fact that iOS is an almost maintenance free system. Macs are almost there, but they are still confusing to novices.
The file system is probably one of the the most confusing aspects of a modern computer, and so, it needs to be abstracted away. Apple knows that a lot of engineers love Macs, so I do think there will always be a way to pull the curtain aside, but it may become more and more unusual for an average user to do so.
The biggest problem I see in doing this is limited storage space. If they let you import and edit movies, purchase movies, rip CDs, rip DVDs and so on, you can pretty quickly eat up your disk space. This means you need to manage it. If you need to manage your disk space, you need access to the file system. Meanwhile, they are actually reducing the disk size of the MacBook Air by switching the Flash. So, they have too diametrically opposing goals here: make it so you don't need to manage your file system, while simultaneously making it more necessary to manage because they're reducing the available space.
Also if you're going to set your Mac up to be a file server of any sort, you need access to the file system, since network protocols are all based around mount points and paths.
This could be very cool. Right now it seems Mac developers (heck, computer developers) have to jack their prices up quite high in order to turn the type of profit they want due to piracy and distribution issues. If they're able to distribute and advertise far more extensively through the app store (and if it helps them defend against privacy?not holding my breath on that) it will drives prices down for everyone and profit up for them. Lower prices will also help to further reduce piracy. There are many great Mac apps out there, but they're just not worth $20, $40, or more...
So we can get many of the benefits of the App Store without some of its worst aspects (the walled garden). Everyone can still release their apps through all the old-school traditional means. I'll be watching this one hopefully.
Oh, and death to license keys and shady upgrade cycles.
Not really. Software distribution is pretty cheap, especially if you already distribute over the internet. It certainly doesn't take 30% bite the way Apple does.
I don't like license keys either, but we wouldn't need them if people didn't pirate software. Presumably apps from the app store will be copy protected, so you'll have all the same headaches as other copy-protected media from Apple. You're just trading one problem for another.
One thing I'm confused about: It seems that Apps aren't allowed to install plug-ins, but they are allowed to load them? Very strange. How can you load plug-ins if you don't install them?
It may that lack of license codes is a problem. Or it may not, depending upon the details of how Apple does this.
Although the guidelines do not include it, Steve's slides clearly said that a purchase is valid for all the Macs a person owns, and not just one. Obviously they will check on this somehow, possibly with an AppleID or similar thing that validates you in the app store.
That's not very different from Pixelmator - they allow you to have it on all your personally-owned Macs. Same is true for Omni (with OmniGraffle).
I do not see the big problem here. Am I missing something?? If so, please be specific 'cos I've looked and can't see it.
I wonder if Macs will be locked down just like iOS devices. If not, why should we have to jailbreak iOS devices to add apps we want apart from the App Store?! The App Store is a good idea, but not at the exclusion of other apps outside of the sanctioned channel!
Today's announcement indicated that Apple envisioned an App Store for Mac titles (facilitating easy shopping, software updates, and simple installation). Unfortunately they've already demonstrated their unwillingness to offer ongoing support for their current resource for Mac users to keep up to date on the latest offerings for Apple Macs:
This site is frequently ignored for days or weeks at a time, whereas MacUpdate provides daily releases of information regarding new additions to the plethora of software developed or improved upon for Apple Macs.
Doesn't provide much confidence in the reliability of today's proposed AppStore.
Well if you think about it I'm pretty sure the new app store will replace this which is probably why they have been ignoring it and hiding it away.
Within a year's time, I'd bet money that Microsoft will "suddenly" decide to open their own Window's App Store. After all, it's not like they had 20 years to do one of their own.
Within a year's time, I'd bet money that Microsoft will "suddenly" decide to open their own Window's App Store. After all, it's not like they had 20 years to do one of their own.
Microsoft already has/and has had an app store for the desktop arena for years.
Does is have the functionality that Jobs described today... No, but do I want that type of control and access to my personal computer?
Hell No. To do a software scan then the scanner has to access your local computer.
Steve has surpassed Microsoft and Google as the "Do Bad Company".
Unfortunately, their users are too young or too stupid to actually realize this fact.
Not really. Software distribution is pretty cheap, especially if you already distribute over the internet. It certainly doesn't take 30% bite the way Apple does.
That may be true for companies that distribute their own software, but the majority of software is still sold in brick & mortar stores, where the discount is closer to 50%.
Even when you use online distribution other than Apple's I doubt if the cut is much less than 30%.
Comments
... As with IOS apps, Apple warns that title that are simply web clippings, content aggregators, or a collection of links, may be rejected. ...
I think the author hasn't been to the app store lately if they think this is "like iOS." At least a third of the apps in the app store are exactly these kind of crappy web-link apps.
I think it's really time to move on to more open and free platforms and attempt to save the world from corporations with the goal to own the world, before owning a compiler becomes illegal.
i bet they will though.
I'd like to see them actually, but I don't think they will because of this:
"... Apps that require license keys or implement their own copy protection will be rejected. "
That leaves out a lot of big Mac developers right there. I'm not sure how Omigraffle and Pixelmator (who have both said they were looking forward to the store AFAIK), are going to work around that.
Well, he did say the best option. :-)
Yes, I believe he qualified that remark was in his opinion.
The way it works for us now is that people download our software, fall in love with it and buy it. It is so extensive and immersive that a few screenshots will not sell a product like this at the price point we need to charge.
I think the "race to the bottom" approach that has happened on iPhone and iPad sets a dangerous precedent for desktop apps. It gives a huge incentive to develop small utility type apps instead of more fully featured applications. The platform is different, and anything that pushes us away from those high investment fully featured applications is doing both the users and developers a huge disservice.
The other thing is that we have a cross platform licensing model where if you purchase a license key, you can use it on both Mac and that other operating system
Actually the store rules seem to imply that you can't use any form of license keys anyway, so I just don't know how it would work for our cross platform licensing model.
In many ways, I wish they had put a longer timeframe on this and had some place set up where we could ask questions about these sorts of things (I've looked on the developer forums etc but haven't found anywhere so far).
I'd like to see them actually, but I don't think they will because of this:
"... Apps that require license keys or implement their own copy protection will be rejected. "
That leaves out a lot of big Mac developers right there. I'm not sure how Omigraffle and Pixelmator (who have both said they were looking forward to the store AFAIK), are going to work around that.
Actually, my greatest interest in the limitations document was this statement. Thank God. I'm so tired of typing in 32 characters of gobbledygook to activate a piece of software I paid for.
This, along with $0.99 apps, might convince me to buy Mac software again.
OTOH, I really see the death of traditional software distribution on the Mac and I consider this to be a BAD THING. No, I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat and worrying that Apple will close off other methods of Mac distribution; I simply agree with other people who've pointed out that this will quickly become the *default* mechanism for Mac software distribution and people won't even bother looking at software from other sources (other than for the standard "big packages"). I seriously believe that this will have a big impact on software innovation on the Mac. The Mac App Store will quickly fill up with crapware (like the iOS App Store) and other sources of Mac software will find that it's becoming too expensive to support the traditional sales/marketing models.
I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I can certainly understand some developer's concerns, however, about the race to the bottom.
Just don't give me any Mac Fart apps :-)
So we can get many of the benefits of the App Store without some of its worst aspects (the walled garden). Everyone can still release their apps through all the old-school traditional means. I'll be watching this one hopefully.
Oh, and death to license keys and shady upgrade cycles.
Brick and Mortar software for apple is not going to change that much. We'll still have a small collection of pro and consumer apps people need from the Apple Store itself (Office, Creative Suite). And Mac & PC releases of some software (Starcraft II).
What this does is collect what many people generally have to go to tuaw, macupdate,macheist and various blogs, google sites, etc to find which are mostly online distributed anyhow.
But I wonder if they'll reject what has been a standard which is using /Library/ApplicationSupport and ~/Library/ApplicationSupport for certain shared or custom assets. The idea of keeping everything inside the app worries me from a multiuser perspective.
Apps must be self-contained, single application installation bundles, and cannot install code or resources in shared locations.
Apple insists that apps must follow the Apple Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines
Even when Apple itself does not follow these rules for their own Mac applications?
This sounds like the beginning of the end of Mac as general computing platform and entry into a non-portable Mac appliance. Couple this with "auto-save" (i.e. hide file system from the user) and a few more OS iterations and Apple will get there.
I think it's really time to move on to more open and free platforms and attempt to save the world from corporations with the goal to own the world, before owning a compiler becomes illegal.
I'm having the same sinking (no pun intended) feeling. In some ways, it may be what is necessary for the evolution of computing. I do truly admire the fact that iOS is an almost maintenance free system. Macs are almost there, but they are still confusing to novices.
The file system is probably one of the the most confusing aspects of a modern computer, and so, it needs to be abstracted away. Apple knows that a lot of engineers love Macs, so I do think there will always be a way to pull the curtain aside, but it may become more and more unusual for an average user to do so.
The biggest problem I see in doing this is limited storage space. If they let you import and edit movies, purchase movies, rip CDs, rip DVDs and so on, you can pretty quickly eat up your disk space. This means you need to manage it. If you need to manage your disk space, you need access to the file system. Meanwhile, they are actually reducing the disk size of the MacBook Air by switching the Flash. So, they have too diametrically opposing goals here: make it so you don't need to manage your file system, while simultaneously making it more necessary to manage because they're reducing the available space.
Also if you're going to set your Mac up to be a file server of any sort, you need access to the file system, since network protocols are all based around mount points and paths.
This could be very cool. Right now it seems Mac developers (heck, computer developers) have to jack their prices up quite high in order to turn the type of profit they want due to piracy and distribution issues. If they're able to distribute and advertise far more extensively through the app store (and if it helps them defend against privacy?not holding my breath on that) it will drives prices down for everyone and profit up for them. Lower prices will also help to further reduce piracy. There are many great Mac apps out there, but they're just not worth $20, $40, or more...
So we can get many of the benefits of the App Store without some of its worst aspects (the walled garden). Everyone can still release their apps through all the old-school traditional means. I'll be watching this one hopefully.
Oh, and death to license keys and shady upgrade cycles.
Not really. Software distribution is pretty cheap, especially if you already distribute over the internet. It certainly doesn't take 30% bite the way Apple does.
I don't like license keys either, but we wouldn't need them if people didn't pirate software. Presumably apps from the app store will be copy protected, so you'll have all the same headaches as other copy-protected media from Apple. You're just trading one problem for another.
Although the guidelines do not include it, Steve's slides clearly said that a purchase is valid for all the Macs a person owns, and not just one. Obviously they will check on this somehow, possibly with an AppleID or similar thing that validates you in the app store.
That's not very different from Pixelmator - they allow you to have it on all your personally-owned Macs. Same is true for Omni (with OmniGraffle).
I do not see the big problem here. Am I missing something?? If so, please be specific 'cos I've looked and can't see it.
i bet they will though.
And give Apple a 30% cut? I don't think so ...
Realistically, do you expect folks with a $4000 Mac Pro to be limited to app store??
Or scientific researchers who use lots of open-source software??
No. The Mac is not going to be locked down like an iPhone.
Today's announcement indicated that Apple envisioned an App Store for Mac titles (facilitating easy shopping, software updates, and simple installation). Unfortunately they've already demonstrated their unwillingness to offer ongoing support for their current resource for Mac users to keep up to date on the latest offerings for Apple Macs:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/
This site is frequently ignored for days or weeks at a time, whereas MacUpdate provides daily releases of information regarding new additions to the plethora of software developed or improved upon for Apple Macs.
Doesn't provide much confidence in the reliability of today's proposed AppStore.
Well if you think about it I'm pretty sure the new app store will replace this which is probably why they have been ignoring it and hiding it away.
Within a year's time, I'd bet money that Microsoft will "suddenly" decide to open their own Window's App Store. After all, it's not like they had 20 years to do one of their own.
Microsoft already has/and has had an app store for the desktop arena for years.
Does is have the functionality that Jobs described today... No, but do I want that type of control and access to my personal computer?
Hell No. To do a software scan then the scanner has to access your local computer.
Steve has surpassed Microsoft and Google as the "Do Bad Company".
Unfortunately, their users are too young or too stupid to actually realize this fact.
Not really. Software distribution is pretty cheap, especially if you already distribute over the internet. It certainly doesn't take 30% bite the way Apple does.
That may be true for companies that distribute their own software, but the majority of software is still sold in brick & mortar stores, where the discount is closer to 50%.
Even when you use online distribution other than Apple's I doubt if the cut is much less than 30%.