Apple issues review guidelines for Mac App Store

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 175
    tommcintommcin Posts: 108member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nine9nin View Post


    Thank you for protecting me and putting a big condom on my computer



    More like they put it over the head of unscrupulous developers.
  • Reply 122 of 175
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by plovell View Post


    No lockdown. App store is one channel, not the only channel.



    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.



    Nevertheless it makes me nervous that Lion is headed to make the Mac a consumer focused machine at the detriment of the professional users. It will be sort of what happened to Windows XP after Vista. None of the pros upgraded preferring to continue with proven no frills solution to the candy coated new version.
  • Reply 123 of 175
    diddydiddy Posts: 282member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Nevertheless it makes me nervous that Lion is headed to make the Mac a consumer focused machine at the detriment of the professional users. It will be sort of what happened to Windows XP after Vista. None of the pros upgraded preferring to continue with proven no frills solution to the candy coated new version.



    Why do you think that Apple would compromise such users that they currently have by crippling their most powerful product? Especially with such a low market share to boot>.



    Do you think that Apple is just going to say to established customers that have been buying their products that they are no longer needed?
  • Reply 124 of 175
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post


    I disagree.



    "Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them. Apps that are not very useful or do not provide any lasting entertainment value may be rejected. Apps that are primarily marketing materials or advertisements will be rejected. Apps that are intended to provide trick or fake functionality that are not clearly marked as such will be rejected."



    As long as they stick to that rule (and there's no reason to believe that they won't), I don't see a problem. I'm definitely looking forward to a 'safe' store. It's one of the things I love about the App store on the iPhone.



    That rule is simply to push developers to rush into the App Store before any of their competitors do.



    Ambrosia and others (many, many others) have expressed deep concerns about the App Store requirements, and I'm sure most would prefer to take a wait-n-see approach with this new paradigm.



    But Steve's not stupid. He put in that clause to take care of the fence-sitters.
  • Reply 125 of 175
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tjw View Post


    This is clearly an attack on the browser.



    You're not alone in that opinion:



    Firefox director says Apple is “looking to bypass the web”

    http://www.slashgear.com/firefox-dir...-web-21109568/





    Quote:

    The first thing developers will do is create a native version of their web apps.



    No, that's the second thing they'll do.



    The first thing they'll do is raise prices by 30% to spread the love around.
  • Reply 126 of 175
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TomMcIn View Post


    More like they put it over the head of unscrupulous developers.



    Why is every developer who distributes their apps over the web -- as pretty much ALL of them do right now -- necessarily "unscrupulous"?



    Man, the Kool-Aid doesn't take long to kick in, eh?
  • Reply 127 of 175
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by diddy View Post


    Why do you think that Apple would compromise such users that they currently have by crippling their most powerful product? Especially with such a low market share to boot>.



    Do you think that Apple is just going to say to established customers that have been buying their products that they are no longer needed?



    We don't need no stinking swipe gestures. I just can't ignore the warning signs. The full screen mode is scary. Next thing you know that will be the only mode. They use the "existing" control of the green button to initiate the view but then you need to use the full screen icon at the bottom to undo it. What's next, click your heels together to get back home?
  • Reply 128 of 175
    applappl Posts: 348member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    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!





    Any time that a user tries to install uncurated software, there is a chance that their entire User Experience will be ruined.



    People will blame Apple for that.



    It makes a LOT more sense not to let users install uncurated software that they find somewhere on the bowels of the internet.



    There will be fewer headaches that way, both for users and for Apple. The problem is nipped in the bud, rather than the way it does with Windows, which is a mess.



    Our friends at AppleCare will be happier too!!
  • Reply 129 of 175
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tjw View Post


    Also app store on a computer, do people not realise that this has been available on linux like forever and all the software is frrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee



    This is clearly an attack on the browser. The first thing developers will do is create a native version of their web apps. All about trying to kick google ads off the mac as much as possible by making popular services available as apps with iAd included. Clever but completely the wrong direction.



    It is interesting that Netflix, Flickr, Google Maps are all available on my computer through the browser. But on the iDevice it's an app for each of those things.
  • Reply 130 of 175
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    And how can Steve prevent you going to a web site such as Version Tracker and downloading software from there?



    Hey, what if an app is available in both places, app store and versiontracker? There is no rule against that.
  • Reply 131 of 175
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ktappe View Post


    Several clauses make me worry

    "Apps that do not run on the currently shipping OS will be rejected."



    So utilities that fix deficiencies in older OS'es or make older OS's more tolerable (Onyx comes to mind) are now verbotten? Nice, Apple. \



    To put it in iOS terms - if your app actually doesn't run on iOS 4.1, it will be rejected from the app store. I get what you mean about an app fixing an old OS... but generally speaking they don't want underlying utilities anyway.



    Quote:

    "cannot install code or resources in shared locations."



    OS X is a multi-user environment. It drives me nuts when I install an app as one user and the next user logs in and cannot run the app because the installer put all the config. files in ~/Library instead of /Library. This clause, strictly interpreted, means apps can no longer store their data in/Library. It remains to be seen if that's how Apple reviewers will interpret it. \



    They have to do it this way (and I suspect once developers understand why they wouldn't allow use of the shared library).



    Old way: I install an app on my mac. Another copy on my wife's mac. Another on our old Mac. 2 users on 3 Macs means 3 copies. And the good thing is that a guest login can use my apps while there.



    New way: I install an app on my user account. I install another on my wife's account. It now self installs and works on any machine we log into (including logging in on my parents machine). 3 Macs and 2 users means 2 copies. The bad thing is that if I do allow a "guest" login it won't have any app store apps (though they could log in as themselves and get their own apps).



    Once this is working for all my main apps I won't take my laptop when visiting my parents, I'll just log in as me on their new iMac and have everything I need.
  • Reply 132 of 175
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post


    No they won't. Complex applications that install files outside their own bundle are not eligible for inclusion in the store.



    So MS Word, for example will never be in the app store because it installs fonts on your computer.



    I don't think Microsoft needs to be in the app store. If you want Microsoft Word, you will be get it app store or not. Same for Firefox, Adobe.
  • Reply 133 of 175
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pt123 View Post


    Hey, what if an app is available in both places, app store and versiontracker? There is no rule against that.



    There isn't?



    I would double-check that before I bank on it...
  • Reply 134 of 175
    applappl Posts: 348member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tjw View Post


    Simple, sandbox apps just like they do on the iphone. Make no mistake, if Jobs had the internet to easily install applications in an appstore from day 1 of the mac then he would have done. There would be no such thing as being able to install your own software



    Thank god the technology has caught up.



    Is this why Apple built the big data center? I thought that was going to be used to revolutionize the entire entertainment industry via AppleTV.
  • Reply 135 of 175
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    There isn't?



    I would double-check that before I bank on it...



    There is no rule in the Apple issued guidelines, which is available for double checking. However, I wouldn't bank on it as Apple can change their rules anytime they want.
  • Reply 136 of 175
    Come on all you "pro-user" guys and gals... calm down your egotistical me-first attitudes towards your wants and wishes for Lion, and think for a minute.



    There is absolutely NO reason why an iOS-user type interface OPTION, and iOS-friendly styled and synced App Store can't be an OPTION on the Mac. OPTION being the key word there (really?)



    Considering the posted SW requirements, I personally will give Apple the benefit of the doubt that they
    • a) know what they're doing and what they're pushing towards; and

    • b) don't even WANT pro apps, utilities, suites etc. to even think about getting on the App Store, or start developing for it, only to be rejected. We've seen that movie recently about spurned developers, bloggers, etc. No re-run or sequel necessary, thank you.

    I believe the App store is going to be for all of the "add-ons" for iOS device Apps, and for easy and friendly consumer computing Apps for your Mom.



    +1 props go to the poster who mentioned this previously.



    What's the average person going to do with a drive utility anyway, other than accidentally erase their drive.



    Will Apple forget the "pros" and devs that make those iOS Apps with "pro-category" software/suites...on a Mac... and push them to go to Windows?... stay out of date with an old version of MacOS?.... boot Ubuntu?



    I just don't think so. Even if I do love a good tech-conspiracy once in awhile.



    And may I add: we pro users here should never forget that, without the casual Apple consumers, users, and buyers of iOS devices, starting with the iPod and the iTunes Store... we would definitely NOT be having this discussion, now would we? Leave the communal panic-attack to Lemmings United.



    Summary: yer gettin' yer jockstraps and panties... or both ... in a bunch over nothin'.



    Patience. Wait and see... because surely they'll be twisted deep enough if I'm wrong!
  • Reply 137 of 175
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pt123 View Post


    There is no rule in the Apple issued guidelines, which is available for double checking. However, I wouldn't bank on it as Apple can change their rules anytime they want.



    I may have misunderstood the original poster's intent. By listing in VersionTracker did he mean that the link would go to Apple, or that one could sell their Mac software at their own site's store while it's also listed in the App Store?



    I suspect the latter would not be allowed.
  • Reply 138 of 175
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    I may have misunderstood the original poster's intent. By listing in VersionTracker did he mean that the link would go to Apple, or that one could sell their Mac software at their own site's store while it's also listed in the App Store?



    I suspect the latter would not be allowed.



    If you look at the Apple guidelines, there is no rule to prevent selling on multiple sites. I would think the "Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store" rule would be a bigger issue. Most of my apps have its own auto update mechanism. I already have the app so I wouldn't go buy it at the app store. They really would need 2 different versions.



    And why would any app have a link to the Apple app store? To go out of the way and pay 30% when it can be downloaded directly from version tracker?
  • Reply 139 of 175
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by strobe View Post


    Uuuuh, more developers doesn't make more sales.



    Well I'll tell you what, Einstein .... you buy a store with 10 developers and give me a store with 1000 developers and let's see who has "more sales."

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by strobe View Post


    I thought his point was $ going into a developer's pocket (in which case he needs to multiply it by 0.7, then 0.7 again due to Apple's with-holding BS).



    Put a $$ amount in place of "it" so we can try to figure out ... what in hell you're talking about. ... and while you're at it please "splain" why you are muliplying by 0.07 TWICE.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by strobe View Post


    Again, are any developers outside of iPhone development salivating at this proposal?



    "Absolutely, this will be disruptive to the traditional software distribution model," said Scott Schwarzhoff, vice president of marketing for Appcelerator, a company that produces tools that let developers recompile their software so it runs on Macs, Windows PCs, iPhones and iPads.



    "But this is a net-net positive for almost everyone," said Schwarzhoff, particularly developers.



    http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...taxonomyId=11v
  • Reply 140 of 175
    strobestrobe Posts: 369member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    Put a $$ amount in place of "it" so we can try to figure out ... what in hell you're talking about. ... and while you're at it please "splain" why you are muliplying by 0.07 TWICE



    Ever try to extract your money from Apple? They not only skim 30%, they with-hold another 30% until you can prove to them and the IRS it's yours.



    Corporations don't pay this. The only reason for this extra reaming is because the app store was made for individual developers who are self-employed.



    Anyway, even if you don't understand such implications Apple's initial 30% skim is enough to make this project a joke.
Sign In or Register to comment.