It's just another way to buy and install software. More convenient than buying the CD, but the future upgrades are not identified and delivered to you like on the Mac App Store. I think it'll be a popular store, but not as robust as on the Mac App Store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiles77
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.
True. Not as per Apple implementation which is much more integrated and quite importantly, works beautifully.
Had a look at the Amazon Mac Download Store. Noticed that 'Airport Mania: free flight' was a free download. Attempted to download it after 'purchasing' it with a credit card, still needed for 0.00 transactions, and:
Game Downloads are only available to US customers
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. Please continue shopping on the Amazon.com home page.
That's even though I've successfully bought books, music etc. from Amazon US before. So much for ever buying any software from them.
Hmmm doesn't seem to be out in the UK, rather annoying how companies release something for the US only and ignore the rest of the planet, guess Amazon does not want me to spend my British Pounds with them..... Twats
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.
iiii^ - in lieu of a "thumbs-up" button... I agree 100%!
Some of us do more then just surf the web and send emails.
Snow Leopard is a disaster.
Stop trolling this site. It about time the real members started taking it back from the 'investor interest only' trolls.
Some of us rely on Apple to generate REAL income through production... Unlike all the wallstreet leeches who produce nothing.
Now I've seen everything .... An obvious troll (check history) calling someone else a troll... laughed so hard at the sheer stupidity of it all .... lost 1/2 cup of coffee. Damn you.
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.
Actually 30% is less than normal retail channels. Especially when you consider the associated costs and services that Apple assumes (purchase records and tracking, returns and customer service, re-downloads, upgrades, etc.) Most software you would buy in a store is marked up as much as 60-100% (or more) over what they paid wholesale (which is a 37-50%(+) cut) and they do pretty much nothing else (especially not returns or customer service.) This is true for typical small operation titles, but I have to admit I'm not familiar with Adobe or Microsoft's price structures.
Anyone care to elaborate on why SL is "a disaster"? I run 10.6 on four machines and 10.5 on just one now, and I haven't yet found anything that 10.6 does worse.
Perhaps the poster dislikes SL because it makes other OS platforms look bad in comparison?
I have one old PPC Mac that is pegged out at Leopard. The fact that it is stuck there has finally stimulated me to replace it with an intel machine (I guess I have gotten to like SL.)
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 sorry but that's just a whining noise. Stop blethering piss.
This is only a good thing for Apple users. What's the first thing people mention as to why they don't buy a Mac? Lack of software. Whether that is true or not, especially today, the perception is still there. Part and parcel of changing that perception is not just to get more software out there, but to make it more visible. People seeing an entire Amazon business line dedicated to Mac software will help that.
I totally agree. I can't wait to replace my aging iMac and to have OS X Lion with the Mac App Store. I will prefer getting my software there because it will keep my software up to date. But a dedicated Mac software store at Amazon will only help Apple grow the Mac's market share. As far as competition goes, Apple doesn't mind. They are not locking people into the Mac App Store because people are used to getting their software other ways and developers aren't used to conforming to some of the rules associated with the store. Amazon's store only highlights the fact that there is plenty of software for the Mac. Besides, I'm sure Apple knows that the Mac App Store will be very successful because there are plenty of users like me that want integration, convenience, and security. I may still get software other places, but most of it will come from Apple.
I did notice they were careful not to try calling this an App Store tho
However, if you look at their page, they have simply traded one copyright problem for another. They do not acknowledge Apple's trademarks, so their use of 'Mac' without trademark notice is a violation of copyright laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenclaw
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.
Foolish logic. By that logic, Windows developers should be programming for Windows 95 since Win95 apps (if properly coded) will run on more machines than modern apps.
In the real world, developers want to take advantage of the features of new operating systems. This is particularly true since anyone running an OS that's more than 3 years old probably isn't spending a lot of money on software, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiles77
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.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig
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.
Actually, it's lower. Normal wholesale discounts are about 50%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig
I don't know much about retail, but I don't think that's the way it works. If it did, you'd see the same products priced differently in different outlets. Instead, what we usually see is a fixed retail price.
Not at all. Start pricing software at various outlets and you'll find that the price can vary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123
It would make sense to use Mac API's that is available on all Mac OS X. Bigger audience, more sales opportunity. As a consumer, I am not sure what version of Mac OS I am running. I buy software for the Mac and I just expect it to work. I don't want to have to upgrade my OS when I buy software. I am ok with this mediocrity.
As stated above, that's foolish. By that logic, developers should limit themselves to the few APIs that are on ALL systems. So Windows software should be written using only about 20% of all the Windows APIs- so that those people still using Windows 95 can run the software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
It's a lot like Android, where most devs simply target 2.1:
...but on Android, Mac folks call it "fragmentation", and with OS X they call it "not a problem".
lulz
There are major differences:
1. Newer versions of OS X will generally run the older apps. That's not the case with Android.
2. Older Macs will run newer versions of OSX while older phones may or may not run newer versions of Android (my daughter has a phone that's less than a year old which won't run anything higher than Android 2.1).
3. Applications in Android are VERY limited in terms of the OS version they will run on.
You almost never run into people having problems running Mac apps on different systems (other than the very old apps when Apple stops supporting something). It is very, very common to hear of people running into problems with Android. For example, see what the Angry Birds developer has to say about it.
Comments
It's just another way to buy and install software. More convenient than buying the CD, but the future upgrades are not identified and delivered to you like on the Mac App Store. I think it'll be a popular store, but not as robust as on the Mac App Store.
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.True. Not as per Apple implementation which is much more integrated and quite importantly, works beautifully.
Game Downloads are only available to US customers
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. Please continue shopping on the Amazon.com home page.
That's even though I've successfully bought books, music etc. from Amazon US before. So much for ever buying any software from them.
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.
iiii^ - in lieu of a "thumbs-up" button... I agree 100%!
So there is no price parity requirement for selling apps in and out of the MAS?
Certainly there is nothing about it in the MAS Review Guidelines, but there is in the iOS one.
Mac: http://developer.apple.com/appstore/...uidelines.html
iOS: http://developer.apple.com/appstore/...uidelines.html
This came out of nowhere. And how did they get Microsoft? I want Apple to have Microsoft.
Simple answer. Amazon probably gets the same cut from Microsoft for a boxed or digital sale. No 30% BS.
Some of us do more then just surf the web and send emails.
Snow Leopard is a disaster.
Stop trolling this site. It about time the real members started taking it back from the 'investor interest only' trolls.
Some of us rely on Apple to generate REAL income through production... Unlike all the wallstreet leeches who produce nothing.
Now I've seen everything .... An obvious troll (check history) calling someone else a troll... laughed so hard at the sheer stupidity of it all .... lost 1/2 cup of coffee. Damn you.
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.
Actually 30% is less than normal retail channels. Especially when you consider the associated costs and services that Apple assumes (purchase records and tracking, returns and customer service, re-downloads, upgrades, etc.) Most software you would buy in a store is marked up as much as 60-100% (or more) over what they paid wholesale (which is a 37-50%(+) cut) and they do pretty much nothing else (especially not returns or customer service.) This is true for typical small operation titles, but I have to admit I'm not familiar with Adobe or Microsoft's price structures.
Some of us do more then just surf the web and send emails.
Snow Leopard is a disaster.
Stop trolling this site. It about time the real members started taking it back from the 'investor interest only' trolls.
Some of us rely on Apple to generate REAL income through production... Unlike all the wallstreet leeches who produce nothing.
Says the "real member" who has been posting since way back in February 2011.
Anyone care to elaborate on why SL is "a disaster"? I run 10.6 on four machines and 10.5 on just one now, and I haven't yet found anything that 10.6 does worse.
Perhaps the poster dislikes SL because it makes other OS platforms look bad in comparison?
I have one old PPC Mac that is pegged out at Leopard. The fact that it is stuck there has finally stimulated me to replace it with an intel machine (I guess I have gotten to like SL.)
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 sorry but that's just a whining noise. Stop blethering piss.
This is only a good thing for Apple users. What's the first thing people mention as to why they don't buy a Mac? Lack of software. Whether that is true or not, especially today, the perception is still there. Part and parcel of changing that perception is not just to get more software out there, but to make it more visible. People seeing an entire Amazon business line dedicated to Mac software will help that.
I totally agree. I can't wait to replace my aging iMac and to have OS X Lion with the Mac App Store. I will prefer getting my software there because it will keep my software up to date. But a dedicated Mac software store at Amazon will only help Apple grow the Mac's market share. As far as competition goes, Apple doesn't mind. They are not locking people into the Mac App Store because people are used to getting their software other ways and developers aren't used to conforming to some of the rules associated with the store. Amazon's store only highlights the fact that there is plenty of software for the Mac. Besides, I'm sure Apple knows that the Mac App Store will be very successful because there are plenty of users like me that want integration, convenience, and security. I may still get software other places, but most of it will come from Apple.
I did notice they were careful not to try calling this an App Store tho
However, if you look at their page, they have simply traded one copyright problem for another. They do not acknowledge Apple's trademarks, so their use of 'Mac' without trademark notice is a violation of copyright laws.
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.
Foolish logic. By that logic, Windows developers should be programming for Windows 95 since Win95 apps (if properly coded) will run on more machines than modern apps.
In the real world, developers want to take advantage of the features of new operating systems. This is particularly true since anyone running an OS that's more than 3 years old probably isn't spending a lot of money on software, anyway.
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.
Exactly.
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.
Actually, it's lower. Normal wholesale discounts are about 50%.
I don't know much about retail, but I don't think that's the way it works. If it did, you'd see the same products priced differently in different outlets. Instead, what we usually see is a fixed retail price.
Not at all. Start pricing software at various outlets and you'll find that the price can vary.
It would make sense to use Mac API's that is available on all Mac OS X. Bigger audience, more sales opportunity. As a consumer, I am not sure what version of Mac OS I am running. I buy software for the Mac and I just expect it to work. I don't want to have to upgrade my OS when I buy software. I am ok with this mediocrity.
As stated above, that's foolish. By that logic, developers should limit themselves to the few APIs that are on ALL systems. So Windows software should be written using only about 20% of all the Windows APIs- so that those people still using Windows 95 can run the software.
It's a lot like Android, where most devs simply target 2.1:
...but on Android, Mac folks call it "fragmentation", and with OS X they call it "not a problem".
lulz
There are major differences:
1. Newer versions of OS X will generally run the older apps. That's not the case with Android.
2. Older Macs will run newer versions of OSX while older phones may or may not run newer versions of Android (my daughter has a phone that's less than a year old which won't run anything higher than Android 2.1).
3. Applications in Android are VERY limited in terms of the OS version they will run on.
You almost never run into people having problems running Mac apps on different systems (other than the very old apps when Apple stops supporting something). It is very, very common to hear of people running into problems with Android. For example, see what the Angry Birds developer has to say about it.