[dperfect]

Just to play devil's advocate: what specific things about the MAS "[do] more harm than good" or encourage "pump-and-dump" development as you say?

I'm not trying to defend the MAS, and I think it definitely needs improvement, but are we really worse off for it?

The two things mentioned by the Sketch developers are app review time and sandbox limits. Those same things exist on iOS, but I keep hearing people say the MAS is somehow worse. From Apple's perspective, the sandbox limits are arguably justified by a desire to provide greater security and privacy controls. The review process is basically a consequence of that same goal - though of course, review time could be greatly reduced.

It sounds like the core issue for people is sandboxing. But what specifically about sandboxing is the issue? Are the sandbox limits really too restrictive for most apps (I guess new APIs/permissions could improve that with time), or are there just a lot of developers who prefer not to rework their apps to deal with the sandbox restrictions? Or is the very idea of sandboxing the problem (or perhaps the default security setting for allowed app installation)?

As long as apps can be distributed outside the MAS, I guess I don't really understand the problem. The MAS adds a lot of convenience, but as usual, the convenience comes at a cost, and thankfully users and developers can take it or leave it.

[greggman]

No non-free upgrades. To release version 2 of your app with a fee you have to release a new app. There's no connection between the two and AFAIK no way to provide a discount for existing users.

As for the MAS harming devs it's the "official store of OSX" so users are arguably being trained to look there and only there for apps. So sure you can look elsewhere but Apple is fighting against you.

30% cut is very high as well. I think existing payment systems for shareware apps were 5% or less. What do you get for your 30%? Support? No. Discovery? Not really. File Hosting? Ok, maybe but is that worth 30%? Easy upgrade and install. That's about it but usually that would be mostly handled by a free library.

[setpatchaddress]

The other things, yes, but 30% cut isn't a real problem. Have some perspective. You used to pay a lot more than that for packaging and distribution as a software developer, when software was still physical goods. (Yes, shareware, sure, but the number of developers who made a living out of shareware was extremely small.)

[vsl]

Have some history. After the physical distribution are and before MAS, there was (and still is) a large number of indie OS X developers distributing digitally. For a long time, FastSpring was the de-facto standard and its rate is 8.9%. Add a CDN or DevMate and 10% seems reasonable. DevMate in particular makes the difference stark: more flexibility, more functionality, 20% less.

[rarepostinlurkr]

How are these issues any different than the iOS App Store? They both play by the same set of rules.

[greggman]

The difference is history and options. Computers have a 30 year history of apps and buying options. Smartphones don't. iOS has only one way to get an app on the phone. Computers don't

[masukomi]

there is convenience in finding apps (single place to go instead of the entirety of google results for a word) and in getting updates as a user... there is a greater amount of INconvenience to developers. Also, inconvenience to users when the app needs to gasp interact with other parts of the filesystem as many of the apps do. Inconvenience to users when they need support. Inconvenience to developers when they want to give support. inconvenience when you want to refund a users purchase (can't do it). inconvenience when you want to convey information to your users. etc. etc. etc... the INconveniences SO outweigh the conveniences...

[dperfect]

Not everyone will agree, but 99% of the apps I use shouldn't need to interact with other parts of the filesystem. I'm not sure how the MAS prevents users from receiving support, or developers from giving support (or conveying information) as you suggest. If anything, it encourages those things; every app listing requires a developer link and a support link if I remember correctly, in addition to all the other customizable information, images, and links - not to mention almost unlimited support/information that can be provided within the app itself. And MAS support does give refunds, albeit at their discretion - but that's how much of the retail world already operates. Many developers would consider that an added convenience.

Again, my contention is not that the MAS is perfect, but to say that we're worse off for having it is hard to fathom. If the inconveniences really outweigh the conveniences, then distribute your app outside the MAS. Problem solved.

I can understand similar complaints about the iOS App Store since there are no alternatives (outside of jailbreaking) for native app distribution, but in this case it's just an option. Is the existence of the MAS really worse than not having it as an option (inferior as it may be, depending on your viewpoint)?

[pkamb]

Many OS X apps are utilities that help you work with other apps. Running all the time in the background, monitoring, looking at keyboard input, observing folders, etc. These types of apps are fundamentally at odds with the Sandbox. But they're used often by many/most OS X users, even the less technically inclined.

Whereas the design and simplicity of iOS has ensured, from the start, that these types of apps cannot exists on that OS.

> Are the sandbox limits really too restrictive for most apps (I guess new APIs/permissions could improve that with time)

The last 5 years have proven that Apple is not interested in granting exemptions to the Sandbox or new entitlements for, say, Accessibility apps.

[dperfect]

A good point about utility/accessibility apps. For most everything else though, I prefer not to inherently grant all those permissions to every app I install.

But again, Apple doesn't require distribution through the MAS (even if the majority of apps can work effectively within the restrictions), so how does the MAS's existence make the OS X ecosystem worse off overall?

If Apple is ignorant enough to leave money on the table by failing to provide a good marketplace/environment for a large number of apps (as may very well be the case), then non-MAS distribution will still flourish. Maybe they'll wise up and improve the situation in response. Maybe not, and we're back to the way things were before the MAS.

[pkamb]

It's not the existence of the Mac App Store that hurts, it's the existance of this (theoretically) great marketplace that we can't use to distribute normal, useful OS X apps. Especially if you had a great little app going in the MAS, and now can't update it because it can't be sandboxed.

And hosting, key generation, payments, etc. are a fairly significant roadblock to shipping an app that the MAS formerly allowed you to completely ignore.

[jacalata]

They pretty specifically said that the inability to charge for updates encourages pump and dump development.

[s73v3r]

That doesn't explain how, nor really makes any sense.

[mcphage]

If you can't make any money for upgrades, and there isn't a new influx of users, then there's not much money to be made by updating your app after release—only the people who would buy it after the update, but wouldn't have bought without it. Everyone else either paid you all the money they could, or will buy it anyway.

[s73v3r]

I would say the sandbox limits on the MAS are worse, because they go against what a computer is supposed to do. Limits on the phone are considered ok, because first and foremost, the phone has to operate as a phone.

[rarepostinlurkr]

If I cannot use my computer to give a presentation because some "utility" app is crapping all over other apps because it has free reign of the system, isn't that going against what my computer is supposed to do for me?

The ability for any normal person to identify, understand and resolve issues caused by the wild west of "desktop computing" should be well understood at this point -- they cannot.