Did he seriously write that entire article without bringing up Steam?
Wake up and smell the coffee, Windows users: you've had an app store for seven years now, and its primary target (gamers) are actually pretty damn happy with it now. If they branched out and sold regular apps (not that they would, it seems too dilutive for the brand) you'd basically have a pretty competent Windows App Store. (I can see it now: "Achievement Unlocked, 10 page paper")
Even more so than Steam there is Impulse from Stardock which has an active software section. They not only have their own software but from 3rd parties as well.
I should note that the post was written by one of our writers and I don't necessarily agree with him which I will be writing up a rebuttal type post, so thanks for reminding me of Steam (which I use all the time).
The other one to keep an eye on is OnLive, which right now is just games but rumor has is looking at movies as well so it would be a short step to include software.
Ya, I seriously did. Reason being is basically what you said actually. Their primary target is gamers, and it will probably stay just for gamers, and even if Microsoft releases their own store with games, it probably won't be better than Steam.
But that is also what makes me not bring up Steam. It is not an "app" store. It's a game store, and a very damn good one at that.
He makes a few good points: Linux has had this for years, and they have done quite a good job with it (especially with the Ubuntu Software Center). But, as he says: Linux only has 1% market share. Mac OS X has almost 10% market share. If Linux has used this concept to good effect for years, why is it a bad thing that it's now being exposed to a more mainstream computing audience?
The author is not afraid of an app store, he is afraid of a "closed" OS X. Closed being:
* Unable to install apps that aren't App Store Approved(TM)
* Unable to run commands as root
* Unable to access the filesystem
Basically, the author fears OS X becoming iOS.
There's a lot of speculation about what OS X will become, but there is only one sure bet: It will follow the money.
Consumers -- in general -- have been proven not to care about things like "open". If you ask Joe Blow Android owner about why he/she likes their phone, they might tell you that they like how it's "open", among other things, but I'd lay you odds that they don't know what that really means. And you can bet that most people are not rooting their Android phones.
I'm not talking about your friends. I'm talking about your mom's friends; your dad's friends; your cousins' friends. The ones who can't figure out how to update their anti-virus. They don't care about open, root access, or filesystems. They care about the specific task they want to achieve: to be entertained (music/movies), have some fun (games), do some work (productivity), or communicate with others (email/social networking).
These are the people that will drive the direction of OS X and Windows. But don't freak out just yet. There will always be another layer to the computing world. Apple builds a very small set of core iOS apps. A large part of iOS's success is owed to independent developers. Not big companies. Independents. The Mac has many popular independent developers, and Apple knows this. There will always be an "open" Mac, in the sense that there will always be a Mac you can develop on, if only by neccessity.
Let's consider what happens if I'm wrong. Even though we're (hackers) a tiny part of the market, we're not a "small" group by any measure. Imagine that all the talented people who like using OS X for development are suddenly forced to use Linux. So, you have this large group of talented people, and all of the sudden their platform is yanked out from under them. Where do they go? They go to the platform that solves their needs. They go to the next thing. That thing would be Linux.
I don't believe there will be any rug-yanking going on. I think the process will be much slower, and many won't even notice, but I do think we'll start to see more hackers moving to Linux as Apple develops their "walled garden" approach for OS X. That's not a bad thing. It's going to bring a lot of talent over to the Linux side of things, and that's gotta be a good thing.
Unless it has a door out of the garden, like Android's "install unsigned apps" toggle. It's the best solution to this "issue", but so far only certain Android phones offer it (and all but the Nexus series are locked down in other ways).
If Apple could just hide a Jailbreak button under 10 pages of warnings in iTunes, this wouldn't be an issue. But they don't, so fear of a locked-down Mac is reasonable. But, as you conclude, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The irony is that the article's author doesn't realize that of all platforms, Windows needs an app store more than any of the others.
While most of my Windows use is confined to snapshot'ed VMs, I still don't download or use closed-source Windows software of any kind, free or otherwise. Spyware and malware have ruined the market for free-and-ad-supported, freemium, and nearly-free Windows software. A heavily curated and controlled Windows software market could improve the signal-to-noise ratio for low-cost windows apps from legitimate developers.
I am assuming the worst possible situation here. I do firmly believe that OS X will eventually be just like iOS, and we are seeing a lot the industry adopt methods that Apple has pursued previously. My worry is that Microsoft, if they happen to release an App Store themselves, will go down the same path. They have done this with WP7 and the Marketplace.
It's a slippery slope releasing an App Store IMO because I don't want to own a Mac that will eventually be locked down like the iPhone, and since that method will "most likely" still be a success, other companies, including MS, might be curious to adopt this.
Is an App Store bad? Hell no.
Is the way they are being implemented in our every day technology bad? Hell yes. Even on Android phones with AT&T you can't install from unknown sources. Granted, Android phones in this respect are not the norm, and thankfully so.
> I am assuming the worst possible situation here. I do firmly believe that OS X will eventually be just like iOS...
This will never happen. As others have already stated, Apple would lose their developers and because they don't command the market with OS X they would never risk doing that. Let's not forget the professionals that use Macs: the design industry, the film industry, the music industry: these rely in some cases on third-party applications like the Adobe Suite, these industries are another reason why OS X cannot ever become iOS; they require a fundamentally open, extensible environment. Add that to the fact Apple has stated that the App Store will never be the only method through which developers may publish their applications to the OS X platform, and it just will not happen.
> But if we are to follow precedence set by other Apple products, the Mac will become more closed than ever, with the Web as our only option to access the outside world. Much like the iPhone and the iPad. As a Mac owner, the writing is on the wall, a closed computer is my future.
Em, the "other Apple products" mentioned were never open to begin with. And they are not general purpose computers.
The Mac, on the other hand, always had XCode built-in. I don't see a "closed computer" in the near future...
I strongly disagree. The App Store does not impose any DRM or copy protection on the software. Apps are free to implement their own methods of copy protection and there is a cryptographically signed receipt in every App that paid apps are supposed to check. That way, an app can verify that it was legally bought with an Apple ID that is present on the computer. As recent events have shown, Apple does not even check the apps for doing so, though.
However, there is no built-in way to prevent copying of the apps (other than in iOS, there is no DRM!). In fact, free apps aren't even supposed to check for the receipt and you are explicitly free to install your bought apps on as many computers as you own.
Moreover, Apple has officially touted the App Store to be one of many distribution channels and Apple in no way prevents you from using different channels such as packet managers, regular online distribution, self compiled source downloads, shop-bought boxed software, or whatever you like.
So, the App Store in no way restricts your right to use or install software on your Mac. I don't see how this makes the Mac 'more closed'.
Em, the "other Apple products" mentioned were never open to begin with.
Right, which indicates that Steve's preference is for closed systems. Every argument Apple makes in favor of locking down iOS devices applies equally well to Macs.
And they are not general purpose computers.
Only because of artificial limitations.
I don't see a "closed computer" in the near future...
I believe with 60% probability that by the end of 2015, Apple won't sell any consumer-targeted products that allow root access or installation of arbitrary software.
There's one aspect of the iOS situation that doesn't apply on the Mac: Apple can't get away with it on the Mac, and they know it. It's much easier to open platforms that are closed than to close platforms that are open. If they locked down the Mac as much as iOS, you wouldn't even be able to install another operating system, which I think is fairly common among Mac users. Even if it's not common, they've used the ability to do it as a big part of their push for people switching.
Even if there are a lot of users that wouldn't object to the Mac being a closed platform, developers would. Developers want root access to their development machine. Apple doesn't want to lose developer support, because they know that it is the lifeblood of the platform.
I'd make the exact opposite prediction. I think it's more likely that iOS will allow sideloading than that Mac OS will forbid installation of software other than through the App Store. On the other hand, I can see both platforms moving toward a system where it is locked down by default, but it is trivial, and officially supported, for the user to allow installing software through unapproved sources.
In my experience, developers are the most passionate group of evangelists for Apple products. Cutting root access from the Mac would make it unusable for many types of developers, if not all. I don't think Apple can afford to lose that base of customers and evangelists.
No, because of a design tradeoff: ease of use and mind vs openess.
Apple would still get to sell their iOS devices and iTunes content even if they allowed shell access and arbitrary installation of programs on them.
>I believe with 60% probability that by the end of 2015, Apple won't sell any consumer-targeted products that allow root access or installation of arbitrary software.
2015? Not a chance. Although the industry WILL move towards more auto-managable OSs...
Actually, it ships on the Mac OS X install media. I have been pleasantly surprised that this is still true. It comes as cold comfort when you find that you have to download a new XCode anyway because the one on your DVD is way too old, but still, it is there.
Obviously they don't install it by default: For 99.5% of Mac customers all it would do is take up space and add risk of confusion.
It seems like ever since the conception of iPhone people have worried that somehow OS X will merge with iOS and the desktop platform will be completely closed and therefore dead, leaving only Windows and Linux.
I just don't see it.
> But if we are to follow precedence set by other Apple products, the Mac will become more closed than ever, with the Web as our only option to access the outside world. Much like the iPhone and the iPad. As a Mac owner, the writing is on the wall, a closed computer is my future.
What's all the rage? It's an application distribution platform. You can still and will still be able to install applications of your choosing. The operating system is still and will still be largely open source (http://opensource.apple.com/). Compared to Microsoft and Windows, OS X is a paragon of openness.
Will Apple encourage people to use the App Store? No doubt. But that doesn't mean the door is closed to other distribution methods.
The fact remains that the operating system is far from closed, and there doesn't seem to be ANY indication that that will change in the near or even distant future; it would serve very little purpose as Apple does not have a commanding market share with OS X.
Right on, just because there is an app store doesn't stop any app makers or users from installing applications from other sources. However, finding and installing apps just became easier for users as well as providing a centralized distribution channel for the app makers.
Thought Windows was already going to adopt it in Windows 8.
I think the Mac app store would encourage a lot of adware(aka spyware) because consumers like free apps and developers would like a steady revenue stream.
And why do you think Apple would tolerate spyware in their curated Mac app store any more than they tolerate spyware (ie not at all) in their iOS app store?
Wake up and smell the coffee, Windows users: you've had an app store for seven years now, and its primary target (gamers) are actually pretty damn happy with it now. If they branched out and sold regular apps (not that they would, it seems too dilutive for the brand) you'd basically have a pretty competent Windows App Store. (I can see it now: "Achievement Unlocked, 10 page paper")