No license keys? Why do you need license keys? You're now in the iTunes ecosystem like apps on iDevices.
No optional add ons? For a start, java isn't optional on OS X. Apps on iOS are completely self-contained. I guess the same philosophy is coming to the Mac. Not surprising but there are potential issues I guess.
No root privileges? This one has potential issues but I guess apple wants to play it safe. Not surprising.
Same censorship as the App Store? I took this as a given when I heard about it. No issue here.
The author's bias is pretty obvious and expect the Apple-haters to roll out the predictable criticisms.
But apps don't need to be distributed via the app store on the Mac. You can still use download links from a website at which point it's a question of choice as to whether you want to be part of that ecosystem.
I see a bigger issue being the 70/30 split. 30% is a lot to lose when you can sell it yourself. Even small sellers can use third party payment services. It'll be interesting to see how the software makers big and small react to this.
I suspect that those in the app store will sell more units. This is probably why Steve pushed the discovery argument (with some merit).
- Eyeballs! (A potentially huge built-in audience and higher chance of discovery)
- A payment infrastructure that users are already comfortable with
- An update infrastructure
- In-app purchase (I assume?)
- DRM (?) if you care about that sort of thing
All in all, this sounds like a fair trade to me.
My guess is that serious indie devs will target the OSX app store first, and later build in third-party payment + update. Early 2011 will be an interesting time for the Apple MicroISVs.
The question I have is what will the likes of Adobe do?
I think the Mac App Store will see an avalanche of cheap/free apps, which is probably a good thing, as to do these with your own website and payment gateway infrastructure is probably uneconomic.
If the bulk of your sales are site-licenses to labs and universities, this app store probably isn't the correct venue for your product.
They generally don't need it. They don't need the infrastructure, they don't need the exposure, they don't want to give up 30% on each sale, they don't want to be limited to Apple's low-end app licensing approach.
Adobe, Matlab, Autodesk, Mathematica, these sorts of companies will continue selling the way they have been. No harm, no foul.
The App Store is for apps akin to what's on iOS. It's possible Adobe could throw a mini-Photoshop Elements on there, but they aren't going to put CS5 on the App Store.
EDIT: (1) There is a risk that the vast majority of the population (non-geeks), will increasingly rely on the store to get apps, so smaller innovators/FOSS projects will not have the same exposure as others if rejected. (Think the Microsoft antitrust issue with the preinstallation of IE on Windows. People could still get Netscape elsewhere.) (2) This could also be a first step, much like the iPhone/iOS app store, in Apple being the arbiter of all apps that are allowed on Mac OS X.
edit:typo
Walmart doesn't sell Target's house-brand goods either.
I'm not really seeing the problem here; Apple isn't interested in selling, or giving away, in-progress beta apps or apps which exhibit obvious bugs because they want to maintain a certain quality of experience for people who use their store.
If Apple isn't interested in distributing your app, that's their prerogative. You're not entitled to it, and you certainly don't need it; Firefox has been doing just fine distributing their software through their own servers. They're free to continue doing so.
Nordstroms isn't interested in selling my janky, lumpy, hand-carved ash trays either, but that hardly makes them tyrants. They're just maintaining their store's brand.
When all roads lead to the local men's department, yeah I'd be concerned with which products do, and don't make the cut.
No kexts? Seriously? No outside updates? Can't wait for the first app store 0-day.
Er, no they don't. This is about the completely optional Mac App Store.
To extend the metaphor, there's a Macy's next door and a Farmer's Market across the street.
The article doesn't address Open Source. It states that the store will not be used for the distribution of beta versions of software. The tweet just says firefox betas won't be in the store.
Especially note: Free software is allowed.
There are classes of software that won't work in the store. The article mentions:
• Things that implement their own copy protection.
• Buggy software.
• Things that need root.
See the whole list: http://pastie.org/1236378 but you will go blind before you finish if your don't have readability plugin.
I would characterize the forbidden stuff as "obnoxious, useless, or malicious" applications. There is some collateral damage along the way, e.g. anything with a kernel extension, and there are some morality/legality driven restrictions e.g. encourge minors to consume alcohol or realistic human killing.
The most alarming exception to me, is that the application can only distribute updates through the store. I would hope Apple doesn't hold up new versions like they have with the iOS stores. As a developer I cringe when I read of customers living with month old defects because the update is stalled in queue.
Customers will have a reasonable belief that stuff from the store isn't tearing through their computer looking for email addresses or credit card numbers to sell.
But that's ok, they have other channels for distribution. It isn't a Apple Store or nothing proposition like the iOS devices.
The point that this could make FOSS especially vulnerable, although am open to discussion otherwise.
But if your software contains obvious bugs that impact the user during normal usage (it crashes when you try to save, or the preference pane only stays open for 5 seconds), they're not interested in being associated with your software. That seems fair to me.
This is only "unfair" to FLOSS if you take the position that FLOSS is significantly more likely to contain such significant, user-facing defects.
Now, I'm not saying that's true, but if it were true, that seems to me to be an indictment of FLOSS, not of Apple's rules for being in its store.
So many OS X apps today use non-public APIs, this would exclude the vast majority of applications in use today.
"Apps that install kexts will be rejected"
There goes VMWare and Parallels.
However, this sets them up to do the same thing they did with iPad / iPhone, then require me to pay $100 to bless my machine as a "Development machine", then I can install what I want. Or maybe even then, I can only use Apple-certified binaries but I can use XCode. Curated experience is fine, but only if I have the freedom to choose an alternate one.
If so, that would seem to address most of the issues. The people downloading software from the App Store don't want buggy or untested software, and those interested in cutting-edge versions are likely to be aware and active enough to download it themselves.
Win-win situation.
2) Will the App Store create an un-level playing field years from now by training users to only install Apple certified software.
No, unless you think Autodesk wants to give Apple 30% of the $4000 price of AutoCAD for Mac on each sale.
2: It could, depending on how Apple implements and pushes their App Store.
The author sure has a low opinion of open source software quality, doesn't he?
You often have nightly builds, development (alpha/beta) releases and stable releases. Most people want and use the stable releases.
It's true the Mac App Store won't work for distributing the rest. This is hardly surprising and not the way you'd want to distribute this anyway I would think.
For stable releases, the App Store guidelines will probably result in more stable software. That's probably a good thing.
What additional installations do OS X apps usually need, though? Flash and Java are already included; the only additional thing I can think of is SIMBL, and that isn't usually used for normal apps.
