Apple Shuts Down Mac OS X Download Listing, Moving to App Store

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I read this as "We don't want to support any more applications in any way shape or form for OSX that don't involve us getting a 30% cut of your profits. Give us 1/3 of your hard earned money and give another third to the government. You don't deserve squat for doing all the work. Our greed knows no end."

Screw Apple and their greed.

 

[BaldiMac]

I read this as "We don't want to support any more applications in any way shape or form for OSX that don't involve us getting a 30% cut of your profits. Give us 1/3 of your hard earned money and give another third to the government. You don't deserve squat for doing all the work. Our greed knows no end."

Of course you did.

Just for clarification, it's 30% of the revenue, not the profits. And despite your implications, Apple actually does offer something in return for that cut.

 

[heresjohnny]

I can understand why small developers and customers might like the idea of an App store.

But why shut the download site down? I think it shows their true intention is to move all software distribution for Mac into a restricted system like exists for iOS.

How long now until the ToS of Apples developer program requires distribution through the App store?

How long now until your Mac won't run code not signed by Apple?

Sadly this is one of very few things that would make me abandon the Mac platform. (Sad, because I really don't wish to do that.)

 

[satcomer]

Do people still use Dashboard? (I'm not trying to be snarky... I actually have been curious about this).

More importantly, do developers still develop for Dashboard?

Well I still use Dashboard! Does that make me a dinosaur? Between Delivery Status and iStat Pro it serves me almost everyday.

 

[satcomer]

Not only am I wondering about widgets, but also things such as Boot Camp updates... how are users supposed to get those with the Downloads site gone?

Good question!

 

[Hugh]

Good question!

Backup a little. The answer is in my message before this one.

Hugh

 

[KALLT]

But why shut the download site down? I think it shows their true intention is to move all software distribution for Mac into a restricted system like exists for iOS.

First, iOS was a 'restricted' system from the beginning. For the sake of convenience, Apple has established a store to distribute iOS apps in a very efficient manner. All iOS users have access to it, and it works very well. It's a choice Apple made. On the Mac however, third parties were always able to develop their own software, there is no proof that Apple would want to change that. There are numerous applications available out there and Apple would, at least in my opinion, make a very strange business decision to disallow its users from using other software. They would have to force even large developers like Microsoft to use the Mac App Store and support for older Mac software would be diminished. It would be a weird decision to begin with.

Second, the current download section on apple.com is a catalogue of Mac applications. Apple does not even host the files, but merely links to third party websites. People can discover some decent third party applications through it. With the Mac App Store, Apple offers developers to host and feature their apps within their own store, arguably for the sake of convenience. I think for many consumers, this App Store will make it much easier to acquire some good third party apps. The download section will become obsolete, at least as applications are concerned. Apple has never stated that the Mac App Store will prevent developers from offering their own software, they just offer one way to acquire them.

In my opinion, the Mac App Store can be seen as an initiative to improve the convenience for consumers. It can be accessed on the Mac directly, it offers a familiar environment if you use the iTunes Store or have an iOS device, good applications can be featured, and third party developers will have a much more convenient and effective way to distribute their apps. I welcome this Mac App Store, and hope that it will turn out to be very good. I really do not believe that Apple's intentions are to restrict the Mac, these are just speculations and I find the unfounded.

 

[heresjohnny]

KALLT - Well, to each their own. I certainly agree that the iOS app store is convenient and works well.... But I wouldn't even own an iPhone if I couldn't use certain apps / do certain things that require being jailbroken. So, the iOS app store is far from ideal in my opinion.

My concern is that Apps for the Mac will be eventually be limited the same way. It certainly seems that the App store terms are nearly as restrictive.

Anyway, I hope that you are right, and that Apple has no intention of forcing this upon developers and customers. (Recent Apple history leads me to believe otherwise, but of course there is no proof either way right now.)

I am the odd one out - I actually used the downloads page on occasion, having switched to Mac only about 1.5 years ago (I wouldn't say I actually use much of what I found there though.)

The obvious difference between the downloads sections and the App store is that Apple wants a cut of anything listed in the App store that isn't free. (Of course I don't fault them for this, but it IS different from a software listing.)

The future will tell us all, nothing is going to happen overnight.

Cheers

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Just for clarification, it's 30% of the revenue, not the profits.

That's actually worse yet when you think about it so it is a good thing to point out.

And despite your implications, Apple actually does offer something in return for that cut.

Yes, they host a file on a store site where (for iOS) there is NO OTHER STORE AVAILABLE. So for creating a virtual storefront monopoly for iOS devices for themselves with no alternatives (besides hacking) for any programmer to use, they therefore DESERVE 30% of the overall take (revenue). Oh yes. That's a REAL fair deal in the mind of Apple worshipers, but not many else, I'm afraid. It doesn't take a genius to see that Apple is hoping for the same "sweet deal" for their entire computer line. So much for the days of independent software makers and freedom of speech. You will have to have your app approved (they wait until AFTER you put a boat load of time into it to tell you NO) and then they take 1/3 your revenue before you even pay down your costs. It reminds me of the lawyers that are "on your side" who get paid their 1/3 cut before you pay off your medical bills. They're scum and so are the large corporations like Apple and Google that do the same crap. They do none of the work but get 1/3 the money coming in. That IS a sweet deal (for Apple).

 

[BaldiMac]

That's actually worse yet when you think about it so it is a good thing to point out.

It's only worse if the Apple's cut doesn't decrease other expenses and/or increase revenues. Kinda like any other business expense.

Yes, they host a file on a store site where (for iOS) there is NO OTHER STORE AVAILABLE. So for creating a virtual storefront monopoly for iOS devices for themselves with no alternatives (besides hacking) for any programmer to use, they therefore DESERVE 30% of the overall take (revenue). Oh yes.

Aren't we talking about the Mac App Store?

That's a REAL fair deal in the mind of Apple worshipers, but not many else, I'm afraid.

Except for the developers of the 300,000 apps on the App Store that thought it was a good enough deal to take up.

It doesn't take a genius to see that Apple is hoping for the same "sweet deal" for their entire computer line. So much for the days of independent software makers and freedom of speech. You will have to have your app approved (they wait until AFTER you put a boat load of time into it to tell you NO) and then they take 1/3 your revenue before you even pay down your costs. It reminds me of the lawyers that are "on your side" who get paid their 1/3 cut before you pay off your medical bills. They're scum and so are the large corporations like Apple and Google that do the same crap. They do none of the work but get 1/3 the money coming in. That IS a sweet deal (for Apple).

Tinfoil hats and conspiracy theories abound.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Aren't we talking about the Mac App Store?

Re-read my original comment if you cannot make the connection. It doesn't change the terms of the deal and the fact that they are removing all other links from their site suggests the very things my reply talks about. I don't expect fanboys to understand, of course. They think everything Apple does is fair and equitable for moms, dads and little puppies alike.

Except for the developers of the 300,000 apps on the App Store that thought it was a good enough deal to take up.

I'm sure all those running a business over the years who bought "insurance money" to keep someone from destroying their business thought it was a good idea to pay up or else make nothing in that market/neighborhood. That doesn't mean it's a "good" deal. It's a "take or it leave town" deal. I'm sure my point has gone completely over your head. It involves things like fair market practices and competition which is something you've proven time and time again you know nothing about.

I'm sure you would think it perfectly fair if Apple opened a supermarket in a town and then told all the local farmers that they must sell their goods there at a 30% cost or move to some other town because no one is allowed to sell their goods in any other store in that town or directly to the consumer. THAT is precisely what Apple does with iOS. I don't personally want to see them start doing that with Mac software, but I'm afraid that is exactly what they hope to do in a few years. And it's not just the cost and/or lack of choice for the developers, but the CONTROL over what a user can and cannot run in terms of software. What good is Unix if it's only allowed to be Fisher Price?

If you think they don't have it in their minds that may be able to do the same thing in a couple of years with a future "Mac" (whatever it will be in a couple of years, quite possibly more of an iOS device than anything else; just look the loss of graphic chips in another thread via NVidia. All Mac models are about to go 'slow and crappy' in terms of video again since Intel graphics always have and probably always will suck. That won't matter for an "iOS Mac" or "iHome" or "iBook" or whatever they will eventually call future "Non-Macs". Apple "Computer" is gone. The Mac domain is gone. It's only a matter of time before "Mac" is gone period. Some of you simply refuse to see the writing on the wall. I suppose if Steve retired things might rebound for the Mac, but otherwise, it's obvious iOS is taking over Apple's priorities. Lion is nothing but iOS added to OSX Step 1. There's nothing else to it (unless you count REMOVING things like Java support, which is again a means to an END).

Some of us don't like it because we are computer fans first and foremost, not smart phone fans and the Mac COMPUTER hasn't gotten the attention it truly deserves for a few years now. My mid 2008 MBP was the last really great notebook they produced. After that, they removed more "pro" features than they added (expansion slot, battery slot, matte finish, 2nd firewire port) and added what? Reflections? A pointless SD reader (given OSX doesn't retain proper photo DATE data through the readers I've used, the USB port is a better choice). Where's E-SATA? Where's USB3? Where's a better upgrade slot? Where are the PRO features in their "Pro" computers? I won't even start up the Mac Pro. Face it. The Mac was growing great until Steve discovered the cell phone. Now it's 2nd fiddle to the average PC hardware at twice the price. If you could install OSX on PC hardware (without hacking), it might not matter, but you cannot. The only real shame is that means many of us will have to go back to Windows sooner or later whether we like it or not and all the malware that goes with it. The Mac deserves better than becoming another iOS device. It deserves to be state-of-the-art. The SAD thing is that Apple is big enough and rich enough to do both things well, but Steve is so paranoid he cannot let go of the computer division despite his waning interest in it or hire more people to keep things moving.

Tinfoil hats and conspiracy theories abound.

Alas, so abounds also greedmongers and fanboys.

 

[ravenvii]

I'm sorry, but if you thought fanboys' arguments are bad, you should look at your own, as well. I'll give you one example;

I'm sure you would think it perfectly fair if Apple opened a supermarket in a town and then told all the local farmers that they must sell their goods there at a 30% cost or move to some other town because no one is allowed to sell their goods in any other store in that town or directly to the consumer. THAT is precisely what Apple does with iOS. I don't personally want to see them start doing that with Mac software, but I'm afraid that is exactly what they hope to do in a few years. And it's not just the cost and/or lack of choice for the developers, but the CONTROL over what a user can and cannot run in terms of software. What good is Unix if it's only allowed to be Fisher Price?

A major flaw in that analog; would Apple own the town, as well? No? Then you have a deficient understanding of the free market.

Don't like what Apple is doing with OS X and the Mac App Store? Switch to another computer maker/OS. What's stopping you from doing that? No one's forcing you to use Macs or OS X.

Right now, OS X is in my opinion the best OS on the market, so I'm sticking with it. If, someday, OS X is no longer the best OS for me, I will switch to the OS that is.

It has happened before; Windows was the best OS for me during the days of the classic Mac OS. Then OS X came out, and Windows was no longer the best OS for me, so I switched. It will happen again - nothing is permanent. It's just a matter of how long.

 

[BaldiMac]

Re-read my original comment if you cannot make the connection. It doesn't change the terms of the deal and the fact that they are removing all other links from their site suggests the very things my reply talks about.

I could re-read a few more times, but it wouldn't change that the fact that this thread is about the Mac App Store and not the iOS App Store.

I don't expect fanboys to understand, of course. They think everything Apple does is fair and equitable for moms, dads and little puppies alike.

If only you could have a conversation without name calling, stereotyping, and arguing strawmen, maybe other people could understand your point.

I'm sure all those running a business over the years who bought "insurance money" to keep someone from destroying their business thought it was a good idea to pay up or else make nothing in that market/neighborhood. That doesn't mean it's a "good" deal. It's a "take or it leave town" deal. I'm sure my point has gone completely over your head. It involves things like fair market practices and competition which is something you've proven time and time again you know nothing about.

I feel like this is a trick question. Are you talking about the the iOS App Store or the Mac App Store? Almost seems like you are trying to combine them and pick and choose randomly to make your point.

If you are talking about iOS, than what businesses would Apple be destroying by opening the iOS App Store? The ones that didn't exist before the iOS App Store?

If you are talking about the Mac, than how is opening a new retail store equivalent to a protection racket? WalMart comes into town and a lot of Mom and Pop stores end up shutting down. It sucks. Not sure how you could argue that it's illegal.

I'm sure you would think it perfectly fair if Apple opened a supermarket in a town and then told all the local farmers that they must sell their goods there at a 30% cost or move to some other town because no one is allowed to sell their goods in any other store in that town or directly to the consumer. THAT is precisely what Apple does with iOS.

No, it's not. A better analogy would be if Apple designed an experimental prototype community of tomorrow and said that anyone that chooses to come live in this town must buy their groceries through the one grocery store owned by Apple or they could order them over the internet from anyone else.

I don't personally want to see them start doing that with Mac software, but I'm afraid that is exactly what they hope to do in a few years. And it's not just the cost and/or lack of choice for the developers, but the CONTROL over what a user can and cannot run in terms of software. What good is Unix if it's only allowed to be Fisher Price?

What might happen is not the same as what is happening or what will happen.

SNIP OFF TOPIC RANT

 

[MacAddict1978]

more generally, the Store is going to be an obvious boon to shareware developers. I’m not so sure about the big boys. Certainly companies like Adobe that use proprietary s. n. versification schemes aren’t going to be enthusiastic, if the Store doesn’t let them continue doing this. Third, when Dashboard was released I kept telling myself to look forward to the killer widgets that were bound to come. They never really did, and Apple itself certainly never released any (including the special widgets it solemnly promised to give .Mac subscribers) . So I gradually stopped using Dashboard, particularly because of its memory-consumption implications. But I suppose I’d go back to it if a totally compelling widget were to appear.

Who actually pays for shareware? Once in a blue moon someone "claims" they do. Maybe 1 time did I find a piece of shareware that I really felt like I should send the developer a "donation." If you make shareware, you'd probably make more money using the app store and selling for a buck or 2 than you do now.

Dashboard was always slow and boggy and well, not so useful for me. I can google 90% of the things I'd use a dashboard app for. Even tracking numbers for packages. There are times I think it would be neat if you could lock a dashboard widget to your desktop like windows lets you, but then again, I'd probably turn the feature off after oh... 10 minutes

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Who actually pays for shareware? Once in a blue moon someone "claims" they do. Maybe 1 time did I find a piece of shareware that I really felt like I should send the developer a "donation." If you make shareware, you'd probably make more money using the app store and selling for a buck or 2 than you do now.

Dashboard was always slow and boggy and well, not so useful for me. I can google 90% of the things I'd use a dashboard app for. Even tracking numbers for packages. There are times I think it would be neat if you could lock a dashboard widget to your desktop like windows lets you, but then again, I'd probably turn the feature off after oh... 10 minutes

I am one of the few who used the shareware system in its heyday, paying for the applications I found useful. That said... I totally agree that the Mac App Store will make things a lot simpler for shareware developers, and will probably make them more money too.

As for Dashboard, it was an interesting idea for its time, but it's got too many flaws to be seriously useful. It's definitely slower than I would like, for one thing. There are two dashboard widgets I find useful - a third-party one that shows/hides hidden files in the Finder and Apple's calculator widget.

 

[firewood]

Yes, they host a file on a store site where (for iOS) there is NO OTHER STORE AVAILABLE.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

But compare with PalmOS. More stores = fragmented customer base. Far less downloads from all those stores and website combined for many many developer's compared with iTunes. And PalmGear/Handango eventually started taking a bigger cut than 30%. PayPal certainly wasn't free. Even when PalmOS devices were still selling millions of mobile devices, people stopped buying apps.

Thus, "NO OTHER STORE" actually very likely means more sales for many developer's apps, not less.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I could re-read a few more times, but it wouldn't change that the fact that this thread is about the Mac App Store and not the iOS App Store.

I could re-read your post a few times more but it wouldn't change the fact that you cannot comprehend basic analogies or see my original point about the direction Apple is heading for with the Mac in the next couple of years. But then I have come to expect run-around the point nonsensical replies from you to avoid the actual topic at hand.

If only you could have a conversation without name calling, stereotyping, and arguing strawmen, maybe other people could understand your point.

If you could only have a conversation without belittling everyone who disagrees with you, maybe there would be a point in replying to something you say in the first place.

I feel like this is a trick question. Are you talking about the the iOS App Store or the Mac App Store? Almost seems like you are trying to combine them and pick and choose randomly to make your point.

Given my original point was about the direction of Mac software sales and installation in the future based on their move talked about in the thread topic, I can see why you are so confused. You seem to think this is an "either/or" scenario rather than speculation on the future of the Mac and App store based on existing examples on another Apple product line.

If you are talking about iOS, than what businesses would Apple be destroying by opening the iOS App Store? The ones that didn't exist before the iOS App Store?

You seem to be talking about some other subject at hand rather than the right of a programmer to sell his software product without Apple demanding 30% of his revenues in return for allowing him to offer his product for sale in a monopolized storefront. I don't know what "destroying" businesses have to do with the rights of programmers to sell their software directly to the consumer or in a store of their own choosing.

If you are talking about the Mac, than how is opening a new retail store equivalent to a protection racket? WalMart comes into town and a lot of Mom and Pop stores end up shutting down. It sucks. Not sure how you could argue that it's illegal.

It's perfectly fine by me for Apple to offer an App store for the Mac so long as they do not forbid private software sales in the future for OSX. My original comment was simply alluding to the possibility that removing all links to software no related to their new App store along with the policies of the EXISTING App store for iOS "suggest" that perhaps Apple may be considering that move in the future, especially if this app store for the Mac proves to be even moderately successful for them. All my other comments are based on that original allusion and the fact I would very much NOT like to see that happen now or at any time in the future or the merger of iOS devices with products currently served by "Macs" (another speculation based on upcoming events such as Lion which appear to be taking steps in that very direction rather than offering many new general OS features). Lion is all about iOS meets OSX, after all, rather than new general OS features.

No, it's not. A better analogy would be if Apple designed an experimental prototype community of tomorrow and said that anyone that chooses to come live in this town must buy their groceries through the one grocery store owned by Apple or they could order them over the internet from anyone else.

Are you talking about Epcot Center or Apple? I cannot tell. Given Steve's connection to Disney, maybe he can't either?

I suppose it comes down to whether you believe a company should be allowed to decide who can and cannot develop or sell software for a given operating system. The problem with letting them do that is that they then get to play policeman and decide what software you can and cannot use, how you can use it (e.g. not being able to use a given button for a camera capture button), how much you (or the developer pays) and the option to simply deny you service at a whim. You can argue it's their product and they can do whatever they like with it (as you appear to do with the prototype community comparison), but then sooner or later prototype communities are still real communities if they take off and real communities exist in the real world and should follow real world commerce laws. So long as Wal-Mart only exists in Epcot Center, Disney could let them do anything they want. If they want to sell to the general population, Wal-Mart should have to play by community/country rules. They cannot simply move into town and displace all businesses by default. They must COMPETE first and THEN if the other businesses fail, it's legal.

Why do you think companies like Adobe get upset with Apple dictating what can and cannot be used to make an iOS software package? Apple is abusing its position to artificially attack/limit another company. By showing BIAS towards a specific individual, it's the same as if they said a handicap person is not allowed to work at an Apple store (because maybe they're slower than a non-handicap person). If there isn't a law against it, there SHOULD be for the sake of Capitalism itself, which demands open competition, not closed communities with contract wheeling and dealing.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

But compare with PalmOS. More stores = fragmented customer base. Far less downloads from all those stores and website combined for many many developer's compared with iTunes. And PalmGear/Handango eventually started taking a bigger cut than 30%. PayPal certainly wasn't free. Even when PalmOS devices were still selling millions of mobile devices, people stopped buying apps.

Thus, "NO OTHER STORE" actually very likely means more sales for many developer's apps, not less.

Do you seriously believe THAT is the reason why PalmOS has had problems? Stores? Could it not simply be their products SUCK by comparison and that having a single or integrated store model has little if anything to do with it?

 

[BaldiMac]

I could re-read your post a few times more but it wouldn't change the fact that you cannot comprehend basic analogies or see my original point about the direction Apple is heading for with the Mac in the next couple of years. But then I have come to expect run-around the point nonsensical replies from you to avoid the actual topic at hand.

I understand your analogy, but I disagree with your conclusion. Just because you think that Apple is going to close off the Mac to other sources of software besides the Mac App Store does not make it true.

Given my original point was about the direction of Mac software sales and installation in the future based on their move talked about in the thread topic, I can see why you are so confused. You seem to think this is an "either/or" scenario rather than speculation on the future of the Mac and App store based on existing examples on another Apple product line.

Except that you are making up the future to support your argument. The Mac App Store is not the only source of software on the Mac. If it were to become the only source of software, and I was not able to obtain the software that I wanted/needed at a reasonable price, I would drop the Mac.

I don't feel the need to bash Apple for something the might, maybe, possibly do.

You seem to be talking about some other subject at hand rather than the right of a programmer to sell his software product without Apple demanding 30% of his revenues in return for allowing him to offer his product for sale in a monopolized storefront. I don't know what "destroying" businesses have to do with the rights of programmers to sell their software directly to the consumer or in a store of their own choosing.

You just made up that "right".

It's perfectly fine by me for Apple to offer an App store for the Mac so long as they do not forbid private software sales in the future for OSX.

That's all I'm saying.

My original comment was simply alluding to the possibility that removing all links to software no related to their new App store along with the policies of the EXISTING App store for iOS "suggest" that perhaps Apple may be considering that move in the future, especially if this app store for the Mac proves to be even moderately successful for them. All my other comments are based on that original allusion and the fact I would very much NOT like to see that happen now or at any time in the future or the merger of iOS devices with products currently served by "Macs" (another speculation based on upcoming events such as Lion which appear to be taking steps in that very direction rather than offering many new general OS features). Lion is all about iOS meets OSX, after all, rather than new general OS features.

And if you prefaced your comments with "If Apple closes the Mac to non-App Store software..." than I would agree with more of them.

Are you talking about Epcot Center or Apple? I cannot tell. Given Steve's connection to Disney, maybe he can't either?

I suppose it comes down to whether you believe a company should be allowed to decide who can and cannot develop or sell software for a given operating system. The problem with letting them do that is that they then get to play policeman and decide what software you can and cannot use, how you can use it (e.g. not being able to use a given button for a camera capture button), how much you (or the developer pays) and the option to simply deny you service at a whim. You can argue it's their product and they can do whatever they like with it (as you appear to do with the prototype community comparison), but then sooner or later prototype communities are still real communities if they take off and real communities exist in the real world and should follow real world commerce laws. So long as Wal-Mart only exists in Epcot Center, Disney could let them do anything they want. If they want to sell to the general population, Wal-Mart should have to play by community/country rules.

Contract law is real world law.

They cannot simply move into town and displace all businesses by default. They must COMPETE first and THEN if the other businesses fail, it's legal.

Apple is doing exactly what you suggested is legal with the Mac App Store. Opening a store to compete with other stores.

Why do you think companies like Adobe get upset with Apple dictating what can and cannot be used to make an iOS software package?

Because it costs them money?

Apple is abusing its position to artificially attack/limit another company.

Abusing? Artificially?

By showing BIAS towards a specific individual, it's the same as if they said a handicap person is not allowed to work at an Apple store (because maybe they're slower than a non-handicap person).

Bias is not illegal except for the specific reason codified by law (race, creed, etc.) A company or an individual has the right to choose who they do business with. That is capitalism.

If there isn't a law against it, there SHOULD be for the sake of Capitalism itself, which demands open competition, not closed communities with contract wheeling and dealing.

Contracts are a basic part of capitalism. Capitalism provides the option for closed communities. Limiting your choices is a choice. Not sure how pro-freedom, pro-choice arguments justify eliminating that choice. People pay people to make choices for them. That's a huge part of what we use money for.

You invoke capitalism an awful lot to not understand that the basic consumer protections come from capitalism itself, not laws. If a contract is too stringent, don't sign it. If a product is too expensive, don't buy it. If a product has too many restrictions, don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, than the supplier will have to change or live with the consequences of fewer sales.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I understand your analogy, but I disagree with your conclusion. Just because you think that Apple is going to close off the Mac to other sources of software besides the Mac App Store does not make it true.

It's called speculation. Perhaps you've heard of it? You can disagree. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with you attacking ideas you disagree with simply because you disagree.

Except that you are making up the future to support your argument.

I'm sorry you never heard of speculation. You shouldn't play the stock market dude. EVER. Personally, I look for trends and make a likely forecast based on the data at hand. Here, I see a merging of iOS and OSX markets starting to take place based on all of Lion's announcments and Steve's behavioral statements about traditional computers being "trucks" and the like while "Pro" computers from Mac go consumer in practice and stay "Pro" only in name. But you can pretend it's not happening if you like.

It doesn't guarantee they will cut off the Mac's existing software markets in the future, but it's a very real possibility that a wise person would not ignore. You can leave the Mac market at that point as you say you would, but I prefer the idea of people working together to send Apple a message long before that ever occurs. I prefer to avoid that future, as it were. You can't prevent things from happening after they've already occurred and thus I discuss the possibilities NOW rather than just leaving after it's too late.

The fact Apple is now expunging software links that are outside the realm of their new App store is one early indicator that they no longer are friendly to those other markets for their computer's software. Part of this comes from having their hand into so many different markets (i.e. Hardware, Software, Music and Media stores and now App stores). This even creates conflicts of interest within the company itself such as purposely limiting software sales in order to increase hardware sales or limiting hardware choices to try and force more sales of a given piece of hardware despite the lack of fit for a given purpose or keeping prices artificially high by limiting the scope of software so other hardware cannot compete. Clearly, all these things benefit Apple, not the consumer. But you can always buy a Windows machine.... (as if Windows doesn't have its own set of inherent problems that may have NOTHING to do with the ones you are considering abandoning the Mac for; the same goes for Linux. This is why I always laugh when someone tells me to go to Windows, especially since I run more than one operating system here and have four computers. I wouldn't need four if these companies didn't play these games. I could simply choose the best one for my needs.

The Mac App Store is not the only source of software on the Mac.

I'm talking about the possible future and you are pointing out obvious and pointless rhetoric about the present.

If it were to become the only source of software, and I was not able to obtain the software that I wanted/needed at a reasonable price, I would drop the Mac.

To me, price is not the issue. I don't like the model and I don't like Apple telling me what software I can or cannot run on the hardware I bought from them. I'm quite sure many programmers who had their software summarily rejected by Apple after spending man man-hours creating it may feel something similar. Other companies don't even bother (e.g. forget about running Firefox on the iPad).

I don't feel the need to bash Apple for something the might, maybe, possibly do.

I don't call it bashing. I call it stating my opinion. You should learn the difference. If I don't like something Apple does, I say it. I don't have to suck up to Steve. I don't owe him a thing. More to the point, it doesn't do me any good to talk about what I'm going to do AFTER something like what I speculate about happens, but rather to try and prevent it from happening, people must take action BEFORE it happens if I want to PREVENT it from happening.

You just made up that "right".

That is your opinion and you're free to have it. I don't really want to turn this thread into a discussion about commerce laws, Capitalism and the reason Anti-Trust Laws were made in the first place (before modern day government chose to mostly ignore them, being highly corrupt themselves) or the more basic question of "Law" versus "Morality" and "Ethics". It's suffice to say that you can have a corrupt government pass immoral and/or unethical laws and a court can uphold or divest a law based on personal opinion or even bribery in some cases. I can easily show that Apple doesn't have the "right" to make contracts that restrict trade or tie markets together to subvert competition, but I'll still get armchair lawyers telling me how "wrong" I am based on the very corruption I'm talking about before that. Any person that can READ can plainly see the purpose of such laws and how they are subverted on a daily basis and how companies get away with it instead of practicing actual COMPETITION for a consumer's dollar.

Those that don't believe in corruption or subversion need only look at the recent credit card law that attempted to prevent banks from using all kinds of immoral and unethical practices to scam consumers out of their money and how those banks are working overtime to find new ways to subvert that law through loopholes and the like. A truly ethical court would rule against such attempts to subvert the spirit of a law, but our courts (of course) are run by politicians who have every interest in ruling on their party's' stance for a given position rather than the intent of the law. One only needs to look at the Supreme Court's stand on corporate funding for propaganda/advertising to see another example. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be politically biased, but rather the are supposed to interpret the actual law and its intent, not subvert it for their own personal political party's gain. And yet many of these votes are clearly divided down the very lines of the party that put them in power. Those laws must be mighty vague that they constantly end up with 4 to 5 type decisions along party lines. If I'm on a jury, I must arrive at a unanimous vote or the case is a mistrial, but when the Supreme Court makes a decision that affects everyone's lives, they can do it on a 5 to 4 ruling.

Yes, tell me again about "rights".

 

[edddeduck]

It's called speculation. Perhaps you've heard of it? You can disagree. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with you attacking ideas you disagree with simply because you disagree.

I'm sorry you never heard of speculation. You shouldn't play the stock market dude. EVER. Personally, I look for trends and make a likely forecast based on the data at hand. Here, I see a merging of iOS and OSX markets starting to take place based on all of Lion's announcments and Steve's behavioral statements about traditional computers being "trucks" and the like while "Pro" computers from Mac go consumer in practice and stay "Pro" only in name. But you can pretend it's not happening if you like.

It doesn't guarantee they will cut off the Mac's existing software markets in the future, but it's a very real possibility that a wise person would not ignore.

I think the point others are trying to make (although some have been fairly aggressive) it that any point of view can be called speculation no matter how sane or crazy, so saying "I am just speculating" is not always valid defence although I do think your point was well structured even if I don't personally agree with it.

The crux of your point is that the iOS AppStore was closed so OS X will become closed. I will use Apple's main rivals Microsoft to show why I don't see that happening. Microsoft sell the PC Windows OS which is an open platform (but where like the OS X AppStore you can have signed by Microsoft applications) but they also have started since then to sell phones and consoles which are both "closed" or curated platforms. From this I could say I can see how Microsoft have been headed and in a few years all Windows software will be only available through Microsoft.

This although this outline above is possible (and almost identical to your argument apart from the company concerned) I do think it makes sense for them to do that, I think you will always be able to buy Apps from anywhere but getting them via Apple means they have "kicked the tyres" for you meaning you should be reasonably confident it does what it says it does and contains no malware.

If we compare this to retail channels, physical Apple Stores exist (they did not a few years ago) but you don't have to have them as your only physical sales channel; this is how I see the digital stores going as well. Apple store has high visibility but it will not be the only show in town.

I enjoy speculation and you are welcome to your theories (the more the better from everyone) I just think that in this case the scenario you suggest is a little dooms day and I don't think it would happen, partly because of user debates all over the internet like this one raising the question .

I agree though with your view that if people complain about a service and it costs a company users they will listen, I just don't think that Apple opening a digital store means they will completely lock down the platform for all developers who don't sell in the Apple store. That would be suicide (in my view) for any company in terms of user trust, this can always change years into the future but for the short to medium term I don't personally see it.

Then again everything I have posted in reply is just speculation based on my viewpoint and I don't claim any special powers to see the future, how about we give it a year and we can resurrect this thread and see what the landscape looks like with Lion or even 10.8?

Edwin

(This post is not related to the company I work for and is just my personal thoughts on the subject)

 

[Burger Thing]

Personally, I think Apple won't risk it, to morph OSX(I) into a closed system. With the current restrictions (business and software wise), high profile software companies like Adobe for example, surely won't give up 30% of their profits, just to participate in the App store. With certain professional and semi-professional software not available, it certainly would mean the end of Mac in the long run, because customers would start to look elsewhere. (I certainly would).

Not sure what the legal implications were, if Apple would make special arrangements (for example <30% profit share) with certain high profile software companies just to get them on board, though.

But for smaller software companies or other software developers, I think the App stores offers a great opportunity to publish their stuff. Don't forget, there are many computer users out there, who don't spend hours googling for software stuff, reading reviews, etc. So to have a store, where one can click and download software with the convenience of the iOS App store, is a good thing.

And having had my credit card cloned and abused in the past, personally I am glad I can purchase software and don't have to spread my credit card details around the www.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's called speculation. Perhaps you've heard of it? You can disagree. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with you attacking ideas you disagree with simply because you disagree.



I'm sorry you never heard of speculation. You shouldn't play the stock market dude. EVER. Personally, I look for trends and make a likely forecast based on the data at hand. Here, I see a merging of iOS and OSX markets starting to take place based on all of Lion's announcments and Steve's behavioral statements about traditional computers being "trucks" and the like while "Pro" computers from Mac go consumer in practice and stay "Pro" only in name. But you can pretend it's not happening if you like.

It doesn't guarantee they will cut off the Mac's existing software markets in the future, but it's a very real possibility that a wise person would not ignore. You can leave the Mac market at that point as you say you would, but I prefer the idea of people working together to send Apple a message long before that ever occurs. I prefer to avoid that future, as it were. You can't prevent things from happening after they've already occurred and thus I discuss the possibilities NOW rather than just leaving after it's too late.

The fact Apple is now expunging software links that are outside the realm of their new App store is one early indicator that they no longer are friendly to those other markets for their computer's software. Part of this comes from having their hand into so many different markets (i.e. Hardware, Software, Music and Media stores and now App stores). This even creates conflicts of interest within the company itself such as purposely limiting software sales in order to increase hardware sales or limiting hardware choices to try and force more sales of a given piece of hardware despite the lack of fit for a given purpose or keeping prices artificially high by limiting the scope of software so other hardware cannot compete. Clearly, all these things benefit Apple, not the consumer. But you can always buy a Windows machine.... (as if Windows doesn't have its own set of inherent problems that may have NOTHING to do with the ones you are considering abandoning the Mac for; the same goes for Linux. This is why I always laugh when someone tells me to go to Windows, especially since I run more than one operating system here and have four computers. I wouldn't need four if these companies didn't play these games. I could simply choose the best one for my needs.



I'm talking about the possible future and you are pointing out obvious and pointless rhetoric about the present.

Like I said before, if you had qualified your statements as speculation rather than inevitability, than I would agree with a lot of what you are concerned with. I just don't think that it is very likely that the Mac will be closed to other sources of apps.

To me, price is not the issue. I don't like the model and I don't like Apple telling me what software I can or cannot run on the hardware I bought from them. I'm quite sure many programmers who had their software summarily rejected by Apple after spending man man-hours creating it may feel something similar. Other companies don't even bother (e.g. forget about running Firefox on the iPad).

You can run any software you like on the hardware you buy from Apple.

I don't call it bashing. I call it stating my opinion. You should learn the difference. If I don't like something Apple does, I say it. I don't have to suck up to Steve. I don't owe him a thing. More to the point, it doesn't do me any good to talk about what I'm going to do AFTER something like what I speculate about happens, but rather to try and prevent it from happening, people must take action BEFORE it happens if I want to PREVENT it from happening.

Okay. I'm not sure what sucking up with "Steve" has to do with this conversation.

That is your opinion and you're free to have it.

Not really an opinion. The "right" you described does not exist legally or economically.

I don't really want to turn this thread into a discussion about commerce laws, Capitalism and the reason Anti-Trust Laws were made in the first place (before modern day government chose to mostly ignore them, being highly corrupt themselves) or the more basic question of "Law" versus "Morality" and "Ethics". It's suffice to say that you can have a corrupt government pass immoral and/or unethical laws and a court can uphold or divest a law based on personal opinion or even bribery in some cases. I can easily show that Apple doesn't have the "right" to make contracts that restrict trade or tie markets together to subvert competition, but I'll still get armchair lawyers telling me how "wrong" I am based on the very corruption I'm talking about before that. Any person that can READ can plainly see the purpose of such laws and how they are subverted on a daily basis and how companies get away with it instead of practicing actual COMPETITION for a consumer's dollar.

Those that don't believe in corruption or subversion need only look at the recent credit card law that attempted to prevent banks from using all kinds of immoral and unethical practices to scam consumers out of their money and how those banks are working overtime to find new ways to subvert that law through loopholes and the like. A truly ethical court would rule against such attempts to subvert the spirit of a law, but our courts (of course) are run by politicians who have every interest in ruling on their party's' stance for a given position rather than the intent of the law. One only needs to look at the Supreme Court's stand on corporate funding for propaganda/advertising to see another example. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be politically biased, but rather the are supposed to interpret the actual law and its intent, not subvert it for their own personal political party's gain. And yet many of these votes are clearly divided down the very lines of the party that put them in power. Those laws must be mighty vague that they constantly end up with 4 to 5 type decisions along party lines. If I'm on a jury, I must arrive at a unanimous vote or the case is a mistrial, but when the Supreme Court makes a decision that affects everyone's lives, they can do it on a 5 to 4 ruling.

Yes, tell me again about "rights".

And we're back to the conspiracy theories.

 

[dfs]

There's been a lot of talk -- way too much talk -- in this thread about Apple "cutting off the existing Mac software market." Ever hear that we have laws against monopolies and unfair restraint of trade? If the doomsday scenarios some of you folks are writing about were to come to pass, surely these laws would kick in to protect individual consumers like you and me. Not to mention the fact that there's way too much money riding on this software market for the big boys to sit back and let any such thing happen without challenging Apple in the courtroom.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Like I said before, if you had qualified your statements as speculation rather than inevitability, than I would agree with a lot of what you are concerned with. I just don't think that it is very likely that the Mac will be closed to other sources of apps.

Try looking up the word "context" and maybe you'll see that you shouldn't need someone to spoon feed you every time they speculate.

You can run any software you like on the hardware you buy from Apple.

Sure. I can run ANY software I like on my iPod and AppleTV units...if I hack them first.

Okay. I'm not sure what sucking up with "Steve" has to do with this conversation.

That's probably why you were so confused in the first place. You can't seem to follow anything that involves thinking a tiny bit about what's being said.

Not really an opinion. The "right" you described does not exist legally or economically.

You don't seem to know anything about commerce and anti-trust laws that forbid companies to purposely impede free trade for their own sole gain within the United States so I'm not surprised you think your opinions aren't opinions.

If I want to buy a program from someone to run on my iOS device that Apple won't carry for whatever reason (often they say it "competes" with their own software, which shows perfectly that they are purposely being anti-competitive (the other thing is playing nanny, which is ridiculous for adults), I shouldn't need to hack my iOS device to do it.

And we're back to the conspiracy theories.

You apparently don't know what a conspiracy theory is. Everything I stated about the Supreme Court and their partisan decision to hold America hostage to large corporations is a fact and is easily verified (as are the numerous 4:5/5:4 decisions that affect everyone's life, etc., etc., etc.) It's been on the news for months. I guess you don't watch the news (or maybe just Fox, which isn't really a news channel, given their 90% Propaganda / 10% news ratio)

You tell me it's OK for Apple to do the things they do on the one hand (be it iOS restrictions or forbidding OSX to be installed on non-Apple hardware) and yet you tell me if they do it with software for your Mac, you will leave the Mac market. I find that to be an interesting conflict of personal interests.

There's been a lot of talk -- way too much talk -- in this thread about Apple "cutting off the existing Mac software market." Ever hear that we have laws against monopolies and unfair restraint of trade? If the doomsday scenarios some of you folks are writing about were to come to pass, surely these laws would kick in to protect individual consumers like you and me. Not to mention the fact that there's way too much money riding on this software market for the big boys to sit back and let any such thing happen without challenging Apple in the courtroom.

I have heard of those laws, but most on here apparently have not or they think our view is simply "wrong" in terms of enforceable law or the exact interpretation of the law (which I find hilarious given the Anti-Trust laws are not particularly vague or hard to read in plain English compared to most modern "lawyer speak" laws that are thousands of pages long). Regardless, the Justice Department is not really enforcing Anti-Trust laws these days at all. They allow giant mergers and banks so big they "can't be allowed to fail" and all kinds of crap. Why? They're corrupt and paid off like the rest of our government, wholly owned and paid for by the banks and large corporations through now unrestricted lobbying power that the average union, let alone an individual could EVER hope to match. It's that simple, really. Apple is already getting away with it with their iOS computer line (iPod Touch, iPad and the smart phone known as the iPhone, which is really a computer with a phone chip). They hold ONE store for all software and if they don't like your product (i.e. it competes with one of their software packages or it uses a button that Steve Jobs doesn't want to be used in a certain way or it doesn't fit his value system...then TOUGH. You can either "hack" or go buy some other device. If you're an author, tough. You either pay him 30% of your gross revenue and put up with him denying your apps AFTER you invested countless man-hours to make them or you go somewhere else.

Anti-Trust law covers ANY and ALL restraint of free trade through either contract law, conspiracy/trust OR monopoly. (note OR not AND). There are numerous self-proclaimed lawyers on here that say that's not true or it has to be "significant" (which by their interpretation means "almost monopoly" of entire markets even though the law declares ALL such conduct to be illegal in the very first section of Sherman. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it. Clayton further adds a forbidding of TYING two products from different markets (e.g. Software and Hardware are two distinct markets) in order to carve out a non-competitive niche. This is EXACTLY what Apple does all the time and I don't see the Justice Department even looking into it, let alone enforcing the law of the land. Despite what certain people say on here, THAT is why those laws were created, to protect both the consumer and other companies from getting screwed by anti-competitive trade practices.

If they let Apple get away with it in one segment (e.g. iPads and iPhones and AppleTVs, etc.), they will probably let them get away with it when it comes to a personal computer as well since despite displacing Microsoft this past year in terms of value at one point, Apple will forever more claim they are "not significant" player in the computer industry, having only a tiny percentage of the overall OS market (using Windows forever as a villain to claim they don't matter despite the massive profits partially obtained by avoiding various forms of competition within various market segments (e.g. Hardware tied to OSX or controlling 100% of software distribution with iOS).

 

[BaldiMac]

Try looking up the word "context" and maybe you'll see that you shouldn't need someone to spoon feed you every time they speculate.

This is an online forum. No one knows you or what you really mean. It helps to be clear.

Sure. I can run ANY software I like on my iPod and AppleTV units...if I hack them first.

Or do a clean install of the software of your choice. What's your point? You claimed that Apple tells you what software you can run on your hardware. They do not. They only determine what software their software will run.

That's probably why you were so confused in the first place. You can't seem to follow anything that involves thinking a tiny bit about what's being said.

Nope, just really trying to looking past the personal comments and the various ways you try and call me a fanboy.

You don't seem to know anything about commerce and anti-trust laws that forbid companies to purposely impede free trade for their own sole gain within the United States so I'm not surprised you think your opinions aren't opinions.

I am aware of such laws, as you well know. I am also aware that none of them apply to the topic we are discussing.

If I want to buy a program from someone to run on my iOS device that Apple won't carry for whatever reason (often they say it "competes" with their own software, which shows perfectly that they are purposely being anti-competitive (the other thing is playing nanny, which is ridiculous for adults), I shouldn't need to hack my iOS device to do it.

I am perfectly clear on what you think should be illegal. My only point is that it is not.

You apparently don't know what a conspiracy theory is. Everything I stated about the Supreme Court and their partisan decision to hold America hostage to large corporations is a fact and is easily verified (as are the numerous 4:5/5:4 decisions that affect everyone's life, etc., etc., etc.) It's been on the news for months. I guess you don't watch the news (or maybe just Fox, which isn't really a news channel, given their 90% Propaganda / 10% news ratio)

Yes, bribery and corruption and political influence exists. The problem is that it has nothing to do with the Mac App Store, or even the iOS App Store.

You tell me it's OK for Apple to do the things they do on the one hand (be it iOS restrictions or forbidding OSX to be installed on non-Apple hardware) and yet you tell me if they do it with software for your Mac, you will leave the Mac market. I find that to be an interesting conflict of personal interests.

Where is the conflict? iOS restrictions and limiting OS X to Macs are both legal. I don't want a desktop computer where the Mac App Store is the only source of software if the software I want cannot be obtained at a reasonable price from that store. Doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. It means I would shop elsewhere. You know. Like any other product.

I have heard of those laws, but most on here apparently have not or they think our view is simply "wrong" in terms of enforceable law or the exact interpretation of the law (which I find hilarious given the Anti-Trust laws are not particularly vague or hard to read in plain English compared to most modern "lawyer speak" laws that are thousands of pages long). Regardless, the Justice Department is not really enforcing Anti-Trust laws these days at all. They allow giant mergers and banks so big they "can't be allowed to fail" and all kinds of crap. Why? They're corrupt and paid off like the rest of our government, wholly owned and paid for by the banks and large corporations through now unrestricted lobbying power that the average union, let alone an individual could EVER hope to match. It's that simple, really. Apple is already getting away with it with their iOS computer line (iPod Touch, iPad and the smart phone known as the iPhone, which is really a computer with a phone chip). They hold ONE store for all software and if they don't like your product (i.e. it competes with one of their software packages or it uses a button that Steve Jobs doesn't want to be used in a certain way or it doesn't fit his value system...then TOUGH. You can either "hack" or go buy some other device. If you're an author, tough. You either pay him 30% of your gross revenue and put up with him denying your apps AFTER you invested countless man-hours to make them or you go somewhere else.

Anti-Trust law covers ANY and ALL restraint of free trade through either contract law, conspiracy/trust OR monopoly. (note OR not AND). There are numerous self-proclaimed lawyers on here that say that's not true or it has to be "significant" (which by their interpretation means "almost monopoly" of entire markets even though the law declares ALL such conduct to be illegal in the very first section of Sherman. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it. Clayton further adds a forbidding of TYING two products from different markets (e.g. Software and Hardware are two distinct markets) in order to carve out a non-competitive niche. This is EXACTLY what Apple does all the time and I don't see the Justice Department even looking into it, let alone enforcing the law of the land. Despite what certain people say on here, THAT is why those laws were created, to protect both the consumer and other companies from getting screwed by anti-competitive trade practices.

If they let Apple get away with it in one segment (e.g. iPads and iPhones and AppleTVs, etc.), they will probably let them get away with it when it comes to a personal computer as well since despite displacing Microsoft this past year in terms of value at one point, Apple will forever more claim they are "not significant" player in the computer industry, having only a tiny percentage of the overall OS market (using Windows forever as a villain to claim they don't matter despite the massive profits partially obtained by avoiding various forms of competition within various market segments (e.g. Hardware tied to OSX or controlling 100% of software distribution with iOS).

And here is where the conspiracy theories come into play. Whenever anyone has shown you court decisions and legal arguments about market requirements for antitrust claims, you argue corruption, bias, and political influence. Kind of hard to have a rational discussion when you can just dismiss legal precedent with the wave of a tinfoil hat.