Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac App Store Very Promising But With Restrictions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They won't be. It's up to the individual developer to implement -- or not -- any type of "DRM".
So, if I'm an app developer, and I had the chance to have someone else handle the distribution and all payment processing, I'd jump at 30%.
Oh yeah, I'd also have my application available to 500,000,000 iTunes users. Complain all you like, but tons of successful developers are going to be scrambling to get on this.
Oh yeah, I'd also have my application available to 500,000,000 iTunes users. Complain all you like, but tons of successful developers are going to be scrambling to get on this.
funny how the sentiment is positive here but not when it was discussed a year ago
makes me think there are many who think whatever apple does is great and what they don't/not yet implemented is bad.....
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/797387/
makes me think there are many who think whatever apple does is great and what they don't/not yet implemented is bad.....
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/797387/
You're nuts if you think that any A-Level game developer would push something via the Mac App Store and kiss 30% of their revenue goodbye when they can release via Steam. Most gamers get their big titles from big box retailers or Steam. This will merely lead to an explosion of casual titles for the Mac. Those of us who remember Ambrosia software know what's in store. It'll be a huge boon for indie developers, but I just don't see the advantage for bigger players.
I don't understand then. How they will protect apps from being pirated? If i go and download some app now it will work on any Mac Snow Leopard or Lion abd one of things that apps will be rejected is licence keys. Can you explain this to me?
I'm just wondering what Apple will invent next, now that they've invented full screen mode and a package manager.
Maybe they invent a sandbox for kernel extensions, so that they can allow all applications, which use/must use kernel extensions.
Most kernel panics are the result of third party kernel extensions, which are buggy. I have installed RaLink WLAN drivers in a Mac OS X Server 10.6.4 VM (VMware Fusion v3.1.1), so that they cannot bring down my main OS.
A sandbox for kernel extensions would make my VM solution superfluous.
The Mac App Store is only a stepping stone. Give it a few iterations of OS X, and it will be the only way to install software.
Apple just provides a distribution channel. Just like a retail store sells hard copies of software. But anyone can go in and steal it (but face the appropriate consequences). Most small to medium large developers will like this because they don't have to handle credit card processing fees (not cheap), sales channels, website stuff, etc. 30% is not that bad.
The more you tighten your grip Tarkin, the more nifty apps will slip through your fingers.
Yeah, at first I was excited about this new App Store, but after reading all the retarded restrictions I've completely lost interest.
For everyone who comments 'negative' on this...
Remember that 3rd party mac application sales have been a joke. Look how few games there have been. Look at how small the 3rd party software section has been getting at any Apple retailer - even the app store itself.
So, we pick the first example to talk about WireTap? A piece of software most commonly used to skirt copyright restrictions and record live streams, etc? Even so, Apple's terms won't ban it because they don't like it, but because they can't support 3rd party apps that muck with the kernel. Fair enough.
You'll see my finger point down if this becomes the only way to deploy OS X applications, but they went out of their way to say that this wasn't the case.
This is a really smart move on Apple's part. Let's get people developing OS X applications for all of those people buying MacBooks...
Remember that 3rd party mac application sales have been a joke. Look how few games there have been. Look at how small the 3rd party software section has been getting at any Apple retailer - even the app store itself.
So, we pick the first example to talk about WireTap? A piece of software most commonly used to skirt copyright restrictions and record live streams, etc? Even so, Apple's terms won't ban it because they don't like it, but because they can't support 3rd party apps that muck with the kernel. Fair enough.
You'll see my finger point down if this becomes the only way to deploy OS X applications, but they went out of their way to say that this wasn't the case.
This is a really smart move on Apple's part. Let's get people developing OS X applications for all of those people buying MacBooks...
This is a concerning move on Apple's part. With a flip of a switch they can close the system and no software gets on a mac unless Apple gets paid through their distribution channel. If I were Adobe, or Autodesk, or any other major 3rd party mac software manufacturer I would be really nervous about the prospect of Apple taking 30% of my revenue. If I were Apple, I would be quite enticed about taking 30% revenue from major 3rd party developers.
Hmm. I think closing off the system will be my OSX exit cue.
Hmm. I think closing off the system will be my OSX exit cue.
Thanks but no thanks. I see it relevance for iOS, however makes no sense on the Mac side of the house. Makes life easier for some people who love simplicity to find and auto update they apps, however I rarely update my app on my Mac, and I do not need 
telling me what apps I can and cannot run through they approval process in the Mac App Store.
That Mac is going to be more HW restrictive, another page from the iPT, iP4, iPad methodology.
telling me what apps I can and cannot run through they approval process in the Mac App Store.That Mac is going to be more HW restrictive, another page from the iPT, iP4, iPad methodology.
Also means more stupid one task apps to populate the Mac OS atmosphere.
Count me out, I prefer getting my apps and updates the old fashion way, physical copy and website updates. Another move by Steve-O control issues.
What you do is make a free demo and distribute via the app store. If people want to buy it, you send them to your website
Demos are not allowed.
Breathtaking
As a developer myself, I'm absolutely stunned by your viewpoint. I'll refrain from any other comments other than to say if the App Store is worth 5% of your development effort, then after 19 weeks of programming, simply set up your own App Store in a week and let the sales roll in.
I suppose at this point I need to point out that 1 week out of 20 is 5%.
As a developer myself, I'm absolutely stunned by your viewpoint. I'll refrain from any other comments other than to say if the App Store is worth 5% of your development effort, then after 19 weeks of programming, simply set up your own App Store in a week and let the sales roll in.
I suppose at this point I need to point out that 1 week out of 20 is 5%.
Oh Ambrosia... I grew up on Escape Velocity etc. I remember very clearly the giant Ambrosia logo and that dramatic music on my IIsi. It's really too bad there won't be another. Heck, I'd buy it even if it was still 2D and single player--the storytelling and ship customization were the fun parts. My friends and I used to spend days building custom systems and story lines for each other.
Good times.
Back on topic, I can see this convincing me to buy a lot more applications. The convenience on the consumer end, if iOS is any indication, is quite an incentive. 'course, I'm sure someone out there spit out their drink and dropped everything halfway through that keynote to compile a fart app.
Good times.
Back on topic, I can see this convincing me to buy a lot more applications. The convenience on the consumer end, if iOS is any indication, is quite an incentive. 'course, I'm sure someone out there spit out their drink and dropped everything halfway through that keynote to compile a fart app.
So? You can still purchase them straight from the developer. Apple is not closing off everyone from downloading 3rd party applications online, they're just making an easier way for people to buy applications for their mac. I hardly have any extra applications on my mac besides Creative Suite, Skype, Tweetie, and a few others. I'm really excited to see what developers can bring to the store. They know the Mac App store will be a great stage to feature their applications. Even though Apple gets a cut, developers gain exposure and review ratings. It sounds like a win/win.
I'm not sure I like this, to be honest
I appreciate that having a large repository of safe, vetted software is very convenient for me as a consumer, but I am not sure the price is worth it.
I am concerned that this store will result in an unprecedented level of control over my desktop experience, which will be potentially open to unnecessary interference and lock-down of the environment. An example of outright abuse would be preventing applications being sold by a developer who has had disagreements with Apple in the past, or who is in competition for a particular market segment.
The other thing I am concerned about is the value and quality of the software that will be available on the store - with a 70/30 split I have noticed that some professional apps - mostly reference materials - that I use are up to 50% more expensive on the iPhone store than they are on other mobile platforms. Will a similar trend take place in the Mac App store? Also, will a there be a trend towards cheaper and cheaper applications that are less functional than their predecessors?
Maybe I am just a little paranoid. Maybe not. I accept that there will be other places to buy software, but if it is being pushed as being the best place to purchase applications, then there is a the potential that the average user will only look in the Mac App store as surely all the good software will be there...
I appreciate that having a large repository of safe, vetted software is very convenient for me as a consumer, but I am not sure the price is worth it.
I am concerned that this store will result in an unprecedented level of control over my desktop experience, which will be potentially open to unnecessary interference and lock-down of the environment. An example of outright abuse would be preventing applications being sold by a developer who has had disagreements with Apple in the past, or who is in competition for a particular market segment.
The other thing I am concerned about is the value and quality of the software that will be available on the store - with a 70/30 split I have noticed that some professional apps - mostly reference materials - that I use are up to 50% more expensive on the iPhone store than they are on other mobile platforms. Will a similar trend take place in the Mac App store? Also, will a there be a trend towards cheaper and cheaper applications that are less functional than their predecessors?
Maybe I am just a little paranoid. Maybe not. I accept that there will be other places to buy software, but if it is being pushed as being the best place to purchase applications, then there is a the potential that the average user will only look in the Mac App store as surely all the good software will be there...
What the mac needs now is a competing open source app store.
I can also see licensing turning into a hellish mess when you install something X number of times and even though you've already paid for it, apples software goes nuts on you like itunes... In fact, everything annoying about itunes will probably apply to this thing.
I can also see licensing turning into a hellish mess when you install something X number of times and even though you've already paid for it, apples software goes nuts on you like itunes... In fact, everything annoying about itunes will probably apply to this thing.
I'm not saying Apple took a twentieth of the time developing the entire App Store that I did developing my app; it probably takes a lot of time, effort, and money to run. I'm just saying they don't necessarily deserve to be profitting so much just because they have the opportunity to.
The fact that they are taking a percentage of the sales means that they will make more off of more expensive apps like Adobe's. Granted, Adobe's apps are larger and would take longer to evaluate, but I think that they might be taking a large enough chunk to discourage some companies like that from joining. I am just worried that it might be hard for some developers to know if they will really benefit from being a part of the Store or not, yet Apple doesn't really have anything to lose.
However, it appears that almost everyone here believes this will be overwhelmingly positive for developers. If developers make back at least that 30% because of the benefits of the Store, then I think it is a good system. I just thought they were making the stakes a little too high for developers who were considering it.