And don't misunderstand, those are good reasons to download software straight from the developer. But disregarding the App Store simply because the aesthetics aren't to your liking is another reason altogether.
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.
New Mac Malware Discovered on Dark Web as Security Experts Remind Mac Users Not to Be 'Overconfident'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's getting there, but you can still right-click on an unsigned app to run it, I believe? They don't make it easy, but the option is there. Unless there's something I'm missing.
But yeah, your point is completely valid, and it's not hard to see the day when they just get rid of this option...
Attachments
You think the iOS App Store is better because it looks better? Sorry for you. These are just on the top of my head:
1. No bundles.
2. No app of the week.
3. No wish list.
4. Less curated lists.
5. No video reviews.
I use the store as much as I can because I like it simple, it's just sad that it's not as good as the iOS one.
The distinctions matter to me, since I practice careful, safe behavior in what I click on and download. If you don't want to take those kinds of precautions, I can understand why you might not care about the distinctions.
No. I take precautions to prevent the issue from happening in the first place. Pretty much like “I know there are problems. Instead of digging into a lot into problems, I care more on how to prevent it”.
This is flawed though.
Did I say the iOS App Store is better because it looks better? No. Sorry for me? Haha what? I'm confused, was that an attempt to build a straw man and knock it down?
For the convenience and security sake I buy only at AppStore , there is no need to send registration somewhere else! It is the same as you would buy your groceries only at producer and completely avoided supermarket!
My reason for preferring the App Store is licensing, plain and simple. Too many app developers have policies more restrictive than the store does, which is incredibly irksome when you have multiple Macs.
I go by K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) and have learned that visiting the "dark" web only causes you trouble. I just visit normal everyday websites (news, tech forums, Facebook, etc), never download applications or photos just to "check" them out or clink on any links that someone has sent me via email or text message unless I know 100 percent they sent it to me and the reason why they did. So far (knocking on wood) my computers have had minimum malware to no malware on them.
It's not obtuse. Your key complaint is that any time the topic of security comes up, you lecture people about "viruses," and then, right on cue, these tech-nerds come out of the woodwork to correct you, and it's super-annoying.
You apparently care, because you insist on using wrong, outdated terminology, in spite of the many times people people insist on correcting you. By your own admission and narrative:
If you didn't care, you would have abandoned your old, inaccurate nomenclature and the problem would have already dematerialized, and we wouldn't even be talking about this. You originated this "issue", remember?
Sometimes the problem isn't the rest of the universe.
Last edited:
Your analogy is a little busted. The App Store is a lot more like a supermarket, and "buy your groceries only at producer" is the pretty much equivalent to buying software directly from the developer (a farmer's market, I guess?)
[doublepost=1497477766][/doublepost]
Really depends on the developer. I buy OmniFocus for Mac directly from Omni Group. It's $80 that goes 100% to them instead of 30% going to Apple for no reason. Omni doesn't care at all that I'm installing it on two Macs that I own. Also I was able to install it on a work Mac they gave me that I wasn't about to sign into with my Apple ID.
Even Final Draft is fairly permissive these days -- I have it installed on both my Macs, and can pretty readily move registration to wherever I want (max 2 machines I believe), deauthorizing one if I need to. Again, I wouldn't need to tie a whole computer to my Apple ID just to install it, AND I could give the license away to a friend if I wanted to, like in the olden days of buying a CD, or a book, or whatever other piece of media. I like that. And although, like most screenwriters I have no huge love for the FD people, they may as well get all of my money instead of 70% of it.
I also use Audio Hijack Pro a lot. That isn't even ON the App Store because it can't function with the system restrictions imposed there. Got that installed on two Macs as well. Like OmniFocus above, it's just my name and a registration code. Nothing restrictive there.
I know there have been some pretty restrictive copy protections in the past, but frankly, portability of license and paying the developer fully and directly trumps the convenience of the App Store, in my opinion.
Last edited:
Actually, I had the exact analogy in mind, but didn't post it.
The point is, there's some hypocrisy in insisting on only buying software from the developer, IF one does not do the same for all the other goods one buys. "Give maximum profit to the producer" is a great impulse. Buy books only from the author, music from the musician, baked goods from the baker, meat and veggies from the farmer, computers direct from the manufacturer... why should any middleman make a profit? Speaking of the middleman... buy only from self-employed workers - don't give a penny to an employer!
However, most of the posts that decry Apple's 30% cut sound more like people who have a grudge against Apple, rather than people who, as a matter of principle, buy all their goods directly from the producer.
A word or two of appreciation for the retailer, from a producer... The retailer provides a service both to the producer and the consumer. It's called "availability," or "point of presence." When it works well, the producer and retailer are partners - the producer delivering goods worth selling, retailers selling far more of the producer's goods than the producer could have sold alone, to far more consumers than the producer could reach alone.
Consumers also benefit. Shoppers who don't know exactly what they want can browse the displays and find goods they may have never sought out on their own. The presence of competing goods on the shelf stimulates competition on both price and quality. Shoppers save substantial amounts of time by finding a wide array of goods at a single shop...
Farmers market is like app store. One visit multiple purchases, one payment, one registration.
Maybe this is the issue: what kind of farmers' market are you talking about where you make "one payment"?
Every one I've ever seen is made up of independent vendors who you pay individually, utterly unlike the App Store.
Agree fully. I finally woke up when I found Apple put a hefty consumer tax on each subscription through ITunes.
Example. I heart radio. $ 12.99 month Apple. $9.99 month direct with Iheart.
Same with every third party service. Same with buying subscriptions through Amazon.
Same with newspaper subscriptions through Amazon. Can’t get commonly advertised specials.
Apple’s 25% profit on subscriptions is obscene. Hulu is getting 100% of my money now. I am paying $5.99 month, with ads, and another $8.99 month for Showtime through Hulu. It’s about $6 month more for Showtime on Amazon.
Example. I heart radio. $ 12.99 month Apple. $9.99 month direct with Iheart.
Same with every third party service. Same with buying subscriptions through Amazon.
Same with newspaper subscriptions through Amazon. Can’t get commonly advertised specials.
Apple’s 25% profit on subscriptions is obscene. Hulu is getting 100% of my money now. I am paying $5.99 month, with ads, and another $8.99 month for Showtime through Hulu. It’s about $6 month more for Showtime on Amazon.