If Apple ever decided to change mac os x to no longer allow external applications, I would switch to Linux right away. I don't want to do that because I do like the os X better a GUI... But there's no way I'd stay on a system that wouldn't allow me to do what I want with it.
Even if that did happen, which it wouldn't, what would stop you from compiling the application yourself, theoretically? If Apple computers allow for compilation of their own software, which they probably always will given that a Mac is the only way you can make OS X or iOS apps at this time, then OS X will never get to a point like the iPad wherein you are very limited in what you can do.
Edit: I see from down votes that people disagree with this idea (no problem with that).
Still, why not?
You need a developer licence for iOS that effectively means that you are restricted to run compilers on iOS.
Why not extend it to OSX?
Are you realizing Mac is used also by creative people that use Adobe tools, tools for 3D and so on and if everything was sandboxed you couldn't do it anymore.
Given that the PC is an increasingly obsolete platform for most people, I don't think Apple's going to expend a lot of energy changing the status quo one way or another. Its style is to start over from scratch.
I.e. not programmers but users of software from big software companies.
and if everything was sandboxed you couldn't do it anymore.
Yes, you could not run arbitrary programs and Apple may see it as a feature.
You seem to be in big denial as it would be horrible thing to happen. I still see this as very likely possibility.
Chrome, Spotify, Outlook, HipChat, Viber, Skype, SourceTree, Atom, Sketch, Dropbox.
All these would be not be usable because they are not sandboxed. Basically I would have to install Windows on my Macbook and I would virtualize Mac OS X so I can use Xcode and I would use Windows for everything else.
It would be suicide for Mac OS X and if you think Apple is so stupid to do it, okay then...
Others are Apple competitors.
It would be suicide for Mac OS X and if you think Apple is so stupid to do it, okay then...
They dried to get rid of Google Maps on iOS.
Control and from there perhaps more money.
I would leave their system and also many others.
Yes, but what if there are only about 100k of such people?
Restriction might be a requirement of special licence.
This would effectively remove ability to execute arbitrary code from most of the users.
The ones who want to run arbitrary code or develop software will have to pay. If someone complains about this, they would be told to shut up and would be explained how this is actually a benefit for majority of the users.
Anyway, I will stop here.
Edit: I think that Apple is not doing it only because it is not their focus at the moment.
The special licence you are talking about actually exists. You can sign your Mac apps with a certificate and it will not ask a user if you want to open it, but this is not restrictive at all. This is actually a benefit because nobody can modify your app so if they would force this, I wouldn't mind. Most of apps that I use are signed anyway.
Instead, they allowed their contract with google to end and built their own clone to prevent google from using it to blackmail apple.
I disagree that's anything like getting rid of google maps, particularly since my partner still uses it on her iphone all the time.
B: Apple never precluded Google from putting their own Maps app into the store, they simply replaced the preinstalled version with their own when (if memory serves) Google both demanded too much user information and declined to offer vector-based maps
What do you do about third party closed source Mac software?
I think that in the current pity world of 16:9 displays, actually Ubuntu has the most logical GUI layout because they conserve the vertical screen real estate as much as possible. This means they merge global toolbar, menu and window title bar when windows are maximized.
I see that OSX has followed this trend but their solution seems to be more ad-hoc and application based that it does not feel natural for me.
And as for linux distro with a good GUI I would suggest looking into Elementary OS which is a ubuntu based and UX oriented. I used it on a daily basis for about 6 months and had good experience (not excellent though, it has some issues but what doesn't?)
It's not as good as Lightroom, but I'd say it's 80% of the way there, and you can replicate some of the missing functionality with other applications.
... but unfortunately that combines 2 proprietary solutions so guess it doesn't exactly fit your criteria.
But there's a big difference between allowing you to do something and allowing you to not change the way you do something.
I've read this sentence 5 times and I'm still not sure what you mean. Can you expound, please?
I'd say that semantics aside, it's pretty black and white: either OSX allows users to install apps as they please, or they don't.
I prefer to edit video on iOS over Windows/OSX but it required me to change how I get video editing done.
Unless they rethink or overhaul their sandboxing system to allow a bigger class of applications (essentially, most of what's out there), they won't be able to move power users to the App Store.
Most big companies commit suicide. If you think OS X and the MacBook Pro users are being neglected now, just wait until they have the car.