Hacker News Reader

My #1 reason to use it is that it puts the purchase on my record so I can easily re-download it if I happen to lose it somehow. No more searching through ancient emails for activation codes.

Also, it's easier (and often cheaper) if you own multiple computers. No complex registration/deregistration of computers to ensure license compliance.

But if an app is not available on the app store, does that stop you from getting it? That's a consumer benefit but it has no corresponding benefit to the developer, so it's unlikely to be a good argument for a developer to stick with the app store.

It's a developer benefit if consumers feel averse to buying software that they can't re-download/update from a centralized software store (App Store, Steam, etc).

Right but that is my point. I don't think anyone would be averse to buying an app outside the app store just because it doesn't have that feature.

That could explain why someone chooses to buy it in the store if it is available both on and off the app store, but it's unlikely that there is many (any?) people out there who refuse to install an app that isn't in the app store.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not about refusal. It's not (primarily) a red line where crossing the line means you get no sales at all from the X% of people that care. It just incrementally raises the bar that customers' varying levels of desire/motivation to buy the app have to clear before they decide to go ahead. There are many other factors that probably have a greater influence on that bar, including price, convenience of the purchasing process, perceived quality of the product, etc. But that doesn't mean smaller factors don't matter at all. To get a sense of how much they matter, you'd have to measure it, but I doubt that things like license management convenience are completely irrelevant.

If it's a well known application I will go out of my way and buy it outside the store if that's the only way to get it. But for some random app that I just found I have to wonder if it's worth getting it from outside the store (and frequently the answer is no). I need to a) give my credit card to a random website that will probably get hacked in the next 12 months, b) start getting unsolicited email campaigns in about 18 months when someone hires a growth hacker, c) remember how to install the damn thing when I upgrade my laptop, d) deal with the reduced security guarantees of an app that did not go through the Apple review process and is not subject to the sandboxing of the App Store.

For many apps where I wouldn't mind spending $10 to $20 in the App Store, I am probably not going to deal with all of the above to buy it directly from the developer.

I suspect you are a tiny minority though and that the cut the app store takes doesn't make up for losing a few folks like yourself.

However, I have no data to back up that claim, so I could very well be wrong.

I personally don't feel like you do because I use burner cards and emails to solve the hacking and spamming problems, and apps still have to be sandboxed unless you turn off that safeguard explicitly for the app.

Parent might be a tiny minority, but if so I'm right there with him.

> give my credit card to a random website that will probably get hacked in the next 12 months

Pretty much everyone takes PayPal which shields you from this

Or uses stripe which hides your real card number from the merchant. The annoyance of adding a card is one thing but fear of an app developer getting hacked and exposing your card doesn't strike me as a very strong reason.

they shouldnt be storing it anyways. thats not PCI compliant.

Dev logic, not how most of us are thinking

As an app developer, most users also seem to think developers are to blame for issues like the App Store failing to download apps, double-billing etc, so I don't think buying though Apple makes much of a difference there.

That's flawed logic. Your users are telling you they can't tell apart merchant/platform so you should build on top of that and assume they won't know that you're not PayPal

Wait a sec – consumer benefits absolutely affect the developer, because they affect whether or not the consumer buys the developer's app!

It's not necessarily a dealmaker or breaker; but if someone really cares about that and the market has many substitutes, it could be enough to sway them towards App Store purchase.

But that's my point. I think there is only a tiny number of people for whom that particular consumer benefit is a make or break deal.

Perhaps for now. I expect this to shift just as we saw mobile apps shift. Slowly at first then a mass migration of users towards the new model.

Example: Steam

I just don't think any implementation has really been that great yet. However as I think about Steam, it's rare I even consider a game I can't install via it - mostly due to it being an easy way to "back up" my games for later availability. That and they keep things up to date so it more or less Just Works.

The Mac App Store is now a full 5 years old. If 5 years in developers abandoning it see their revenue go up, that looks a lot more like persistent stagnation and decline for the store.

Mobile app stores post-iPhone just took off. There was no 'slowly at first' phase, in the sense that they had an uncertain future. They went gang busters from the start. But we're past theorising about how the first 5 years of the Mac App Store might go. They've gone. It really doesn't look good and I don't see any signs it might improve any time soon. A few people appreciate the convenience, but as this case study shows it's not enough to make an economic difference to developers. Steam killed it, but the Mac App Store is completely stalled.

I buy my adobe software via Amazon for this exact reason. Meanwhile, I can't figure out how I can install Office 2011 on my new machine even though I have the key since MSFT doesn't even let me download the .dmg from their site anymore.

I like how even thought I got windows 10 home with my laptop I can't install it from anywhere because the laptop didn't come with a recovery USB and the recovery partition got corrupted so basically I have to rely on downloading so-called "MSDN" images from torrents and hope for the best, verifying the hashes along the way...

This is a hidden cost of non-open software.

That's simply untrue. You can download a copy of Windows 10 ISO from Microsoft. [0] It's the first search result if you Google Windows 10 ISO.

Plus, most laptops don't come with a recovery USB (neither do Macs) and IMO having a recovery partition is silly when installing it from scratch is cleaner/easier.

[0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows10

Maybe on windows 7 or 8/8.1, but on 10 I see no download, how can I download an ISO without downloading a program? Plus let's say I have a metered connection (that I often do, when I'm away from home) and my windows 10 broke by itself as it often does? I can't go to a library or something and download the iso because I don't have admin permissions and microsoft's tool requires admin permissions. I'm not trying to criticize the OS for this, it already has been criticized enough for spyware, but seriously microsoft is just making it harder for me to use their software legally. Also the confusion about buying an OEM license and why there are no retail licenses in Serbia?

Huh? Select Home/Pro. Select language. Download button appears for both 32/64 bit. No special software, just a download link.

http://imgur.com/bcj3z57

Does 'More download options' reveal more options?

http://i.imgur.com/s4ElZFt.png

Nothing relevant:

>Sign in to the Volume Licensing Service Center to download Enterprise editions.

>Sign in to your subscription on the MSDN Portal for MSDN downloads.

> Visit the Windows Insider site to download Insider Preview builds

> Visit the Download Academic Products page for Education editions (product key required).

Jeez, just when I thought Microsoft was getting better about letting people...actually download their software... they go and create pages that display completely different things based on what OS you're running.

If you browse from windows, that page only shows Microsoft's special "Download Program".

If you browse from linux, it shows links to directly download the ISO files.

I'm not sure what it does if you browse from MacOS.

Maybe try changing your browser's useragent? Frankly, it is a bit annoying that Microsoft tries to push their download tool.

> I'm not sure what it does if you browse from MacOS.

ISO

You have a good point. As a specific solution to that problem though, I would suggest Rufus. It runs without system privileges.

Link is actually https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows10I...

Office 2011 for Mac dmg: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=273962

sir you are my hero.

That's not correct. Make sure you have backups because developers remove apps and then upload new versions under different application IDs, making you purchase them again.

So basically you're renting software from the AppStore. I think I paid 100 EUR for Abby FineReader and now I can't access it any more.

Agreed - I purchased Sketch 2 for 50EUR, moved to the US on a new computer as Sketch 3 came out - I can't get Sketch 2 now. I can't bring myself to pay for it again, so... Inkscape it is!

A huge problem with the Mac App Store is that it is not a service for listing “all Mac software that exists” but it NEEDS to be. I would argue that the potential benefits to the platform for listing all software are huge, even if many pages end up being little more than links to external web sites.

Sure, Apple wants a cut of sales but they’re already listing totally-free apps so they’ve shown that money isn’t everything.

If they made it dead-simple to list apps (e.g. free listing pages to all developers, where software storage/downloading/sales are clearly another tier), they’d soon have all Mac software in their list. They could then build on that repository to become the Google of software search. Search could be truly powerful.

Instead, search is not only pointless on the Mac App Store but it’s the opposite of that. I now EXPECT crap, I don’t even EXPECT a reasonable match. For every search for “software that does X”, I KNOW that the results will probably not include any well-known programs and will certainly contain cheap crap and clearly-misleading scam-ware. The rest of the list will be software that was last updated 3 years ago.

Users perceive the app store as giving a level of curation and security. If it became a list of "all Mac software that exists," and one of those turned out to be dodgy, Apple's image would take a real hit.

Also, what would listing software that hasn't been through the submissions process actually mean? That the app is verified by Apple? That going to the site and putting your credit card number into the shopping cart is guaranteed to be secure? That other things that haven't been listed yet are not as favoured in some way?

I'm not saying I like the app store model, or that they can't have a second tier of lower-scrutiny apps. I do think it would need a lot of thought and care, however.

Apple’s reputation is already taking a huge hit by allowing the Mac App Store to remain so broken for so long. And dodgy software does make it into their store.

They don’t need much of a warning for outside software sites. The page could have a banner at the top, or display one when you click the outside link.

> 1. To keep it getting updates through the app store vs. having to download from the developer when a new update comes out.

For me this is the number one reason for not buying via the Mac AppStore.

At this point almost every mac app uses the tried and tested Sparkle update mechanism [0], which is very fast and rather unobtrusive. I'm mostly done updating through sparkle before I even see the list of available updates in the App Store. It's slow as hell, requires my AppleID more often than I like and is overall simply a very cumbersome experience, that leads me to postpone updates endlessly.

[0] https://sparkle-project.org/

Sparkle is ahead of whats available on windows, but I still find it super annoying. I hate going to use a program and - just at that point I most want to get work done, I get annoying popups. "There's an update available! Quick - make some decisions about it! click" ugh wait for download "Restart the app to continue!" click "Heyyy, check out our new features! clickkkkkkk".

Its a total momentum killer. Like, imagine if randomly (every month or so) instead of loading immediately hackernews took 1 minute to load instead, and it required that you babysit it the whole time while you hit "next".

Personally I wish all apps used Chrome's update mechanism. Its unobtrusive, the patches are tiny compared to the size of Chrome and it works great. Most users don't even know the updates are happening.

Thats how I want all apps (and, frankly, my OS) to update. Just, silently and reliably. No annoying popups. No decisions to make when I'm trying to get work done. No waiting for the update to happen. Update yourself quickly in the background, and do it without bothering me.

Given how long chrome's updater has been out I'm surprised there's no embeddable Sparkle-like version for 3rd party apps to use.

> Personally I wish all apps used Chrome's update mechanism. Its unobtrusive, the patches are tiny compared to the size of Chrome and it works great. Most users don't even know the updates are happening.

You can accomplish by checking the "Automatically download updates like this in the future" box in Sparkle. The problem, though, is that you have to trust the software to handle these updates perfectly if you want them to happen in the background for critical software. Chrome can do that, because Google has some of the best developers around working on the project, and because they have absurdly good development practices. (Not perfect, but far better than any independent developer or small shop working on the majority of apps that we're talking about).

Automatic updating is hard. About a year ago, there was an update to iTerm2 that broke the software completely. The fix was to temporarily downgrade while waiting for the next point release - but for people who allowed automatic updates, they simply discovered one morning that they couldn't open their terminal[0].

Slack had an issue as well about a year ago as well, though that issue was with their auto-updater itself being broken, and preventing them from upgrading. In that case, they had to request that affected users uninstall and reinstall the application, just to get the new version of the automatic updater installed[1].

[0] I think this was the one: https://gitlab.com/gnachman/iterm2/issues/4699

[1] It's hard to push an update to your software automatically if your automatic updater is what's broken.

I’m really surprised that more automatic update systems don’t make a complete copy of the old image (and keep it in an obvious place) before trying to merge or overwrite changes. Disks are huge, and it would mean that users can simply run the previous version in the event of an unexpected breaking change after an update.

The only one I can think of that makes a copy is the one from Omni Group, which seems to leave an old version in the Trash. Plus, it renames the application so it has an exact “version” for clarity.

Check out https://github.com/Squirrel/Squirrel.Mac

I've never used the mac version, but Squirrel for windows works great and is unobtrusive. The Mac version promises the same: "Squirrel is an OS X framework focused on making application updates as safe and transparent as updates to a website.".

Also, there are apps that you use more often and apps that you use less often. By leaving the update to the app itself, you can basically make use of the update mechanism in proportion to how much you really need the app (you start it up, there is an update, you run it in 10-15s and you're done). You haven't used it in half a year, you open it, update to the most recent version, done.

With the appstore on the other hand, besides being horribly slow, it will always present you everything that is updateable, even if you only need that tool only 3-4 times a year. So I will always have to make that call per every app in the list, every time I open the updates panel.

Why do you have to make that decision at all though? I guess I'm spoiled by Linux's package managers which allow me to leave my computer on overnight and have everything updated automatically without me even noticing.

There are a few others:

Not having to enter payment information again.

Not having to trust a new third party with your payment information.

Trusted refund support.

Apple makes it seem scary to install software outside the app store.

#1 is not even true. I've bought ABBY FineReader and Patterns from the AppStore and both apps have been removed and replaced with newer versions.

I didn't have a backup of ABBY and the Patterns backup doesn't work because when run it complains that it doesn't work with the latest macOS and that I should update for 15+ EUR.

I would love the Mac App Store if it worked well, like Steam or the Play Store.

Unfortunately it's a piece of garbage.

#4: I get to use it on 5 computers.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202152 seems to imply that there is no such limit.

Can I use apps from the Mac App Store on more than one computer?

Apps from the Mac App Store may be used on any Macs that you own or control for your personal use.

You can only have 10 devices (and only 5 of them computers) associated to a single Apple ID:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204074

Can you get around that using family share?

That does not make sense for the Mac App Store. Mac Apps will only run on a computer.

I hit the device limit constantly on iTunes and have to declare "bakruptcy" (unuauthorize all devices) to reset it. This is what happens when you have a laptop, a desktop and work and home, a gaming computer, and things like a media centre computer.

I have never once hit it on apps.

4. Minor but: if you have more than one machine, the app installs across machines for you.

I'm not too sure 1 is a problem in the real world. Most popular outside-of-app-store apps I'm aware of have built in updating mechanisms. Think Sparkle and the like.

If you use iTerm, you know what I'm talking about.