Hacker News Reader

Comment by gcv | Hacker News Reader

1. I hope I can still build my own custom Emacs.app from source and install it.

2. I hope App Store apps will be sandboxed and prevented from polluting the system.

3. I hope Adobe switches to the App Store model, and that it will mean that the behavior of the horrific Creative Suite installer will finally be reigned in (take a look in /Applications/.AdobePatchFiles and check how large it is).

View on HN

Oh, please, please tell me Adobe will work with the OS X app store. Adobe's updater needs terminated with prejudice.

I doubt it.

Adobe's installers are just a non-accessible custom UI on top of a normal (and perfectly accessible) OSX package installer. They're convoluted for the sake of being convoluted.

If it ever does, it's only going to be the updater. Adobe would never sell anything through that Mac App Store if it means giving a 30% cut to Apple.

What is the cut for the distributor / importer and for the retail channel?

I doubt it's less then 30% and I'd wager that Adobe still ships a lot of software in boxes.

Somehow, I doubt it. Adobe won't even deign to use the standard browser download mechanisms for linking to downloadable files on their web site, and "downloading a file over HTTP" is about as close to a solved problem as you can get!

During the keynote, it was mentioned that this was an additional way to distribute apps, not the only way.

It's like boiling a toad.

Lets hope it doesn't go that way.

I don't think it will go that way. It would be suicide.

IT is amazing that I can't go a week without seeing mainstream FUD about how apple is boiling a toad, meanwhile the countries economy is just shy of "roiling" and half the people are shouting "Turn up the heat!"

Too much worry about Apple- which has been treating people well and going above and beyond the call of duty for decades, and no worry about the government which has just blown up the biggest bubble the country has seen and then blamed it on bankers.

As you said, when it comes to the Government, Bush turned up the heat from 120F to 212 in a matter of months. And no one is stopping it.

I'm not worried too much about Apple, but no one can contest that Apple leans towards being very controlling over their platforms.

I don't think the ability to do whatever you want with OS X is going anywhere. A huge chunk of Apple's Mac business is with developers (of all types) and power users. A move like that (point 1) would be utterly suicidal.

To put it another way: how would you develop (and more importantly QA) OSX apps, if you couldn't do it on a Mac? Would they put out "OSX SDK Edition"?

Scarier idea: Charging, or restricting access to Xcode only for those who have paid the developers subscription.

Scarier idea: Apple charging $400,000 for special developer-only hardware.

I mean, if we are going to be making up unlikely scenarios out of whole cloth, why stop at half-measures?

Console developers pay something similarly ridiculous, be careful what you wish for!

The day I have to get new versions of Unix-style software from an App Store, or the day I have to go through some Orwellian build/publish process to release a new version of a Python app to my customers, is the day I switch to Linux for good.

I'm pretty sure that Apple knows a decent portion of its Mac user base is made up people who chose OSX because it was the first Unix-based OS that had a great GUI.

I'm wondering if a somewhat larger portion of the Mac user base is now people who chose OS X because a Mac looks great next to their iPhone?

Software distributed through the Mac AppStore is not restricted to a single user license so I doubt any higher priced applications will make the jump.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com