The Slippery Slope of an App Store, and Why Windows Should Never Adopt It
winextra.com
winextra.com
Wake up and smell the coffee, Windows users: you've had an app store for seven years now, and its primary target (gamers) are actually pretty damn happy with it now. If they branched out and sold regular apps (not that they would, it seems too dilutive for the brand) you'd basically have a pretty competent Windows App Store. (I can see it now: "Achievement Unlocked, 10 page paper")
I should note that the post was written by one of our writers and I don't necessarily agree with him which I will be writing up a rebuttal type post, so thanks for reminding me of Steam (which I use all the time).
The other one to keep an eye on is OnLive, which right now is just games but rumor has is looking at movies as well so it would be a short step to include software.
But that is also what makes me not bring up Steam. It is not an "app" store. It's a game store, and a very damn good one at that.
There is MacPorts, Fink, homebrew and probably other systems that are like Ubunutu's apt, deb, and other linuxes rpm (and other) systems.
What's the point?
Also as other people have mentioned there is Steam on Windows, Impulse, used to be GameTap, and lots of other digital download stores.
* Unable to install apps that aren't App Store Approved(TM)
* Unable to run commands as root
* Unable to access the filesystem
Basically, the author fears OS X becoming iOS.
There's a lot of speculation about what OS X will become, but there is only one sure bet: It will follow the money.
Consumers -- in general -- have been proven not to care about things like "open". If you ask Joe Blow Android owner about why he/she likes their phone, they might tell you that they like how it's "open", among other things, but I'd lay you odds that they don't know what that really means. And you can bet that most people are not rooting their Android phones.
I'm not talking about your friends. I'm talking about your mom's friends; your dad's friends; your cousins' friends. The ones who can't figure out how to update their anti-virus. They don't care about open, root access, or filesystems. They care about the specific task they want to achieve: to be entertained (music/movies), have some fun (games), do some work (productivity), or communicate with others (email/social networking).
These are the people that will drive the direction of OS X and Windows. But don't freak out just yet. There will always be another layer to the computing world. Apple builds a very small set of core iOS apps. A large part of iOS's success is owed to independent developers. Not big companies. Independents. The Mac has many popular independent developers, and Apple knows this. There will always be an "open" Mac, in the sense that there will always be a Mac you can develop on, if only by neccessity.
Let's consider what happens if I'm wrong. Even though we're (hackers) a tiny part of the market, we're not a "small" group by any measure. Imagine that all the talented people who like using OS X for development are suddenly forced to use Linux. So, you have this large group of talented people, and all of the sudden their platform is yanked out from under them. Where do they go? They go to the platform that solves their needs. They go to the next thing. That thing would be Linux.
I don't believe there will be any rug-yanking going on. I think the process will be much slower, and many won't even notice, but I do think we'll start to see more hackers moving to Linux as Apple develops their "walled garden" approach for OS X. That's not a bad thing. It's going to bring a lot of talent over to the Linux side of things, and that's gotta be a good thing.
If Apple could just hide a Jailbreak button under 10 pages of warnings in iTunes, this wouldn't be an issue. But they don't, so fear of a locked-down Mac is reasonable. But, as you conclude, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
While most of my Windows use is confined to snapshot'ed VMs, I still don't download or use closed-source Windows software of any kind, free or otherwise. Spyware and malware have ruined the market for free-and-ad-supported, freemium, and nearly-free Windows software. A heavily curated and controlled Windows software market could improve the signal-to-noise ratio for low-cost windows apps from legitimate developers.
I am assuming the worst possible situation here. I do firmly believe that OS X will eventually be just like iOS, and we are seeing a lot the industry adopt methods that Apple has pursued previously. My worry is that Microsoft, if they happen to release an App Store themselves, will go down the same path. They have done this with WP7 and the Marketplace.
It's a slippery slope releasing an App Store IMO because I don't want to own a Mac that will eventually be locked down like the iPhone, and since that method will "most likely" still be a success, other companies, including MS, might be curious to adopt this.
Is an App Store bad? Hell no.
Is the way they are being implemented in our every day technology bad? Hell yes. Even on Android phones with AT&T you can't install from unknown sources. Granted, Android phones in this respect are not the norm, and thankfully so.
In short, let's all proceed with caution.
This will never happen. As others have already stated, Apple would lose their developers and because they don't command the market with OS X they would never risk doing that. Let's not forget the professionals that use Macs: the design industry, the film industry, the music industry: these rely in some cases on third-party applications like the Adobe Suite, these industries are another reason why OS X cannot ever become iOS; they require a fundamentally open, extensible environment. Add that to the fact Apple has stated that the App Store will never be the only method through which developers may publish their applications to the OS X platform, and it just will not happen.
Your paranoia is irrational.
Typical Linux repositories, while very useful, don't address the important point — payment.
App Store is for commercial software, while Linux distros usually even put "non-free" software in separate silo.
Em, the "other Apple products" mentioned were never open to begin with. And they are not general purpose computers.
The Mac, on the other hand, always had XCode built-in. I don't see a "closed computer" in the near future...
Obviously they don't install it by default: For 99.5% of Mac customers all it would do is take up space and add risk of confusion.
Right, which indicates that Steve's preference is for closed systems. Every argument Apple makes in favor of locking down iOS devices applies equally well to Macs.
And they are not general purpose computers.
Only because of artificial limitations.
I don't see a "closed computer" in the near future...
I believe with 60% probability that by the end of 2015, Apple won't sell any consumer-targeted products that allow root access or installation of arbitrary software.
Even if there are a lot of users that wouldn't object to the Mac being a closed platform, developers would. Developers want root access to their development machine. Apple doesn't want to lose developer support, because they know that it is the lifeblood of the platform.
I'd make the exact opposite prediction. I think it's more likely that iOS will allow sideloading than that Mac OS will forbid installation of software other than through the App Store. On the other hand, I can see both platforms moving toward a system where it is locked down by default, but it is trivial, and officially supported, for the user to allow installing software through unapproved sources.
No, because of a design tradeoff: ease of use and mind vs openess.
Apple would still get to sell their iOS devices and iTunes content even if they allowed shell access and arbitrary installation of programs on them.
>I believe with 60% probability that by the end of 2015, Apple won't sell any consumer-targeted products that allow root access or installation of arbitrary software.
2015? Not a chance. Although the industry WILL move towards more auto-managable OSs...
However, there is no built-in way to prevent copying of the apps (other than in iOS, there is no DRM!). In fact, free apps aren't even supposed to check for the receipt and you are explicitly free to install your bought apps on as many computers as you own.
Moreover, Apple has officially touted the App Store to be one of many distribution channels and Apple in no way prevents you from using different channels such as packet managers, regular online distribution, self compiled source downloads, shop-bought boxed software, or whatever you like.
So, the App Store in no way restricts your right to use or install software on your Mac. I don't see how this makes the Mac 'more closed'.
I just don't see it.
> But if we are to follow precedence set by other Apple products, the Mac will become more closed than ever, with the Web as our only option to access the outside world. Much like the iPhone and the iPad. As a Mac owner, the writing is on the wall, a closed computer is my future.
What's all the rage? It's an application distribution platform. You can still and will still be able to install applications of your choosing. The operating system is still and will still be largely open source (http://opensource.apple.com/). Compared to Microsoft and Windows, OS X is a paragon of openness.
Will Apple encourage people to use the App Store? No doubt. But that doesn't mean the door is closed to other distribution methods.
The fact remains that the operating system is far from closed, and there doesn't seem to be ANY indication that that will change in the near or even distant future; it would serve very little purpose as Apple does not have a commanding market share with OS X.
I think the Mac app store would encourage a lot of adware(aka spyware) because consumers like free apps and developers would like a steady revenue stream.