The Mac is moving more towards simplicity and safety - targeting normal consumers.
That's fine. Ironically, now Linux and Windows (and anything else that comes up down the line) will have to serve as the 'Computer for the rest of us'
I can see it being very disapointing for developers who enjoyed the convenience of the AppStore, but need additional functions. But I guess they will have to sell ex-Store
I can also see the benefit of Apple being able to say that 'Anything you buy on the Store is safe(tm)'.
However if Apple every makes teh Appstore a compulsory way to get software onto the Mac, I will drop Macs. And I speak as someone who has used them for about 20 years.
These changes improve security. Just because they don't improve the security to 100%, that doesn't make them worthless.
I've honestly never heard of a third-party Mac application which contains spyware or steals personal information. It just does not seem like a huge problem which needs to be solved.
(Of course there have been security issues with things like Adobe Acrobat and MS Office. But big ISV software is the least likely to be affected by app store restrictions.)
On the Windows side, there's things like file-sharing software which is packaged with toolbars and malware. That kind of thing is unheard of in the Mac world, especially in the app store.
Apple has already demonstrated several times over that the professional market isn't really of much interest to them anymore. Witness the disaster of Final Cut Pro X and the gradual phasing out of the Mac Pro hardware line.
Apple's focus is squarely on the consumer market. Though it may seem unlikely today that they will permanently ban non AppStore apps, I wouldn't cite the professional market as a reason for it to not happen.
But they responded to that by putting Final Cut Pro 7 back on the market. Sounds like they care a lot...
Hanlon Razor makes sense here.
There is one group of professionals Apple cannot do without: developers. One of the main appeals of both iOS and the Mac is the availability of exclusive, high-quality apps. I expect that limiting all app distribution to the Mac App Store will send developers running to other platforms. A platform without developers is an empty shell, and Apple knows this.
Just like it did for iOS?
Perhaps in the future most development will take place in SSH sessions on a remote machine, and then closing down the Mac will not longer be a problem, but I don't see how that would work today.
But Apple still depends on professionals-as-a-whole — once you add up graphic designers, architects, movie professionals and all others you get quite a lot of people who probably have enough money to buy fancy computers, tablets and phones.
As an added benefit, I would sorta-expect the professional market to have significant impact on consumer market — e.g. people's influence on family purchases, brand perception, recommendations.
Most pro 3D designers use 3DStudio MAX (Windows) or Maya (multiplatform with no advantage for Macs). Most architects use AutoCAD (Windows only). Most professional studios use a mix of all three, with a predominance of Linux and Windows at the highest end. Even with audio there isn't much of an advantage to using a Mac unless you depend on Logic Pro.
I'm expecting Windows to move towards a more sandboxed experience as well, at least for Metro/WinRT. I know Miguel de Icaza also hopes for broad sandboxing support by default.
Regarding TFA, he does not make much of a case against sandboxing (applications not being able to write wherever the hell they want without warning the user counts as a positive in my book), and his final quote (of Tim Bray) is relevant to appstores, but it has no relevance whatsoever to sandboxing. Not impressed. Even the plugins stuff has limited relevance in the grand scheme of things, it will affect some applications for non-technical users (more technically oriented ones will likely be able to put their plugins where they know they should be).
It already does to some extent.
Internet Explorer was the first to introduce it (to my now out of date understanding), and it's since expanded to other products including shipped Windows apps, Office, etc.
It happens invisibly for the developer, if you think the registry that you access is THE registry then you're wrong. It's a proxy that you access, and the proxy has a view on what you will see or not.
An example mention of this is here (one of the first Google hits): http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/access-help/enable-or-disa...
Basically, you the user get the choice, but by default your apps, the things they open, are all sandboxed and protected. For compatibility reasons you can currently choose to override this, but as you might expect group policy can be used to disable someone's ability to lower their security.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/13/windows-8-store-to-sell-b...
Screenshot http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6209/6144024273_4b505de2fc_o....
I guess a big reason for locking down Metro apps is battery life concerns.
I love how sandboxing on smartphones have gotten users to ask more questions of why a certain app needs the permissions they request, for example.
When we see signs that Apple will block software installation outside the App Store, then I'll grab a pitchfork. Until then, I think this is good for most users.