Slashdot Mirror
Beware the Garden of Steven
theodp writes "With its forthcoming Lion Mac OS and new Apple-curated Mac Apps Store, Apple will be locking down top tier applications on the Mac similar to the way apps are locked down on the iPad and iPhone. Only by submitting their apps to Apple's store and giving up 30% of their receipts will developers get to take advantage of two new OS features. The first is Apple's new 'Launchpad,' a tool for easily opening application; the second is the ability to update apps to new versions with one click. It will be a lot easier to use apps bought from the Mac App Store than ones downloaded in the wild. It didn't have to be that way, says Valleywag's Ryan Tate: 'Apple could have enabled its Launchpad and auto-update features for all applications, sold through the Apple Store or not. For example, an open system for updating applications has been in use for years on Ubuntu... Ubuntu's 'Apt' (Advanced Packaging Tool) lets users install, update, and remove software of their choosing with a single command. There's a central list of apps curated by Ubuntu's maintainers, but users are free to add and install from other lists... But Apple seems to have made a very clear choice not to take the open route.' Longtime Apple developer Dave Winer was also concerned, tweeting during Apple's presentation 'Is this the end of the Mac as an open platform?' The news also prompted developer Anil Dash to call for an open alternative to the Mac App Store."
was never open.
Can we seriously cool it with the 'OMG Lockdown!' claims? Yes, Apple introduced an app store for macs this week, but at the moment there are plenty of other ways to get applications, and use of said app store is certainly not required. When the lockdown is actually in place, then we can complain and move on from OS X to [insert your favorite Linux flavor here]. Let's stop rolling down this slippery slope already.
The battle between the kdawson haters and the Apple haters starts NOW!
Although clearly Apple has not yet closed down OS X - you would still be able to download and install apps from elsewhere I can't help but think this is just the stepping stone to eventual lock down of OSX. The Flash and Java exclusion timings are not mere coincidences. That would be a sad day indeed after Apple took so much from Open Source and used it to build the most closed down system you can imagine. It almost sounds like Apple is asking "Just how much can I get away with?". They will gauge the response, make sure they have enough developer backing to ride on and then one day close it all up. I am sure they will get enough people to both develop and buy apps and that's really going to be the driver to the lock down.
For example, an open system for updating applications has been in use for years on Ubuntu... Ubuntu's 'Apt' (Advanced Packaging Tool) lets users install, update, and remove software of their choosing with a single command. There's a central list of apps curated by Ubuntu's maintainers, but users are free to add and install from other lists.
Man, this "apt" business sounds amazing. Wouldn't it be great if Debian had something like this? Ubuntu should definitely contribute this "apt" upstream.
I have not seen any evidence that the Launchpad is limited ONLY to apps from the Mac App Store. What the Apple site says is that apps from the store are automatically added to Launchpad. That's not the same thing as saying "only" store apps are added to Launchpad. In fact what it says is "Your open windows fade away, replaced by an elegant, full-screen display of all the apps on your Mac." All the apps. (If there's a statement I'm not aware, please post a link...)
Including the apps in the update tool might be useful, but most apps on my Mac check for updates themselves when I start them. It's not like I have to remember to go out and check the Firefox or Adobe sites for patches myself.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Apple using logo of Belgian Neo-Nazi party
Longtime Apple developer Dave Winer was also concerned, tweeting during Apple's presentation 'Is this the end of the Mac as an open platform?'
If Apple is restricting operating system features to whitelisted applications, then it is, by definition, no longer an open platform. There are degrees of openness, of course, but given Apple's approach to the iPhone, my guess is that the Mac will eventually become a similar prison.
The news also prompted developer Anil Dash to call for an open alternative to the Mac App Store."
Rather, pick an open alternative to Apple. It's truly remarkable that Steve Jobs is finally starting to make Microsoft look good. And this comes at a time when Windows is, actually, looking halfway decent and MacOS is starting to look a little dated. If Ballmer has half a brain he'll exploit this to the max.
I guess Apple is expecting the same mindset that made the iPod and iPhone so phenomenally successful to carry over into the personal computer world. Time will tell, but truthfully I don't think much of the bulk of Macintosh users' hold on reality, so chances are, Jobs is going to be right once again. Enough people will stand for this that it will make a metric fuckton of money. That depresses me, somehow.
The amazing thing to me, speaking as someone who was in the ground floor of the personal computer revolution, and still has an Apple ][ Standard with the Integer ROM sitting on a shelf somewhere, is that it is Apple Computer that is pulling this crap on its users. It's the kind of thing that one would more reasonably have expected from the likes of the old IBM, or even MIcrosoft. But no, it comes from the company that once stood for freedom in computing.
No thanks. You've fallen a looong way, Mr. Jobs. What little respect I once had for you just jumped out the window.
In a world of does, Mac doesn't. How's that for a marketing tagline?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Jobs is turning Apple into the very thing he railed against in the early 80s. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Well, then again Jobs is an asshole. He was an asshole in the seventies, a bigger asshole in the 80's growing by leaps and bounds through the nineties and now he's completely unmanageable. But, has more money. A LOT more money. That's what makes me nervous, he has the power to do a lot of damage.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
He's a blogger, not a developer.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The news also prompted developer Anil Dash to call for an open alternative to the Mac App Store.
Wow, what an incredible idea. You mean, like, promoting your app and selling it on your own so that anyone can download it? Like we've been doing for years?
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Lets not let the tail wag the dog. APT was created on and used initially with Debian.
The distro that makes a no-frills version of Ubuntu? Props to them for sending it upstream.
There's already an alternative to the Mac app store - it's called the internet.
My understanding that an Apple announced an additional distribution channel using the Mac App store. Apple was not replacing the existing methods of retail, online, etc. Also Apple is not introducing any DRM to prevent installation. He also doesn't understand existing distribution systems today.
Apple could have enabled its Launchpad and auto-update features for all applications, sold through the Apple Store or not. For example, an open system for updating applications has been in use for years on Ubuntu, a Linux based operating system. Ubuntu's "Apt" (Advanced Packaging Tool) lets users install, update and remove software of their choosing with a single command.
So the author expects that somehow that apps not submitted to Apple will appear magically appear for auto-update? In the case of Ubuntu, there is a system to do handle updates. However, any code installed outside of the system (i.e. tarball or gzip) does not get auto-updated within the system.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
My dollars. My rules.
I think I bought a discount iPod nano, once. It melted itself. And it was hard to copy music to. Enough of that.
No dollars for Steve.
Apple isn't in the business of selling computers, they are in the business of selling a "user experience." That necessarily demands that His Jobsness controls as much of the platform as possible. This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone.
Who said it's a surprise? Why does everyone on slashdot think you can only criticize things you're surprised at? I just don't get it.
Developers had 15 years to try and make something. The only thing that has come close is Steam, and that was on Windows until a few months ago. Now Apple is making it easy to find, purchase and update applications it is suddenly a necessity. The funny thing is if such a thing already existed Apple would have promoted it.
You apparently missed the fact that you also can't include Flash and Java apps in the Mac App Store. If 90% of Mac users get all their apps from the App Store, then that will quickly kill off Flash and Java on the Mac, even before Apple starts locking down the OS.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I find myself skeptical of the launchpad claim. I suspect that someone if confusing code-signing here. since 10.4 apple has been ramping up the strictness of code signing for apps. as of 10.6 unsigned apps can no longer open ports on the firewall without explicit user permission and all unsigned apps spew warnings to the system.log when launched. This is actually mildly annoying if you are writing and testing compiled binaries for your own intranet since it means that you need to distribute a key to all the people on your intranet if you want the apps to not spew silent warnings to the system log. (e.g. commands that you want to run millions of times get slowed down by such spewing). But you can self sign things so this does not impede anything and is merely a minor nuiscance and I put up with it because of the obvious benefits to my own security for having signed apps.
I suspect what is going on for launchpad is that unsigned apps won't work in launchpad. Thus you have to have them signed by some one with a trusted cert for them to work out of the box. It may be that, and I don't know, that you could have the installer self-sign the app at install time as a work around.
ANyhow thats what I suspect. This is a sedeffect of the highly desirable code-signing and not just a requirement to pay apple to use an OS feature.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Only by submitting their apps to Apple's store and giving up 30% of their receipts will developers get to take advantage of two new OS features.
The first is Apple's new 'Launchpad,' a tool for easily opening application
Where exactly does it say that no apps except those bought from the App Store will be available in the Launchpad? Doesn't say that on Apple's page, and the way it's written doesn't even imply it, unless you're out looking for something to post an anti-Apple screed.
the second is the ability to update apps to new versions with one click.
Yeah, because no Mac applications currently have that ability. Oh, unless you count the ~750 listed here, that use Sparkle.
~Philly
Anybody remember when FUD used to mean Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Now it just means "not true". Back in the day something could be FUD and still be 100% true.
I know, I know, word meanings change, languages devolve over time....blah de blah. Still, I miss the days when English was a tool of subtlety and precision.
signed - Wistful Grammar Nazi.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Has anyone from Apple or Oracle said that Oracle's going to do a Mac JVM?
Half the Java team have walked, could they even do one by Lion's launch date if Larry told them to do it? And secondly, it's rather difficult to integrate it into Cocoa as well as Apple have done, if Apple haven't handed the source code to Oracle then they'd need to take Apple developers on.
If Larry is even aware of what's happened he's probably himself how many yachts he can get out of distributing a free JVM for Mac after taking costs into account, and the answer is probably less than one.
The general belief is that money changes a person. But I think the reality is that money shows the true person.
With grand success of his walled garden and the money he made since, he is now behaving more true to himself, unlike his earlier pretense.
The chicken-little fear of OSX becoming "closed" ignores the reality: Macs have barely 10% marketshare, Cross-platform development is common and well understood these days, and if power users (who act as system evangelists) start abandoning OSX, Apple stands to lose LOTS of money.
The moment it becomes even difficult to do my daily job on a Mac is the day I go to Linux permanently... it's quite easy and usable today, but the Mac is more usable and affords me (with VMWare) the best OS for development for now.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Um, no. People will still get those Java and Flash apps from the same place they have always been getting them ... drumroll please ... the internet. This is different from iOS whereby the app store is the ONLY way to install applications. This is just ANOTHER WAY. And come on ... use your noggin ... if Windows created an app store that didn't allow Java or Flash, do you think Java and Flash apps would disappear from that platform as well? It's not like Java is installed by default on Windows machines either.
Currently the new app store is just one of many ways to get apps for your Mac. It has some good points and bad points, but the good one being that it will be easier for developers to get exposure as people will be all looking in one place for apps. The down side is that Apple has realised that taking a cut from other peoples work is by far the best way to make significant profits with minimum investment. The iOS app store has shown Apple that instead having to hire lots of highly skilled staff to build hardware and software it can simply act as a distribution chanel where it has to hold no inventory itself. Just like eBay they are taking a percentage of avery sale without having to make any investment in building the software themselves. Apple has no interest in locking down the MacOS just because of some control freaky, it is purely a profit motive. This is just the first step toward pushing all software sales via apple in order to raise profits. Clearly future editions of MacOS will gradually become more integrated with the App store, so new libraries will only be available to apps that come via the App store, then anything you launch that is not downloaded from the App store will stat displaying dire warnings about "this software has not been approved by apple your computer is at risk'. Untill eventually Apple stop providing development tools for development outside the App store environment until it is only possible to run unsigned apps in some sort of low performance protected sandbox. The more software purchases they can push through their store the more profit they make. Dont make the mistake of thinking that Apple haven't seen that opportunity and will milk it for all it is worth.
Windows will follow suit in just one version!
The Zune store - which SLAVISHLY copies the entire iTunes / App store business and technology model - will be extendaed past Win Phone 7, right down to the desktop.
Pray that Intel gets here first. Then at least, you will have a federated ecosystem of public, corporate and commercial app stores, with flexible policy boundaries.
Otherwise, you are 4 years away from Palladium. Your PC is just like XBox 360!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I don't know of they are moving to complete lockdown, only the top at Apple knows. But what I do now is that:
a) Apple has screwed developer before
b) Apple makes a ton of money with the iPad/iPhone model of walled garden.
c) Jobs likes to take a boil the frog method in marketing by getting a little wedge towards what he wants, and when it's shown to be valuable, move even farther. He did it with the iPod, he did it with iTunes, he did it with the iPhone.
So ti's not hysteria to think he might be moving towards a completely locked down system. It doesn't mean they are or aren't moving that way.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In Ubuntu and Debian, you are not limited to using the central repository with apt. You can add any third-party repositories to the list.
You can do the same with iOS devices.
Only if you represent a business with 500 or more employees, according to the page you linked.
when was the Mac ever an open platform?
Mac OS X is not a free software platform, but it is an open platform to the same extent that the userspace of Windows is an open platform: the platform's maintainer lacks imprimatur power over applications on the platform. The userspace of Android is likewise an open platform unless you're on AT&T (which hides the "Unknown sources" checkbox on its handsets). This stands in sharp contrast to closed platforms such as iOS devices and virtually all video game consoles.
This kind of panic has happened before. I don't understand why so many people freak out any time Apple gets serious about distribution.
Apple's decision to open its own retail stores nearly a decade ago was attacked as a move that would destroy Apple's retail presence and piss off consumers. One clever analyst told MacWorld: "It's another case of Apple being Jobs driven and not consumer driven." Guys like him got it completely backwards. Customers didn't actually enjoy having to look all over the place to find Apple products. Apple customers benefited from the stores. Developers benefited. Apple benefited.
A few years later, Apple created the App Store. It was widely derided as being overly restrictive for developers. There were a lot of statements about how it would strangle the platform. We all know how that turned out.
As for Winer, I think he'd rather Apple stick with the Mac as the future of the company. That ain't gonna happen. Consumers have voted with their wallets. They want an easier experience all the way 'round, from finding apps to purchasing and using them, and Apple is providing that. The company has become a global powerhouse over the last few years by giving people what they want; developers can either get on board with that and find ways to profit, or they can develop on other platforms.
There's a fair amount of snarkiness in the tech community about all those fools in the business world, about all the dinosaurs who can't keep up with the times, but when it comes right down to it, we're often just as attached to the status quo, and just as slow to react.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
No, make no mistake about it -- if Apple wants control of a product space, they *will* make sure they get it, whether that means acquiring, ripping off, or otherwise replacing the existing solutions, they will find a way to do it.
And guess what Cornell's application updater/downloader/launcher system is called? Yup, "LaunchPad". Since 1993.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Except that of those only Solaris, HP/UX and AIX are actually "real Unix". And OSX is a BSD.
-uso.
OS X has a XNU kernel which is a blend of the Mach kernel and some BSD code. It is not strictly a BSD. It also ships with System V branch UNIX code and some GNU userland tools as well as Apple developed tools. OS X is a commercial UNIX both in the trademark sense and that it contains some commercial UNIX code.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Good Lord, people, get hold of yourselves...
Only one problem with this complete nonsense about the platform becoming "locked down" with the creation of the Mac App Store. It's a complete load of crap. The "Mac" and Mac OS X is and will continue to be a general purpose computer system, where you will _always_ be able to install software from any site on the web or install from any boxed CD or DVD or USB stick. The Mac App Store is a brilliant piece of marketing strategy that the Mac users will absolutely adore from day one. When it is in place Apple will have finally succeeded in getting the general public to use something that the Unix/Linux world has been madly barking about for decades: a nearly system-wide package management system. Only Apple will have managed to create a package management system that commercial entities will actually "buy into", so to speak, which has been the major flaw in the package management systems in the Unix/Linux world for so very long. Once again, without even breaking a sweat, Apple is about to something we wish we'd been able to do for the last couple of decades.
Mac OS X has had a sort of package management system (which works very well, BTW) for system updates for... well pretty much forever. Since its inception, I believe. But now, with a Mac App Store, users will have a single source to browse for and download both free and commercial software, have it _automatically_ install itself in the proper location with a single click*, and then keep dozens upon dozens of large and small apps completely up to date with a system-wide single-click update mechanism. Users will know that software from the Mac App Store has been vetted as being safe, having a certain quality level and not being completely pointless. Currently, most Mac applications are pretty smart about telling you there is an update available, and many of them will do a single-click download and update without much fuss. But this normally only happens when you run the app. Unfortunately, when you're starting an app it's usually because you want to use it, so it's kind of a pain to be constantly having one individual app after another telling you there is an update available. With the Mac App Store the users will have a central place to look for and receive notices of application updates, and a single button that will download and apply all relevant updates.
The moment the Mac App Store was revealed I immediately saw that it would change the way the typical Mac user will manage software on their computer, and everyone else will once again be stuck trying to cobble something together and catch up. Microsoft will desperately attempt to have something similar in place in the next version of Windows. Of course they will fail horribly, as usual. What will happen is that the Mac platform will continue to accelerate and gain more and more users on into the foreseeable future, because Apple is completely boxing in all market demographics. Between the iPhone, the iPad and now a new mind-bogglingly simple to use Mac platform, the PC world is going to be in serious trouble. Mark my words. Remember, the paying market could not care less about the kinds of "openness" we're always worrying about here on /. They want stuff that's as easy to use as their TV, and Apple is the only one giving them what they want.
Trust me folks, this is going to be _big_. The few developers who complain that the Mac App Store is too tightly controlled and refuse to use it will unfortunately be completely drowned out by the thundering horde who will be rushing to use it and showering praise on it for the next decade. Those of us "in the know" will continue to download apps from the general internet and use our general purpose computers as general purpose computers. That simply won't change. If it does change somewhere down the line, there's always Linux. Ten years from now I'm sure Linux will be kicking some major ass and still be just as open as ever. And even if the Mac platform keeps growing phenomenally the way it h