Slashdot Mirror


Mac OS X 10.6.6 Introduces App Store

Orome1 writes "Apple today released Mac OS X 10.6.6 which increases the stability, compatibility, and security of your Mac. What's also very important in this release is the introduction of the long-awaited Mac App Store with more than 1,000 free and paid apps."

20 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. I can't wait to buy things!!! by Fibe-Piper · · Score: 5, Funny

    People were previously not able to buy enough Apple products online, in the Apple store, and Best Buy and Walmart. Finally a new way to consume more!

    --
    I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
    1. Re:I can't wait to buy things!!! by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Having just downloaded the update, I find the pricing very interesting. I'm in the UK at the moment, so YMMV if you're elsewhere, but Apple's own software is significantly cheaper on the App store than on DVD from the normal Apple store. I actually used Aperture (Apple's pro photo application) as an example yesterday of something we wouldn't be seeing on the app store - turns out that not only was I wrong, but they've given it a major price cut: £173 for a boxed copy, or £44.99 for a download on the app store. Similarly, iLife sells for £46, but the three component apps are £8.99 each (so £27 total) on the app store. iWork follows the same template: £72 boxed, or £11.99 each for the three apps that it's formed from.

      A quick browse through makes it fairly clear that the pricing is rather disparate at the moment - I expect it'll settle down as people have a bit more experience with the store - but the thing that surprises me is the quantity of software at £11.99 or so; some of it seems overpriced, some of it seems reasonable, but in either case I absolutely wasn't expecting that price point to be so popular. It seems too high for a basic utility which may or may not be better than the best OSS offering, and too low for a serious application (although Apple's decision to place their office applications at that price means maybe it is high enough for serious software if they plan to make it up in volume). Whether it survives is anyone's guess, though.

    2. Re:I can't wait to buy things!!! by voidptr · · Score: 4, Informative

      One of the guidelines for submitting to the app store is x86 / x86_64 binaries only. Fat binaries with PPC code segments aren't allowed.

      There doesn't appear to be any intent from Apple to backport it into anything older than Snow Leopard, and even if they did add it to Leopard, it would be Intel only.

      --
      This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
    3. Re:I can't wait to buy things!!! by Americano · · Score: 3, Informative

      Everybody who doesn't have 10.6 can continue installing software like they always have - they lose nothing by not installing this patch.

      If you need an app that's only sold on the app store, and the developer totally refuses to sell it any other way, then do business with someone else, or consider whether or not it's time to upgrade to 10.6.

      More and more software is being released "Snow Leopard only" because it takes advantage of features and frameworks that were added in Snow Leopard. At some point, getting "new stuff" will require you to have a system that's capable of running that "new stuff".

    4. Re:I can't wait to buy things!!! by Graff · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apologies for replying to myself, but it'd be useful if someone could post the USD prices for comparison - see if they're trying to implement regional price differences (over and above the necessary exchange rate + taxes) or not.

      Take a look at this article:

      Mac App Store Launches with 1,000 Apps, Big Discounts

      Apple's flagship photo-editing software, Aperture, is in the store for just $80. You can still buy it from the conventional Apple Store, but it'll cost the usual $200.

      The three iWork apps, Pages, Numbers and Keynote, cost $20 apiece, a saving on the usual $80 bundle price.

    5. Re:I can't wait to buy things!!! by Cinder6 · · Score: 3, Informative

      10.6 requires in Intel Mac. If this was an update right at the beginning of the Intel transition, then yes, people have a right to be upset. But it's not. Apple has been Intel-only since 2006. So it's actually pretty dang likely a good amount of any "legacy" 10.4 installs can upgrade to 10.6 just fine. Also remember this isn't Microsoft--OS X doesn't cost a couple hundred dollars to get the un-neutered version. Snow Leopard is $30.

      I'm happy when companies support their old stuff--for a time. After a while, though, it just causes stagnation. I see people complaining all the time about Microsoft having to support legacy stuff and how it bogs down the system, but when Apple cuts off support, they're suddenly in the wrong.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    6. Re:I can't wait to buy things!!! by Americano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The PPC system is, even if it was the last PPC system produced, at least 4.5 years old. The PowerMac G5 was last produced in July/August of 2006. It's now January 2011.

      So let's look at the facts:
      1) The App Store is not the only way to get software. It will *never* be the *only* way to get software for your Mac. There is NO reason to believe it will *ever* be the *only* way to get software for your Mac.

      2) It's been known since 2005 that PPC macs would eventually be unsupported.

      3) If you want to continue running your PowerPC system, you can keep running whatever release of 10.4 or 10.5 is on it just fine. You can also install new software whenever you like: just not through the Mac App store.

      So how are you being "forced" to upgrade your hardware by this patch? Pray tell, how is Apple going to lock down your system and prevent you from installing or doing whatever you like with your PowerPC system?

      (Hint: They can't do a single thing to it, other than 'end support' for it. Which means you can keep running it until the hardware self-destructs if you want.)

    7. Re:I can't wait to buy things!!! by Reaperducer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I feel your pain. I've been trying for months to find new 6581 chips for my Commodore 64. I can't believe no one is supporting it anymore. Sure, GEOS runs fine, and I can still get my software the way I always have (at the flea market), but good luck finding a decent REU these days. But that's how it always is -- the vendors get you hooked, and then call you "obsolete."

      I don't care what Commodore says, there's no way I'm "upgrading" to a C=128. This kind of forced obsolecence should be illegal!

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  2. Re:Watch, more censorship to come.. by pympdaddyc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's not an analogous situation though. In the case of iOS, you can only install an application if it's available in the iOS App Store (ignoring jail breaking and such, of course). The only way around that would be to have a web application, which in many ways is a poor substitute for having a native app. But in the case of OS X, you can still install/build any application you'd like. It's not as though using Steam prevents you from buying Starcraft II from Blizzard. In fact, the Mac App Store model is explicitly meant for types of applications that don't have to make system changes or integrate with the OS, something entire classes of desktop applications need to be able to do. Unlike iOS, this isn't attempting to be the only avenue for application installation, it's simply meant to be convenient. (can use your Apple ID, download and update your apps through one central location, develop and distribute paid applications without having to have your own purchasing infrastructure, etc)

  3. Re:Watch sparks fly over guidelines by Americano · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't like the Mac App Store, but like the repository concept? Install and use Bodega - http://www.appbodega.com./ They have no guidelines, and have said they're not going anywhere.

    Or, you know, continue downloading and installing disk image and other installer files from the web like you've always done.

  4. Re:Watch sparks fly over guidelines by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Debian project does have some fairly strict guidelines: they're just not related to content, so much as they are licensing of content. It must be "free" and unencumbered. They also, I suspect, have some guidelines/rules related to functionality, packaging namespace, privacy functionality,

    Honestly, aside from the guidelines which mainly pertain to for-pay programs and legal liability (crude content, violence, etc.) I didn't really see anything in the Apple dev guidelines that jumped out at me and said "bad!" It's mostly just "if you want to play ball with us, you have to play by our rules." Exclusionary? Sure, if the dev wants to do something different, sure.

    FreeBSD doesn't do 'repositories', so to speak. They do ports, and then FreeBSD. They're conveniently independent (I suspect so that the FreeBSD project can claim superior security to everything else). Even then, ports don't really have 'guidelines'. "I maintain this port and I'll update it as I please, consequences be damned" seems to be the guiding message, though.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  5. Re:Can't run it. by Americano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the fuck are you on about? The Mac App Store has the same requirements as the Snow Leopard release:

    1) Mac system running Intel processor;
    2) 1 GB of RAM;
    3) 5 GB of disk space;
    4) DVD Drive

    That's it. The entirety of the "required specs" to run Snow Leopard. There is no Intel mac that's been released since 2006 that doesn't have at least those specs, unless you ripped hardware out of it, or put together a Hackintosh of your own, and did it badly, and cheaply.

    Or are you complaining because *you decided* not to upgrade to Snow Leopard, and now can't upgrade to the latest Snow Leopard patch, which includes the App Store?

  6. Re:Innovation by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really? Is that why I can move my home directory from one linux install to another and the programs will still run?

    Please don't even argue this point. Linux is a bit behind the curve and the only people who would argue otherwise are people who don't use both OS's. Sure you can copy your home directory on Linux, or use the stored installer (if you are expert enough to know where they go) for an individual app (on some distros)... all provided you are running on the same architecture.

    With OS X you can literally drag an application into a chat window to a friend, who is running a different version of your OS, running on a different chipset and that friend can double click the app and run it. It's a great deal more painless since all the apps are the installers and are self contained directories ending in .app. It's one of the things Apple got right and where no Linux distro has enough pull to push change, especially since it is not a big pain point for end users. Additionally, the OpenStep packages make running software off a network drive or flash drive or anywhere really, easier by allowing for multiple sets of preferences and multiple included binaries to get around the whole hack of symlinks or multiple copies for multiple architectures.

    Linux is not ahead in every area, just as OS X and Windows are behind in other areas. Get over it.

  7. Re:All your moneys are belong to Apple by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If "developers will hand over 30 percent of the purchase price to Apple," what will consumer prices be?

    Have you ever worked in the end user software development business? 30% going to distribution, credit card processing, and managing updates isn't bad. When you add in the amount of publicity it generates by being in THE searchable software database for end users, well, likely prices will drop as advertising will drive more sales, more price competition, and larger volumes.

  8. Re:Can't run it. by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My four year old Intel-Mac doesn't have the required specs.

    It has. You are just too cheap to spend $29 on Snow Leopard.

  9. Re:Watch sparks fly over guidelines by icebraining · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Debian project does have some fairly strict guidelines: they're just not related to content, so much as they are licensing of content. It must be "free" and unencumbered.

    Wrong. They just have separate sections; main, contrib and non-free, all maintained by the Debian project. You can search for non-free packages as easily as with free packages: http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages#search_packages

    Sure, they must be legality distributable binaries - or else Debian themselves couldn't put it in the mirror - but it's not required to be free software. Adobe Flash, the proprietary Oracle JDK, non-free firmware, there are plenty of non-free packages in Debian.

  10. Re:What about applications I already own? by CrackedButter · · Score: 3, Informative

    The App store detected my copy of Aperture and considers it as being installed.

  11. OS X Stats from major website by LanMan04 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here are the stats I see on our website (major financial institution):

    OS X: 100.00%
    Intel 10.6: 53.27%
    Intel 10.5: 31.25%
    Intel 10.4: 5.64%
    PPC 10.4: 4.78%
    PPC 10.5: 2.33%

    The remaining 2.73% is crap data.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  12. Re:Innovation by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, Linux relies upon dependency resolution at install time. OS X uses self contained packages with a dynamic linking scheme. That's the difference I was bringing up and what enables OS X to have more easily portable applications and better ability to use remote software.

    Again, no, you seem to misunderstand what linux does and does not do.

    Both systems work in both of the ways you have described. See e.g. MATLAB for linux (no install time dependency resolution), or Fink/Macports which does install-time dependency resolution on OSX.

    On OS X the executable(s) and resources are in the same directory along with the libraries that aren't standard on the OS.

    That's exactly the same way that 3rd party self-contined rather than package-managed software works on Linux. And the standard Linux way is exactly the same way that third-party package-managed software works on OSX (e.g. Fink).

    As for unable to share libraries, that's not true. They do share libraries dynamically linking to the most up to date within the stable line. You can literally install a singed package and your other apps will upgrade or fall back to their own copy as needed because multiple copies are stored (one per app that uses it).

    Are you claiming that if two different .apps have the same .dylib buried in their directory somewhere, then when the two apps are running, only one copy of the .dylib will reside in RAM? If so, then [citation needed] because I've never heard of that happening before.

    It doesn't work as well, especially for...

    No, it works vastly better except for... ...apps installed not using the package manger (as a Linux user I'm sure you have to deal with these as well) and it falls down in the several, specific use cases I mentioned in my last post (and which you did not address).

    Of course the package manager doesn't manage non-packages. Much like the .app method doesn't help executables that aren't .apps. For non managed packages the install process is usually a case or running the installer executable, which is I will grant more awkward than using a .app on OSX (though plenty of OSX programs also seem to require installing, too). But not much, given that the majority of installed software is done through the package management system.

    For the managed packages everything works effortlessly, like magic.

    OK, back to your other points. I've never had a problem with networked executables. Things seem to run over NFS just as well as locally. And multi-arch programs also seem to run just fine. I believe that matlab uses a wrapper script internally to invoke the correct binary. But frankly, I run it and it works.

    You do know that basically no applications get stored in /sw/bin right? That's mostly for bad ports and legacy software. Even OpenOffice installs as a .app these days and it can be stored anywhere the user likes.

    No, everything fink installs goes in /sw. It isn't just "legacy" things as fink has up to date versions of plenty of packages. I find that the term "legacy" in computing is generally used as a pejorative, to dismiss a piece of software without offering any coherent reasons.

     

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  13. Re:Why an OS upgrade? by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do we need to upgrade and reboot the operating system to run, just, a new application?

    Love it or hate it, Apple will drag its userbase, kicking and screaming if necessary, forward. In the end it's for the good of both Apple and their customers. If you want to live in the past, install windows xp ;)

    Apple supports their OS to, at most, one version back. Period. No exceptions, no extensions. But they also do their damndest to make the transitions as painless/smooth/transparent as possible. (classic,rosetta,etc) If you make it easy and orderly, and do it periodically, it's not a problem for the vast majority of users.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.