Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mac OS X 10.6.6 Introduces App Store

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the there's-an-app-for-that dept.

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."

5 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 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: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.