Apple To Distribute OS X Lion via the Mac App Store

An anonymous reader writes "Apple this Summer is expected to release Mac OS X Lion. As opposed to other OS X releases, however, Lion will also be available for purchase via the Mac App Store, further solidifying Apple's efforts to make the Mac App Store an integral part of the Mac user experience." A lot of questions surrounding this related to the ability to make bootable disks. And also, why don't they just use apt-get? I gotta admit: it makes me nervous getting my OS from an App Store — which is strange considering how many kernels I've downloaded, built and booted over the years.

Comments

Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[elrous0]

This is just the latest attempt to promote the Mac app store, but it's also another step toward what's ultimately coming. Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores. Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.

I would like to think that people would howl about this when it happens, of course. But I bet that Apple will sell it as a necessary security measure to protect against viruses and attacks, and that most Mac users (and most members of the public) will be all-too-willing to trade freedom for security. Sadly, it will probably only increase Mac sales--prompting other PC makers to follow suite with their own closed systems.

I shudder to think that we may one day look back and ask "Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?"

And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom would never do that.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

nah, i'm with you: it certainly seems apple is going this way which really sucks, as os x is my preferred os atm.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[clang_jangle]

I think you're probably correct about the direction Apple is headed in. I bought my first Mac in 1987 but their behavior has effectively alienated me the last couple of years, along with the fact that OS X is nearly as buggy as windows now, and plus the Applestore techs were not competent to repair the last Mac I owned (If you have to replace the replacement "logic board" then maybe the problem wasn't ever the "logic board").

As far as the OS goes, Tiger was the pinnacle -- it's gone downhill since then. I think I knew in my heart this would happen in 2005, the day they issued the Tiger update that eliminated console login.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple were to introduce desktop solutions along the same, restrictive lines as the mobile devices. However, their base of creative and technical users is sufficiently wide to ensure that a whole-hearted switch to this methodology would be met with a reduction in sales. Blocking all but Apple-approved apps on any of their devices makes it even more sensible to continue in-browser app development, not least taking advantage of the new web storage features available via HTML5 for working offline.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

> I would like to think that people would howl about this when it happens, of course.

Like they howled about the same thing on iPads? Lock down their platform, restrict what they can do, and people eat that stuff up. People *love* being told what they can and cannot do with their own computers.

> Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?

We're not quite there yet, but I've been watching the industry a long time - since about a decade before the first home computers from Altair started showing up - and that is certainly the vector. Sadly, nobody seems to care.

I give it another 20 years. It'll happen for "security" reasons, under guise of protecting us from spams and malwares, to protect Sony from break ins, to protect content providers. Whether it'll do that does not matter; it will be the excuse for needing permission to use our own machines.

And people will eat it up. They always do.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[bunhed]

I think that's clearly where they are headed too. Apple was never into 'open' and I'll bet these last 10 years spiking the koolaid with FOSS have grated on their sense of rightness. iTunes was one thing but this app store business... it's all coming home now. I've already moved my world back to linux. OS/X was great for a while though. I'll probably even miss it a little bit, but that's all.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

If that were Apple's plan they would just come out and say it. They make no bones about doing it on their iPhones, iPod Touches, iPads so why what do they gain from lying and saying they AREN'T doing it to OS X? Oh, right, that doesn't make for a great bit of Apple trolling.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[CharlyFoxtrot]

This is just the latest attempt to promote the Mac app store, but it's also another step toward what's ultimately coming. Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores.

It's also eating their own dog food and getting the OS upgrade over the internet seems like a good thing: less pollution, no waiting, etc. Apps downloaded through the Mac App Store are regular files just like those downloaded from anywhere else. I'm guessing this software update will be just an image stored somewhere on your hard disk. I won't say Apple would never do what you're suggesting but I will say they can't. You can't get the toothpaste back into the tube. If they truly wanted to do what you describe they'd have to replace computers entirely with iOS based devices, I can't see that happening.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, Apple has made it clear that boxed versions with a disk will also be available as always. The App Store is just another means of distribution. I thought choice was good and more choice better...?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[betterunixthanunix]

Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.

More likely, Apple will sell two increasingly separated lines of computers: the "consumer" line and the "professional" line, and the professional line will cost many times more and not be locked down like the consumer line. Those who pay the "professional premium" will be allowed to run their own programs without approval from Apple, including compilers and scripting environments, and will of course be able to develop programs for consumer computers (but will naturally have to pay Apple for distribution privileges).

And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

Ditto.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Much like how the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad would all fail when competing against more open products?

Techies and slashdot users in particular SUCK at predicting the future, particularly where Apple's concerned.

I can see a future where it becomes more difficult to shoot yourself in the foot. But removing the option to install software that isn't from the App Store? get fucking real.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[M. Baranczak]

And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

Oh, they'd like to. But do you really think they'd get away with it? They got away with it on iOS, because that was a completely new market. So there wasn't a previous version to compare it with. If they cripple an existing product (Mac OS), you bet their users will complain.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[betterunixthanunix]

If they truly wanted to do what you describe they'd have to replace computers entirely with iOS based devices, I can't see that happening.

Considering the enormous amount of money they have made on iOS and the App Store, I do not see any reason why they could not pursue such a strategy, or perhaps a slightly modified version: iOS for "consumers" (priced at a level that a typical home user can afford) and high powered workstations that are not locked down for "professionals" (which will be priced at a level that consumers are unlikely to pay).

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Skarecrow77]

If that were Apple's plan they would just come out and say it. They make no bones about doing it on their iPhones, iPod Touches, iPads so why what do they gain from lying and saying they AREN'T doing it to OS X? Oh, right, that doesn't make for a great bit of Apple trolling.

If he was trolling, which I don't think he was, doesn't that mean you just fed the troll?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[alen]

unless apple changes the rules software meant for corporate use will never be sold via the Mac App store. Software is a low margin product for a retailer and a PITA for a developer to sell it to a distributor and retailer who have to take their cut.

distribution via the Mac App store will give small developers an easier way to sell software

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

I bow my hat to your successful trolling, good sir.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Ephemeriis]

It isn't just Apple doing this - Microsoft is rolling out an app store of their own, BlackBerry has an app store, Google's got an Android app store...

And, what you've failed to realize, is that most people think this is a good thing.

No shopping around. Don't have to go out to the store. No discs to keep track of. Just click a button and your software appears.

Sure, I want to be able to install my own software without having to jailbreak/hack/crack/whatever my devices... But I'm in the minority these days.

Apple isn't forcing this on anybody, people are begging them for it.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[kmdrtako]

Forget the end, Macs were closed from the beginning. Why anything thinks they were ever open is beyond me.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[moronoxyd]

Since when, exactly, is Apple known to be open about what they're doing or planing to do?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[thoromyr]

I don't think Apple would do it, but I sure wouldn't say never. At the least, developers will need a computer to actually develop on and Apple wants them to use one of /their/ computers to do so and pretty much by definition a development system can't be locked down against unapproved software. So I doubt they will entirely do away with "open" systems. On the other hand, they might very well market a "home computer" that was effectively locked down.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[powerlord]

Except that a lot of the people that consist of the Apple "Grass Roots" are power users who are likely to balk at such a setup.

More likely, someone realized that since OS X DVDs do NOT come with a License key, and you can already make an ISO image of them easily using the software built into OS X, why not just sell it through the App Store and let people download and burn their own image?

It costs less to the Manufacturer. (packaging/shipping costs)
It cuts the middleman out. (don't need to give Best Buy or other non-apple on-line/retail stores a cut)
It provides quick availability. (as fast as their servers and your pipe can handle)
It provides a remote backup for customers. (a + for non-technically savvy customers)

All in all it seems like wins all around, I'm not sure why Apple WOULDN'T do this.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[RobertLTux]

the big problem with doing a motherboard swap is any time you replace one of the MB , CPU/RAM , PSU triad you stand a 20% chance of having to replace either or both of the OTHER parts of the triad.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

If they truly wanted to do what you describe they'd have to replace computers entirely with iOS based devices, I can't see that happening.

Since Microsoft Windows is heading in the same direction as Apple and the App Store, Apple will not need to take over -- Microsoft does not want unsigned programs and/or sideloading except for with business editions.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have to replace the replacement "logic board" then maybe the problem wasn't ever the "logic board"

Or there's a defect in the design. ....wouldn't be the first time.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[cpu6502]

Tiger is which version? 10.4? The last powerPC variant?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[couchslug]

I don't shudder, as I don't use their fucking software, I don't give them my money, and I don't care if they set their customers on fire and put them out with explosives like a Boots and Coots does oil well fires.

"Waah. The bad proprietary software man broke it off in my ass because I craved the shiny!"

Choices have consequences.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that a lot of the people that consist of the Apple "Grass Roots" are power users who are likely to balk at such a setup.

And where will they turn? Linux? Get real.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[MBGMorden]

Apple's desktops are already not really geared towards corporate use though. Apple's target market has always been home use, and the creative types working on films and other such artistic pursuits (ie, the type of environment where there usually isn't a formal IT department, and if there is, it's not your standard corporate setup).

Just about anybody running payroll, crunching spreadsheets, and doing all the other mundane stuff associated with plain old business computing, is doing it on a PC. I think a big part of that is just due to the mountain of obscure niche software that most businesses run. Most businesses are tied to an industry, and most industries have incredibly specific little things they need done. I work in government and we have to use very specialized software for tax billing, property appraisals, building permits, veteran's claim form tracking, etc. All things things are very specialized but used in few other industries. As a result, you have at most 2 or 3 vendors to choose from for most of this stuff and naturally, hoping to target the largest amounts of customers (particularly given that they might only have a few dozen customers total), this software gets written for Windows.

 

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Because some of us live in rural areas with usage caps on our Internet connections and downloading a DVD worth of OS would use up nearly all of that cap? Because some of us LIKE having a physical disc in hand? Because Apple had sold "family packs" allowing upgrades of multiple computers with the same set of discs, which is nice for those of us who hand down our old hardware to our kids when we upgrade?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Well aren't you special.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[xouumalperxe]

10.5 still supported PPC

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[stewbacca]

People *love* being told what they can and cannot do with their own computers.

I can't speak for all people (nor can you, but that won't stop you anyway), but I personally *love* being able to use a nicely designed machine with as little fuss as possible. I also *love* the fact that if I wanted to dork out on my machine I could boot into Linux or Windows as well.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[MBGMorden]

I don't think anyone is claiming that app-stores in general are a bad thing. It's just that Apple has in the past proven that they are more than willing to set up a platform so that their app-store is the ONLY method for getting software on the device. The other players you mention have not done that.

Consider it like a kitchen knife. I use kitchen knives all the time - they're wonderful tools with a lot of utility. If Wolfgang Puck asks to borrow one I wouldn't regard that with a bit of suspicion. If Charles Manson asked for one though, there's going to be an issue.

Apple has already destroyed my trust in them. The locked down situation on their mobile devices isn't a "What if", a "You know, they might . . .", or any other situation. It's real, it's here. They did it. I don't trust them anymore. End of story.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[grrrgrrr]

This is mostly a commend about slashdot moderation. The original poster is entitled to his opinions of course but how the hell can baseless wild speculation be considered insightful????

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[stewbacca]

My work alone has over 5,000 Macs, so your "user base of thousands" quip isn't really that funny. I *think* I read 9% of computers on the planet run some form of OSX.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[houstonbofh]

I give it another 20 years. It'll happen for "security" reasons, under guise of protecting us from spams and malwares, to protect Sony from break ins, to protect content providers. Whether it'll do that does not matter; it will be the excuse for needing permission to use our own machines.

Not to me. I will be running Silly Sea-monster. It is funny, that the majors are making Linux look more viable all the time. That with the fact that Linux is improving as well, can only help. Already, every Humble Inde Bundle, 25% or the revenue is Linux. Not bad for a niche OS with less than 1% market share... Or could that be wrong?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Like they howled about the same thing on iPads? Lock down their platform, restrict what they can do, and people eat that stuff up. People *love* being told what they can and cannot do with their own computers.

No, it's just that not everyone is "into" computers, and want a simple device for internet access and streaming. It really is just that simple.

Some day you ragged geek filth will pull your heads out and look through he telescope the right way. Until then, you scumbags will continue to say stupid stuff like this.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[omnichad]

Mac app store purchases are good for 5 computers. Not sure if this would be different. What I see happening is them charging $30 for it on the App store and go back to $129 for the retail store pricing.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[clang_jangle]

As I said, the problem was the only answer they seem to have at the Applestore (at Lennox Mall, Atlanta) is "replace the 'logic board'". And when that "logic board" dies, replace it again. That'll fix it!

They may have been trying to just patch it up and get rid of me because I was nearly out of warranty and by "fixing it" to work for just a few more weeks they expected I'd be back with cash to spend. Maybe that works on some people, but when it died yet again, this time out of warranty, I just junked it and replaced it with an old tank of a G4 running Tiger (It's a recording studio Mac, not a personal machine). It isn't as if the state of multitrack recording software has changed all that much in the last decade. :) So until Linux has it's pro multimedia act together I'll just use the old Macs that were tanks and ran forever with the old software. They still work just fine for that purpose.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[MrHanky]

Having just helped migrating a user from XP to Windows 7, I appreciate openness even more than I did before. No, you can't just buy a new mainboard when the old one is fried, since your OEM version of XP won't run on it. No, you can't use your old corporate install of Office on your new Windows 7 install. You're supposed to pay 100s of dollars for a new license when you upgrade. And no, migrating your own mail from Outlook 2003 to a free -- or commercial -- alternative basically sucks sweaty donkey balls and is barely possible (interestingly, the solution was to copy the files to a Linux box and convert them with one of the readily available tools there).

A future where you depend on corporate support for everything isn't one where shooting yourself in the foot has become more difficult, it's one where you've already shot yourself. Techies know this because they've got experience. Inexperienced users are inexperienced because they still haven't learned this.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still log into the console in 10.6, I still do it every now and then. Plus there's always Terminal or iTerm. And for me stability has been.... up and down. Always buggy on release, but after about 2 months, stable for me.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[golden age villain]

I would tend to agree with you but it seems likely that Father Steve is not going to run Apple for several more decades. I wonder how much of this "closing" comes from his drive and if this culture is going to stay or be abandoned as he ultimately leaves the direction of the company to someone else. Time will tell.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[m.ducharme]

This is in fact my problem; I use Apple computers in the home exclusively now, and I can't say that the Mac App Store makes me happy. I don't know if Apple will completely close off the desktop platform or not; I think it could still go either way, but I get nervous when stuff like this happens. On the other hand, every time I decide to expand my options with an eye to the future, I'm forcefully reminded why I switched to Macs from Windows and linux boxen in the first place; linux, after all these years, still requires too much tinkering to make it work unobtrusively, and with major recent/upcoming upgrades to the main desktop environments, guarantees me configuration/learning curve headaches for years to come. As for Windows, well all I have to do is get asked to work on one of my extended family's computers to remember all the things I loathe about windows. It will suffice to say that I do not want an OS that causes me to gnash my teeth and rend my clothes on a daily basis.

Mac OS X is getting more closed all the time, but it's still better for me (at getting the hell out of my way and letting me enjoy my computer) than all the other options. So, what do?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[stewbacca]

More likely, someone realized that since OS X DVDs do NOT come with a License key, and you can already make an ISO image of them easily using the software built into OS X, why not just sell it through the App Store and let people download and burn their own image?

Exactly this. The article questioned just how would the poor soul who downloads Lion make a physical copy? Uhh, use the disk imaging utility that comes with every Mac and make an image of it, then burn it to a disk (or back it up to time machine, other backup drive, other computers in your house). I wouldn't be surprised that if you lost your download you would be able to redownload it (not that you can do this with iTunes, but I hear rumors...)

My older MacBook's cd player stopped working a couple years ago. I just upgraded it from Leopard to Snow Leopard by making a disk image, then copying the image to the MacBook desktop and running it from there. Really, every time articles pop up like this with faux problems, there is generally a very simple, and often preferred, workaround.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

IS THAT YOU STEVE?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[clang_jangle]

You're probably referring to single user mode. That's not the same as having a full-fledged console login with all services available. As soon as you exit single user mode the GUI comes up.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[stewbacca]

Techies and slashdot users in particular SUCK at predicting the future, particularly where Apple's concerned.

That's because they insist on calling Apple gear "fashion accessories" yet they themselves have no sense of fashion to begin with.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[deckitbruiseit]

We may have the choice now, but as much as I hate to say it, I have to agree that this looks like more of a transition than an expansion of options.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[somersault]

Sure, I want to be able to install my own software without having to jailbreak/hack/crack/whatever my devices... But I'm in the minority these days.

It's not that people are begging for it, it's just that a lot of people are not that bothered. When they do get bothered, and if they have the guts to void their warranty or risk bricking their device, they jailbreak it.

Having an app store has nothing to do with being locked down. I'm pretty sure Ubuntu had its "Software Centre" before the iPhone came out. Steam definitely existed long before iOS. You can still install other stuff if you want. Android has an official app market, but still lets you install other stuff if you want. MS will have to still let people install their own software - there isn't really any way around it. BlackBerry seem to love their DRM so I wouldn't be surprised if they go the Apple route.

Anyway, I've always loved Steam, and the Software Center in Ubuntu, and I'm glad that more companies are seeing the merit in digital distribution. Still not going to buy another Mac for a long time (I grew up with them and loved them, but I tried an MBP around 2009 and it sucked big time - hot and noisy as hell if you actually tried using it for anything serious).

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[powerlord]

More likely, Apple will sell two increasingly separated lines of computers: the "consumer" line and the "professional" line, and the professional line will cost many times more and not be locked down like the consumer line. Those who pay the "professional premium" will be allowed to run their own programs without approval from Apple, including compilers and scripting environments, and will of course be able to develop programs for consumer computers (but will naturally have to pay Apple for distribution privileges).

They already do this.
The Consumer line has names like "iPhone", "iPod", "iPad", "AppleTV".
The Professional line has names like "iMac", "MacBook", "MacPro".

The lines have a fair amount of synergy between them, and there has been a push to make the Consumer line more "stand-a-lone" (over-the-air updating exists for AppleTV but is rumored to finally come to the iPhone/iPodTouch/iPad in iOSv5).

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[elrous0]

They'll be a few defectors, sure. But I bet they'll be far outnumbered by the people who flock to the Mac for its safety.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't shudder, as I don't use their fucking software,

Neither do I, but given the current trends, it will eventually be impossible to avoid this lock down.

Some combination of hardware manufacturers and laws will move to ensure only "trusted" OSs can be run, and that will exclude Linux. It's a matter of when, not if.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[somersault]

Please explain this, or are you just trolling?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[ZipprHead]

along with the fact that OS X is nearly as buggy as windows now,

This is a fact? I don't believe it. Citation please.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Chas]

So you're saying you're a majority of the Mac userbase?

Nice to meet you!

*Whispers to aide* Get me my elephant gun please.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[stewbacca]

And, what you've failed to realize, is that most people think this is a good thing.

No shopping around. Don't have to go out to the store. No discs to keep track of. Just click a button and your software appears.

Funny how this is generally considered a good thing with Steam, but the Apple-haters will be out in full force denouncing this (proven successful with Steam) strategy.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

i wouldn't call the imac a professional level device, nor the macbook. it's really just the macbook pro and mac pro.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

True.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[h4rr4r]

Those folks are not "into" anything. They don't know how their car works, how a microwave works, why the sky is blue or much of anything else. They are not terminally stupid, they can read but chose not to.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[stewbacca]

What exactly is not open about Macs? Perhaps OSX isn't as open as you'd like because you can't run it on a PC (legally), but Mac hardware can run anything (legally). I know several developers who own Macs (even though they'd never own a Mac because they wanted one) because they can legally and easily develop for anything (OSX, iOS, Android, Windows, Linux...pretty much anything they need to make money).

 

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[ZorinLynx]

Type >console as the username and no password.

Viola.

It's still there. Stop spreading FUD.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jo_ham]

If it fails again it will be a replacement, per Applecare - they'll just swap you out for a new machine. A certain number of identical part replacements simply activates the "lemon" button and the whole machine is marked "suspect". You 'suspect' it was just to get you out of the store so you'd buy a new computer, I 'suspect' it was a tech support person just trying to do their job by fixing your computer. I guess it depends how cynical you are.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[h4rr4r]

Signed packages are good, almost all the software I used is signed. The problem is who controls the keys and can you over rule them. Since I use linux machines this is not an issue for me.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[NatasRevol]

No, he's not.

At the login window, type:
>console

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[stewbacca]

Funny thing about that "development" part. My company used to by 100% Microsoft only certified partner, all that garbage. When iOS came out, we started seeing a Macbook Pro here and there around the office to develop on (in each case, in the beginning, it was a personal Mac brought from home). Fast forward two years, and the MBP is the preferred dev platform for many of our guys. Our IT guys hate them, most likely due to their own ignorance of Macs in enterprise and/or Macs not playing well in the established IT processes).

I'm pretty sure Apple knows this, so they are going to want to do everything possible to keep Macs open in effort to garner more interest and market share.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Alaukik]

Why will you have to look back just buy a normal personal computer or laptop and install GNU/Linux on it !

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[maxume]

Did you try installing Thunderbird on the source machine and importing there?

If so, what went wrong?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[powerlord]

i wouldn't call the imac a professional level device, nor the macbook. it's really just the macbook pro and mac pro.

It depends what your profession is.

I know several Graphic Designers who have a MacBook to work at remote locations when they are traveling (usually on business).

I also know someone who works in the publishing business (typesetting / layout editor), who uses iMacs exclusively. Big screen, compact device for a SoHo, lots of expansion ports for Scanner, TimeMachine backup drive, printer.

One Professional's Requirements may not be the same as another Professional.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[NatasRevol]

Or open up a command line...

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[clang_jangle]

It doesn't matter anymore. Apple is dead to me now ***sniff***

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Ephemeriis]

I don't think anyone is claiming that app-stores in general are a bad thing. It's just that Apple has in the past proven that they are more than willing to set up a platform so that their app-store is the ONLY method for getting software on the device. The other players you mention have not done that.

Yet.

Consider it like a kitchen knife. I use kitchen knives all the time - they're wonderful tools with a lot of utility. If Wolfgang Puck asks to borrow one I wouldn't regard that with a bit of suspicion. If Charles Manson asked for one though, there's going to be an issue.

Wolfgang Puck creeps me the hell out. Charles Manson didn't actually kill anyone with his own hands. I think I'd trust him with that kitchen knife before I'd trust Wolfgang.

Apple has already destroyed my trust in them. The locked down situation on their mobile devices isn't a "What if", a "You know, they might . . .", or any other situation. It's real, it's here. They did it. I don't trust them anymore. End of story.

Fair enough. I'm not suggesting that you should trust Apple. Or anyone else, for that matter.

But you need to keep in mind that, while Jobs is one hell of a control freak, they wouldn't be doing nearly as well if they were selling devices nobody wanted to buy.

Look at the success of the iPod/iTunes marriage. There were other MP3 players out before the iPod. Devices and software with all sorts of wonderful features. But the addition of iTunes made it simple enough and safe enough for anybody to use it. And folks flocked to the device. Not because it offered wonderful specs or terrific features or unbridled freedom - but because there was basically one way to get your music.

We see the walled garden as a limitation. We want to make sure the wall isn't too high, and there's lots of doors and windows in the wall, and we're allowed to tear down the wall if we want to.

Lots of other folks see the walled garden as a good thing. They don't even want to know what's on the other side of the wall. Hell, they'd probably be happier if everything had a wall around it.

Apple/Jobs isn't having to force this walled garden on people. They're embracing it. And then they're complaining when other platforms don't offer a walled garden of their own.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[coinreturn]

And yet you bother to post a response. Why did you even read any comments if you're so anti-Apple? Troll alert!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Lord_Jeremy]

Actually, the App Store allows infinite redownloading of apps you've purchased. The iTunes store does not for the simple fact that when Apple negotiated the original music studio contracts, they didn't want it to work that way. I've read that this is one of the things that Apple's trying to update in the contracts, but good luck with that...

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Ephemeriis]

And, what you've failed to realize, is that most people think this is a good thing.

No shopping around. Don't have to go out to the store. No discs to keep track of. Just click a button and your software appears.

Funny how this is generally considered a good thing with Steam, but the Apple-haters will be out in full force denouncing this (proven successful with Steam) strategy.

I really don't have a problem with either the Apple App Store or Steam.

Pretty much every game I've purchased in the last couple of years has come through Steam. It's very convenient for me.

But I do have other choices with my games. I could go out and buy a disc. You cannot do that with your iPhone... And the concern is that, if Apple has its way, you won't be able to do that on your Mac anymore either.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Bert64]

For the average end user, the walled garden approach is actually better, it ensures the software comes from a trusted source... The hassle of having to manually find software, download it running the risk of malware and then run an installer is not something average users should have to deal with. And let's not forget that the idea of a central repository of software is not a new one, Linux and BSD have been doing it for years.

I have no issues with Apple providing the app store as the default method of installing software, so long as they continue to offer a method for more advanced users to do their own thing (and i can't see why they wouldn't, since where would people develop apps if OSX were as locked down as iOS?).

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[cbackas]

I don't share you opinions on their direction, which is OK. But I find it curious to say that Tiger was the pinnacle. We're an all-Mac shop, and we have various machines still running Tiger. We also have Leopard and Snow Leopard around. Tiger is easily the worst to work with, its age shows badly.

And for what it's worth, console login was never removed. Works on all our machines up to and including 10.6.7. Same as it ever was, login as ">console".

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I noticed you're bitching entirely about Microsoft software :)

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Mongoose Disciple]

So you're saying that you have 5,000 Macs that aren't used by people? :)

Do they sit idle, or are they operated by barnyard animals of some kind?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[MonsterTrimble]

It isn't just Apple doing this - Microsoft is rolling out an app store of their own, BlackBerry has an app store, Google's got an Android app store...

And Ubuntu has an app store, Red Hat has an app store, OpenSuse has an app store, Debian has an app store... It's called the repositories. And around here those are thought of as a good thing too.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

That is just one side.

I'm waiting for the other boot to drop when:

1: It becomes explicitly illegal to jailbreak/bypass anti-consumer lockdown mechanisms. ACTA has this in the text last time I read it. Of course, it will be called "anti-hacker provisioning".

2: There will be detection mechanisms to ban devices from networks. Cellular networks would run scans/healthchecks and if they notice a device not responding, will ban the IMEI for good (similar to how XBL kicks off modded machines.) Wi-Fi networks would require routers to have some form of "trusted" code, and would have to check if a machine has "permission" to run from the ISP. If the machine is blacklisted, no Wi-Fi for it.

3: Assuredly, there will be a backdoor, or security isn't tight in some fashion. So, the blackhats can slap malware/spyware/keyloggers, and a user can't do one thing about it.

Result: A lovely environment where businesses thrive from nickle and diming consumers. Blackhats and criminal organizations thrive because their code can't be removed. Law enforcement thrives on busting people for having a jailbroken computer. Big losers: The consumer.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[clang_jangle]

Sorry, didn't mean to give the impression I have anything to prove here. I was merely sharing my experiences, YMMV. But you know, the wikitard response contributes nothing. Do you have any relevant experiences you'd like to contribute to the discussion?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Chris Mattern]

Apple was never into 'open'

Yes, they were. But for thirty-five years now.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[clang_jangle]

It was; I recall very clearly that it stopped working and the official answer was "because no-one uses it". They may have restored it since then, but they definitely did eliminate it via an update in 10.4 years ago.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking jackass and the fact that you got modded up strongly suggests that 9-5 Pacific time on the weekdays, Slashdot is nothing but a pure MS online relationship management shill infested circle jerk. Your bs accusations are pure troll. Enjoy the echo chamber, bitch.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[drkamil]

I don't quite understand why everyone is bashing apple for making it's mac line more and more user friendly. while keeping all the power users happy with the xcode ide, python/perl/ruby/gcc/vi/emacs preinstalled and several paket managers available (and a posix standard unix base), i see no problem in making some aspects more like an appliance, if you WANT you still CAN compile your applications from source.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

Actually, I'm just curious if retardation is a side effect of guzzling that much of Ballmer's jizz, or if you were always a fucktarded moron.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Bert64]

And it was Linux distributions that first had the idea, and yet it was never promoted so the general public didn't realise it existed... Instead, you had people complaining that users wouldn't like linux because they can't buy software for it in retail stores...

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[kestasjk]

Yeah, it was fun before, but now that it's mainstream there's just nothing that differentiates it from Windows. I'll say to people "hey you should try OS X, it's way better than that crap" and instead of saying "what's that? looks refreshingly different and cool" they'll say "yeah, but my one didnt connect to the internet or my printer so I put Windows on it"

Back to a plan9 console running on a linux bochs VM for me..

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, it will probably only increase Mac sales--prompting other PC makers to follow suite with their own closed systems.

"Follow suit" - it comes from card games where you play a card of the same suit as the previous one.

Just FYI! :)

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as the OS goes, Tiger was the pinnacle -- it's gone downhill since then. I think I knew in my heart this would happen in 2005, the day they issued the Tiger update that eliminated console login.

What do you mean?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still do console login, provided your login screen is set to ask for username and password. Enter

>console

as the username

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Chas]

Wish I had mod points for this.

My company sells and supports business software and gets bombarded all the time about "a Mac version".

Developing the software for Windows is already more than expensive enough, not to mention having Windows-centric dependencies. Creating a Mac port just ain't in the cards.

We have to continually give them a polite "Get a real OS" speech.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

No it still works -- even in the Lion preview and you can't get much more up to date than that!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Dog-Cow]

Jobs doesn't like porn. It's very unlikely that Apple has or allows software for fucking on either of their App Stores.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[elrous0]

If you wish to characterize an obvious pattern of Apple moving to increasingly lock down its devices with app store gatekeepers as "wild speculation," feel free. But, to me, you would have to be pretty naive not to see it at this point.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[biodata]

They used to have a third line called OSX servers but they just recently stopped doing them. No arguments, no consultation, no remedies for organisations who invested in their server solutions. Once the consumer line makes enough more money than the professional line why bother with the professional line any more? Maybe we are seeing the withdrawal of Apple from computing as such, and the beginning of the end for OSX.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what's much more likely is all the computer models will be locked down, but XCode will have the ability to run/debug arbitrary code (as an apple published app it can be a special case in the OS permissions like how iTunes was the only music player that could run in the background for a long time on iOS)

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[EraserMouseMan]

They are also famous for their secrecy. OS X Lion isn't out yet. So, no, Apple will not be saying anything about their plans now. But just wait, Apple will announce that that's where they are going. And they'll tout it as revolutionary; just like they always do.

And my blood pressure will skyrocket just like it always does when Jobs casts Apple's control-hungry behavior as revolutionary.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jdigriz]

Apple makes its profits primarily on hardware sales. And it's mostly standard Intel hardware. Why would they care if you decided to put Debian on it? How could they stop you? Of course, that raises the question of why you are buying such expensive hardware just to run Debian since you don't like Apple's Software, but some people are willing to pay extra for industrial design.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Bryan3000000]

Console login is quite alive and well in Snow Leopard. I've used every version of OS X since Panther. The improvement has been dramatic. Snow Leopard in particular is a huge improvement, and Lion will further refine it. Stability and built-in functionality have increased at every point. I have to question your sanity on some level with these statements.

The part about the techs not being competent to repair your Mac - troubleshooting can be hard, and diagnostics aren't always 100% correct. There are lemons. And there are also a lot of incompetent techs. I'm always a bit nervous about having someone else repair anything I own. In the case of Apple, it's not even worth it [unless it's a covered warranty repair, in which case you'd be crazy not to put the responsibility on them]. Better to do it yourself, if you can, if your machine is not under warranty.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Pieroxy]

Viola.

Learn your french. "Viola" literally means "raped" which I doubt is what you meant.

The proper term is 'Voila' which is even better written "Voilà".

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't download a mom?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Culture20]

I get more grey screens of death than i do bsod on the 100's of dual boot snow leopard/win 7 iMacs where I work. And that's with the 64 bit bootcamp drivers that apple insists will fail with 64bit windows on anything other than a Mac pro.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[colinrichardday]

No, he's saying that there are millions of Mac users, and that "saying thousandsis a cheap attack on Apple.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[heptapod]

It's "voilà" (note grave not acute accent) not viola.

A viola is a slightly larger violin that's has a bit of a deeper sound.

On the bright side at least you didn't use the egregious "wallah" who is the god of the muslim version of Elmer Fudd.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[DrgnDancer]

MacOS is *not* getting more closed everyday. It's not one iota more closed than it was a year ago or two years ago. You're jumping at shadows. Explain to me, in a way that doesn't involve a conspiracy theory, how being able to buy the OS online and download it, as an *option*, makes MacOS more closed? It's one of the great advantages of Linux, but it somehow makes Macs more closed? Same with the App Store, it's an entirely optional additional way to get software onto the system, explain to me (again, without conspiracy theories) how an additional, entirely optional, method of acquiring applications closes down the OS?

All of the FUD regarding MacOS being "more closed everyday" is entirely bases on an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory wherein Apple somehow rewrites all the guts of OSX so that somehow root can't install software which has not been sold through the app store. It would be difficult to do, serve little purpose (there's virtually no evidence that the App store is a huge profit center for Apple on any of its platforms), and piss of a wide chunk of the user base. It's *highly* unlikely to happen.

If (and this is a big if) it did happen, it would require a OS upgrade to implement. They can't force you to upgrade the OS. If (and again, a big if) they did do this, at that point you can simply chose to not upgrade your Macs, and not buy any new ones. At that point you can say "well, Apple really has jumped the shark, they get no more of my money." You can then either just keep using the old version of OSX on your hardware till it dies, or use boot camp to install Windows or Linux. It's not like they can remotely disable a part of the firmware on your computer becasue it no longer fits their business model this whole thing is a manufactured problem dreamed up by anti-Apple trolls without the least basis in fact.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jonbryce]

The few defectors will include all those who buy their Macs to use Adobe Creative Suite. Unless of course Steve Jobs agrees to allow Flash and Adobe Air apps on the iPhone in return for agreeing to sell Creative Suite in the App Store.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[elrous0]

So you're saying that Slashdot is a pro-MS circle jerk, huh? Either you're joking or VERY new here, obviously. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a joke.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[DrgnDancer]

It's *available* via the app store, not *exclusively* available via the app store. Go to Best Buy and get a disk. No one is stopping you. I'd rather get it online and have the ability to redownload it if I lose my physical copy. Bloody Hell you people are pointlessly paranoid.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[peragrin]

Have you used Itunes lately?

Itunes is turning into IE 6 of this decade(though it start in the last one).

Software you can't remove as it happers other core functionality of the same software.

I generally like apple products because Apple spends time polishing the brushed chrome. However their lock in is increasingly getting frustrating.

But that is okay. I can always install something else onto the Mac hardware.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[kevinmenzel]

Is that really Apple's base anymore? I mean, the story a few weeks back said that 50% of the company's profit came from iPhones. The PC market has grown significantly in the recording industry, video editing industry, and photo industry - not necessarily in places where OSX was entrenched, and I'm not saying that it's taking over, but I mean, it's now just as viable to use a non-Mac to do all that work - and given that the learning curve for most of that kind of work is very application oriented, not OS oriented so it's not even that hard to move between machines anymore. Heck, with the amount of cross platform compatibility between creative apps these days, I can work on the same recording project on my WIndows machine, and merge projects from my guitar player's Mac without problem. So though there may be a base of Mac users who do creative work, I think that the situation that existed a decade ago, where most people who did creative work used macs, doesn't exist any more - and as it's probably not a large base, and they probably don't depend on it... I can pretty much see them going down this road and having that not affect their business very much. I think it would do more harm to some of the Apple authorized resellers who have built brick and morter businesses based on the creative base than it will hurt Apple.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[cyfer2000]

Technically I don't see how this is different from the way my Fedora box upgrades. Could you explain the difference please?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this FUD scored +5 Interesting?

the fact that OS X is nearly as buggy as windows now

Citation needed. I will readily agree that Windows has over the years become less buggy, but so has Mac OS X, and it started out less buggy.

the Applestore techs were not competent to repair the last Mac I owned

Granted. But IME this is true of all computer manufacturers. If anything, Apple is slightly less bad.

the Tiger update that eliminated console login

As others have pointed out, this is nothing but FUD.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jc42]

> Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?

We're not quite there yet, but I've been watching the industry a long time - since about a decade before the first home computers from Altair started showing up - and that is certainly the vector. Sadly, nobody seems to care.

It could easily backfire. A few years ago, at the (very mixed-computer) company I was working for, I was part of a team that tested various candidates for our server work. As part of the crowd that used both linux and Apple boxes at home, I tested them a lot. One report I wrote described the results when I called Apple Support for help in getting a network printer working via Apple's Airport (wireless access point). When the CS guy I was talking to learned that my current test machine included our linux-based Internet gateway box in addition to my Mac and the Airport, he insisted that I disconnect the linux gateway from the outside, and set up my Mac as the sole Internet connection. I commented that this would shut down the entire company's Internet access, and since the question was making the printer-Airport combination work, it would make more sense to disconnect them (and my Mac) from the network, so they could be tested in isolation with no possible conflict with other things on our network. He was adamant, and when I refused to shut down the company's linux-based gateway, he said he "couldn't help me".

My writeup of this incident resulted in Macs being dropped from consideration as network servers in this company. Apple clearly wasn't interested in supporting their machine as a server in a mixed-vendor testing environment, and that was the company's business, so the company obviously had to go with vendors that would support such mixed-vendor environments.

An interesting aspect was that, when I did further testing myself, the problem turned out to be that the Airport had a DHCP server enabled by default, and its address range overlapped with another on the same network. This wouldn't have happened if the Airport was isolated from the network, so the CS guy's approach would have got the printer working, but wouldn't have fixed the problem. We had to know about that DHCP server if we were ever to use an Airport in our products. Airports were also specifically excluded after that, due to the Apple's apparent unwillingness to support an environment where it was significant.

We found many other reasons that Apple was becoming unacceptable in a mixed-vendor environment. The "walled garden" mentality was clear to us at that time, and it's becoming more blatant these days. I'd imagine that many other organizations are learning the same lesson. No sensible organization of any sort will tie themselves to a single vendor for all time. (Yes; I know that many do. Note my use of the work "sensible". ;-). I'd guess that Apple will have growing problems with this in the world that's getting more and more networked. Maybe they'll figure it out and become more cooperative. But Sun didn't, and Apple doesn't have to, either. We'll just have to watch and see how things develop.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jedidiah]

That's rich.

No one is flocking to Macs for their safety as it is.

Macs are already a lot safer than what the vast majority of people use despite the lack of fascist style lock-down.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[MrHanky]

My experience with Apple's software is the same; the only difference is that Apple's stuff gets obsolete much faster.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Already, every Humble Inde Bundle, 25% or the revenue is Linux. Not bad for a niche OS with less than 1% market share... Or could that be wrong?

Sales of three sets of games are a very piss-poor measurement in this case, due to other elements in play.

• Windows has a lot more games available for purchase than Linux or Mac, including several "app stores" solely for games, such as Steam.
• • While Steam is officially available for Mac, only a small portion of the games on this service are available for the Mac.
  • Steam games are really hit or miss under Wine and generally perform better by dual booting to Windows.
• As I recall, the Humble Indie Bundle was the first Linux release for a number of these games.
• The Hunble Indie Bundles were heavily advertised on geeky websites... like /.

P.S. Slashdot messes up HTML list formatting now? Stupid fucks...

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[SomeKDEUser]

The point is that if devs, and future devs (geeks in their mom's basement) don't like your platform and never got to tinker with it, you will soon enough have no one coding for your platform.

At least no one doing anything innovative.

And then, slowly, you will die. Apple managed its come-back because OSX was a UNIX, it was tech-friendly. Hackers, wao, like any humans, love the shiny, flocked to the new OS and made it great. A network of techies helping families and friends sprung up overnight.

But alienate these, and you are slowly sliding back to obscurity.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[intheshelter]

The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!!

I know I'm mixing my metaphors here, but feel free to cry wolf somewhere else.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[m.ducharme]

I think you put too much weight in this:

"Mac OS X is getting more closed all the time"

And not enough weight in this:

"I don't know if Apple will completely close off the desktop platform or not; I think it could still go either way, but I get nervous when stuff like this happens."

I'm not really interested in arguing whether OS X is or is not getting more closed all the time. It was a throw-away line addressed at someone who does believe this, not meant as a serious argument. On the one hand, I think it would be very stupid for Apple to close off the OS, and on the other hand, they've made it work very well with the iPod/Phone/Pad, and it would be foolish to ignore that success and wonder if it couldn't be transferred to the desktop line.

I should have written "Mac OS X may be getting more closed all the time..." the conditional would have better reflected my opinion and made no difference at all to my point, but fuck it - I'm not proofreading each post I make for perfect accuracy on the off chance that someone will jump out of nowhere and flame me for it. My time is more valuable than that. My point was that even if OS X gets closed, I'll probably go back to it, because the alternatives, though open, consume too much of my time to tinker with or fix, and thus are worse (for me).

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[clang_jangle]

That's just shitty customer service though. It's a huge PITA to dismantle the studio's computer, pack it up, and drive it to the Apple Store. That machine went through three mobos in one year and three weeks! They just didn't care enough to do it properly AFAIC. It's too much to expect people who've paid so much money for your product to then have to jump through so many hoops to get what they paid for. I've owned and managed a pretty large number of machines over the years, and have never accepted being treated as if my time was so trivial to abuse. They should have damn well replaced it the first time it died, rather than subjecting me to their silly repair shenanigans.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Wyatt Earp]

It works right now on a 10.6.7 15" MacBook Pro6,2 with an i5 and 8GB of RAM

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[SomeKDEUser]

Not all your users are equally valuable. Network effects are very important for the survival of platforms, and devs are really important for that. If you have the best OS in the world, and a huge userbase, but are a huge pain to work with, because you are not tinker friendly, the devs will not be motivated to start the next great app on your platform.

And that will lose you some marketshare. Iterate, and eventually, you are left with nothing. In the case of apple, this means that you are left with the appliances and iTunes, which is great -- but as a platform, you will have ceased to exist.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

strongly suggests that 9-5 Pacific time on the weekdays, Slashdot is nothing but a pure MS

Do I need to draw you a fucking picture?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jedidiah]

...except they are starting to fail when competing against more open products.

This isn't so much a direct result of "closed" versus "open" but the fact that a single option has to compete against a LEGION of alternatives many of which address use cases that Apple tries to ignore.

It's hard to convince a customer you are actively ignoring, or worse denigrating.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[ThirdPrize]

The ability to take a gadget and make it do something completely different is really overrated. I jailbroke my iPhone for a while, but there wasn't really any compelling reason for me (non l33t) to keep it broken.

While the app store isn't perfect, imagine how much cr@pware and viruses there would be in there if it wasn't checked. When I first got my mac I wanted a cheap/free graphics package to use on it. Do you know how much cruft you have to search through to find something decent? "Use package x" says some blog but doh, it hasn't been updated in two years, and neither has the app. Or it has but it won't run on current/old versions of OSX. App store makes it easier.

As for getting your OS from the store. Well, over the years you have probably replaced a lot of your current OS with system updates. This just takes it one stage further.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Ucklak]

Meaning that Windows has finally gotten better as an OS.

Win7 has been the best so far.

WinME and Vista are the bottom of the heap.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Those folks are not "into" anything. They don't know how their car works, how a microwave works, why the sky is blue or much of anything else. They are not terminally stupid, they can read but chose not to.

If you're not into tinkering with computers, you cant *possibly* have any other interests, hobbies, or passions!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[elrous0]

he point is that if devs, and future devs (geeks in their mom's basement) don't like your platform and never got to tinker with it, you will soon enough have no one coding for your platform.

You mean like how there are no apps for iOS?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[kestasjk]

you can already make an ISO image of them easily using the software built into OS X, why not just sell it through the App Store and let people download and burn their own image?

Hmm... Because the App Store is controlled by Apple, and they could reject it outright (plus, for once, they'd be banning something not only because it went against their interests but because it was actually illegal)

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[sixsixtysix]

except that has been true since day one, but they waited this long to implement it? sure, there was no mac app store, but they could have surely sold you a download on their website. surely something else is going on.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[teh kurisu]

I could believe it. The fact that Windows has improved dramatically over the past few years certainly helps.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[DrgnDancer]

I apologize if you thought I was flaming you, it really wasn't intended that way. I'm just getting really annoyed with this whole line of discussion. I'm not even really a Mac "fanboi". I like Macs, and I have an old Macbook that my wife uses; but I mostly work and play on either Windows (for games) or Linux (becasue it's what I do professionally) systems. This whole discussion is based on the rather suspect logic:

1) The iPhone is locked down and has an app store
2) MacOS now has an App Store.
3) Therefore any day now they will lock down MacOS.

Ignoring the fact that (3) does not even follow from (1) and (2), the whole idea just doesn't make a lot of sense. Macs are sold as *computers*, iDevices are sold as *devices*. It's perfectly reasonable to expect a different strategy. I'm just getting really annoyed by the continued presentation as a fact something that really barely stands up as a theory. As things stand right now, a locked down MacOS doesn't even seem very likely, yet a large number of people continue to talk about it as a forgone conclusion. As things play out, they could turn out to be right and I could turn out to be wrong, but there's really no reason to think so right now. Yet the first or second post on every app store story is always something like this.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

The ability to jailbreak meaningfully at all is something that could disappear. The problem is niche applications are much more common on computers than on phones. And frankly there are a lot of ways to install software on an iPhone other than jailbreak or app store.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jedidiah]

...as long as that remains available to you. In the new model (iphone), it is not.

Even so, the shell is a fall back to when the GUI fails for some reason. On the one hand, scripting is very handy. On the other hand, it should be less necessary. This is even true for MacOS despite all of the hype. GUI tools are quite often not very rigorously designed. Too much focus is given to the rube with no imagination that doesn't do much with their machine.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a prediction and then pre-emptively belittle anyone who would disagree.

Is that you, Glenn Beck?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[SomeKDEUser]

Coded from macs. Because currently, there are a lot of devs, which came because of the UNIXy nature of OSX. Which, I believe will leave for freer pastures, as no one likes being subject to the whim of a control-freak.

Also, if the app choice gets reduced to what is available on iOS, well, then yes, OSX is dead.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that's shitty, try Dell.... or HP... or almost anyone else.

In my view, based on the treatment I received, Apple's retail support is so far ahead of everyone else that it's just not capable of being compared. And it's not just me that thinks Apple has great support, check out Consumer Reports and other studies.

Obviously you have high standards. Equally obviously you haven't tried the service from other manufacturers.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[powerlord]

it's really just the macbook pro and mac pro.

The lack of a removable battery and docking station option on the MBP make it's "Professional" highly questionable as well.

Depends. In truth I think in the 10 years I was traveling regularly with a laptop as a consultant, I used a spare battery about a dozen times (and that was more because I had it than because I needed it).

Somehow the company I work for seems to do just fine with MBP for everyone from Developers to Sales to Corporate. While Corporate and Sales might not qualify as your idea of "Professional" (although I would Developers do), they DO qualify that way for lots of people. Not saying the MBPs are a good fit for everyone, but the lack of a removable battery does not make it "non-professional" (although it may mean that it isn't a good fit for your typical workflow).

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jo_ham]

If it had 3 logic boards it should have been swapped for a new machine.

I know Apple aren't going to universally have good service, or that all the individual stores will be the same etc, but they generally score extremely highly in customer satisfaction surveys, so they do try.

We had a logic board issue with one of the early Powermac G5's (issues with the ethernet port dropping to 100 speed on our gig switch, but working fine in direct connection to another PM G5 (which worked just fine on that switch). Rather than have take it in for a logic board swap, since it was one of our edit machines then sent out a PCI gigE ethernet card at no expense for us to install so we could make do until it was convenient to have the machine taken in for a logic board replacement.

Speaking out of interest, what computer manufacturer offers a direct swap out on the standard warranty on the first fault? From my experience Apple Care (the default 1 year unextended one) is pretty good in comparison to other places - it's at least as good as other manufacturers. Of course it's not going to be awesome every time, and you're going to have occasional lemons (a logic board swap usually cures the issue right away, or a bad stick of ram being replaced, or a hard drive etc), so it's not cost effective to just swap out whole machines - it will just drive the prices up - when simple repairs will cure the majority of issues. It is unfortunate you had a system with an ongoing fault, but it is not the norm.

I'm not trying to "give them a pass" or anything - if you are treated badly you should let them know so they can address it, or look for options if you are feeling your "time is being trivially abused" - sort of like our repair situation. I mentioned the issues with losing a production machine at a heavy time and they came up with a solution that kept us happy, and then they fixed the machine. It cost them whatever a GigE card cost at that time, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to customer satisfaction.

If you had a bad experience, you should tell them about it. It's the only way to address shortcomings (short of random monitoring etc). Nothing like bringing it to their attention.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[h4rr4r]

Not what I said. Most people these days are not into anything other than TV.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

Huh? Console login? If that's a big deal to you just change the login scripts.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jedidiah]

Crap in the Apple store? It's already there. You already need to download and test every iteration of the same app to see if something is suitable or does what you want it. The really cool stuff you find out about from entirely 3rd party sources and only use the app store as a package manager.

The App store doesn't eliminate "sorting through cruft" at all. It just eliminates interesting choices.

Some of these are very useful things that address basic use cases that Apple likes to ignore (repeatedly).

The value of a broken iphone is that you can treat the thing like generic storage getting things onto it and off of it and letting different apps see everything you have on the device. You break the artificial walls that Apple puts between different apps and the entire system.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig is wrong - webkit is open because it's a re-branded and altered KHTML. WebCore and JavaScriptCore are under the LGPL. So, really, you can thank KDE for causing Apple to produce some of its technology in an open manner.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Registered Coward v2]

Wish I had mod points for this.

My company sells and supports business software and gets bombarded all the time about "a Mac version".

Developing the software for Windows is already more than expensive enough, not to mention having Windows-centric dependencies. Creating a Mac port just ain't in the cards.

It would seem to me if you get" bombarded all the time about 'a Mac version.'" the question is - "What is the potential revenue?" It may not be worth it based on the added costs; but it's also possible that there is an untapped (and maybe growing) market opportunity. I can understand not developing for the Mac based on the potential market but to simply dismiss another market simply because "Developing the software for Windows is already more than expensive enough seems shortsighted.

We have to continually give them a polite "Get a real OS" speech.

While I understand the polite part; what's the point of suggesting a "real OS?" You aren't going to convert them and all you do is brand your company as another one to write off when they consider buying software. A simple "we're don't have any plans right now" would, IMHO, be more effective and keep the door open if in the future you do decide to do a version for the Mac or Linux or whatever.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Risen888]

So you have a Thinkpad? Me too!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[powerlord]

It is certainly possible, but I think it is unlikely.

1) The Consumer line I mentioned already makes them more money than the Professional line.

2) They killed hardware, not software. OSX 1U servers went away. Latest gen of OSX Server (the software) was marketed for MacPro (good for larger installations), and MacMini Server (which should actually be a good choice for many SOHO installations). They also started allowing OSX Server in a virtualized environment.

3) Even if they killed the Professional Line, they would still need to keep it alive as a development platform (since the Consumer dev tools are intricately tied to it). It would also put them at the mercy of someone else to supply the Development environment. I don't see Apple being all too eager to have their bread and butter depend on someone else (Windows, Linux, etc.). Yes, they could charge $$$$ for a developer license, but if they are maintaining that anyway, why not just spend a little more $$ and maintain the whole Professional line also (which in turn brings in more revenue than just the dev licenses, helps keep/build brand awareness, takes money from competitors pockets, keeps you from being completely dependent on another company, etc.)

There are just too many reasons for OSX to continue as it is that I just have to laugh when I see all these doom and gloom predictions.

Would Apple (and MicroSoft) like computers to just be simple dumb devices they have complete control over? Sure.

Is it going to happen? Probably not in our lifetime (especially when alternatives which provide full access exist and can compete in the same marketplace)

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I would like to think that people would howl about this when it happens, of course.

Me personally, I like to think that people will say "Meh", walk away, and not give it a second thought.

Yeah, yeah, I know, wishful thinking. Sigh.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac app store purchases are good for 5 computers.

This appears to have recently changed.

I can find references to the Mac App Store Product Usage Rules from February 2011 that says “You shall be authorized to use Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time”, but the wording as I post is much vaguer: “You may download and use an application from the Mac App Store [] for personal, non-commercial use on any Apple-branded products running Mac OS X [] that you own or control.”

Can I buy Pages for $19.99 and download it to both my Mac and my wife’s (since I own them both), but only I can use it on my wife’s Mac? Or can my wife use it as long as I am not? Or do we both get to use it at the same time?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

Mac is like 9-14% of PC sales by units shipped (depending how you count). They are a larger percentage by dollar and a huge percentage, upper 80% by margin. Mac owns the customers who are not highly price sensitive, that is their market segment. Those people are demanding. Creatives are in that group.

That's the same market that likes the iPhone but they want different stuff.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[elrous0]

Actually, I just thought of a new t-shirt slogan "I guzzled Steve Jobs' jizz and all I got was a smug attitude and pancreatic cancer ...Oh, and this fucking t-shirt."

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[thetoadwarrior]

The OS X app store is nothing like the iphone app store and can't be if they want developers. But go a head and spout shit all your want if it makes you feel better for owning a shitty dell.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

Once you own the developer SDK (which is only $99 btw) iphone / ipad are not locked down machines for you.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Concerned Onlooker]

" OS X is nearly as buggy as windows now"

So, you're saying that Windows has improved? Because I don't find OS X to be buggy at all.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

I just drew you a picture. See? It's a map to the local psych ward

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[damnbunni]

Wait, what? How would Apple letting people buy something from Apple and make their own disc on an Apple using software provided by Apple be illegal?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

We're not quite there yet, but I've been watching the industry a long time - since about a decade before the first home computers from Altair started showing up -

Well then you know we've had less freedom lots of other times. In the 1980s most people used dumb terminals at work. The early 1990s was a high point for freedom. The moves towards high power cell phones handling content are a lot like what happened in the 1990s which was a burst of additional freedom. And lets not even get into web applications.

There are forces pulling in both directions.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[thetoadwarrior]

If you genuinely went through 4 motherboards in just over a year then it sounds like the computer was being treated like shit by its mongo owner.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

At several times the price of the others you mentioned, Apple's service should be spotless. You failed to factor that in.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[MachineShedFred]

Or, you just might be completely wrong; as all of the following are true:

You can use >console on 10.4.x, 10.5.x, 10.6.x and the developer previews of 10.7. I have been using it on all of these versions, and all of their point releases for over four years.
Apple actually tests on this functionality if you are to take the exams for their professional IT certifications.
You can still get to single user mode on boot by holding down cmd-S after the startup chime

In no way did that "stop working a long time ago."

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

Apple is fairly hostile to enterprise customers. As far as mixed usage though I've never really had those sorts of problems.

As far as lousy advice, I get that from most every vendor. That sort of problem isn't apple specific.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[tibit]

If my engineering nose is worth anything, I'd say it was a classic case of bad power supply.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[thetoadwarrior]

It still works. Maybe you should actually use OS X rather than relying on unintelligent windows fanboy rants you find via google.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[thetoadwarrior]

In other words you want to say something fucking stupid with no way to back it up.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[MachineShedFred]

They've been using the App Store for distributing the developer previews of Lion. You don't even need to make an image - it's just an app. Copy it to a USB stick.

If your Mac craps out, you use the factory image disc that came with it, then run that app from the USB stick / network share / burned DVD / redownload from App store.

It actually does work really good, as long as the download actually completes.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[drtsystems]

This. I see the MacBook Pro models sticking around but the MacBook somehow combining with the iPad. Its not in the near future as the iPad still needs a computer and there are still many limitations it has.

In the end, I honestly don't see this as nearly as bad of a thing as everyone claims. There is a common theme among non-technies that computers are a pain to deal. Even people who use computers proficiently often do not have a good understanding of things like how the filesystem is laid out which can cause confusion if something doesn't get saved in the exact location that it normally does.

The bottom line is that someone like my mom, who uses the computer for pictures, internet browsing, and music really doesn't need much more than an iPad. No, its not quite there yet, but when the day comes that she can get something similar to an iPad and not call me in confusion when things aren't working, I will not complain.

Yes, I will still buy a computer with a full on OS. But I am also a CS major. Not everyone needs/wants a 2-ton truck or a Porsche 911. Some people can get by with a Toyota Yaris perfectly fine.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[MachineShedFred]

Any more, the Mac Pro has more CPU power than most pre-press folks are going to utilize, but still requires purchasing the massive monitor they all want for looking at double-tabloid ad spreads.

The iMac has a good mix of horsepower, and a mostly-professional quality huge display. I say mostly because of that damn glossy finish.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[tibit]

I agree. I updated a friend's Powerbook G4 from 10.3 to 10.5 and the difference was very, very positive. She ended up with a much more responsive system. Of course it wasn't originally on 10.4, but still I don't think there was anything wrong with Leopard. I've never ever had a GSOD (gray screen of death). Didn't even know it existed until reading this thread. I've been using an iMac at home for 4+ years, and a MBP at work. The only hardware problems I had with Intel macs would not cause any screens of death: either the machine would not start up, or it would shut down hard when I didn't want it to, or a peripheral wouldn't work (optical drive in one case, built-in mic in the other).

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[thetoadwarrior]

Nothing like a KDE user dissing someone else when his GUI of choice is a windows knock-off. Choosing KDE is like modelling your sex life after the sex life of a mongoloid.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

I could picture that. They have been unhappy for a while with their consumer devices cutting into "pro" sales. Have OSX only on the pro level machines as a workstation OS capable of running iOS applications with all sorts of bonus settings plus pro applications.... while the consumer devices offer simplicity / ease of use very low prices based on huge numbers....

That's a possible world. But I'm not sure that's so bad. If OSX were explicitly a workstation OS it might be a lot lot cooler. It could much more feature rich if it can leave grandma and the 12 year olds out. Sort of like what OSX was like 8 years ago.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Bengie]

In 2.5 years of working as IT, the Mac group saw more Mac OSX systems crash than us Windows guys had WinXP crash. Not talking about low end machines, but the high end $3.5k pros.

The Mac group weren't incompetent either. They were linux fanatics and they actually use Linux as their work machines. They also had a direct line to their own personal Apple OS dev. The Mac group constantly had problems with OSX and many problems took months for our Mac group and the Apple Dev to fix. A University with 150+ Mac pros and a high rate of system upgrades lets you get access to stuff most people can't. The head person of the Art dept had a $8k dual socket quad core Mac pro. All she did was check email on it.. /sigh Think that's bad, the Music dept ordered 50+ 64GB iPods for the teachers. They were about $400 each at the time.

But I will say, the OSX machines, that you didn't try to change anything, ran much better than XP. It's when you had to start customizing things, then OSX breaks.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[tlhIngan]

This is just the latest attempt to promote the Mac app store, but it's also another step toward what's ultimately coming. Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores. Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.

People keep saying this, but it's not possible - the unerlying platform is too open.

First, there's limited number of things you can do with apps in the Mac App Store. No demo apps, no shareware apps, and nothing that requires installing drivers - apps must be basically self-contained entities. Devs are still required to distribute demo/shareware via their websites, and peripheral makers can't distribute drivers and the like via the Mac App Store. So we've excluded virtualization software, funky peripheral addons (Kinect, various USB game controllers (Xbox360, PS3), etc), plug-ins to other software, etc.

Second, it's easier to close off iOS than OS X, because how are you going to develop OS X and iOS apps? iOS can be closed off and require every binary to be signed, as OS X is used for development. How will a developer for "closed" Mac OS X develop their app in the first place? Their compiled output has to run somehow. And if you say the same way as iOS, then you've just made OS X a great way to enforce open-source - if everyone has to compile the code themselves to run on their Mac, then "open" apps are open-source. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Third, how many ways can you jailbreak a Mac? It's a standard PC after all. You can boot the Mac into Target Disk Mode, edit the disk that way. You can install Boot Camp, and edit the disk through Windows and Linux. You can remove the disk and edit it on another computer. And I say "edit" because that's all jailbreaking really does. iOS devices have a harder time because the interface is very limited. On Macs, it's trivially easy since the mass storage device is so easily available and accessible. And Apple stopping Boot Camp? Highly unlikely - they realize that a chunk of their sales come from people who use Boot Camp exclusively to run other OSes on their Macs.

Hell, the closest Apple has come is strange and weird interfaces like the MacBook Air SSD disk - USB-SATA adapters for that are a little hard to find still, as are replcements...

The only way they can make OS X be like iOS is if they start doing things that really close off the Mac, which make it pointless to own a Mac. That's not to say some idiotic post-Jobs CEO won't try, though.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[skelterjohn]

per year.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[dogmatixpsych]

Exactly. I almost never install software in Linux if it isn't in a repository. There are exceptions of course because I do neuroimaging work and use programs that aren't in repositories but the Mac App Store is just a controlled repository. It's a good thing for developers too, if you accept personal experience. I've spent a lot more money in the Mac App Store than I have previously on Mac applications because the applications are easy to access and easy to install.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Risen888]

Except that a lot of the people that consist of the Apple "Grass Roots" are power users who are likely to balk at such a setup.

Bull. They'll make excuses like they always do.

It costs less to the Manufacturer. (packaging/shipping costs)
It cuts the middleman out. (don't need to give Best Buy or other non-apple on-line/retail stores a cut)
It provides quick availability. (as fast as their servers and your pipe can handle)
It provides a remote backup for customers. (a + for non-technically savvy customers)

Oh look, you're starting early.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[clang_jangle]

They know about it. They did offer me a substantial discount on a new one, but in the past I bought a new studio machine every five years. This one we're discussing gave me just over a year of drama-laden, buggy service. I'm done. Burned out. Maybe I was just unlucky, but I don't care anymore. I've moved on. There's undoubtedly a lesson in that for Apple.

The whole time that expensive waste of time was going on, the same old G4 running Tiger just kept on working without a problem. I found there was a lesson in that for me. :)

My personal machines run Linux and FreeBSD, so it's fine with me to use a G4 running Tiger for the studio. If I had to do video it wouldn't work, but with audio it'll probably be fine for years. Best of all, dual G4 machines running at 1+GHz can be had for a song.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Risen888]

Anyone who uses the phrase "conspiracy theory" is trying to dismiss things that they are uncomfortable confronting. It's a cop out.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

I was a NeXTStep guy and so switched over to OSX as soon as it got stable.

You are absolutely right that objectively the water hasn't boiled yet. Frankly I don't even see what people are so agitated about on iOS, you buy a $99 SDK and now you have an open machine you can do what you want with. The app store is not a huge money maker because the number of applications is increasing and a massive rate. Apple is incurring upfront costs for certifying applications but only get revenue on sales. Once the market levels out a bit with fewer applications selling more copies and the growth coming down... it might be very profitable.

The concern about lockdown is that it happens to the platform. Platform changes are very expensive, particularly because of effective legacy data loss. Sure you can not upgrade and but your next computer is going to have to be a big platform shift. CDs don't have DRM, Amazon doesn't have DRM but Apple's iTunes does. Why? iOS is a very locked down smart phone more than blackberry, more than android more than Meego more than palm.

There is good reason people are concerned.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

the App Store allows infinite redownloading of apps you've purchased.

Not quite:

“Solely as an accommodation to you, you may re-download certain Products for use in accordance with the Usage Rules. Not all Products are eligible for this accommodation or may be available at any given time. Apple shall have no liability to you in the event that a previously downloaded Product becomes unavailable for re-download.”

Some apps are available for re-downloading. And if Apple or the app developer change their minds and makes an app which was available for re-downloading no longer available, you are SOL.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Just making up your own numbers? No-one said "four" except you.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

No, you can't just buy a new mainboard when the old one is fried, since your OEM version of XP won't run on it.

That sort of makes sense. If you've done something as major as replace the motherboard you are the OEM not Dell/HP....

But yeah I get your point. Microsoft licensing has always been nuts.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[LDAPMAN]

Amen! I wish more people realized this. The $99/yr is a good thing as it provides some control on who is running not-ready-for-primetime software on the their devices. iOs is NOT closed if you have a Mac, $99/yr, and enough tech savvy to operate the IDE.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

My company sells and supports business software and gets bombarded all the time about "a Mac version".

Well just think what happens when a competitor does have a Mac version. Obviously that's when it becomes an incentive when the customer says, "oh I went with X's product instead. I like Pages integration".

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Angostura]

The Mac group weren't incompetent either. They were linux fanatics and they actually use Linux as their work machines.

And I suspect this was precisely the issue. In my experience Linux experts who try to admin Macs quite often break things in ingenious ways. It's not their fault; the underpinnings of OS X look misleadingly similar to Linux when viewed from a terminal - 'look all the familiar directories are there' and many of the familiar tools. But these are traps for the unwary. OS X does things its own way and trying to admin via the CLI using a system that looks superficially similar, rather than going the 'Mac way' tends to end up with the system horribly borken.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Americano]

What do you mean, treated like shit? He hosed it off with soap and water every 3 months, whether it needed it or not!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Peganthyrus]

When's the last time you opened up the hood of your car to fix it? When's the last time you even had a desire to do this? Automobiles have matured from a rickety, unreliable technology that required their operators to be intimately familiar with their innards into something that you probably never really think about - you just get in it and go; you keep the tank full of gas, every now and then you top off a few other internal reservoirs of consumable fluid, and anything beyond that means you take it in for repairs.

There's a small minority of people who care about how cars work, who are interested in getting their hands dirty and tweaking the hell out of their cars. Most people are happy to just choose a color they like and maybe hang something from the rear-view mirror or put on a couple of stickers. These folks have "traded freedom for security". Because the freedom to, say, tweak the timing of their spark-plugs for maximum fuel efficiency is not a freedom they desire; what they want is a machine they can reliably use to get from point A to point B. Which has turned out to be another kind of freedom that completely changed the shape of society.

If you want the "freedom" to tinker with your car, you can find forums dedicated to it; you can get ahold of service manuals, you can get the tools needed to open it up and fuck around to your heart's desire. But you're no longer obligated to tinker with it just to drive across the city.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[clang_jangle]

No, actually -- OS X Tiger was the pinnacle, and Leopard and Snow Leopard are buggier than Tiger -- speaking as someone who uses OS X for pro audio and also has an abundance of experience with Linux, BSD, and windows.

So, you've got nothing to contribute but trolling, I take it?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[osvenskan]

Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores. Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.

I keep hearing this, and it doesn't make sense to me. What works for the iPhone & iPad doesn't necessarily work for the Mac, and vice versa. That's why Apple developed iOS instead of just slapping OS X on the iDevices. There's no guarantee that the Mac and iDevices are headed for the same destination.

Have they acquired some similar features? And will they acquire more? Sure. For one, that boosts the halo effect since anyone who has used an iThing will feel right at home using a Mac and vice versa. And the more similar that Apple can make iOS and OS X (while still retaining the features that make each appropriate for their respective platforms), the less code they have to maintain. This is just sensible business, it doesn't have to be about lockdown and control.

What's more, the Mac is a popular tool for non-Windows developers. It's a certified Unix and has all the command line goodies one would expect, like grep, sed, awk, ssh, etc. not to mention more complex tools like Apache, gcc, gdb, sqlite, Python, Perl and Ruby. Apple is raking in cash from the iProducts line of business but the Mac was still nearly 20% of Q1 revenue. If they lock down OS X, then they can kiss goodbye to the Unix certification and all the developers who want access to a command line (which would be about 95% I'd think).

Those developers might only make up a small chunk of the $5.4b in Mac sales but if Apple alienates its 3rd party developers, then who is going to create all of the content for the App Store? And how are those devs going to write code if Macs morph into iPads with built-in keyboards?

Apple has more to lose than to gain by making the Mac into another iDevice. I just don't see it happening anytime soon. I have no doubt they'd do it in a heartbeat if they thought it was to their benefit. I just don't think it is.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why most of us would care about Lions being put in a store, unless u are a clueless animal rights activist. Just another option when u need the installer, and ya can't find another image or dvd. And it can't be that expensive, can it?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

I know. It is odd how hostile the /. crowd is given all of them are tech savvy enough to use the SDK.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Bert64]

Apple have set up *new* platforms where the app store is the only option...
MS have also done exactly the same, windows phone 7 is a new platform and it exclusively uses their app store for loading apps...
Blackberry was an existing platform, so it already had other methods to load apps...

Google are the only ones who introduced a new platform that does include the ability to load software from other sources.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, you tell him Mary! The material Foxxcon uses contains highly-compressed magickal pixie dust, it's virtually indestructible! That poster is a troll, he never owned a Mac. I can tell, because I've never owned anything but Macs and have never ever had a lick of trouble getting my email and surfing the web, even at 4 AM!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Altus]

I want to know what business he is in. This seems like a good opportunity to fill a gap that another company is ignoring.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Americano]

long with the fact that OS X is nearly as buggy as windows now

Yes, Win7 has made huge strides, it's a solid OS, and a vast improvement over XP, and the abortion that was Vista.

plus the Applestore techs were not competent to repair the last Mac I owned

This is certainly a "your mileage may vary" experience, I think, but I've always had good experiences with the repair techs. I brought a failing mini into an Apple Store a few years back, and was duly impressed (and, admittedly, it was kind of hot) when the lovely brunette behind the counter booted it from an external device, dropped into a bash shell, and started running diagnostics from the unix command line. I've always been pleased with the capability of the techs, and found their repair service to be quite good, if pricey for out-of-warranty systems. If you had that bad an experience, I'd suggest that you should have involved the manager on the first "replace the replacement part" trip, not after 3 replacements as you experienced.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

No, actually -- OS X Tiger was the pinnacle, and Leopard and Snow Leopard are buggier than Tiger -- speaking as someone who uses OS X for pro audio and also has an abundance of experience with Linux, BSD, and windows.

This is my impression too, though my main experience with this comes primarily from watching Safari go from a stable browser back in the Tiger days to a horrible buggy beachballing crashing mess today...

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

iOS isn't locked down if you have the developer SDK either. Mainly there is a lot of hysteria.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[thetoadwarrior]

Probably because you're a big gay. I own multiple brands of computers along with my own built ones and never had such shit luck. That including owning a Packard Bell computer that quite likely had used parts in it since it was before they got caught out for that.

Only two computers ever had failed parts, both times it was a modem that got hit by lighting. Everything else survived like a boss. Computer parts are exceptionally reliable unless you abuse them.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Americano]

The point is that if devs, and future devs (geeks in their mom's basement) don't like your platform and never got to tinker with it, you will soon enough have no one coding for your platform.

If "control" were the thing devs desired above everything else, then Linux would have won the dev wars long ago. It hasn't. Discuss.

Most developers who are trying to make a living at development actually DON'T want to dick around with compiling their own kernel. They want a stable set of APIs and a stable target platform that they can write their code against. It doesn't hurt that the people buying the hardware & software that Mac OS runs on also have (in general) demonstrated a willingness to pay real money for that hardware & software, too.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[cras]

So .. If you can only run Mac apps from the Mac app store, how do you develop the Mac apps in the first place, if not using your Mac?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[elashish14]

Yes, but you can add different repositories if you like. With Apple, they're sure to enforce that they're the only one.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Webkit. You can thank KDE for being open when using the browser on your phone.

Fixed. You do realize that sig is wrong and marks you as a luser, right?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[toriver]

Why? Adobe does not need to sell the Mac versions of CS in the App Store, they sell boxed copies and are happy to do so.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[John Whitley]

Except that a lot of the people that consist of the Apple "Grass Roots" are power users who are likely to balk at such a setup.

Unless Apple just uses a similar (hopefully better) process that XCode did in the App Store: it drops an "Install XCode" bundle in your /Applications folder, which can be dumped off onto other volumes/media as needed. If they're clever, they'll just have an option in that installer/app to create bootable install media. Also, no one's going to want to keep a useless N GB installer on their hard drive all the time. Apple will have to deal with this somehow.

But this is the 1.0 trial of this approach. The power users will mostly just wait until the DVDs come out (which have been announced), buy those, and see how things play out. FWIW, I'd much rather have the bootable USB stick like the recent Macbook Air's come with. We've all been through the Update Wars too many times to want to be on the front lines. (Real OS X power users don't update immediately anyways -- they wait until they've shown that all of their mission critical apps work on the new release.)

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[clang_jangle]

As a matter of fact as a former Apple user I do love my Thinkpad. It's a great machine, and will even run plan9 no problem!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[SkimTony]

I would like to second this. I once inherited support of an OS X server that had previously been under the jurisdiction of one of our Solaris admins. Configurations on that system were... interesting. Especially user accounts (yes, you could hand-roll everything using the NetInfo command-line interface, but unless you actually used the GUI for at least one user and checked the details, you were going to miss something.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[SomeKDEUser]

But linux _has_ won. The web runs on linux. Its dominance in the embedded space is microsoftian. Android will soon-ish relegate iOS, WP7, etc. to irrelevance.

Because it is open, and because people can tinker with it. The same way IBM compatible became dominant -- and still are.

When your OS is open, you can take advantage of the next big paradigm shift. It happens that in desktop computing, such a shift has not happened in many, many years. But it may yet happen. Linux desktops might well be the next big thing in cloud clients -- it these become relevant. If home robotics are the next big thing, it will run on linux. etc., etc.

Walled gardens are nice, but inherently self-limiting.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nothing ever break for me, you must be doing doing something wrong!"

DERP!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Americano]

Maybe not as far-fetched as you'd suspect - I'd say "redownload/stream your music/videos/etc as many times as you like" is fairly likely if they ever bring the rumored "cloud" service to iTunes - I suspect a feature they'd love to offer for that would be the ability to download (either mac/itunes->ipod, or direct to ipod over 3g/wifi) your songs (or a selection of them) from your "cloud storage" for offline viewing/listening.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[default luser]

RICH Creatives are in that group.

That's a VERY small group. Don't do the entire world of "creatives" the disservice of lumping them together.

If you think there are a lot of creative people who can afford an Apple computer, you are mistaken. There are tons of creatives I hang out with constantly who will never be published, and will never receive a dime for their efforts. These people have a hard enough time scraping money for a netbook to take to writeins, or time at a small studio. They buy more for economy and usability over style.

Most of the people I see with Apple computers in that same age range are (A) Linux geeks turned Apple nuts, and (B) Rich kid posers who have never produced anything creative in their lives, and have nothing better to do than flaunt their money.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Glendale2x]

Many vendors want you to use their products 100% end-to-end and will attempt to pin the problem on the equipment that's not theirs. If you're in a mixed environment it's critical to have the in-house skills to deal with vendor BS. This seems to become more of a problem with vendors that are trying to be a one stop shop.

That said, Apple has never taken the server market seriously. As much as I love my Mac workstations, they are just that. I would never consider Apple hardware for server roles. Even back when they still had the Xserve and Xraid, it was clear those product lines weren't taken seriously (the Xserve didn't even have a redundant PSU option for a long time).

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[thetoadwarrior]

Sorry but I say you're full of shit. I have snow leopard and have had zero problems. No one at work has ever had any problems aside from one guy that caused it not to start it but that was due to shitty 3G dongle software. disabling that on start-up fixed it. Linux has equally be good to me. The only one that runs like a sluggish pig and crashes is XP and all three operating systems are used for the same sort of things (development). Stating that you use OS X for pro audio says nothing other than imply you use it less than the others.

I use mine for everything. Browsing, building os projects, development (web and C), Steam / gaming, music, movies, etc. I even have Linux ports that are supposedly buggy, like GIMP, and have had zero problems.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

If they aren't receiving a dime they aren't professional they aren't at the high end of amateur. What you are describing is a "creative hobbyist" market. I have no idea if that's even a distinct market but I've never heard of them acting like a distinct buying group.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jonbryce]

At the moment, yes, but if Apple in future only allows people to install from the App Store then it is a different matter. That is what the ggp post was suggesting might happen.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Americano]

Android will soon-ish relegate iOS, WP7, etc. to irrelevance.

Wrong. Android is only being shipped in the smartphone space in any large quantities, and the ONLY reason it's being shipped there is because it was a free-as-in-beer knockoff that provided "iphone-ish" functionality to the manufacturers who were caught completely flat-footed by iOS. And if you think that Motorla, Samsung, HTC, etc. chose Android because of it's "openness," please explain the existence of the Droid's eFuse technology, and the lack of root access on just about every Android device NOT sold by Google.

Comparing platform vs. platform, and not limiting it to the smartphone space, iOS is still the dominant platform, and shows very little sign of being unseated by Android, if the lackluster sales of... oh, just about every other Android device that's not sold by a cellular provider... are any indication.

Linux "runs the web" for much the same reason: It was a free-as-in-beer copy of the UNIX platforms (AIX, Irix, HP-UX, Solaris, etc.) that most of those web servers were running on to begin with, and it runs Apache. And yet, the year of the Linux desktop is always (current year + 1), the Linux desktop is more or less a cheap knockoff of Windows and Mac OS X, and the desktop space for Linux is most notable for it's remarkable LACK of decent applications, and remarkable proliferation of half-baked sourceforge-quality beta software. If Linux is attracting all the developers and winning... why is just about every other system leaps & bounds ahead of Linux in terms of actual quality of available software?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Glendale2x]

We have to continually give them a polite "Get a real OS" speech.

That's kind of dickish. You could simply tell them there isn't a demand for a Mac version to make it worthwhile. Either it's a sound business decision for the company to create a Mac version or it isn't.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[elrous0]

I would be inclined to agree if this were a PC with Windows we were talking about. But since Apple is completely in control of the underlying hardware, what exactly is to stop them from locking down the hardware of a Mac in the same way they currently lock down the hardware of a iPhone or iPad?

Sure, someone would eventually come up with a way to jailbreak it, no doubt--but not without risking bricking it, voiding the warranty, risking the legal gray area of a violation of the DMCA, risking lockout from Apple, etc.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Exaclty! If you can't dock a laptop into a matching port tool, you'll never no-how, no way do any professional work on it. In fact, you won't even be able to run MS office on it but will be stuck with MS Works.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[elrous0]

owning a shitty dell

There is really no need to hurl insults like that, sir.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[clang_jangle]

But I will say, the OSX machines, that you didn't try to change anything, ran much better than XP. It's when you had to start customizing things, then OSX breaks.

I think you may have just pinpointed the problem. That would explain why so many people want to call me names every time I mention how buggy OS X has become, if they're out-of-the-box style users maybe they have a different experience. Of course, I never used it (or any other system) as it comes "out-of-the-box". But honestly, toward the end of my Snow Leopard days I couldn't help but notice that even my "crappy" windows XP testing machine was less trouble to maintain, and it's heavily modified with cygwin and all sorts of dev stuff on it.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[elrous0]

You make a prediction and then pre-emptively belittle anyone who would disagree.

Hello, welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think anyone is claiming that app-stores in general are a bad thing. It's just that Apple has in the past proven that they are more than willing to set up a platform so that their app-store is the ONLY method for getting software on the device. The other players you mention have not done that.

Wrong, Microsoft does the exact same thing on Windows Mobile.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[david_thornley]

Thanks for alerting me for this. I get OS updates from something like the app store, and almost all the software I use. There can be only one explanation.

OH NOES, THEY'RE CLOSING UBUNTU!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to continually give them a polite "Get a real OS" speech.

Why bother with a polite speech? You obviously think they're idiots and aren't interested in selling to them. Just say, "Fuck off, it says right on our website that we only write for MS Windows. Learn to read, n00b."

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[m.ducharme]

As it happens I am probably in the fan-boi camp myself, given how much Apple gear I own, but I'm also a cynic about any large corporation's strategies and motives. Just because a potential strategy is completely stupid and unreasonable, doesn't mean that a corporation won't try to pursue that strategy if they see dollar signs. On the whole, I agree with you, actually, I don't think it's very likely that Apple would try to close off the desktop completely. But I've been wrong before, and it makes me anxious cautious.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[GameboyRMH]

I shudder to think that we may one day look back and ask "Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?"

That's already the case with phones, since earlier this year.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[david_thornley]

I do admit the first few models were hard to physically open up, and they didn't provide free development environments at first. (They did, however, sell Inside Macintosh books that described how to program the thing.) The Macintosh II was, I think, the first Mac you could easily open up, and that was something like the fourth or fifth model they made. (The last toaster Mac was, I think, the SE/30, but the Cube and Mini have also been difficult to open up. The iMacs have often been awkward to tinker with, but the ones I saw supported user upgrades of memory, if nothing else.)

The Macintosh Programmers' Workshop only became a free download in the 90s, and I don't think it was until Mac OSX that they started including a full-featured development environment with every Mac sold. (It's not installed on the disk, it's on one of the CD-ROMs or DVD-ROMs that comes with the Mac or any OS upgrade.)

What was that about them being closed?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[SomeKDEUser]

But this is the point! You cannot beat the value for money of free (as in beer), and you cannot beat free as in freedom for being there to catch the next wave. As for quality of available software... To each his own, but I am not using linux because I was forced to. And yes, I have productive stuff to do. And both OSX and windows are _painful_ to use compared to a well-set-up linux desktop.

The year of the linux desktop has come and gone, now. It is was there a couple years ago. Simply, there is no particular reason for people to switch in droves -- there would be if piracy and sloth were not so rampant :) Slowly, linux numbers grow, but not explosively. It is currently at 2% desktops (again, it is dominant in the server and embedded spaces).

In 5 or so years it might be a big chunk of the desktop. But who cares? we have the best, fastest evolving desktop environment already! Growth in percentage, even if slow, is all that matters: free cannot be killed, so in the long term, it can only win.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[GameboyRMH]

Thank you, I'm so tired of the Apple fanboys comparing app stores to repos. Shows how much they know.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[clang_jangle]

I don't know why you persist in trolling me, but your illogic is "My experience is not what yours is, that makes you a liar!". And frankly, that makes you an idiot. I'm just sharing my experience. My posting history shows that while I am not infallible, I am sincere. If that's not good enough for you go read someone else's posts.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[GameboyRMH]

Well Steam doesn't lock you to any specific hardware or OS (necessarily), but I dislike it because it's just a really fancy DRM scheme.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[UnknowingFool]

So when they announced that they were no longer making X Serves did all of them around the world stop working? Also were all support contracts voided? No they announced in a future date that would stop selling a product. This happens in all companies. Can you still get a Ford Festiva from Ford still? Did Ford consult with their customers or did they make a decision based on internal discussions. And at the time Apple gave customer 2 options: Mac Pro Server or Mac Mini Server.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[stewbacca]

It's also a very convenient way to receive goods, which is why it successful, and which is why the App Store on OSX will likely succeed as well.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[node 3]

I shudder to think that we may one day look back and ask "Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?"

That day will never, ever come. Even if Apple does what you imagine (and it's definitely not coming any time soon, how exactly do you think Apple is going to get Adobe and Microsoft, for example, on board? Games? Do you thin Apple is going to tell Steam to fuck off? Seriously, this notion is idiotic on the fact of it, but more on that in a sec), anyway, even if Apple were to do this, you will *ALWAYS* be able to buy a generic computer and run Linux. Forever and always.

On the topic of Apple doing this with the Mac, it's foolish, and very clearly not indicated by any existing facts. It's technically possible, but you have to ask why Apple would do this in the first place? It's obvious they'd like the Mac App Store to be the primary software distribution method, but they can't simply excise their existing vast software market, and there is plenty of software which is a very poor match for the Mac App Store. And to what benefit?

Apple doesn't exist to control people (as many of your fellow tinfoil comrades like to claim), the exist to sell hardware. The one and only question you have to ask yourself is this: Does Apple think it will sell more Macs if they close it like iOS?

If no, then they won't do it. If yes, then why is it a bad thing? The reason yes doesn't make any sense is that Apple already sells a closed OS. If you want to compare iOS and Mac OS X in your mind, think of iOS as the "true consumer OS" and Mac OS X as the "OS for power users". By locking down Mac OS X, they would essentially set it up as both an inferior iOS, and an inferior Mac OS. It's irrational.

This notion makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you hate Apple, and just need to make up some narrative to further justify it (to you) and perhaps help scare other people into joining in with your nonsense.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why you persist in trolling me, but your illogic is
"My experience is not what yours is, that makes you a liar!". And frankly, that
makes you an idiot.

That's not how they do it. They see there's a slashdot story about something
Apple-y and think "ok, I'll find the most believable apple hater troll's story
and expose it for the lie it really is, tee hee hee!". Problem is, the "troll"
in question is probably telling the truth. so the self-righteous "avenger"
fanboi is the unwitting troll. Happens all the time.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[node 3]

Your sig is wrong - webkit is open because it's a re-branded and altered KHTML. WebCore and JavaScriptCore are under the LGPL. So, really, you can thank KDE for causing Apple to produce some of its technology in an open manner.

Apple has more Open Source projects that most other software or hardware makers. Quite often, when they come up with a new protocol or service or other low level process, they release it as open source. KDE didn't force anything. Apple knowingly forked KHTML, it wasn't some sort of unwitting happenstance that WebKit is open source.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[GameboyRMH]

Fedora uses repos, which you can add, remove, or even create at will. Many repos are curated and have some stability requirements, but even this is totally optional - don't like it and you can switch to a development/testing repo to get unstable code, etc. All apps delivered through repos are free (although I guess it would be possible to set up a private repo, but I don't think I've ever seen one). Or you have the option to not use the repos at all, and get your software through installer packages or compiled code.

iOS has the App Store. There is only one. It is curated to remove apps that Apple's morality police deem offensive, that the telcos don't like, or that competes with Apple's own apps (and that includes the fart apps sold my the same guy who manages the app store). The App Store is the only way to get software onto an iOS device. If you want to get software onto an iOS device any other way, you have to hack the device against the manufacturer's wishes.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores.

Is this a quote from Fox News to promote an agenda that the poster JUST knows is true. This post is not informative, it's purely speculative. Apple has not made a single move to restrict how software is distributed or installed on a Mac. Yes of course Apple would love for you to use their App Store. That Apple would rather you buy from them than from a competitor like Amazon or a retail store, does not mean that they are looking to close off the Mac platform.

Now I know how crazy Christians and right wingers claim shit like, "If you let the gays marry, what's next? Marrying dogs?"

and now let the flood of "Oh, just because I'm wearing this aluminum foil hat in my parent's basement, does not mean that I am paranoid" replies begin:

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[toriver]

My company sells and supports business software and gets bombarded all the time about "a Mac version".

I think that is something that Business 101 calls demand.

But don't worry, someone will come along and satisfy the customers you leave behind. Just like Ashton-Tate learned when they thought that their DOS-based DBase products were irreplaceable for people developing desktop database solutions...

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Red herring is red, troll is troll

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[toriver]

Is this one of those "in 30 days you will have 31 husbands" kind of patterns? I mean, there are TWO (count them - two) sample points here.

You have already started to use words like "obvious" and "naive" instead of presenting arguments, you should take that as a sign you have a really weak case.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Coren22]

I had never heard of this console login, so I locked my screen (Mac Pro, Snow Leopard) tried it out, the screen went blue, then back to login. No clue what good it would do though.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[thetoadwarrior]

Where's the truth? The Mac store has GPL'ed apps, apps that download code and just about everything the iOS one doesn't have yet on numerous occasions people claim it's exactly the same. Or the claims in here that they removed the console login when that's easy to prove complete wrong. Likewise the claim that Tiger was better than Snow Leopard based on his experience while at the same time saying I can't prove anything based on my experience is hypocritical troll rubbish.

But hey if owning a superior laptop (Macbook pro) and it being my only Apple product our of 5 computers and my Android phone makes me a fanboy then go ahead and talk shit if that's what makes your sad little life better.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Smurf]

It absolutely works on Snow Leopard. Haven't tried Lion yet.

I did notice that apparently you can't have a user already logged in. That is, it seems that you can't use Fast User Switching to go back to the log-in screen and try to log into the console. Or maybe my user is doing something wrong.

But if the use logs off, then yes, >console works.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[isj]

Argh... stupid moderate button. Posting just to cancel the down moderation.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[GameboyRMH]

If you want the "freedom" to tinker with your car, you can find forums dedicated to it; you can get ahold of service manuals, you can get the tools needed to open it up and fuck around to your heart's desire.

It's not that simple. First you have to get a car you can tinker with - that means an old car, an expensive specialty car like an Elise or a Sagaris, or a kit. Nothing is sold today that appeals to car enthusiasts, or is meant to be tinkered with except a few specialty cars that cost over $40k (except a few kits you can get for less). The automotive hobby has been doomed for those who traded freedom for security, and the same thing could happen to computers. It's already happened to phones. And unlike cars, computers aren't still perfectly good for everyday use if they're decades out of date. But you're apparently happy to do the same thing to computers.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[ajo_arctus]

As far as the OS goes, Tiger was the pinnacle

Rose tinted spectacles :) You're just getting old. In my head, Amiga Workbench is the best OS ever made.

As for the direction Apple are headed, I wonder if they'd ever lock down the OS to only run apps from the app store? I personally seriously doubt it - don't forget that's a full-blown, fully certified UNIX(r) operating system you've got there, and a huge number of people who buy Macs are technical (myself included). I'd drop Mac in a heartbeat if they ever locked it down, and so would most of my Mac owning friends. I doubt the price-sensitive mainstream would step in to replace us.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

But hey if owning a superior laptop (Macbook pro) and it being my only Apple product our of 5 computers and my Android phone makes me a fanboy...

No, it's your inability to tolerate anyone saying anything you don't like about Apple that makes you a fanboi. HTH!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Americano]

It is currently at 2% desktops (again, it is dominant in the server and embedded spaces).

And yet a 10% market share and growing is dismissed as an also-ran platform when it comes to Mac OS X. Double standard much?

for being there to catch the next wave.

This is just empty sloganeering. Open source produces cheap knockoffs of existing functionality, there is very little evidence that anything in the open source world, vis-a-vis applications, that is not a response to some existing piece of software on another platform. Where's the cutting-edge applications that are being developed by this enormous horde of developers which Linux's openness has attracted to it? Give me 3 examples of software that is only available on Linux, and which is not simply a knockoff of an existing Windows or Mac OS application, or which wasn't a clone/port of an existing piece of UNIX software? Mimicry, yes; catching the next wave by being a first-mover in a space where no other platform is going? Not so much.

Looking at the history of Android, it's almost comically obvious how un-original the ideas were. The pre-iPhone prototypes look more or less like Blackberries - the dominant (at the time) smartphone platform. Fast forward a year, and suddenly every Android phone is a touchscreen candy-bar form factor, which looks remarkably... like an iPhone, the "next wave" in smartphones.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[eleuthero]

...or bad power--there are places I've been in Europe that plugging in to a wall, even with a powerstrip / ups, was dangerous--the electricity was just too unstable for electronics to survive long.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[DJRumpy]

About inline with the first post, claiming Apple will soon be closed, without the slightest bit of proof to that fact, and it's marked as insightful. /. has become a joke as of late. It's too politicized and no longer interested in fact. The location bug was a good example. It was all doom and gloom, and evil unleashed until it was revealed that Droid did it too. Then it was acceptable but only for a short time that happened to coincide with the length of time that Droid kept the data.

Although I agree it's definitely a push to promote the app store, there is no indication anywhere that the Mac platform will be locked down, and you won't find a citation anywhere other than hearsay, yet it's immediately modded as it sits now without anything relevant or otherwise to back up such a claim.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I don't have to pay $99/year to have the keys to my mobile device of choice.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[powerlord]

CDs don't have DRM, Amazon doesn't have DRM but Apple's iTunes does. Why? iOS is a very locked down smart phone more than blackberry, more than android more than Meego more than palm.

You had me until you got to here.

CDs don't have DRM, Amazon MP3s don't have DRM (although their videos are), Apple MP3s increasingly DON'T have DRM (although again, their video files certainly do)

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[powerlord]

Considering my "Except" was referring to the idea of locking down the OS, and NOT to distributing the OS via the App store, not sure we disagree. :)

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Hamsterdan]

The latest OS to support PPC machines is Leopard (10.5.8)

That's what I'm running on my Powermac G4 and my iMac G5. (also on my Netbook and my Athlon X2 :)

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Have you ever migrated a Mail.app mailbox from a 10.3 install to a 10.6 install? It works like a snap.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[am 2k]

You get a certificate from Apple (for $99/year), which allows you to run apps you compiled with xcode4 (which is in the store already). These you can submit to the Mac App Store for distribution.

The technology for that is already in place, it's just not enforced.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

I still see a lot of DRM on Apple. As for video I have to plead ignorance. I do rentals to Tivo from Amazon and given that its a rental it has to have DRM.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Apple is one of the, if not THE richest tech companies out there, shipping millions upon millions of units and one of the most profitable OEMs out there. In fact, iPhone sales year over year grew 110%.

I want to fail like that.

The iPhone isn't a failure. Tech geeks need to realize that being #1 isn't everything. Being market leader is. Apple puts out touch screen based phone, market shifts in that direction. Apple puts out touch screen based tablet, market shifts in that direction.

Apple's leading the industry. Not Nokia, not HTC, not Google.

Apple.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me 3 examples of software that is only available on Linux, and which is not simply a knockoff of an existing Windows or Mac OS application, or which wasn't a clone/port of an existing piece of UNIX software?

IPtables, apt, and emerge. Now stop trolling your betters, retard.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[am 2k]

Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores. Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.

When I played around in Mac OS X 10.7, I had a short vision of the Launchpad being the launched-by-default application instead of Finder. The result of this would be that it would be virtually impossible for novices to install third party applications (since you need the Finder for that), except through the Mac App Store. This would not require a lockdown of the system, but still achieve the same result. I'm pretty sure they want to do exactly that sooner or later.

On the plus side, professionals could still launch Finder to do their dirty file-and-folder work (note that Photoshop and other professional apps are not in the Mac App Store), however smaller devs (like myself) will be forced onto the Mac App Store route (even more than they are now already). All that's required is a tiny change in some XML file somewhere.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[thetoadwarrior]

I agreed. I think most people moaning have no experience with it to see it's no different from any other software source and includes everything from closed commercial software to GPL'ed software. It isn't that different from a package manager other than obviously Apple would probably prefer things were sold for a cost so they get a cut and it's not that new of an idea. Google had its web apps shop which will no doubt be a central source for ChromeOS software. and even MS is jumping on board and will have an app store.

Of course if Apple (or anyone else) attempted to make it the only source of software for an OS then yeah that would be bad but I don't think that will happen. It does make a little sense on a phone but on a computer it doesn't just for the fact that Apple wants macs are the platforms Apple wants people to use for development for Mac / iOS apps and web development. It would require quite a bit of effort to regulate for a small portion of users but even if it is a small portion of customers it's still a very important set.

Apple is just doing really well at the moment which will breed moronic haters and fanboys.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[toriver]

Yes, IF. A very big if. For instance, IF the federal government in the future bans sites like Slashdot we will no longer be able to discuss that on Slashdot. That is also a big if. The logic applied when people say that Mac OS X will become as closed as iOS is suspicious at best, and there are explicit statements form Apple it will not happen.

(The logic seems to go along the lines: if A has features x and y, then if B has gfeature x then it will also eventually have feature y. x seems to be "something called an app store" and y apparently "installs limited to those from the app store")

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a good idea to have a plastic disk for installation purposes.. downloading some updates is one thing, but I don't want to download gigs every time I reinstall. they will do what he said they wanted.. we aren't there yet.. consumers are slow boiled frogs..

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anubis IV]

Designing a closed device and marketing it as such is a far cry from designing a device to be open and then closing it down, which is what you seem to worried about.

Macs have always been an open platform and we've seen no evidence to indicate that Apple has other plans for them (more likely, Macs will simply go away at some point, to be replaced by bigger iOS devices of some sort, of which the iPad is merely the first of many in that direction). People are perfectly capable of downloading and installing apps from the Internet, and Apple has indicated repeatedly that doing so is an acceptable use case which will not be going away.

The iPhone, in contrast, has been a closed platform from day one and was never claimed to be anything but a closed platform. To toss in another comparison, Android was marketed as an open platform, but as evidenced most recently by the removal of tethering apps this week and the way that Google is suddenly closing up the source for Honeycomb for an indeterminate time, it's not exactly as open in practice as they first claimed.

So, on the one hand, you have a company that has delivered an open platform and a closed platform, and has kept the open one open and the closed one closed, while on the other hand you have a company that delivered an open platform but has been closing it down more and more as time goes on. Yet you seem to think that the former is the untrustworthy one?

Just because I can and because it's fun, if we grant that Apple is evil for having a closed platform, I think your analogy would actually be closer to having two Charles Mansons in your kitchen, except that one of them has a "Wolfgang Puck" name tag.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[grcumb]

Give me 3 examples of software that is only available on Linux...

The whole fucking point of the argument is that Open Software is... wait for it... Open.

Almost by definition, there is effectively no such thing as software that is only available for Linux, because typically software written for Linux can be easily ported to other platforms.

So, with that out of the way, let's address the real question: What truly new and original software has FOSS given us?

1. The Web - Yeah, enough of it that it makes more sense to just lump it all together. You can nitpick out small subsets and individual apps, but the general point is not weakened.
2. CouchDB/NoSQL - novel storage implementations that can legitimately be said to have originated in the FOSS space.
3. Compiz/Emerald et alia - Say what you like about the level of refinement, you cannot argue that Compiz (and related projects) was not ahead of both Mac OS and Windows in terms of technical capabilities and their application in redefining how people interact with the desktop. Sure there's a good deal of cross-pollination between Mac/Windows/Linux, but in terms of technical development, Compiz has been a leader, not a follower.

Mimicry, yes; catching the next wave by being a first-mover in a space where no other platform is going? Not so much.

Bullshit.

But you know what? Even if that were true, FOSS would still be giving us better quality software for less money. So the full response to your argument is that it's not only false, it's specious, too.

HTH, HAND.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[ZorinLynx]

Thanks for the correction.

(how often does that happen? Most people get pissed off when you correct them! I like to buck the trend.)

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't work if there is a GUI user logged in (as there is when you lock the screen from a GUI session). You have to log out first.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

and people like yourself typically SUCK when comparing on like terms.. when tech types say 'success' they mean in terms of value to the customer.. when people like yourself say 'success' they mean by how many units shipped.. that does NOT equate to customer satisfaction levels.. I know plenty of non tech people who are fed up with itunes. they buy apple because of advertising and popularity. how is that success for anyone but apple? using your consumer devices should not require jumping through hoops.. all that is needed is a way to copy files.

you have your head in the sand if you don't see where it's going. it is NOT paranoia. the future of apple products is cable tv like services.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Americano]

You should try reading the conversation before you get all indignant like I insulted your mom.

The assertion made was that "open platforms" attract more developers because developers want to work on platforms they can tinker with. Axiomatic to this is the notion that, where an "open platform" exists, it will attract developers away because those devs will eschew closed platforms where they cannot tinker.

Linux has been around for 20 years. The notion of "open source" and "free software" for even longer. Do you really mean to suggest that all the developers in the FOSS world are so tied up with Expose (^H^H sorry, Compiz), "The Web," and NoSQL db's that there has literally been no manpower available to produce games, desktop software, mobile apps, and a host of other things which Linux lacks? And if so, and if the "openness" argument put forth by the GGP is correct, how come all of those things exist on closed platforms in far greater numbers than they do on open platforms?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, for years they predicted that Apple was beleaguered and on it's last legs. Uh-huh! Look who got that one right!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, I'd much rather have the bootable USB stick like the recent Macbook Air's come with.

Step 1: obtain generic 8GB usb stick
Step 2: obtain Snow Leopard DVD
Step 3: open Disk Utility, do an image copy of the DVD to the USB stick
Step 4: YAY! BOOTABLE USB STICK!

hth

(p.s. would not be surprised in the least if there's a process for doing this with the App Store Lion download.)

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[grcumb]

You should try reading the conversation before you get all indignant like I insulted your mom.

Classy start.

The assertion made was that "open platforms" attract more developers because developers want to work on platforms they can tinker with. Axiomatic to this is the notion that, where an "open platform" exists, it will attract developers away because those devs will eschew closed platforms where they cannot tinker.

You need to understand the difference between an axiom and a corollary.

In either case, the only way that FOSS development could draw resources away from other places is if developers were not capable of working on multiple platforms, which is demonstrably not the case, especially with FOSS, whose open source makes porting to other platforms easier.

Which was my fucking point, as you'll recall.

Do you really mean to suggest that all the developers in the FOSS world are so tied up with Expose (^H^H sorry, Compiz), "The Web," and NoSQL db's that there has literally been no manpower available to produce games, desktop software, mobile apps, and a host of other things which Linux lacks?

No, that's your own straw man. I prefer my straw men to look more like this:

"Your inability to make a logically coherent argument renders any attempt at disputation and persuasion ineffective and pointless. May I instead suggest you eat donkey poo?"

See, mine also refuses to engage honestly with the interlocutor, but at least it has some style.

In any case, my suggestion was that revolutionary progress in three major areas of technological development kind of negates your claim that 'Linux software' is derivative and, by implication, second-rate.

Have some donkey poo.

And if so, and if the "openness" argument put forth by the GGP is correct, how come all of those things exist on closed platforms in far greater numbers than they do on open platforms?

Because of -gasp- horses for courses. Some things are easier to build and maintain using FOSS approaches, some just haven't seized anyone's attention yet, and some are genuinely easier to build and maintain in a proprietary setting.

If history is any guide, these last are in the minority. Commodification is a powerful force in software, and commodification usually implies FOSS - or at least an open environment.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[brantondaveperson]

And the concern is that, if Apple has its way, you won't be able to do that on your Mac anymore either.

This makes no sense, there is no evidence, it would be very damaging to their userbase, and I personally am not in the least bit worried about it.

To be honest, it astonishes me that anyone would imagine that scenario actually occurring.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[brantondaveperson]

what exactly is to stop them from locking down the hardware of a Mac in the same way they currently lock down the hardware of a iPhone or iPad?

Because. It. Makes. No. Sense. To. Do. So.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Orffen]

Those who pay the "professional premium" will be allowed to run their own programs without approval from Apple, including compilers and scripting environments, and will of course be able to develop programs for consumer computers (but will naturally have to pay Apple for distribution privileges).

While always a possibility, I don't see Apple going down this road. If everyone can develop, then everyone can pay Apple the distribution fees associated with the App Store. "Free" marketing and visibility through the App Store is something developers like, whether they're Rovio selling Angry Birds or a guy who hacked together an app he wanted to use on his MacBook in his spare time and thought he might be able to make a buck or two off it.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

My experience with Apple's software is the same; the only difference is that Apple's stuff gets obsolete much faster.

I'm in the mood for a fairy tale - so please be more specific.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Yes, but you can add different repositories if you like. With Apple, they're sure to enforce that they're the only one.

And you base this on what exactly? The fact that one of the ways to buy Lion is over the Mac App Store? Or is it actually nothing but your raging Apple hate fuelled paranoia?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[SomeKDEUser]

And presumably Webkit was not nicked from KDE, Apple could develop on their own a compiler, and there is so little need for linux software that Macports and fink are but a figment of my imagination. Oh, and Samba was developed thanks to the foresight of St. Steve. . .

OSX rode the linux wave, and not the reverse. It could not have taken off without Free Software. And closing things down is not going to help, quite the contrary.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[epyT-R]

That day will never, ever come.

yeah it will, eventually...to all the devices that matter anyway. too bad too as the companies that will do this would be nowhere if their engineers had grown up in a locked era.

Apple doesn't exist to control people (as many of your fellow tinfoil comrades like to claim), the exist to sell hardware.

..and if controlling people will allow them to sell more hardware by creating false scarcity of functionality?

The one and only question you have to ask yourself is this: Does Apple think it will sell more Macs if they close it like iOS?

ok but why should the consumer care what apple wants/needs? that's not his problem. why should the consumer drink corporatist koolaid? what apple does to fatten its bottom line isn't always in the consumer interest. they shouldn't have a right to dictate to consumers how sold hardware is used. if they do, then the politicians who passed such a thing should be shot. it undermines the whole concept of owning property.

By locking down Mac OS X, they would essentially set it up as both an inferior iOS, and an inferior Mac OS. It's irrational.

they can still lock it down and have it provide more advanced applications. the issue is one of control, not of functionality.

This notion makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you hate Apple, and just need to make up some narrative to further justify it (to you) and perhaps help scare other people into joining in with your nonsense.

this makes you sound like one of those with too much emotional investment in apple.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[epyT-R]

Is this a quote from Fox News to promote an agenda that the poster JUST knows is true. This post is not informative, it's purely speculative. Apple has not made a single move to restrict how software is distributed or installed on a Mac. Yes of course Apple would love for you to use their App Store. That Apple would rather you buy from them than from a competitor like Amazon or a retail store, does not mean that they are looking to close off the Mac platform.

and yours is willfully ignorant. we're not talking about right now.. we're talking about how 'right now' is trending the future.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I haven't seen such incoherent reasoning since the Glenn Beck Comedy Hour went off the air. Did you write that on your chalk board?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter how I get my software, via an app store or via direct download from the developer. What matters is whether that app has been written according to user guidelines, hardware requirements and other factors affecting reliability and security. An app store gives me reliability and security, and what I've seen of Apple's app store, it doesn't sacrifice any convenience. If anything, the convenience is improved.

As for a "walled garden"? Mac OS won't become a walled garden. It won't exist. Mac OS is historically due for another major upheaval and I imagine there will be a whole new, "modern" OS based on a mix of Mac OS X and iOS within 5 years and Mac OS X will be a thing of the past, like Classic Mac OS. This OS will have aspects of being a walled garden, but it will, in fact, just be a better user experience, based on simplifications of existing tech, which will simply work for what most people want to do.

The world is not run by nerds for nerds, it is run by all puny humans. 90%+ of puny humans just want to do what they want to do, quickly and easily and don't care of they have to go to a central repository for apps, so long as it's cheap and easy.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[node 3]

That day will never, ever come.

yeah it will, eventually...to all the devices that matter anyway.

Stated with out even the slightest bit of evidence or reasoning.

too bad too as the companies that will do this would be nowhere if their engineers had grown up in a locked era.

And this should be the biggest clue. Engineers design computers. There will never be a shortage of engineers who want to design open computers, and never be a shortage of companies who wish to cater to these engineers and those that would also like to use open computers.

Always and forever.

Apple doesn't exist to control people (as many of your fellow tinfoil comrades like to claim), the exist to sell hardware.

..and if controlling people will allow them to sell more hardware by creating false scarcity of functionality?

Apple has never, ever, attempted to, or even shown a desire to, "control people". Never. They do, however, exert control over their products. This is to make their products more trouble-free and easier to use, and thus more appealing in order to sell more. By using a phrase like "false scarcity of functionality", you show you do not understand why Apple does what they do, most likely because you don't see the value in it.

If Apple simply created a "false scarcity of functionality", and people cared about functionality, they'd just buy more functional devices. But they don't care the same way you do. Furthermore, Apple's 'limited' products are actually significantly more functional to the average person than products without what you've called "false scarcity of functionality".

The one and only question you have to ask yourself is this: Does Apple think it will sell more Macs if they close it like iOS?

ok but why should the consumer care what apple wants/needs? that's not his problem. why should the consumer drink corporatist koolaid? what apple does to fatten its bottom line isn't always in the consumer interest. they shouldn't have a right to dictate to consumers how sold hardware is used. if they do, then the politicians who passed such a thing should be shot. it undermines the whole concept of owning property.

Again, completely missing the point. Apple cares what the consumer wants. Apple doesn't force anyone to buy their products, so they have to rely solely on whether consumers want to buy their products.

The only thing Apple can do to "fatten its bottom line" is to put out products people want to buy. Closed/limited products (from a nerd's point of view) are what consumers prefer. They aren't "fattening their bottom line" by controlling their customers, forcing them to buy Apple products that are more crippled than they would prefer, but by controlling their products to make them more desirable to their customers.

By locking down Mac OS X, they would essentially set it up as both an inferior iOS, and an inferior Mac OS. It's irrational.

they can still lock it down and have it provide more advanced applications. the issue is one of control, not of functionality.

Just a few moments back you coined the term "false scarcity of functionality". Apple has always exerted control over their products. They have never exerted control (beyond basic copyright, which they don't really enforce anyway) over their users. Never.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. How is this nonsense a 4? Oh /.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[maccodemonkey]

"I think I knew in my heart this would happen in 2005, the day they issued the Tiger update that eliminated console login."

Hmmm? Console login still works. At least on Leopard and Snow Leopard.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Stupendoussteve]

Oh yes, Apple wants to be the only gatekeeper.

That's why Apple hosts macports.org, probably the easiest place for getting FOSS for the Mac (fink too, I suppose, but it's generally a bit more out of date). Because they're so evil and don't want people to have any choices.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Builder]

Apple might do that ... But I bet they'd reverse it soon after.

The last 5 tech conferences I've been to, the Macbook Pro has had the highest presence of any specific manufacturer accounting for a large percentage of all present machines.

As soon as MacOS gets locked down like a phone, all of those developers and techs that currently use Apple for their desktops whether they are deploying to Unix or Windows will wander off to a new provider. And I don't think that Apple will want to lose all of those customers.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[LDAPMAN]

iTunes hasn't had DRM in years.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[LDAPMAN]

Since my 17" Sandy Bridge MBP seems to go FOREVER on battery, I don't think the need for a removable battery is as common as you think. I can do an 8 hour workday or flight with no problem.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[LDAPMAN]

Hmmm....getting "Bombarded" by requests from your customers but not responding to their requests? Doesn't sound like your really interested in succeeding.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[jbolden]

You should tell that to my copy which still has lots of "Protected AAC audio file". Download the song of the week from iTunes store.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

...as long as that remains available to you. In the new model (iphone), it is not.

New model? It's a fucking phone! Why would you need a CLI on a phone? If you actually need it for the thing to work as a phone, it's broken as a phone.

"But it's a real computer, you should be able to install everything", I bet you will reply - but you don't say that to other "real computers" like the Kindle, GPS units, etc. You didn't even bother to mention it with other cell phones - until the iPhone came along.

Just like with Flash, nobody cared that most cell phones either only had Flash Lite based on Flash 8.0 (or even older), absolutely no Flash, or that the real Flash had been announced "coming soon" for a couple of years now - and even if it had Flash, that doesn't mean you could use it for online Flash games, because they lacked a real browser.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[houstonbofh]

Sales of three sets of games are a very piss-poor measurement in this case, due to other elements in play.

Yes, but better than the alternatives. Name any other measure where a game is totally cross platform, and the demographics are tracked. I would say iD, but they are all tracked as Windows sales. Also, name your price is the best whay to find out what people are willing to pay. It does show that for the same product, Linux users are willing to pay three times as much as Windows users, and twice as much as Mac users. Damn freetards willing to pay so much...

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Macs have always been an open platform and we've seen no evidence to indicate that Apple has other plans for them (more likely, Macs will simply go away at some point, to be replaced by bigger iOS devices of some sort, of which the iPad is merely the first of many in that direction).

Why would they take Macs away when Macs keep on selling? Lots of people make a lot of noise about how iOS devices now make up the bulk of Apple's revenues and profits. But if you focus on that too much, you miss that Apple's Mac business is far from moribund. It's been outgrowing other PC makers for years now, and it's highly profitable. If Apple had never gone down the iOS route and their Mac business was the same as it is today, they'd be in great shape.

Tech Highlanderism (there can be only one!) is foolish. Just as it makes no sense to assert that one of iOS and Android must inevitably completely dominate the mobile device market, the introduction of the iPad doesn't mean that Apple is currently planning to EOL Macs and replace them all with iOS devices. They'll do that if and only if the market goes that way. As long as people keep buying personal computers, I'm sure Apple is perfectly happy to sell them.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[rthille]

"it puts the lotion on it's circuits or it gets the hose again"

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[thefolkmetal]

Wow... I'm sorry, but that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. You can't run OSX on a PC, because the software (OSX) is closed. You can run Windows/Linux on a Mac because the software (Windows/Linux) is open.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[stewbacca]

That's exactly my point. Thanks. Macs are open because you can run anything on them. The guy I was responding to said "Macs were closed from the beginning". I never said OSX was open, I only said that Macs were not closed.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

But I will say, the OSX machines, that you didn't try to change anything, ran much better than XP. It's when you had to start customizing things, then OSX breaks.

I think you may have just pinpointed the problem. That would explain why so many people want to call me names every time I mention how buggy OS X has become, if they're out-of-the-box style users maybe they have a different experience.

Yeah, people also begin to call me names when I complain how unstable Linux becomes when I install a couple third party patches to the kernel. So stop blaming Apple for instabilities after installing Haxies, you fucking moron.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

owning a shitty dell

There is really no need to hurl insults like that, sir.

Yeah, calling something a "dell" is clearly going too far, no matter how shitty it is.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[BasilBrush]

What bugs?

I've gone through all the OS versions from Jaguar to Snow Leopard, and I can only think of one that I've ever hit. A bug where the mouse pointer was disappearing whenever it was over a Safari window. A quick Google identified Flash as the likely culprit. I uninstalled the Flash plugin and it was fixed. So that wasn't even an Apple bug, but an Adobe bug. This experience fits in with the story that the majority of bugs reported to Apple are in fact Flash bugs.

So it may well be that you have experienced bugs. But unless you're specific we don't know that you are correctly attributing the bugs to the OS rather than to third party software you've added.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

So technically, I guess that makes them terminally ignorant :)
I am continually amazed at how I can continue to charge people because they don't want to read. Sometimes I feel I am less of a paid technician and more of a paid librarian.
Strange error message? 1.Toss the string into google. 2. Read threads. If more than three of them agree with the same solution, apply said solution. 3. Profit!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[BasilBrush]

Given that console login is still there, the onus to demonstrate that it ever went missing, as opposed to you making a mistake. Given that your experience of modern OSX being buggy doesn't match up with anyone else's here either, on balance I suspect the problem is with you, not the OS.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[BasilBrush]

Yes, Win7 has made huge strides, it's a solid OS, and a vast improvement over XP, and the abortion that was Vista.

Does Windows 7 still use the registry? If so it's just as much of an abortion as every other version of Windows. It might seem like an improvement when it's a new install, but over time it'll become a pile of shit that needs wiping and reinstalling, just as every version before did. You can't polish a turd.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[BasilBrush]

Can I buy Pages for $19.99 and download it to both my Mac and my wifeâ(TM)s (since I own them both)

That's what the text you quoted says. It says nothing about who is allowed to use it. So yes, you only need to buy one copy for you and your wife.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[BasilBrush]

Macs will be a closed platform in the end

... is a stupid comment following any mention of the Mac App Store, always coming from people who aren't Mac users, haven't thought it through, and just want to spout off some anti-Apple drivel.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mac owners already have software they have purchased that did not come from the App Store. Apple needs to continue to allow them to be installed in new versions of the OS, otherwise Mac owners simply won't upgrade.

You can only create a walled garden when you create a new platform, as Apple did with iOS.

The Mac App Store will become almost universal for buying new software because it's easy, convenient and cheap. Apple don't need to force people to use it. But the older ways of acquiring and installing software won't ever be blocked. It's a stupid and ill-thought out notion that they would be.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't just Apple doing this - Microsoft is rolling out an app store of their own, BlackBerry has an app store, Google's got an Android app store...

But none of those app stores are the /only/ way to get an application onto their respective devices (legally).

Bootable

[shitzu]

"A lot of questions surrounding this related to the ability to make bootable disks."

You should really try a mac sometimes.

Re:Bootable

[FictionPimp]

I'm curious as well. I always have done a clean install instead of an upgrade when I have upgraded the OS on my macbook pro. It gives me a chance to clean up my mac and to fix the inevitable fragmentation of the drive.

I wasn't planning on upgrading snow leopard. I was planning on doing a fresh install of Lion.

Re:Bootable

[shitzu]

Just to elaborate a bit: during the years i have installed hundreds (if not thousands) of instances of Windows, Linux as well as OSX. The amount of questions i have had related to the ability to make bootable disks on OSX vs Linux and Win is comparable to the relative national debt of Vatican vs USA

Re:Bootable

[0100010001010011]

I wouldn't be surprised if the "retail" version was just a USB jump drive. The MacBook Air doesn't have an optical drive. I removed the Optical drive from my MacBook Pro so I could have 2 hard drives. Spinning media has an expiration date that is quickly approaching.

Re:Bootable

[kmdrtako]

I upgraded my mbair from leopard to snow leopard by sharing the snow leopard disk from another mac. Expect I will do the same for lion because my mbair drive is pretty full; there's not enough room to dl the lion drive image.

Re:Bootable

[StuartHankins]

Another option is to remove the optical drive in the MBP and install a second hard drive. Do a fresh install there and tell it to look on the other drive for all your apps, documents and settings. It worked well for me.

Remember to add the "old" drive to the exclusions list for Spotlight and Time Machine, and unmount it on boot. Use it a week or two this way so you can make absolutely sure you aren't using anything on the old drive. Eventually you can pull the plug so to speak and use it as a seconday backup (I use CCC to clone the drive periodically and Time Machine for backups whenever I'm home and connected to the NAS).

Re:Bootable

[StuartHankins]

+1 Insightful. And a USB option would be welcome.

Re:Bootable

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually just purchased a new drive, and an enclosure for the old one, you can then browse it as needed. And when you finally tire of it, make it a portable drive.

Re:Bootable

[fermion]

Right Apple has pretty much gotten away from DVDs. All my stuff is on external hard disk on partitions. I can boot from the external hard disk as easily as I can book from any other media. On the new macbook air the recovery volume in on a USB drive.

I suspect what they are talking about here is a network boot install of the upgrade, which I believe is already possible. Since the Mac App store is connected to an account, and not a computer, one should be able to upgrade all machines for a single purchase. If the continue with the $30 price, which pretty much just covers retail cost and media, then this would be a savings over the $50 price for the family pack. I would not expect it go below $30 as they already reduced it 50%.

As far as specific boot media is concerned, I suspect that there will not be a way to create a bootable disk. I don't know many people who know how to do this on the Mac. The ability to not create a bootable volume on a harddisk might be a reason for some people not to go this right, and stick with the traditional media.

Re:Bootable

[stewbacca]

No kidding. Not only does Apple NOT prohibit disk imaging, they include the software to do so with every Mac and provide directions on how to do it:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=DiskUtility/10.5/en/duh3.html

As usual, a FUDdy claim about Macs is easily squashed with a tiny amount of exposure to the platform and a google search.

Re:Bootable

[stewbacca]

I did the same. My old Macbook disk drive broke. I first made a disk image and transferred across the network (Leopard), then with Snow Leopard, I used the new "share your dvd drive" feature, whatever that's called. Slow, but good enough. Still faster to do it over wirelessly shared CD than a full install of Windows would take with the physical media.

Re:Bootable

[starwed]

Yeah, the MBA recovery drive is a cute little USB dongle. (It's pretty interesting, the whole thing is maybe twice the length as the USB connector, and is actually thinner --- it just has bare contacts, not the casing that surrounds most such connectors.)

Re:Bootable

[biodata]

I would endorse this. Last time I did an 'upgrade' of my OSX it made my machine unusable for a couple of days while I tried everything I could to get it to boot.

Re:Bootable

[wylf]

good! my macbook optical drive has been broken for ages - to be honest, i only noticed a few months ago when a friend asked me to try reading their newly purchased DVD, because their computer was buggered.

Re:Bootable

[teridon]

That link you posted is how to make a blank disk image. It does *not* tell you how to make a bootable image from which you can (re)/install the OS. When your hard drive fails, how are you going to install Lion on that brand-new replacement hard drive? It would be nice to have an external drive or optical media from which to boot, wouldn't it?

Re:Bootable

[jedidiah]

The only times I have had cause to do something funky in terms of boot disks is on MacOS and that was to avoid how it does thing different and how that impacts dual booting with either Linux or Windows.

Re:Bootable

[MachineShedFred]

In fact, the MacBook Air comes with a small 8GB USB stick that consists of nothing but the Mach kernel, a boot.efi file, a driver mkext to get the thing going, and a disk image of the Mac OS X 10.6.5 install DVD which is what actually boots.

It's basically NetBoot-on-a-stick.

Re:Bootable

[Richard_at_work]

Every time an OSX beta is leaked onto the web, its as a dmg or iso file, and its typically larger than a 4.3GB DVD-R. You know how people who download that beta get to install it? They use Disk Utility to write it to a USB disk as a bootable image and boot from it. I've done it multiple times - it will be the same deal here.

Re:Bootable

[stewbacca]

That's where I was going, but I failed to address the "bootable" part, because it is obvious to anyone who knows how to use Disk Utility. You download the image, use disk utility to create a bootable image, then burn that to a disk or external drive and boot from that. I'm not sure why people think this is so unpossible.

Re:Bootable

[jbolden]

openfirmware includes some limited servers which have network functionality.

There is something to boot to.

Re:Bootable

[eugene_roux]

Just to elaborate a bit: during the years i have installed hundreds (if not thousands) of instances of Windows, Linux as well as OSX. The amount of questions i have had related to the ability to make bootable disks on OSX vs Linux and Win is comparable to the relative national debt of Vatican vs USA

<p>Oh God, I never realized the Vatican was in that much debt!</p>

Re:Bootable

[jvkjvk]

I'm not sure why people think this is so unpossible.

Mainly because at a certain point in the dark ages, it was considered somewhat of a Black Art, and many people created may coasters in the attempts.

They seem to still find it unimaginable it can be done now so with almost no effort.

Regards

Re:Bootable

[DJRumpy]

Open Disk Utility. Press Shift + Command + N. Select volume or folder to image. Select type of image (CD/DVD Master or whatever suits your needs), click OK.

You can also just drop any CD/DVD partition right onto your Mac hard drives doing a 'restore' to a new partition. I've put the install disk right on a hard drive partition as a 'bootable CD' without much hassle.

Re:Bootable

[epyT-R]

or apple's dvds are dual layer discs..

It is fine until third parties are required

[Shivetya]

The day they require app installation for third party products to go through the "App Store" is the day I stop buying Apple computers. I don't care about the restriction on the iPad, that was there when I bought it. If anything all the App Store has proved to me is that its nearly impossible to separate good programs from bad ones because it costs nothing to get them on the store. By that I mean, to have a successful product in the retail environment today means being quality enough or a well enough known group to get stores to stock your products. With the App Store there is such a small barrier to entry it just becomes a cluttered mess.

Back to the story, I don't care where I get OS versions/updates. Whats so different from an App Store than downloading from a corporate website (like you do with Windows Service Packs which is what Lion feels to me - just like Snow Leopard was before it... etc)

Re:It is fine until third parties are required

[Lunix Nutcase]

The day they require app installation for third party products to go through the "App Store" is the day I stop buying Apple computers.

And since they've repeated stated they won't be doing such a thing, you won't have to worry. They have nothing to gain by lying about it.

Re:It is fine until third parties are required

[ivucica]

Whats so different from an App Store than downloading from a corporate website

Centralized autoupdate for all apps bought off the store. A bit of quality checking.

(like you do with Windows Service Packs which is what Lion feels to me - just like Snow Leopard was before it... etc)

Service packs, yep. Small incremental improvements. However, Lion will for me be a step back, UI-wise, as no service pack could be. What they're doing with buttons, with tabs, with scrollbars makes me think that Snow Leopard will be the pinnacle of the UI design. Maybe in a year or two I'll disagree with myself and I'll like it. Let's wait and see. There are only a few announced Lion things that I want in Snow Leopard, such as improved Expose.

Re:It is fine until third parties are required

[Anonymous Coward]

indeed. sounds like windows update to me. technically, they could distribute f.e. vista to win7 upgrades trough it without troubles, too.

Re:It is fine until third parties are required

[R.Mo_Robert]

nearly impossible to separate good programs from bad ones because it costs nothing to get them on the store

And by "nothing," I assume you mean $100/year.

(Yes, I did read the rest--you mean that anyone who submits will be accepted, unlike a physical store where they'd have to have some interest in stocking your product. I understand this sentiment, although Apple tries not to accept apps that crash, rely on outdated APIs, do any user--un-friendly activities, look bad, otherwise violate any of the Store guidelines. Not as stringent as a physical store, but perhaps better for the average user than finding something on the Web.)

Re:It is fine until third parties are required

[Anonymous Coward]

They have nothing to gain by lying about it.

Other than buying some time until people can get used to the idea and they can announce a working solution. When Steve Jobs says something will never happen, it's a safe bet Apple is already working on making it happen.

Re:It is fine until third parties are required

[stewbacca]

Well I for one will be getting it simply for better server tools for my home network.

Re:It is fine until third parties are required

[elrous0]

And since they've repeated stated they won't be doing such a thing, you won't have to worry.

Didn't they repeatedly say that they were sticking with PowerPC chips and not looking at Intel chips, right up until they announced they were going with Intel?

Re:It is fine until third parties are required

[carou]

And since they've repeated stated they won't be doing such a thing, you won't have to worry.

Didn't they repeatedly say that they were sticking with PowerPC chips and not looking at Intel chips, right up until they announced they were going with Intel?

No, they didn't.

Re:It is fine until third parties are required

[Anonymous Coward]

No "at the time it was written, they were right" rationalization is required. Look at the actual question asked:

"There's a rumor saying there will be a Mac App Store and no software without authorization from Apple will run on Mac OS X. Is that true?"

Steve's response:

"Nope."

And his response was truthful, because taken as a whole the rumor was false even if they had the project almost ready to launch at the time. He just didn't choose to itemize his response...

Re:It is fine until third parties are required

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

And since they've repeated stated they won't be doing such a thing, you won't have to worry.

Didn't they repeatedly say that they were sticking with PowerPC chips and not looking at Intel chips, right up until they announced they were going with Intel?

Repeatedly? I'm curious - can you provide two quotes (that would actually be below minimum for "repeatedly") where Apple has said that? Heck, one?

Apt-get???

[goombah99]

Why is apt-get significantly different than the app-store? Plus the app-store handles the paid transaction which apt-get is not intended for.

Re:Apt-get???

[creepynut]

The difference is that package managers like apt, yum, etc let you specify your own sources. Apple's App Stores do not allow this. Without jailbreaking, the iOS devices can only get apps from Apple.

If I install Ubuntu and want to get the latest and greatest from vendor X they can just give me an installer which adds themselves to my apt sources. I think Adobe does this, but it's been a few years since I've used Linux and my primary desktop.

I've been primarily an Apple user, but if Mac ever goes closed like iOS does I'll be back on Linux in a split second.

Re:Apt-get???

[bsDaemon]

Because people really want to use Ubuntu with a Rolls Royce sticker price on it so that they can pretend that they are both trendy and wealthy. At least, that is my assumption. It's the only one that makes sense in this context.

Re:Apt-get???

[kmdrtako]

Indeed.

Unix had pkg_add long before Linux even existed. It lives on in the BSDs and OS X, and probably Solaris too for all I know.

The community could have enhanced/extended the pkg tools instead of reinventing them as rpm/apt/rpath....

Oh, NIH, nevermind.

Re:Apt-get???

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu's Software Center has a for-pay section. It's got around 11 items in it =/

World of Goo and Crossover Office are there.

Re:Apt-get???

[goombah99]

I use apt-get on my macs and linux boxes. It is one method among many I use. In my experience it is chaos. I much prefer installing canned stand alone apps on my mac. I use apt-get to get ones that are more widespread projects like scipy and so forth that cant be as easily encapsulated into apps. and even there many times I've had to give up on apt-get from fink or mac ports and install some pre-built tar ball or other customized installer.

I don't want to see apt-get go away. But for encapsulated app distribution its too fragile for my mom to use. And for me, when i'm at work, it's not worth my time to deal with all the inconstancies it has if there is just a way to get an app pre-packaged even if I have to pay for it.

Re:Apt-get???

[The Moof]

Since OSX is somewhat based on FreeBSD, wouldn't pkg_add be more suitable?

Re:Apt-get???

[omnichad]

Some people want the support of major commercial software (Flash, Silverlight, Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, Final Cut Studio) while still having a powerful terminal that runs familiar commands underneath. Not even Ubuntu with Wine gives me that

Re:Apt-get???

[0100010001010011]

You mean like Fink and MacPorts

Re:Apt-get???

[erikdalen]

tbh a lot of that fragility comes from doing backwards incompatible API & ABI changes quite frequently in different libraries and in kernel etc. APT handles the situation pretty well IMO.

The situation in Windows is instead that deprecated APIs have to be maintained for literally decades and every app ships their own version of libraries they use that don't get security and bug fixes managed centrally.

Re:Apt-get???

[bsDaemon]

I know, and I use a MacBook Pro as my primary personal machine. It's Unix that can run MatLab AND Photoshop, but I do not miss apt at all. MacPorts does well enough. But then again, as my nick might suggest, I'm not really interested in Linux very much anyway,

Re:Apt-get???

[Alaukik]

You should compare apple to apples and not oranges . Ubuntu Software center allows you to have a paid transaction .

Re:Apt-get???

[creepynut]

Which would be great if they actually provided a decent user experience. I use MacPorts to install small things like MacFUSE and wget but to install full applications is a chore if it even works. I tried using it to install the GIMP a couple years ago which failed after a few hours of compilation.

I switched to Mac for the user experience. I am a seasoned developer who is plenty comfortable using a terminal to get around but I don't want to do it to install day to day apps. MacPorts certainly isn't on the list of things I use to brag about my Mac.

Ubuntu provides a fantastic user experience with the Add/Remove Software (or whatever they call it now). You don't even need to do anything special to install DEB packages. Download, double-click to install. gdebi talks to APT, installs any dependencies if required and done.

Apple also provides a fantastic way to install apps. Download, drag to Applications folder, done. Having the Mac App store to do this in a central way would be great in theory but it isn't open enough for me.

If someone created an Ubuntu-like "App Store" for the Mac based on MacPorts or Fink but with pre-compiled packages it would be incredible. I've heard rumours of Cydia coming to the Mac, this might be just the thing I'm talking about.

Re:Apt-get???

[jcupitt65]

MacPorts and Fink are more trouble than they are worth, usually. They just don't have enough package maintainers, sadly, and their policy of constant updates also means constant breakages. I've switched to jhbuild for making .app bundles.

Debian and Ubuntu are in a totally different class. Their repositories are just wonderful -- huge choice, expertly packaged, thoroughly tested -- and have saved me days and days of thankless tinkering.

Here's hoping OS X and Win get something as good in less than 5 years. You never know.

Re:Apt-get???

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think OS X lion (the topic of discussion) will be available on Fink & MacPorts?

Re:Apt-get???

[Anonymous Coward]

MacPorts is a savior. I got all my favorite CL tools I am used to under linux to run on my MBP through MacPorts. Those guys rock. It does take a very long time to build anything complex like Gimp (took almost an entire workday on an i5 2011 MBP), so those should be installed from .dmg packages, but for small tools it works great.

Re:Apt-get???

[nyri]

This may sound trivial but app-store has a few advantages to apt-get:

1. Programs are presented as icons
2. Programs can be rated
3. App-store tells you what applications are popular

These are important features for casual users.

North Carolina data center

[Anonymous Coward]

This explains Apple's recent push to build an east-coast data center in North Carolina. Regardless, the bandwidth demands will be astounding on day one (I'm reminded of the HalfLife2 launch, with tens of thousands of people (more?) being locked out/delayed/experiencing problems as the "new" Steam network was swamped.

If Apple was smart about it, they'd integrate P2P file sharing and "offload" the burden to the greater network (and their customers), perhaps in exchange for a small discount? But then they might have to move away from the unprotected image and go to an activation-key scheme like Microsoft. On second thought, I'll just pick up a DVD.

This makes me realise how much I love...

[Anonymous Coward]

...running GNU/Linux.

What about download caps / multi system / slow dow

[Joe The Dragon]

What about download caps that get in the way of downloading a 4-8 GB OS?
What about when you have like 3-5 systems and only want to download the os one time and use a disk or usbkey to load it on all of your systems?
What about systems that only have dial up and you need to go off site for higher speed downloads?
What about people with slow downloads in lots of areas 1.5 meg dsl is the best that you can get.
What about if you need to reload the os on a blank HDD?

Can someone step up to the plate?

[MMC Monster]

With the advent of App Store for OS X and problems getting GPL software in app stores (how to distribute source?), what is needed is an open source app store.

Can someone port Synaptic (or any other repository-based system) to OS X and Windows? The benefits are huge and should be obvious.

I'm not a programmer, but wouldn't mind paying a token sum to get a free app store for OS X.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried macports or fink?

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[MMC Monster]

Yes. I've done both. They're not what's needed.

What's needed is a .dmg image file to an application with a GUI with repositories set to easily install end user applications, such as Firefox, GIMP, Filezilla, etc.

Not necessarily something like Synaptic. In fact, it should be a more polished UI, similar to Mac App Store with a way to find applications by type.

I want to be able to install the newer version of rsync without going to the command line. I want to get filezilla and get it updated without having to wait until the next time I run it.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

With the advent of App Store for OS X and problems getting GPL software in app stores (how to distribute source?), what is needed is an open source app store.

Can someone port Synaptic (or any other repository-based system) to OS X and Windows? The benefits are huge and should be obvious.

I'm not a programmer, but wouldn't mind paying a token sum to get a free app store for OS X.

You've already got 3 repository type systems for OSX : Fink, MacPorts and Homebrew.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[StuartHankins]

Unfortunately I have tried both -- and those were the only times I got my Mac to the point where I had to reinstall. Well, other than the time I used Monolingual and removed all PPC code from Tiger. All so I could re-use some scripts I built for work...

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[frinkster]

With the advent of App Store for OS X and problems getting GPL software in app stores (how to distribute source?), what is needed is an open source app store.

The only issue with the Apple App Store and the GPL is that the App Store requires you to agree to not distribute the binary beyond the 5 computers (at a time) on which you are allowed to install the application. The App Store page for any particular application shows the publisher and the publisher's URL. If you want to distribute the source, just put it on the linked web site. How is that a problem?

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[MMC Monster]

Any of them have a GUI that will allow installation and removal of apps? Something that's even close to as polished as Mac App Store or Synaptic?

It sounds stupid, but a central repository for Mac GPL apps can really spread interest in GPL code and it's advantages in the Mac ecosystem.

For instance, free automatic updates that will fix a security fix in a library that is shared by many GPL apps without having to update all the apps.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[jonwil]

On Windows, what you are asking for is what CoApp is intended to provide.

Its intended to be a system for installing open source software and libraries on Windows. Its intended to handle dependancies and libraries including the infamous "dll hell".

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Any of them have a GUI that will allow installation and removal of apps? Something that's even close to as polished as Mac App Store or Synaptic?

There was a GUI for Fink I believe, I don't use Fink myself

For instance, free automatic updates that will fix a security fix in a library that is shared by many GPL apps without having to update all the apps.

That's not how OSX app folders work for GUI apps, the OSX apps are self contained folders that include all dependencies minus the ones that are installed as part of the system. The OS does come with a ton of open source libraries and they are updated by the OS updates.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[Microlith]

That restriction makes it impossible to distribute GPL'd software via the store, since the user must agree to terms that violate the GPL. Same reason GPL software is readily taken down from the iProduct App Store.

Apple shouldn't be forcing arbitrary restrictions on 3rd party software. They should only determine that it meets the quality requirements to be listed.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[printman]

The 5-computer limit does not apply to applications, only to music and video content. You can even re-download apps later as needed (same as iOS).

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[h4rr4r]

That is why OSX apps are broken. Now you have tons of old insecure libraries on your machine that never get updated.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[Teckla]

You've already got 3 repository type systems for OSX : Fink [finkproject.org], MacPorts [macports.org] and Homebrew [github.com].

I can't speak for Fink or Homebrew, but MacPorts upgrades often mysteriously fail, and many of the ports are hideously out of date.

Also, building from source is painfully slow for any non-trivial number of applications.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[Dick Darlington]

How about bodega ?

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

It's a trade-off. I rather like it myself. One the one hand OS libraries get loaded dynamically and get updated automatically and relatively rarely used libraries get bundled with the app so it becomes a self contained package. I love being able to just drag apps from one mac to the other, even between OS versions (and even between architectures if it's a universal app) and just having it work. Clean and easy. It's one of those typical mac things I guess: you either love it or can't stand it.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've already got 3 repository type systems for OSX : Fink, MacPorts and Homebrew.

And they all suck balls.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[h4rr4r]

I think it looks good to the novice, but is a terrible idea for anyone beyond that level. Like pretty much all Mac products.

It really would not be that hard to have the OS install libraries needed for an application when it is dragged to the desktop. That would give the user the appearance of this bundled functionality without all the downsides. Appearance is all that matters to them anyway.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I think it looks good to the novice, but is a terrible idea for anyone beyond that level. Like pretty much all Mac products.

Gee, thanks for the casual insult there. I'm a Unix sys admin so I'd like to think I'm a bit beyond the novice level. I also see a LOT of Apple products used among my colleagues so I don't think you're right about their appeal.

It really would not be that hard to have the OS install libraries needed for an application when it is dragged to the desktop. That would give the user the appearance of this bundled functionality without all the downsides. Appearance is all that matters to them anyway.

Not only is your idea overly complicated (long live KISS) but it's a good way to install all kinds of nasty stuff like viruses, people would have to give administrative passwords every time they first launch an app (so you can't just launch an app from a USB stick on a computer you don't own) and then there's the problem of multiple, possibly incompatible versions of libraries being installed by different apps. Sounds like a headache. FYI the application bundle, far from being dreamed up by appearances obsessed nitwits as you seem to assume, is a venerable technology going back to NextStep and RiscOS. It's a proven technology that's easy and user friendly. What's not to like ?

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[h4rr4r]

Not only is your idea overly complicated (long live KISS) but it's a good way to install all kinds of nasty stuff like viruses, people would have to give administrative passwords every time they first launch an app
Nope only on install. On drop the library installer can run. As to your virus suggestion, these libraries would come from a central signed repo.

and then there's the problem of multiple, possibly incompatible versions of libraries being installed by different apps.
So you are some sort of time traveler from the 90s? This is a solved issue in many ways.

What's not to like is the security nightmare that the application bundle presents. It guarantees old outdated and insecure libraries and third party code is available for privilege escalation.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[jbolden]

Do they have GUIs yes. Finkcommander darwinports GUI... But you have to know what you are doing to use Fink or DarwinPorts.

Homebrew OTOH would work well for an easy to use repository.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[jbolden]

And if the system has trouble resolving a dependency then what? What about if it triggers a long series of upgrades? What if that dependency forces an upgrade on another application that breaks it?

Linux apps handle this sort of thing well because they grow up in an environment of constantly changing libraries.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[jbolden]

That's not necessarily a problem. Apple doesn't have copyright and thus can't enforce that provision. If I explicitly waive that provision from Apple no GPL violation occurred.

Think about this situation.
A writes a GPL app
B distributes A's application
C downloads from B.
D tells C that he must get a giraffe to legally use A's application

D's act doesn't cause B to violate the GPL.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Nope only on install. On drop the library installer can run. As to your virus suggestion, these libraries would come from a central signed repo.

That would require network access on install, like some crazy DRM schemes. Not usable in all circumstances, still unnecessarily complicates something which should be easy and straight forward.

So you are some sort of time traveler from the 90s? This is a solved issue in many ways.

We learn the past today to prevent making the same mistakes in future.

What's not to like is the security nightmare that the application bundle presents. It guarantees old outdated and insecure libraries and third party code is available for privilege escalation.

For the majority of apps this is a non issue since a lot of popular and useful libraries are included in the OS but like I said before it is a trade-off. I prefer the apps to update themselves (or you could have something like the Mac App Store do it) if they use some library that doesn't ship with the OS, you prefer it the other way. Both have their pros and cons.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[ajo_arctus]

UM, GP wasn't entirely accurate when he said a bundle include all dependencies too. Mac OSX has a ton of libraries and 'frameworks' that are system wide. These are updated by the point-releases of OS X and security updates too. OSX uses a system called 'dynamic loader' for linking an app to the library at runtime. The only time that breaks down is when an app needs to use a lib that isn't part of OS X, then it'll be included in the bundle.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[Stupendoussteve]

MacPorts has a GUI called Porticus which is similar to Synaptic. I'm sure there are others, that's just the one I use.

MacPorts is also hosted by Apple, though they are not officially involved in development. Many of the developers are Apple employees, however, because (get this) many Apple employees are nerds that enjoy Unix.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Thanks for bringing up yet another myth about Apple that will from now on be treated as gospel - there is no 5 computer limit on the Mac App Store.

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow

[Anonymous Coward]

For you, buy the disc version.

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow

[CharlyFoxtrot]

That's why this is in addition to the traditional DVD which will still be sold. Also if they distribute it as a dmg image you can probably load it onto a USB drive and install from that, that's in fact quite a common way to install OSX on hackintosh netbooks.

More importantly

[Provocateur]

Should the editors refrain from posting their opinion in TFS?

Remain neutral, guys, despite your sentiments, else I would relegate this to 'yet just another blog site'. If you must, post a pro- and a con-, but really it shouldn't be your pro or your con. Post a comment in the discussion instead, and we won't mod you redundant.

Re:More importantly

[Microlith]

Slashdot isn't neutral. It never has been.

Re:More importantly

[Wyatt Earp]

Maybe the editors should read the summary thats right above their editorialization.

Re:More importantly

[stewbacca]

Yeah, I post the same sentiment at least twice a week. The editorializing by slashdot editors comes off as cheap trolling, but generates lots of comments.

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow

[tooyoung]

What about download caps that get in the way of downloading a 4-8 GB OS?
What about when you have like 3-5 systems and only want to download the os one time and use a disk or usbkey to load it on all of your systems?
What about systems that only have dial up and you need to go off site for higher speed downloads?
What about people with slow downloads in lots of areas 1.5 meg dsl is the best that you can get.
What about if you need to reload the os on a blank HDD?

Then you just buy it from the store like normal, instead of downloading it. Sheesh....

This is to end Hackintoshes (and VMs?)

[dublin]

Apple is definitely looking to strengthen their stranglehold on the OS X environment. This move makes it much harder to run OS X on non-Apple hardware - they'll make sure your system passes Apple genuine validation before you're allowed to download it.

Now I know that Apple's OS X license agreement says you can only run OS X on Apple hardware, but I also think that's an illegal restriction, and this move will make it nearly impossible to run O X on any hardware except what Apple has decided to allow you to run it on.

It'll be interesting to see what they do w.r.t. virtualization - will they allow VM images to only be downloaded to and run from Apple OS X Server instances? Do you now have to buy hideously expensive Apple server hardware to be able to benefit from virtualization?

This stinks to high heaven. I like Apple's products, but haven't been able to bring myself to buy them in several years - I just can't willingly march into the gulag...

Re:This is to end Hackintoshes (and VMs?)

[stewbacca]

Now I know that Apple's OS X license agreement says you can only run OS X on Apple hardware, but I also think that's an illegal restriction...

Are you an attorney or a judge that has ruled on the legality of the OSX EULA? What's that? No? Ok, thanks!

Re:This is to end Hackintoshes (and VMs?)

[RMingin]

I have OSX 10.7 DP4 running on a Gigabyte motherboard and a Core i7 rather nicely. So far any anti-Hackintosh provision is either not added or woefully nonfunctional. Virtualization? Apple has only recently begun allowing OSX virtualization in any form. They still do not offer ANY VM images that I'm aware of.

Re:This is to end Hackintoshes (and VMs?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been of on the Planet zog for the past 65 months?
Apple have stopped building the Xserve hardware.
AFAIK, they have allowed OSX to run in VM's as well.

Re:This is to end Hackintoshes (and VMs?)

[drsmithy]

Do you now have to buy hideously expensive Apple server hardware to be able to benefit from virtualization?

There's nothing "now" about this. Apple have always only allowed virtualisation of OS X on Apple hardware.

Re:This is to end Hackintoshes (and VMs?)

[MachineShedFred]

Nope. Once you're on a hack, you download the app from the app store. You then run the app, which installs Lion. Then, you adjust your boot loader and driver injector accordingly, just the same as the hacks do today.

It's not like it installs the OS directly from their file server to your /System/Library/CoreServices folder or something, it downloads a "Install Mac OS X.app" which contains the MPKG distributions.

Re:This is to end Hackintoshes (and VMs?)

[UnknowingFool]

Now I know that Apple's OS X license agreement says you can only run OS X on Apple hardware, but I also think that's an illegal restriction, and this move will make it nearly impossible to run O X on any hardware except what Apple has decided to allow you to run it on.

First of all the ability to restrict OS by hardware predates Apple. Can you run AIX on non-IBM machines? Yes but it will be unsupported just like in a hackintosh situation. Second, unless Apple releases some sort of authentication protocol like WGA it's not going to happen. Apple doesn't even check how many machines you've installed OS X with a disc. It's strictly on the honor system. From what know today, OS X updates work most of the time. There are glitches; hence the term: "unsupported"

Re:This is to end Hackintoshes (and VMs?)

[jbolden]

Now I know that Apple's OS X license agreement says you can only run OS X on Apple hardware, but I also think that's an illegal restriction

Based on what?

t'll be interesting to see what they do w.r.t. virtualization - will they allow VM images to only be downloaded to and run from Apple OS X Server instances? Do you now have to buy hideously expensive Apple server hardware to be able to benefit from virtualization?

They have discontinued server. Server functionality is being merged into Lion. But yeah most likely if you want to run OSX images you are going to have to do it on Apple servers.

Re:This is to end Hackintoshes (and VMs?)

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience with Apple's software is the same

Except it’s not.

can't just buy a new mainboard when the old one is fried, since your OEM version of XP won't run

Doesn’t apply to Mac OS X.

can't use your old corporate install of Office on your new Windows 7 install

Doesn’t apply to Mac OS X, or to any other Apple software for Mac OS X. Doesn’t even apply to old versions of corporate install disks of MS Office for Mac (I can’t speak to recent versions).

migrating your own mail from Outlook 2003 to a free -- or commercial -- alternative basically sucks sweaty donkey balls and is barely possible

Doesn’t apply to Mac OS X Mail.

Why are you complaining about Microsoft software running on MS Windows in a topic about the Mac App Store?

Re:This is to end Hackintoshes (and VMs?)

[zugmeister]

Well, sorta. They only allow virtualisation of OS X Server on Apple hardware. If you want to run another instance of the OS X workstation software on your Apple hardware according to the EULA you're out of luck.

Re:This is to end Hackintoshes (and VMs?)

[Anonymous Coward]

This stinks to high heaven.

What's wrong with distributing an .iso (eh .dmg) over the internets? Isn't this what linux distros have been doing for years?

Anti-trust time

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, time to finally pull out the long anti-trust knives against Apple.

Re:Anti-trust time

[intheshelter]

And sue them for exactly WHAT anti-trust violation?

Re:Anti-trust time

[Anonymous Coward]

And sue them for exactly WHAT anti-trust violation?

It doesn't matter. Anything apple does is cause for letting loose the dogs of war. If apple were Obama, slashdotters would be the Tea-Party Republicans

Simple answer to all this...

[Anonymous Coward]

...get yourself an ipad, switch off any remaining brain cells, and consume!

"Think Different" should be updated to "Don't think", but that's always been the unofficial Apple motto anyhow, let's face it!.

Am I the only one spotting a problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

OSX Lion would be a nice upgrade for Leopard, Tiger, etc. Except...only Snow Leopard has app store access, and Snow Leopard is the least in need of upgrading, being the newest.

But no-one has the last laugh...

[DavidR1991]

...because if MS have are their usual selves, they'll be planning to duplicate the exact same scheme for Windows 8 and beyond

Re:But no-one has the last laugh...

[KlaymenDK]

...which would hurt much less!

On the Apple side, the theory seems to be that you can't have their sw without their hw.

On the MS side, that would mean you can't have their sw without ... what, exactly? It's nigh-on impossible to shut down the "IBM PC clone" platform, for which many of us would choose a *nix over Windows, anyhow. So we're looking at something akin to the lock-down that's going on on the Playstation platform (which seems to be somewhat ineffective, but shhh).

Re:But no-one has the last laugh...

[somersault]

Then people would stick with Windows 7 forever.

Microsoft have a history of being evil, but they have never actually stopped people running any software they want on their PCs. In fact, that's a lot of the problem with Windows.

Re:But no-one has the last laugh...

[Richard_at_work]

Microsoft Windows has had a software market place since Windows XP :)

Re:But no-one has the last laugh...

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Microsoft have a history of being evil, but they have never actually stopped people running any software they want on their PCs.

Neither has Apple, yet you somehow take that for granted because one of the ways to buy the next OS is via the Mac App store.

Re:But no-one has the last laugh...

[somersault]

I'm not taking anything for granted. I don't even run OSX. I just don't see how the ability to download OSX on the App Store rather than buying a disc has any bearing at all on closed vs open. Ubuntu is extremely open, and yet I can also upgrade my distro without having to burn a disc.

Re:But no-one has the last laugh...

[somersault]

Ah, I didn't think your comment made much sense, but now that I've read the context, I see the problem. I wasn't the one that suggested that Apple were going this direction, I just pointed out that MS have always actually been more open than Apple with regards to letting you do what you want with your personal computing devices.

There is Xbox, but I don't really count that since consoles have traditionally been a locked down market, whereas before the iPhone, you could do whatever the hell you wanted with your smartphone.

The last time I bought a drive for physical media.

[Hadlock]

I bought a SATA DVD-R for about $20 so I could install Windows 7 from disc. Prior to that I'd been using a 4x IDE CD-ROM drive from 1997 (the kind with a headphone jack, back, forward, play and stop buttons in addition to the standard eject button on the front) that came out of some off the shelf PC at a big box store. I'm not even sure I have a floppy drive in my junk box any more.
 
I have no beef with getting rid of physical media wherever possible. As long as future computers can boot from an onboard ROM and connect to a server and download a copy of the OS (local server, internet linux distro, commercial OS, whatever) I'm fine with that. It feels very old fashioned to actually handle media these days, except to plug in a wired cable... and even that is becoming less common.

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow

[goombah99]

What about download caps that get in the way of downloading a 4-8 GB OS?

then you'll have to do it the old fashioned way.

What about when you have like 3-5 systems and only want to download the os one time and use a disk or usbkey to load it on all of your systems?

Good question. so far I've been able to move apps by USB key to other machines. the apps are tethered to my account not to my machine. In the past apple, unlike MS, has always treated the OS as your property. you can move it where you like or re-sell it as long as it's not on multiple machines at the same time (unless you bought a multi-machine lic).

What about systems that only have dial up and you need to go off site for higher speed downloads?

then you'll have to do it the old fashioned way.

What about people with slow downloads in lots of areas 1.5 meg dsl is the best that you can get.

then you'll have to do it the old fashioned way.

What about if you need to reload the os on a blank HDD?

good question. I bet there is an answer too.

antitrust laws will not let M$ do a app store lock

[Joe The Dragon]

antitrust laws will not let M$ do a app store lock in and apple may also hit that if they go to far. Also the law said that you can hack your phone for any network or any app.

What apple said you can only use att dsl or dial up on your mac?

What if M$ said we only let you use cable ISP's?

Why not make things easy for users?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people really want to use Ubuntu with a Rolls Royce sticker price on it so that they can pretend that they are both trendy and wealthy. At least, that is my assumption. It's the only one that makes sense in this context.

Trim your neckbeard and get out of the basement.

Many non-nerd people use computers these days, and making things easier for them is a worthy goal.

This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[Jahava]

This is just the latest attempt to promote the Mac app store, but it's also another step toward what's ultimately coming. Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores. Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.

I would like to think that people would howl about this when it happens, of course. But I bet that Apple will sell it as a necessary security measure to protect against viruses and attacks, and that most Mac users (and most members of the public) will be all-too-willing to trade freedom for security. Sadly, it will probably only increase Mac sales--prompting other PC makers to follow suite with their own closed systems.

I shudder to think that we may one day look back and ask "Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?"

And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

So here's my question: is it really so bad?

So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate. Apple works diligently to prevent malicious code from entering the App Store, push out software updates, etc. Their system is no longer open / free, and that sucks. Fortunately, we have Linux, FreeBSD, Windows (although I suspect MS will follow in Apple's footsteps), and a host of other operating systems to turn to if we want software freedom, console login, etc.

If Apple closed off their devices, I would still not rule them out. Obviously I wouldn't use them as a hacking platform, but if Apple allows FOSS into their App Store, I don't see how even my daily usage of their systems would change much. Apple systems would become less suitable for some niche things, like debugging, emulation, penetration testing, etc., but most of the time that's not what people use Apple for.

The issue comes when / if Apple starts preventing legitimate software from entering their App Store. If Apple makes the App Store the only gateway into their devices, you can bet that there will be a suit of lawsuits from whatever company gets barred, the EFF, etc.; if Apple loses these, then their platform will become open "enough" again. If they win, then that is the day I stop using Apple products, as they are no longer free and flexible enough for my tastes.

And even then, while Apple systems may not meet my tastes as a developer, the App Store gateway is a perfect model for my parents, grandparents, cousins, and siblings. The less maintenance they have to do, including software vetting and updates, the better.

This is a good thing; Apple is defining its market, and through this move it will be far more suitable for the 95% of the population that only ever wanted to use a computer as an appliance.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[KlaymenDK]

My sentiments as well, it's a good thing if it allows non-tinkerers to safely not tinker, so to speak.

It's really not that much different from the "Women's Volvo" idea that Volvo toyed around with at one time, where you'd only fill up fuel and wind screen wiper fluid and actually couldn't open the bonnet even if you wanted to. But why would you want to, if you're just using it to get from A to B? If you're a tinkerer, get a more tinker-friendly car.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[Superken7]

App Store for FOSS software? I would never make it available through the app store if I need to pay $99 a year (or anything a year, for that matter). And I won't if that ever happens (not being able to install it through other means without rooting/jbreaking)

I don't think that will happen, though. I don't see the makers of free programs suddenly cashing out $99 for distribution unless they are paying more than that already for hosting, which I doubt.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[Microlith]

So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate. Apple works diligently to prevent malicious code from entering the App Store, push out software updates, etc. Their system is no longer open / free, and that sucks.

It does, mostly because they would be making the decision for their users and leaving anyone who owned hardware from them out in the cold.

Fortunately, we have Linux, FreeBSD, Windows (although I suspect MS will follow in Apple's footsteps), and a host of other operating systems to turn to if we want software freedom, console login, etc.

If you think that Microsoft and Apple could go totally closed without causing problems for other OSes then I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[Microlith]

My sentiments as well, it's a good thing if it allows non-tinkerers to safely not tinker, so to speak.

But it also bars those who wish to tinker from ever doing so, for the sole reason of padding their profit margins.

It's really not that much different from the "Women's Volvo" idea that Volvo toyed around with at one time, where you'd only fill up fuel and wind screen wiper fluid and actually couldn't open the bonnet even if you wanted to. But why would you want to, if you're just using it to get from A to B? If you're a tinkerer, get a more tinker-friendly car.

Mostly, welding the hood shut is intended to force you to visit the vendor rather than any 3rd party. Stripping you of one freedom and getting you to accept it just means they'll see it fit to take away more in the future.

I can't believe there are people on Slashdot arguing in favor of crippled, DRM'd, locked-down systems.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

And all is well... until they start locking the hardware down too so it'll only run their approved OS. Why not? They already do on the iPad, and it's been standard procedure on phones for years.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[KlaymenDK]

I can't believe there are people on Slashdot arguing in favor of crippled, DRM'd, locked-down systems.

I'm not, I'm just trying to see things their way. I haven't used a Mac since they started using colour. I fully agree that DRM is a Bad Thing, but DRM and lock-down are two different things -- all I'm trying to say here is, not all of us (viz., most of our parents) are cut out to bash on a command line, they just want things to Work, Dammit(tm). That's the kind of folks who let the technicians take care of oil changes, defragmentation, and what-have-you. Offering an OS upgrade as basically a one-click deal, well, that's one less phone call to the son-in-law who'd rather be out with his buddies.

Keep in mind, Apple has been all about vendor-lock-in almost from day one (that is to say, at least from the Lisa days), so this isn't exactly a horrible new thing ... it's a horrible old thing.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[Wiarumas]

I agree. As someone else has said, "Its Apple's walled in garden." I have to agree, but at the same time I have to admit, its a pretty nice garden. Its not for everything, but when it comes to gardening, its ideal.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

It would royally piss me off for one reason: OS X is now a supremely geek-friendly OS. It's a user-friendly Unix built on tons of open source components. If it closes down it flips the completely opposite direction and becomes the most geek-unfriendly OS.

It's that extreme flip that would make me angry.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[npsimons]

I can't believe there are people on Slashdot arguing in favor of crippled, DRM'd, locked-down systems.

I'm not surprised; it's Apple. Apple fanbois will excuse anything Apple does, and spin it if they can. Yet when Google makes an App Market (which you aren't forced to use, either as a developer or user), or does tracking (which you can opt out of or firewall), the Apple fanbois jump all over it and scream bloody murder. Fucking hypocrites.

I've started marking just about all Apple stories in the firehose as either "binspam" or "offtopic", as I'm pretty sure that Apple has not been "for nerds" for a /long/ time, and most of the Apple stories are just glowing salespieces anyway (white iPhone anyone?).

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you will also be shopping at Wal-Mart in the mean time. Hoping that someone will soon sue them and force them to use fair business and employment practices. Because Wal-Mart doesn't WANT to be evil, they just want someone to sue them so that they can see the errors of their ways.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[Jabrwock]

So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate.

My copy of Steam disagrees. The App Store is just another delivery method for software.

You might as well try to make the same complaint about Ubuntu's Package Manager... Is it the dominant method for installing software on a Ubuntu machine? Yes. Is it guarded jealously by Ubuntu managers intent on preventing conflict, but ultimately preventing me from installing the latest and greatest? Yup. Is it the ONLY method? God no.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[Jahava]

So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate.

My copy of Steam disagrees. The App Store is just another delivery method for software.

You might as well try to make the same complaint about Ubuntu's Package Manager... Is it the dominant method for installing software on a Ubuntu machine? Yes. Is it guarded jealously by Ubuntu managers intent on preventing conflict, but ultimately preventing me from installing the latest and greatest? Yup. Is it the ONLY method? God no.

And now is when you realize that I was responding to a parent, whose projection was that Apple would eventually lock Macs fully down to just the App Store.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Troll/Retard

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[lakeland]

Apple doesn't allow FOSS into their App Store. Or more precisely FOSS software does not allow the distributor to impose additional restrictions and Apple does.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[rjstanford]

But it also bars those who wish to tinker from ever doing so, for the sole reason of padding their profit margins.

Did you realize that if you develop apps for the iPhone you can install them on your iPhone without jailbreaking it? Without going through the appstore?

Admittedly it does stop some random 3rd person from easily installing code that some other random person wrote that uses undocumented APIs, thus avoiding the problem that Microsoft has experienced ever since Adobe bought so many copies of Charles Petzold's _Undocumented Windows_ back in the day... but it doesn't stop any true tinkerers from tinkering. Script kiddies, but not tinkerers.

On the whole, its a fairly reasonable balance.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[epyT-R]

So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate. Apple works diligently to prevent malicious code from entering the App Store, push out software updates, etc.

choosing between 'security' and control of one's hardware and software is a false dilemma.

Their system is no longer open / free, and that sucks. Fortunately, we have Linux, FreeBSD, Windows (although I suspect MS will follow in Apple's footsteps), and a host of other operating systems to turn to if we want software freedom, console login, etc.

talking about these issues in public is what helps it (and the vendors) stay aware of product issues as well as vendor behavior relative to consumer interest. telling people to love it or leave it solves nothing. it's a cop out.

If Apple closed off their devices, I would still not rule them out. Obviously I wouldn't use them as a hacking platform, but if Apple allows FOSS into their App Store, I don't see how even my daily usage of their systems would change much. Apple systems would become less suitable for some niche things, like debugging, emulation, penetration testing, etc., but most of the time that's not what people use Apple for.

they are already closed off. i'ts just possible for the moment to get around it. when all vendors are locked out the same way, then what? special pleading for apple has to stop.

The issue comes when / if Apple starts preventing legitimate software from entering their App Store.

they already do this. they also revoke purchased apps at a whim which makes depending on your device to do what you want somewhat unreliable. it also makes your computer devices complicit in enforcing top-down social expectations on your lifestyle. your hardware is yours, it should do what you tell it to, not the vendor.

If Apple makes the App Store the only gateway into their devices, you can bet that there will be a suit of lawsuits from whatever company gets barred, the EFF, etc.; if Apple loses these, then their platform will become open "enough" again. If they win, then that is the day I stop using Apple products, as they are no longer free and flexible enough for my tastes.

what do you think they're trying to do? osx is the black sheep. they're trying to get it in line with ios. why wait for the lawsuit? go ahead, use it until they lock it down or developer laziness drives them all to the app store model, but why cheer this behavior on?

And even then, while Apple systems may not meet my tastes as a developer, the App Store gateway is a perfect model for my parents, grandparents, cousins, and siblings. The less maintenance they have to do, including software vetting and updates, the better.

don't worry, if app stores really become the only way to get applications on most devices, you'll start getting asked to 'repair' the 'missing' apps. have fun with that.

This is a good thing; Apple is defining its market, and through this move it will be far more suitable for the 95% of the population that only ever wanted to use a computer as an appliance.

good for who? apple? the best thing you can say about the 'appliance people' is that 'ignorance is bliss'? what good is an 'appliance' that can have features removed at any time after purchase? computers are not appliances, though they are being put in more appliances nowadays, more often than not making them less reliable and more cumbersome to use than their 1980s/1990s discrete component forebears.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[epyT-R]

your post coupled with your signature projects some nice irony.

Re:This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing!

[Microlith]

Did you realize that if you develop apps for the iPhone you can install them on your iPhone without jailbreaking it? Without going through the appstore?

If and only if you pay Apple the $99 fee to access the store, and even then it's only for a limited time (never mind distributing it to anyone else.)

Admittedly it does stop some random 3rd person from easily installing code that some other random person wrote that uses undocumented APIs, thus avoiding the problem that Microsoft has experienced ever since Adobe bought so many copies of Charles Petzold's _Undocumented Windows_ back in the day...

Which is totally beside the point, and could be avoided entirely if done in the Android style of not allowing out of store software to be installed without explicitly activating an option. But they don't give you that option. One guess as to why (and I can assure you, it isn't security.)

but it doesn't stop any true tinkerers from tinkering. Script kiddies, but not tinkerers.

Sure it does. Why should anyone be forced to pay $99 for access to the ability to run time-limited software they wrote or built themselves?

Insert "then don't buy it" nonsense. This defective, anti-user, anti-freedom attitude is being pushed hard, and spreading.

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow

[Anonymous Coward]

Slow down cowboy. it said the app store is just an additional way not the only way. If you have reservations then buy a DVD. My bet is that the app store will be simply the software update mechanism plus a good way to get it fast if you can't wait to buy the DVD. They did not say it was the only way to install it.

In fact for years people have complained that the software-update apple provides does not also update other apps. With the app-store they could unify that for apps that they have the right to distribute.

adobe and office will not take a 30% cut of the pr

[Joe The Dragon]

adobe and office will not take a 30% cut of the price in the apple app store.

office is $149.99 - $279.99

CS 5 full starts at $1900

there is no way that they give up 30% of that.

Avoid the fear mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, if you don't like what Apple is doing, don't use Apple products. You can always switch to Windows, Linux or one of the many other OSs out there.

Secondly, it's a bit too early to start the scaremongering about Apple locking down the Mac. Apple is clearly aiming iPhones and iPads at the majority and Macs at the market that needs to do more. If you look at the Mac App Store, it is very different to iOS. First off, software can easily be bought/downloaded from elsewhere. It also requires developers to implement copy protection to make sure it is a valid purchase, which isn't required on iOS. There's also the issue that developers need to use Macs to develop for iOS and Mac, and as such they need more flexibility. Same goes for many businesses, scientists, schools & universities who use Macs.

Lastly, some people are quick to jump on the "Apple is taking away our freedoms". That is bullshit. You can easily jailbreak an iOS device if you wish. You can also pay the $99 a year to get a dev account and then you can install any software you like on there. Are Apple locking down the devices though? Yes. But they're doing it because they're not targeting iPhones and iPads at geeks, but at the majority of people who just want to get stuff done.

The problem is that "freedom" in software is an iffy thing. First lets take the GPL version of "freedom". Sure you can go through and analyse all the code and replace components and customise and hack to your hearts content. But the vast majority of people couldn't care less about things like that. They just want to get stuff done. They want to grab their computer, have it instantly come on, do a task on it and go away. They don't care about customising it. They'll just contact the person who creates it if they do and report bugs or give feature requests. They don't know how to program and they have neither the time nor the desire to learn as they have better things to do.

And the same goes for me as a developer. Occasionally I wish I could have the source to another app to fix an annoying bug, but most of the time I'd rather submit a bug report or feature request and have someone else, who is more intimately familiar with the source code, do the coding. That way I can continue getting what I need to do done, rather than something else.

"Freedom" has many different aspects in regards to anything, and software is no different. Some people prefer the freedom to tinker, some people prefer the freedom of not having to tinker. Some consider it freedom to have access to the source code, some consider it freedom to be able to just open an app, do something and then move on.

Some of the more arrogant and snobbish amongst us are keen to write off the latter group as stupid cattle, but in fact they are generally fairly smart people. It's just they value their time enough to know that they'd rather get crap done rather than arse about with settings and configurations. Ultimately it comes down to, are you designing for those who want to tinker with your software, or those who want to do something useful with it.

Abject whining

[goombah99]

For years people have complain or wondered why the Apple Software Update does not update third part apps. Well the reason is simple, apple does not have the right to distribute those or manage fees for non-free updates. So now they created a unified update mechanism and all the henny penny's are abjectly whining about a walled garden.

Personally what I want is a wallwd garden I canuse for 90% of my enterprise apps. Then for the ones that I am less dependent on I can use some feeble error prone mechanism like Fink (apt-get) or mac ports or enthought to get the other apps outside of the walled garden. For those I'll accept the problems and higher risk of viruses. But for canned apps why not make it simple and robust?

Re:Abject whining

[jedidiah]

Apple hasn't created a unified update mechanism.

They have created a fascist gatekeeper system.

It's not the same thing.

Leave it to the fanboys to misunderstand the important details.

Re:Abject whining

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Leave it to the fanboys to misunderstand the important details.

So you admit that you are a fanboy. Case closed.

We have to wait and see --

[Silfax]

I can see both sides of this
From Apple's point of view (and also from that of an independent developer & the non-tech user's) - with a closed software system (just like the hardware) there are a limited number of variables to deal with. This makes it easier to use the "it just works" marketing, fewer systems to test on, no "brand x video does not work with brand y software when there is a brand z network interface present". From the independent developers view, Apple provides some of the marketing, assures that the app meets a certain set of standards, handles the finances and limits the number of potential competing apps.

On the other hand --
As an independent developer
- I have to do it the approved Apple Way or not at all
- Apple takes a cut of my sales


As a User --
- I have to do it the approved Apple Way or not at all
- Apple controls what can or cannot go onto my own system


Overall, I can see this going either way, I guess we will have to see how everythiong shakes out.

Re:We have to wait and see --

[GrahamCox]

On the other hand --
As an independent developer
- I have to do it the approved Apple Way or not at all
- Apple takes a cut of my sales

They do, but as an independent developer, it's actually really good value for money. It's a much, much bigger shop window than any independent developer could create on their own, it handles all the hassles of providing an install and update mechanism, and best of all, handles all the payment aggro worldwide. Apple even throw in a little comarketing.

I was initially a little skeptical about the store, but having now tried it, I'm totally sold. Our app store app is outselling our more traditionally distributed app about 50:1. For the first time, our little independent software shop looks less like an expensive hobby and more like a viable business.

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow

[shadowrat]

I think the clear answer to all those questions is none of that has ever mattered for Linux. This has been standard operating procedure for linux, well, since Linus posted his first kernel. People have lived with those same issues and done perfectly fine so i assume they are all moot points.

sudo apple-get --your-soul

[theleica]

In OS X it's:

sudo apple-get --your-wallet install os-x-10.7-lion

man apple-get:
* --your-wallet -y : Transfer the entire contents of your bank account to Apple, if you do not have sufficient funds please use -s
* --soul-transfer -s : In cases where you do not have sufficient funds, use this option to transfer your soul to Apple; you may only do this once. Note: This option contributes to Steve Job's REALITY DISTORTION FIELD and no refund can be given once your soul has been transferred.

Re:sudo apple-get --your-soul

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that last upgrade for $29 bucks was ridiculous...

Troll harder.

Re:adobe and office will not take a 30% cut of the

[Microlith]

I'm sure larger vendors like Adobe and Microsoft can get special deals unavailable to others.

Re:The last time I bought a drive for physical med

[omnichad]

Get ready for your new SATA DVD-R drive to fail within 4 years. I've not been able to get a burning drive to last more than 3-5 years, even with regular lens cleaning. Same goes for set-top DVD players, too, unfortunately.
 
How have you not ever had the want or need to burn a CD or DVD?

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow

[tooyoung]

What if you can't drive to the store to buy the DVD?
What if you can't get the DVD mailed to your house?
What if you don't have an Apple computer to install the DVD on?
What if you don't have enough money to buy the DVD?

You'll be in good company

[itsdapead]

The day they require app installation for third party products to go through the "App Store" is the day I stop buying Apple computers.

You'd be in good company. Such a move would decimate sales of the Mac (the only question is whether it would decimate them in the pedantically correct sense or the colloquial sense). It would be particularly awkward for people using Macs at work who would then have the "choice" of buying Mac software on their own credit card or persuading the (probably PC-friendly) management to sign up to some sort of corporate iTunes account. The Mac would cease to be a general purpose computer. That's why I don't think its particularly likely. It would also be a big shift from the status quo whereby the Mac comes bundled with free/cheap development tools (I think the last XCode update cost $peanuts on the App Store). Apple also rely on it as the development platform for iOS (again, which costs $peanuts to join c.f. developing for other closed systems such as consoles). They'd also have to somehow persuade their existing user base to "upgrade" and/or prevent them from downgrading.

Of course, it is not impossible that they'd go this way - but I suspect that it would be part of a general decision to give up on traditional desktop computing and concentrate on iDevices, and the alternatives Apple would be considering would be (A) lock down OS X or (B) drop OS X with no option C.

Re:You'll be in good company

[cowscows]

While Apple's making money hand over fist with it iOS devices, it's also selling macs as fast as it ever has, and making a healthy pile of money from selling full blown computers.

Right now Apple is selling people more limited iOS devices, and then selling a bunch of those same people real computers with OS X. Although there's obviously some savings to be had if they unified it all under just iOS, they'd also be killing an established, growing, and profitable line of products. Why would the want to just sell you an iOS device when they could sell you an iOS device and an OS X device too?

Apple's got some of the best selling hardware in the industry with the highest margins in the industry. There's no way they're going to risk killing that in exchange for maybe making 30% of 3rd party software sales on an app store that has generally been driving software prices down.

"And also why don't they just use apt-get?"

[Mongoose Disciple]

Because then it's harder to control your experience and, not coincidentally, charge you for it?

Apple's runnin' a business, here!

Why they don't use apt-get.

[westlake]

The app store is a sales and marketing tool. It can be one-stop shopping for product reviews, screenshots, tutorials, user forums and so on.

Resources like Download.com have been very successful in placing FOSS apps on the Windows PC for precisely this reason. Consider the abomination which is Sourceforge in comparison.

Was there anything in that article...

[alispguru]

... saying Lion would be available only through the App Store?

No, there wasn't.

Stop hyperventiating, folks.

Re:Was there anything in that article...

[ajo_arctus]

I also would not be surprised if they let you burn a dvd as part of the install process. Apple really do put effort in to getting this kind of stuff right.

Re:Was there anything in that article...

[Anonymous Coward]

But. but, it's probably just a stepping stone. They will do that in the future.
Then the next generation of Macs will get rid of the USB ports, so you wont even be able to install off of that.
By the time OS X Civet comes, Jobs will ban all third-party software. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Re:Was there anything in that article...

[Macrat]

... saying Lion would be available only through the App Store? No, there wasn't. Stop hyperventiating, folks.

Some folks like making up their own reality.

Re:Was there anything in that article...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's even worse than that:

Let's assume that the article did confirm that Lion would only be available through the App Store. Most Apple users want to get it from the App Store. The people who are hyperventilating about this don't even own an Apple product, so what are they griping about? If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's not like Apple has a Microsoft-like monopoly in anything.

The Mac will not be a platform in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

It's far simpler than that: Mac OS X is a legacy platform at Apple, just like the Classic Mac and the Apple II series before it. It's days are numbered.

The overwhelming majority of Apple's revenue comes from iPhone/iPad and other iOS products; two to three times as much as all Mac hardware and software combined. The Mac is just a sideline, kept around for digital media creators and iOS developers because iOS isn't powerful enough to do those things. Yet.

The real story with OS X Lion is not the App Store; it's the migration of iOS features to Mac OS. Look at the previews iOS is the main branch of OS development at Apple, Inc. these days. Features get pushed down to Mac OS now, not up.

The future of the Mac is not a "closed platform like iOS." The future of the Mac is migration of its user and software base to iOS.

Re:The Mac will not be a platform in the end

[jbolden]

iphone/ipad is 1/2
mac, itunes, software, peripherals, ipod is the other other half.

And the real story of OSX Lion is pushing all of OSX server features into Lion.

Lion in the app store?

[biodata]

GET BACK IN THE CAR!

For a "bad" company

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Microsoft (or worse), they are doing well (or even better).

Why is that? Yeah, people like their products.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

if only it would work

[Anonymous Coward]

I've attempted do download every pre-release of Lion from the App Store and every time it has failed. If developers can push the app store to the breaking point, imagine what the general mac-using public can do.

Dude, you're getting a...

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Yes, Apple would become less suitable for niche things... like looking at porn, downloading anything from artists like Trent Reznor whom they blocked on the App Store just because his app accessed the SAME content as the browser. And you know, NIN has naughty lyrics. I need Friar Monk Jobs slapping my little willy with his digital ruler for possibly looking at nude people on my phone or computer.

What'd he say? If you want to watch port, get an Android? Imagine if he seriously said, if you want to watch porn, get a Dell.

If he ever says that, I hope they bring the Dell Dude back (who cared if he was a stoner, it was a bit OBVIOUS from the commercials), and the new advertisement said, "Dude, you're getting a boner!"

But yeah... just niche. Perfect model to keep your grandma from watching 2 girls 1 cup.

Re:Dude, you're getting a...

[elrous0]

"Dude, you're getting a boner!"

Best marketing slogan ever.

Re:Dude, you're getting a...

[jbolden]

The rules regarding selling porn are really complex. Apple isn't setup to go there. Right now generic applications work fine for porn and apple supports those.

Re:Dude, you're getting a...

[GameboyRMH]

Viagra ads should start using it immediately XD

"...why don't they just use apt-get?"

[John Hasler]

Because apt is GPL.

Re:"...why don't they just use apt-get?"

[Stupendoussteve]

Because nothing in OS X is GPL (oh wait).

Why not use apt-get?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I like to think we have evolved as a society past the point where I do not have to punch in a bunch of ascii characters into a black and white window like a monkey in order to obtain software. I prefer to save my character punching for more useless activities such as blogging and social networking.

I akin *nix command line grunts as people who also get off whipping and hurting themselves because they like the pain and inconvenience but claim it is better and they are more intelligent because of it.

I would rather USE a computer rather then writing lines of micro-script or code to do something which the rest of the world can perform with a simple click of the mouse or sweep of a gesture.

Evolve or die, a million monkeys punching in a million lines of code produced Linux so the monkeys would be happy.

Why do people persist in this belief?!

[King_TJ]

I don't see this move, at ALL, as indicative of Apple eventually closing down the Mac platform to ONLY allow installation of software obtained via the "App Store".

That would be such a bone-headed move on Apple's part, for numerous reasons. But primarily, because at that point, they've transitioned the product into another electronic device instead of a full-fledged computer. Let's face it... Nowdays, most of us own hundreds of "computers". Everything from your digital thermostat on the wall to your alarm clock to the ECU in your car, truck or SUV to your microwave oven and digital camera contain little computers running closed systems. (Heck, if you actually had a means to tie all of them together and parallel process - you'd probably have a pretty substantial amount of CPU power at your disposal right there!) The main reason people still spend the money for a "personal computer", despite all of this other stuff, is because it's a *flexible* platform that's not limited to only running a pre-defined program or set of programs!

Once you lock it down to only what's available from one integrated source, you blurred that distinction between it and something like Apple's iOS devices. You may as well just quit selling "Macs" and give everyone iPads with larger screen options and wireless bluetooth keyboards or something!

I would think that at best, Apple would fine their Mac Appe Store would wind up rather parallel to their iTunes music store. You might be able to get practically anything you wanted from it, but the creators of the content would ALSO be happy to sell the same things to you via other outlets. Like the music store, sure -- they might have a few random "App Store Exclusives!". But generally, no.... companies like Adobe wouldn't go for ONLY getting sales of Photoshop via the Mac App Store. They might, however, be happy to offer it there as ONE way to get it.

Re:Why do people persist in this belief?!

[elrous0]

You may as well just quit selling "Macs" and give everyone iPads with larger screen options and wireless bluetooth keyboards or something!

Hush! Don't give them any ideas.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I'm worried that you will become a pedofile

[Brannon]

This is fun; accusing people of future crimes, that is.

Read the summary, not the comment

[Wyatt Earp]

"...it makes me nervous getting my OS from an App Store — which is strange considering how many kernels I've downloaded, built and booted over the years."

Then buy it in physical media, like the summary and the article clearly state you can.

"...however, Lion will also be available for purchase via the Mac App Store."

"Users will be able to upgrade instantly without the need for physical media by purchasing Lion through the Mac App Store."

"Will be able" does not mean forced.

And this is from a rumors site, not a press release or developer note, take it with a grain of salt.

What's the cut on shrink-wrap software?

[Brannon]

Do you have any idea? Moron.

If you ever become a terrorist...

[Brannon]

then I won't reply to your posts anymore. I'm keeping an eye on you.

New Mac User Here

[labradore]

I broke down and bought a Mac Mini after about a month of unsuccessfully trying to get OSX Hackintoshed to be stable on my various PCs. I want to develop iPad/iPhone apps and thats really the only way to do it without some kind of compromise. Unfortunately, it now also costs $5 to buy XCode on the Mac App Store (previously a free download), unless you pay the $100/year for an IOS development license (which I'm not going to do until I'm ready to ship something). If $5 gets Apple to make XCode a more professional tool, I'm all for it, but I suspect this will not be the case. I also have doubts that Apple will completely wall-off the Mac. People get a lot of value from free utilities, etc., that they download from the web. Forcing all those utilities into the Mac App Store would also force the authors into proprietary models and probably into paying the $100/year dev license. In a lot of ways it would emaciate the Mac software "ecosystem" and end up deteriorating the value of the platform. I think Apple would be happy to just get fees for brokering almost all of the paid Mac apps by making the Mac App Store the avenue of choice for buying Mac software. I can also see how it might be good for developers of free apps. Download the free version on a website or pay $1 for the supported version via the M.A.S.

On the other hand, it's a much more reasonable price than, e.g., Visual Studio 2010 Pro ($650+). I just don't understand how Microsoft can swing from ~$250 for VS 2008 Standard and then $550 for the upgrade to 2010 or $650 for the full product. VS is much higher quality than XCode, but the pricing difference is outrageous. But, looking at Microsoft's whole lineup, nothing is priced reasonably. At least with Mac hardware, I'm getting something that is well-made and is priced in the ballpark of what's reasonable (Yes, I'm looking at you, Visio Pro 2010!). Enough bitching. Back to work.

Re:New Mac User Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Visual Studio 201 and XCode 4. Every working day.

I don't see that VS is better than XCode at all. Different, certainly. Better, not so much.

I'm sorry that you $5 for a complete integrated development system as a burden. You really should ask for a pay increase.

My premium subscription to MSDN costs a couple of thousand a year. I regard the $100 I pay to Apple as a huge bargain.

re: direction Apple is headed?

[King_TJ]

I can't say that I completely agree.

First off, back when I first got back into using Apple products (around 1999-2000), I had some video display issues that turned out to be the fault of my ADC Cinema Display - but sure behaved like a failing video board (random green "snow" moving through the display, especially after things warmed up). I took my G4 tower in to the local Apple Store for service, and they tried to charge me a $75 diagnostic fee after they found nothing wrong (after keeping it for a whole week), despite the system still being in warranty. (I had already suggested to them that if they could just swap video cards, I could easily troubleshoot this at home, on my own. But they refused to do that, saying the whole machine had to be brought in.) A little later on, they did a "voluntary battery recall" on my Macbook Pro battery but my local store refused to so much as listen to why I was trying to bring it in unless I scheduled a "Genius Bar appointment" first. Earliest one I could schedule in was about 4 hours later that same day. So had to do that while I was there, and waste gas and time going back home, just to make a return trip later in the day to speak with them. When I got there? I was told, "Oh... all you want is a replacement battery pack? We're out of stock on those. Nope... no idea when more are coming in. You should probably just call Apple's 800# and get one that way." Argh!!!

So yeah - I've NEVER really thought a whole lot of their local store's competence with technical repairs or issues. Typically, they're friendly and try to be helpful, but Apple likes to hire employees who don't even have previous computer experience for those jobs. They're basically underpaid and overworked, and trained only on the things Apple deems useful for helping the majority of customers. The more obscure a problem you have, the less likely it is that anyone in the store has a clue -- because they just don't have lots of previous technical knowledge to have figured any of that stuff out on their own before they started working for Apple.

But saying it's changed in recent years? I don't see it, really. OS X as buggy as Windows now? Only if by that, you mean Microsoft finally got a LOT of bugs out of things with Windows 7 and has more parity with OS X. IMO, OS X Tiger was a perfectly good version of OS X -- but Snow Leopard is *far* from "going downhill", considering without that revision, you wouldn't have full support for modern hardware like multi-core Intel CPUs!

Quite simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I find mobileme, itunes and the appstore annoying. I use Macs because they're standard in my field (audio) and have zero interest in an Apple account or using the above mentioned services and associated applications.

I buy music on vinyl and I buy OS upgrades as physical product. There's other operating systems if Apple decide they no longer want me doing the latter.

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow

[jo_ham]

We're talking about OS X here, not Linux.

Oh wait, all those things are applicable to OS X too!

Also, several of them are answered by using the retail disc version which is not going away. The App Store version is just an additional method of distribution.

How do you work that out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Steam don't supply OSs and lots of people (myself included) refuse to use Steam. And in what way is Steam running with some people using it to buy games a proven success for Apple to move over to supplying all the software you are allowed to use???

Re:How do you work that out?

[stewbacca]

You and lots of people refuse to use it, but many people on slashdot LOVE it at the same time they will HATE the OSX store, even though they are the same model.

I'm just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy.

Nobody is saying Apple (or Steam) is supplying software you are "allowed" to use. The model lets you download stuff from the store OR buy it from Best Buy/Amazon/Wherever. If a supplier chooses to offer only download or only physical media, that's the supplier's call, not Apple's. Smart companies will continue to provide both for several years to come.

And if you don't think Steam is an unqualified success, then you haven't been paying attention.

The App store IS apt-get.

[Peganthyrus]

"And also, why don't they just use apt-get?"

Because most people are not comfortable with the command line.

The App Store IS the same idea as apt-get: a small interface to a trusted repository that you can download all kinds of things from. But it's got a hell of a lot more time and love put into the user interface. The App store is apt-get for people who are not interested in the inner workings of their computer.

Are you uncomfortable with getting updates to your Android phone's OS from Google/the manufacturer/your carrier over the net? Are you uncomfortable with your 360 or PS3 getting system updates? It's the same principle.

I don't know if I'll be updating my Air to Lion by buying a tiny little USB drive or by hitting the App Store. I've found myself making jokes like "Removable storage? How quaint!" when being passed data on a USB drive, so it's quite possible that this will feel like a compelling option - do I really need to add to the collection of OSX DVDs gathering dust on my shelf? I've got more than enough atoms in my life. Keep digital data digital.

Re:The last time I bought a drive for physical med

[stewbacca]

I'm all in favor of death the disks as well, but I don't think we can jump to that conclusion based on this story...yet. I say give it another 5 years.

It's not about lock-in. It's about selling Macs

[unimacs]

Whether you are a fan of the IOS App Store or not, you have to acknowledge that it has played a major role in the popularity of the iPhone. Without it there wouldn't be nearly as much software available for the platform, it would be harder to find and you'd be paying more for it. iPhone developers don't need to worry as much about the expenses of marketing, packaging, and distributing their software. Apple takes care of that for them. As a user, there's only one place you need to go to track down software you're interested in. You can easily compare prices and see reviews. The App Store was a HUGE win for Apple which is why everybody is doing the same thing now.

So what about Mac software? Isn't that always been a criticism of the Mac vs Windows? Not as much software? If the Mac OS App Store has a fraction of the success that the IOS App Store has enjoyed, it'll be a huge win for Apple.

The burning question would seem to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Are Mac users lemmings collectively jumping off of the cliff of reliable, well-engineered package management software?

eh, what

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Learn your french. "Viola" literally means "raped" which I doubt is what you meant.

Um, no, "viola" in French, just like in English (or rather the other way around), is the bowed chordophone that plays second fiddle to the violin. "Viola" is the third person singular simple present form of the verb "violar" in Spanish and Portuguese, which does mean "rape"... but it's also the noun for the musical instrument.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Italian has a verb "violare" with a third person singular present form "viola."

Re:eh, what

[Pieroxy]

Sure, sure. This is all well and good. But what he really meant is "There!", which is customarily associated with the french word "Voilà" which means the same. And it is often found with the wrong spelling, somewhat changing its meaning.

Re:adobe and office will not take a 30% cut of the

[Bert64]

How much of a cut do traditional retailers (plus the distribution channels) take?

Complaints about the death of physical media?

[John Whitley]

Physical media as a delivery mechanism is *dying*. Apple's got a vehicle they're promoting for unified app and OS management, they're behind the game on this, and folks criticize them for playing catch-up? Seriously? I call B.S. on the "walled garden" noise as well. First, It's a proprietary OS, for cryin' out loud! It's reasonable to expect that the OS update works as other App Store app: the Lion upgrade will be installable on every Mac you own. This is *better* than the current approach, since it effectively nixes the single-user vs. family license EULA distinction. If anything, Apple has been very aggressive about App Store pricing, so this might even be cheaper than prior DVD-based updates.

The only concern I have is how they'll handle the recovery case. But this use case is bloody obvious and the backlash for failing to handle it would be huge. I expect there's something in the works. If it's not up to snuff, then OS X users can and should complain vociferously on the 'net and to apple.com/feedback.

Oh, the horror

[Anonymous Coward]

No more Mac source tar balls from git?
WTF, I don't use no git stuff.
I toggle in the Apple kernel printed in the back of my Apple II manual in hex.

Have to be able to Program

[Roger W Moore]

I think you're probably correct about the direction Apple is headed in.

I very much doubt this because there are many circumstances where it is crucial to be able to write and run your own code. Even if you are not writing the code many institutes and companies have their own internal programs which they want to run. So while I see commercial software distribution moving over to the App Store I cannot imagine that Apple would close off the ability to write and run your own programs because that is the key difference between a MacBook and an iPad with fold out keyboard.

No

[vanyel]

I refuse to have anything to do with the Mac App Store for the same reason I won't do the iphone, the reinstall issue is just a capper. I'll be getting disks...

As an example of a big difference

[Sycraft-fu]

Look at Android. The GP is right, has a nice app store just like the iPhone. However you discover that Amazon also has an app store for it. Completely independent from the Android app store. They sell most of the same stuff, and generally for the same price. The difference is just in who gets the money, and who provides the apps. No need to root your phone, works just fine on stock phones.

While Google/Android certainly don't promote the Amazon app store, it doesn't ship with the OS or anything, they don't do anything to prevent it.

The iPhone? Hell no. The Apple Store is the one and only way to buy your apps. Only way to get to anything alternate is to jailbreak your phone.

Apple has quite clearly shown they want to be the gatekeepers for all your computing. They want to provide you the hardware, OS, require all your software and media come through them, etc.

Re:adobe and office will not take a 30% cut of the

[toriver]

Yes I am sure the retail stores they sell through today do so pro bono.

Face it, that price includes media, printing, shipping etc. - taking a 30% cut to gain access to the app store channel for purely binary downloads of their stuff is well within acceptable business costs.

We shall see what Microsoft ends up with as the business model for their (constantly postponed) Windows app store. So far they have been copying Apple. Heck, their dev program for WP7 has the same $99/year cost, even.

Re:The last time I bought a drive for physical med

[Hadlock]

My vintage 2001 Powerbook G4 (550mhz of fury! blazing 100mhz FSB!) has a 24x CD-R built in. I would boot it up every 6-8 months to burn an ISO or two. In college/immediately post college none of my cars had CD players, and by 2007 everyone had transitioned to iPods anyways.
 
The advent of cheap 512mb thumb drives circa 2005 made it a lot easier to avoid CD-Rs.

Physical product option

[__aayuzx6098]

I hope they'll continue to provide a physical product option (USB stick or DVD) for future release, else, what will become of my *AWESOME* collection of every Mac OS from 6.1 through 9.1, 10.x to current? I don't want some lousy little self-burned DVD. I want the big, shiny box.

Examples

[DrYak]

The difference is that package managers like apt, yum, etc let you specify your own sources. {...} If I install Ubuntu and want to get the latest and greatest from vendor X they can just give me an installer which adds themselves to my apt sources.

Examples :
- Nvidia provide a repository for OpenSUSE, that enables you to install their drivers using the usual approach (zypper is the equivalent of apt-get and YaST has an equivalent of Synaptic).
- Packman is a great source for multimedia software not available in the main distribution and for updates.
- in fact OpenSUSE has developed a whole system where you only click 1 single link on a webpage and you're offered the possibility to automatically add the necessary repositories and select software for installation (with the necessary warning dialogs, but without needing to fine tune and fiddle the package manager config files). I seem to remember reading that Ubuntu has some similar system.
- Amazon has an App Market for Android that you can use instead of Google's own.
- On windows, even before Microsoft has rolled out their own distribution channel, you already have Steam. It's a situation where the alternative are even available before the mainstream ;-)

Meanwhile, as you said, with iDevices, you got AppStore and... huh... well... that's pretty much everything. Other wise you have to jailbreak the phone which is something that Apple is actively trying to prevent and which the have tried to declare illegal in the past.

More example... (webOS)

[DrYak]

Forgot to mention :
- My own WebOS has Preware which is a nice interface wich can pull software from both the official store and from opensource/homebrew repositories.

Re:The last time I bought a drive for physical med

[dwightk]

I like that I have a DVD burner, but with a single 1GB jump drive I have reduced all of my CD/DVD burning to just about zero.

I guess Dropbox also figures into the equation.

"Walled Garden". Will not use Lion myself,

[walter_f]

and won't recommend others to do so.

Regarding the Mac platform, Apple is making huge steps toward a "walled garden" concept.

After 25 years as a user of Macs and Mac OS, I don't care anymore. As soon as one of my existing Macs will become "de-supported" by Apple, it will get a decent Linux distribution installed.

FOSS

[homer dulu]

I wonder if anyone realises that you CAN distribute FOSS through the _Mac_ App Store... remember, Lion contains GPL/LGPL code...

Aaaaand to those equating Ubuntu or any Linux desktop with iOS rather than OS X in regards to installing any app you want - hahahaha comparison FAIL.