Slashdot Mirror
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.
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:
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"A lot of questions surrounding this related to the ability to make bootable disks."
You should really try a mac sometimes.
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)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
For you, buy the disc version.
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.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
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...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
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.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
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.
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.
which is totally what she said
... saying Lion would be available only through the App Store?
No, there wasn't.
Stop hyperventiating, folks.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
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.
I8-D
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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 ?
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
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.
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."
Are you adequate?