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.
"A lot of questions surrounding this related to the ability to make bootable disks."
You should really try a mac sometimes.
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.
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.
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.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
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.
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Type >console as the username and no password.
Viola.
It's still there. Stop spreading FUD.
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".
... 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.
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.