App Store II: Steve Jobs sucks Mac's soul

Thoughts

It's just a shop. You don't have to buy Mac programs from it.

I can't really see any disadvantage anyway really. Apple makes money (which is why it exists), and program developers now have a place they can make cash in. And the Mac gets some more programs.

Don't understand the 'ageing platform' comment though?

No concerns here...

As said above, you'll still have the choice to install what you want anyway - so what's the issue?

There will be a simple, centralised repository where you can get a no doubt huge number of apps - easily. I'm sure the install process will be straightforward - most folk are fine with either running an .mpkg file, or mounting a .dmg and then dragging a folder into Applications etc... but if they simplify and streamline that task (like the iPad/iPhone) then they'll win even more fans. My other half is a big Mac fan, but she is always apprehensive about installing programs, updates etc - whereas on the iPhone she has no issues at all.

It might become an issue if they eliminate all other distribution channels down the line... but to be honest, 95% of users wouldn't bat an eyelid and as demonstrated by the App Store model - would possibly even buy more stuff.

re: I wonder how Steam for the Mac will fair

Pretty well I would have thought.

If you buy a game, which is on both the Mac and Windows platforms, via Steam then you're able to play it on either platform whenever you want.

I can't really see a Mac Store from Apple offering games that users can play on both operating systems, so Steam will still have that unique selling point.

Also, and this is a big 'also', games that run in Windows and OS X tend to run better on the former because of the ports and there's a greater range of games on Windows. Although we are seeing more games coming on for the Mac, there's normally a delay in them being ported - although the latest Civilization game is meant to be coming to the Mac 'this fall', it was only confirmed that the port was going to happen a little while after the game had come out, so consumers don't always even know if, let alone when.

If you're into gaming and you use a Mac, it's incredibly unlikely that you'll use the Mac OS as your primary gaming platform - you'll also be running Windows and/or using a console(s) - there's no way that's going to change with an Apple "app store that sells games and provides gaming infrastructure."

There are quite a few sites that sell Mac games online and I would have thought it's those companies who would get worried, not Steam.

or cancel their order

I know one .edu (not american) who cancelled their 400 mac mini order and went with debian/mini pc custom built because of Java depreciation.

Unlike most of current IT news sites, they know Oracle and do have a clue about whether World's largest enterprise software would tinker with consumer toy OS (which it sadly became).

It's called the power of the default

"Even when you admit that users will still be able to install apps from elsewhere, you then add 'But let's be realistic: most won't.' The point is that those who want to will still be able too."

Microsoft initially shipped Windows 95 with an MSN client expressly because it would shut out AOL. Likewise they later did the same with Internet Explorer to shut out Netscape. Even after years and years of outcry, security alerts, broken functionality, lawsuits and EU commission fines, Internet Explorer still commands 50% browser usage.

That's the power of the default. People either don't know any better, or aren't motivated enough to try something else.

I really see no difference in what Microsoft did (and was eventually stomped on for), or what Apple is doing now.

Now all this can be avoided if Apple don't install the app store as part of the OS, don't promote it in any preferential way and require users to manually install it for themselves. I expect the chances of that happening are pretty remote. Apple has already demonstrated they'll force software on people they didn't ask for (e.g. Safari appearing in an iTunes update for Windows) and I expect the app store will be no different. The interesting part will be to see if Valve (for one) uses it to sue them or even launch an antitrust suit.

Wrong

What most Linux systems provide is a package management system and a default list of repositories that are checked when the administrator chooses to update that system. For example Debian based systems use apt (over dpkg) and Red Hat based systems use yum (over rpm). In both cases, the list of packages you can install is governed by a source repository list which is a simple text file.

You the administrator are entirely free to modify the repositories as you wish regardless of what Ubuntu / Debian / Red Hat would say on the matter. You may even remove the official ones and use somebody else's if that's what you want.

The point in saying this is that package managers facilitate keeping your OS up to date and installing software but you are not constrained in any way if you wish to do something different. Indeed the very fact there are several well supported versions of Linux means you don't even have to suck it up and like it if one dist imposed an onerous or crappy store on you. For example of that in action see what happened to Lindows / Linspire and it's much derided ClickNRun store.

Exhibit bugs

No they will verify that it doesn't "exhibit" bugs, not the fact that it doesn't HAVE bugs.