Vafudhr, on 02 June 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:
internetworld7, on 02 June 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:
FalKirk, on 01 June 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:
atarikid, on 01 June 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:
As a developer I can tell you sandboxing will hurt Apple AppStore in the (near) future. Many utility apps will go back selling their app outside the AppStore region.
But stubborn as Apple is known to be .. it will continue make decision not every like.
As a consumer I can tell you that sandboxing will not hurt Apple AppStore in the least but leaving the App Store will crush the profits of any company foolish enough to do so. In the near future 99% of all App purchases will be made safely, securely, quickly, inexpensively through the App Store. You may not be able to see this but what Apple is doing is good for the consumer. Really, really good.
You can get on the bus or you can get run over by the bus because the bus is not stopping.
I guess it never occurred to you that the consumer does not benefit from stripped down apps and stifled creativity? Because that's exactly what sandboxing will do to the app store. Developers will end up having to offer two versions of their apps: A dumbed down version for the app store and a complete feature rich version through their websites. Sandboxing is not a bad thing if implemented correctly and clearly Apple has not done that so looks like your bus is about to crash and burn.. real soon.
While I concur with you and hope to still find the "full-feature" version of the apps I use outside the AppStore, I also understand that, as time goes by, more and more "new users" will purchase from the Store only not really knowing the difference.
While Apple new status in the market is nice, I think I liked it better when we were a little niche who struggled a bit (actually I had less problems when we had problems)
Thing is, people will
notice a difference, even if that difference isn't directly sandboxing related. Even new users will notice it. Where will most new users be coming from? Windows more than likely. Even if the Mac is their first desktop it's almost a given that they will have used a desktop PC - almost certainly Windows - somewhere. School, a friend's, work etc. The one thing these new users and 'old hands' at the Mac will notice very quickly if the Mac App Store is pushed too much front and centre is the lack of trial versions of software. I hardly ever buy a piece of software that I haven't tried to see if it fits my needs. On iOS I've had to make judgement decisions as to whether the cost of the app is justifiable if I find I don't like it. I don't want to have to do that on my Mac. However, since the MAS doesn't allow trial versions what am I to do if
a developer chooses to only distribute via that storefront to be able to fully use the added benefits of MAS presence? For example I will now never try Aperture since Apple have made it only available on the MAS and they pulled the trial version. I will not pay out £60/~$90 to see if a piece of software fits my needs with, officially
, no chance of a refund if it either runs like a dog on my machine or I just hate it. Try-Before-Buy is a must for software.
As for the changes that are directly due to sandboxing, I really hope that the developers of tools that don't fit the sandbox model are allowed to continue developing long term and that Gatekeeper isn't the mythical first step to a fully iOS-like closed system. I only came to Mac a year ago and I've really liked it (even Lion) but even I don't want a tablet type OS on my desktop - they're different machines for different purposes. As a side note I also hope that developers (like Smile) are allowed to continue to develop little workarounds for their non-MAS software to use iCloud. Since only MAS Apps are allowed to use iCloud features this could really cripple the syncing abilities of a lot of 3rd party apps. Yes, I have Dropbox but it's much easier to use fully integrated syncing if it's available.
My own, admittedly reasonably uninformed opinion, is that this sandboxing is treating every user of the Mac like the thickest of the thick and saying that we are all
incapable of making informed choices about what to install. All the hype seems to be that it will prevent a malicious app from carrying a virus / malware and infecting the system. No it won't. Gatekeeper should do that. The rumoured default setting of App Store and Signed Software should keep out things like Flashback and its derivatives I'm sure. There's no need to make every really useful
App that could
be sold in the App store have to find a life outside it if it wants to work like it always has. Sandboxing is a good idea in principle but in practice, on a desktop, it makes no sense. Apps that can't open the correct Open/Save dialogue or self navigate through folders or whatever are just lame examples of what they're capable of.
New users aren't all the idiots that Apple seem to think they are. They'll usually have some computer experience, even if it isn't Mac. They'll know how to use things like Google to find trials of software elsewhere. These searches will probably include info on how to disable Gatekeeper too, meaning all Apple's attempts to protect the user will count for nothing. Worryingly, as I type that I realise that I may have just found the argument Apple will use for locking down the software just like iOS.