[Macworld]

Post your comments for Sandboxing strengthens the case for buying direct here

[russellb]

I disagree. For power users maybe. For the bulk of users the App store provides the best experience and as you say go to a new mac and hey presto theres all your programs.

Is it perfect , no

Is it a way way better experience than say a PC and tracking down all your purchases and programs when you move machines hell yes.

Maybe its bad news for power users that Apple is focusing on the masses which does mean things get dumbed down a little , but in my view it leads to the best overall experience.

[JimmyJ]

You call sandboxing an arbitrary change, but that hardly seems accurate. In the past, I would have said the answer to your question is "buy from the App Store" based on convenience alone. Now, I would say "use whichever method suits your needs." If you need BBEdit's common line tools, buy direct (of course, Bare Bones did the honorable thing and made an enhancer that would add that feature to App Store versions).
I would also question whether 90% goes to the vendor when you factor in additional costs such as hosting and SEO.
The truth is, sandboxing changes some things for some developers but by no means is it game over. Best hope is that Apple will relax some restrictions and make other APIs available. It has been known to happen!

[leicaman]

JimmyJ, on 01 June 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

You call sandboxing an arbitrary change, but that hardly seems accurate. In the past, I would have said the answer to your question is "buy from the App Store" based on convenience alone. Now, I would say "use whichever method suits your needs." If you need BBEdit's common line tools, buy direct (of course, Bare Bones did the honorable thing and made an enhancer that would add that feature to App Store versions).
I would also question whether 90% goes to the vendor when you factor in additional costs such as hosting and SEO.
The truth is, sandboxing changes some things for some developers but by no means is it game over. Best hope is that Apple will relax some restrictions and make other APIs available. It has been known to happen!

I certainly hope you're right. Changes in Mountain Lion's security system seem to imply Apple is aware of some of the concerns mentioned here. If sandboxing gets to egregious, I can't see sticking with the Mac for any particular reason. But as long as I can use Applescript to do things with multiple applications, I'll stick with the Mac.

[leskern]

Brutal... and true. We stopped development on our app for several of those reasons. Do you hear us Apple?

[JDW]

I certainly appreciate this article, and agree completely with it. I disagree strongly with the first two commenters here. Who can truly define a "power user"? And who can say how long new Mac users will remain novices before they become so-called "power users"? Now consider how all this sand boxing security mania has transformed Safari into a hardly usable browser (under Lion, and especially for those of us who use 1Password), and you can come to understand why this article was written and why it makes so much sense.

The best way for us Mac users to send a message to Apple about the overbearing nature of sand boxing is not with Feedback on Apple's site, which I have little doubt they largely ignore, but with our wallets. When they see us buying outside the app store in droves, perhaps then they will change their tune a bit. As a Mac user since 1984, I am not pleased with the direction Apple has been trying to take OS X. OS X is not iOS.

[melgross]

I disagree as well. The author is really writing from a developer's perspective, which doesn't always match the perspective of the buyer. Sand boxing is important. If developers don't like it, then don't offer your work through the Mac app store.

Security is more important these days than some of the "features" offered by software that's directly sold. Most people don't need, or even know about these features. Developers always want to do what they want, often using bugs and features of an OS they shouldn't be using. As a user, if I need some feature that can't be implemented otherwise, I'll buy direct. But I'd rather buy from the app store.

[JSam1]

I disagree with melgross entirely as an end user, not as a developer. Sandboxing is not as important as Apple and security nuts are making it out to be. Maybe it would be if OS X were as plagued with viruses and malware as Windows. But that is not the case today, and I doubt it would be the case 5 years from now even without sandboxing.

I use 1PSW too, like JDW, and I agree that it is not as fun or as convenient to use anymore. It's not the fault of the developer in this case because Apple is the one who ripped convenience out of the hands of users.

[JDW]

JSam's got it right. But Apple's moves really come as no surprise in this day and age where Americans have all but sold our souls to the false god of Security. Think about how much unConstitutional ridiculousness we put up with at airport security checks, and neither Liberals or Conservatives want to do anything to change it. In light of that, Apple is merely saying to themselves, "well, if Americans are content the likes of the TSA, they surely won't complain too much about our digital equivalent: SANDBOXING."

We live in some really frightful times. And that fright doesn't come from terrorism or viruses. It comes from limitations imposed on liberty. I may be an owner of an iPad, but I still want freedom on my Mac. Sure there is risk with that liberty. But it is risk I and numerous others are willing to take. The good news this article proclaims is that we can still "buy direct" to get the freedom we want. But my concern is about how long that goodness and joy will last.

We need a Patrick Henry at Apple.

[heisetax]

JDW, on 01 June 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

I certainly appreciate this article, and agree completely with it. I disagree strongly with the first two commenters here. Who can truly define a "power user"? And who can say how long new Mac users will remain novices before they become so-called "power users"? Now consider how all this sand boxing security mania has transformed Safari into a hardly usable browser (under Lion, and especially for those of us who use 1Password), and you can come to understand why this article was written and why it makes so much sense.

The best way for us Mac users to send a message to Apple about the overbearing nature of sand boxing is not with Feedback on Apple's site, which I have little doubt they largely ignore, but with our wallets. When they see us buying outside the app store in droves, perhaps then they will change their tune a bit. As a Mac user since 1984, I am not pleased with the direction Apple has been trying to take OS X. OS X is not iOS.

I thought that this was my reply until I saw your name on it. I agree with your voting with our wallets. I started a non-purchase of any software from the Mac App Store. The only exception I have made is the Mac OS. And that decision has really been a mistake.

We need a group to show our support for the Mac 3rd party developers & unhappiness with the Mac Apt Store & all of its restrictions. As with this we need to keep the Mac a Mac with a real Mac only OS & keep all of our iToys iToys with its dumbed down iOS.

[veggiedude]

leskern, on 01 June 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

Brutal... and true. We stopped development on our app for several of those reasons. Do you hear us Apple?

Huh? Because you could not sell it in the app store (for less income) you halted development instead of being able to sell it direct to customers (for more income)? That sounds illogical.

[Xenotar7]

I see myself continuing my buying habits where I buy my major software packages from the developer (Adobe CS, MS Office) while making plenty of "casual" purchases from the App Store.

It still remains to be seen just how much sandboxing will actually hurt the user experience. Speaking of crappy user experience, you know what else is a crappy user experience? Buying software from small developers, keeping track of the licences, keeping backups handy, and keeping the stuff updated manually... you get where I'm going with this...

Serious computer users will always need serious tools and those tools will probably come directly from developers or even retailers. But sometimes you you just need a simple tool to get a job done ... and what do ya' know, there one in the app store for $4.99...

Ultimately, there's plenty of money for small developers to be made in the App Store, and the really talented developers who want a piece of that will make their products work with sandboxing or make new, slightly simpler ones that do. And developers can still offer complicated, flagship products directly to users who really need the flexibility. What's not to love?

I think developers who want to do their own sales, marketing, fulfillment, and customer service are nuts or control freaks.... and Apple has still left the door open for them to do just that.

[atarikid]

JDW, on 01 June 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

The best way for us Mac users to send a message to Apple about the overbearing nature of sand boxing is not with Feedback on Apple's site, which I have little doubt they largely ignore, but with our wallets. When they see us buying outside the app store in droves, perhaps then they will change their tune a bit. As a Mac user since 1984, I am not pleased with the direction Apple has been trying to take OS X. OS X is not iOS.

I second this !

[slicerx]

Wait a minute here. If a sandboxed application does what I need, then I am going to buy it in the app store as it allows me to manage applications and installation over a number of computers easily. If it does not do what I want, I will buy from the source. What the hell is the issue here? Thanks Apple for giving us another choice other than just a boxed copy!