Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 22:54 UTC
Mac OS X And so the iOS-ification of Mac OS X continues. Apple has just announced that all applications submitted to the Mac App Store have to use sandboxing by March 2012. While this has obvious security advantages, the concerns are numerous - especially since Apple's current sandboxing implementation and associated rules makes a whole lot of applications impossible.
Permalink for comment 495957
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Good move
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good move"
Member since:

You are right that application stores are better for paying applications, though, but I don't know up to which point (PayPal is a universal mean of buying software on the internet, and software can use the same kind of DRMs as app stores to reduce piracy). Which is why I'm a PayPal advocate : the transaction is managed by a large third party which is specialized in managing online transactions and as such can take the right decisions as far as security is concerned.

Paypal is also a lot more complex and it doesn't offer you the guarantee that the vendor is genuine. The Mac App Store is all about one-click purchasing to make the purchase experience as simple as possible.

Now, you may argue that it is the same thing with Apple. Yet there is a difference. Apple are the developers of Mac OS and own many large software on the Mac platform, they are not a neutral third-party when it comes to taking decisions about what software gets allowed on their platform.

If you know a bit about Apple as a company, you know that Apple makes money off its hardware. They're a product company, selling solutions to customers, but when it comes to making money, its the devices, the hardware that makes the money, not the software. The software is an unique selling point for their hardware. Which is the main reason they do low-cost software and bundle entry level apps for free and ship low cost upgrades unlike companies which view themselves as software companies and try to maximize profits on their software products.

Granted, they did several pro apps as well, but if you know what happened behind the scenes of these products and how Apple ended up with them, its more that Apple rolled into them than anything else. Apple never planned to do Final Cut Pro. It was a project at Macromedia from the creator of Premiere before Macromedia refocused on serving the internet application space and ended up merging with Adobe. Apple took it off Macromedia's hands because they knew it was a good product, they wanted it on their platform badly in order to ensure hardware sales, but nobody was interested in bringing Final Cut to market for their platform. They tried selling it for two years after they bought it, but still nobody was interested. They eventually just kept it and sold it themselves at a reduced price because of the positive effects it would have on their hardware sales.

Apple aren't all that interested in competing with with their app providers just for the sake of getting more software sales. There's no money (and gain) for Apple to do all the software for their platform. Its not what they're about. Apple chooses to do a few products as well as they can and ignore the rest so total software dominination does not fit in this vision. They tend to do entry level consumer apps to provide entry level solutions to their customers, and are happy leave the pro stuff to others. Suites like iWork basically is AppleWorks for the 21st century, an entry level app. As a testament to this, apple never did a fully fledged productivity suite for their platform, unlike some of their competitors like Sun or Microsoft did.

"Zomg ! Images of prehistoric women WITH BREASTS ??? BURN !!!").

You can always consult the CD-ROMs of magazines for apps which display prehistoric women with breasts… Oh wait. :-)

Vendors only get out of business once, and it takes a finite and short time to do that, so I believe this is a relatively minor concern.

I was only giving some examples, big and small, to illustrate my argument that everything else is a mixed bag and what makes a centralised purchase store better.

Reply Parent Score: 1