Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems Security Software Apple

Mac OS X 10.6.6 Introduces App Store 408

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the there's-an-app-for-that dept.
Orome1 writes "Apple today released Mac OS X 10.6.6 which increases the stability, compatibility, and security of your Mac. What's also very important in this release is the introduction of the long-awaited Mac App Store with more than 1,000 free and paid apps."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mac OS X 10.6.6 Introduces App Store

Comments Filter:
  • by Americano (920576) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:17PM (#34777422)

    Don't like the Mac App Store, but like the repository concept? Install and use Bodega - http://www.appbodega.com./ [www.appbodega.com] They have no guidelines, and have said they're not going anywhere.

    Or, you know, continue downloading and installing disk image and other installer files from the web like you've always done.

  • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:35PM (#34777706) Journal

    Having just downloaded the update, I find the pricing very interesting. I'm in the UK at the moment, so YMMV if you're elsewhere, but Apple's own software is significantly cheaper on the App store than on DVD from the normal Apple store. I actually used Aperture (Apple's pro photo application) as an example yesterday of something we wouldn't be seeing on the app store - turns out that not only was I wrong, but they've given it a major price cut: £173 for a boxed copy, or £44.99 for a download on the app store. Similarly, iLife sells for £46, but the three component apps are £8.99 each (so £27 total) on the app store. iWork follows the same template: £72 boxed, or £11.99 each for the three apps that it's formed from.

    A quick browse through makes it fairly clear that the pricing is rather disparate at the moment - I expect it'll settle down as people have a bit more experience with the store - but the thing that surprises me is the quantity of software at £11.99 or so; some of it seems overpriced, some of it seems reasonable, but in either case I absolutely wasn't expecting that price point to be so popular. It seems too high for a basic utility which may or may not be better than the best OSS offering, and too low for a serious application (although Apple's decision to place their office applications at that price means maybe it is high enough for serious software if they plan to make it up in volume). Whether it survives is anyone's guess, though.

  • by voidptr (609) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:39PM (#34777788) Homepage Journal

    One of the guidelines for submitting to the app store is x86 / x86_64 binaries only. Fat binaries with PPC code segments aren't allowed.

    There doesn't appear to be any intent from Apple to backport it into anything older than Snow Leopard, and even if they did add it to Leopard, it would be Intel only.

  • by Americano (920576) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:39PM (#34777798)

    Everybody who doesn't have 10.6 can continue installing software like they always have - they lose nothing by not installing this patch.

    If you need an app that's only sold on the app store, and the developer totally refuses to sell it any other way, then do business with someone else, or consider whether or not it's time to upgrade to 10.6.

    More and more software is being released "Snow Leopard only" because it takes advantage of features and frameworks that were added in Snow Leopard. At some point, getting "new stuff" will require you to have a system that's capable of running that "new stuff".

  • by Graff (532189) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @01:16PM (#34778594)

    Apologies for replying to myself, but it'd be useful if someone could post the USD prices for comparison - see if they're trying to implement regional price differences (over and above the necessary exchange rate + taxes) or not.

    Take a look at this article:

    Mac App Store Launches with 1,000 Apps, Big Discounts [wired.com]

    Apple's flagship photo-editing software, Aperture, is in the store for just $80. You can still buy it from the conventional Apple Store, but it'll cost the usual $200.

    The three iWork apps, Pages, Numbers and Keynote, cost $20 apiece, a saving on the usual $80 bundle price.

  • by icebraining (1313345) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @01:18PM (#34778634) Homepage

    The Debian project does have some fairly strict guidelines: they're just not related to content, so much as they are licensing of content. It must be "free" and unencumbered.

    Wrong. They just have separate sections; main, contrib and non-free, all maintained by the Debian project. You can search for non-free packages as easily as with free packages: http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages#search_packages [debian.org]

    Sure, they must be legality distributable binaries - or else Debian themselves couldn't put it in the mirror - but it's not required to be free software. Adobe Flash, the proprietary Oracle JDK, non-free firmware, there are plenty of non-free packages in Debian.

  • by CrackedButter (646746) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @01:46PM (#34779208) Homepage Journal
    The App store detected my copy of Aperture and considers it as being installed.
  • by Cinder6 (894572) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @02:03PM (#34779520)

    10.6 requires in Intel Mac. If this was an update right at the beginning of the Intel transition, then yes, people have a right to be upset. But it's not. Apple has been Intel-only since 2006. So it's actually pretty dang likely a good amount of any "legacy" 10.4 installs can upgrade to 10.6 just fine. Also remember this isn't Microsoft--OS X doesn't cost a couple hundred dollars to get the un-neutered version. Snow Leopard is $30.

    I'm happy when companies support their old stuff--for a time. After a while, though, it just causes stagnation. I see people complaining all the time about Microsoft having to support legacy stuff and how it bogs down the system, but when Apple cuts off support, they're suddenly in the wrong.

  • Re:Innovation (Score:4, Informative)

    by serviscope_minor (664417) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @02:49PM (#34780414) Journal

    Actually, Linux relies upon dependency resolution at install time. OS X uses self contained packages with a dynamic linking scheme. That's the difference I was bringing up and what enables OS X to have more easily portable applications and better ability to use remote software.

    Again, no, you seem to misunderstand what linux does and does not do.

    Both systems work in both of the ways you have described. See e.g. MATLAB for linux (no install time dependency resolution), or Fink/Macports which does install-time dependency resolution on OSX.

    On OS X the executable(s) and resources are in the same directory along with the libraries that aren't standard on the OS.

    That's exactly the same way that 3rd party self-contined rather than package-managed software works on Linux. And the standard Linux way is exactly the same way that third-party package-managed software works on OSX (e.g. Fink).

    As for unable to share libraries, that's not true. They do share libraries dynamically linking to the most up to date within the stable line. You can literally install a singed package and your other apps will upgrade or fall back to their own copy as needed because multiple copies are stored (one per app that uses it).

    Are you claiming that if two different .apps have the same .dylib buried in their directory somewhere, then when the two apps are running, only one copy of the .dylib will reside in RAM? If so, then [citation needed] because I've never heard of that happening before.

    It doesn't work as well, especially for...

    No, it works vastly better except for... ...apps installed not using the package manger (as a Linux user I'm sure you have to deal with these as well) and it falls down in the several, specific use cases I mentioned in my last post (and which you did not address).

    Of course the package manager doesn't manage non-packages. Much like the .app method doesn't help executables that aren't .apps. For non managed packages the install process is usually a case or running the installer executable, which is I will grant more awkward than using a .app on OSX (though plenty of OSX programs also seem to require installing, too). But not much, given that the majority of installed software is done through the package management system.

    For the managed packages everything works effortlessly, like magic.

    OK, back to your other points. I've never had a problem with networked executables. Things seem to run over NFS just as well as locally. And multi-arch programs also seem to run just fine. I believe that matlab uses a wrapper script internally to invoke the correct binary. But frankly, I run it and it works.

    You do know that basically no applications get stored in /sw/bin right? That's mostly for bad ports and legacy software. Even OpenOffice installs as a .app these days and it can be stored anywhere the user likes.

    No, everything fink installs goes in /sw. It isn't just "legacy" things as fink has up to date versions of plenty of packages. I find that the term "legacy" in computing is generally used as a pejorative, to dismiss a piece of software without offering any coherent reasons.

     

10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone

Working...