Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Operating Systems Security Software Apple

Mac OS X 10.6.6 Introduces App Store 408

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This discussion has been archived.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 SirGarlon ( 845873 ) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:10PM (#34777312)

    Apple today released Mac OS X 10.6.6 which which [sic] increases the stability, compatibility, and security of your Mac

    Looks like CmdrTaco has been studying at the Fox News School of Journalistic Neutrality. I believe the preferred formulation would be, "Apple today released Mac OS X 10.6.6 which Apple claims 'increases the stability, compatibility, and security of your Mac'".

  • by pympdaddyc ( 586298 ) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:12PM (#34777352)
    That's not an analogous situation though. In the case of iOS, you can only install an application if it's available in the iOS App Store (ignoring jail breaking and such, of course). The only way around that would be to have a web application, which in many ways is a poor substitute for having a native app. But in the case of OS X, you can still install/build any application you'd like. It's not as though using Steam prevents you from buying Starcraft II from Blizzard. In fact, the Mac App Store model is explicitly meant for types of applications that don't have to make system changes or integrate with the OS, something entire classes of desktop applications need to be able to do. Unlike iOS, this isn't attempting to be the only avenue for application installation, it's simply meant to be convenient. (can use your Apple ID, download and update your apps through one central location, develop and distribute paid applications without having to have your own purchasing infrastructure, etc)
  • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:29PM (#34777618)

    Yes, provided they also decide they will never again apply a patch to their install of 10.6, for whatever stupid reason.

    And what about everyone who doesn't have 10.6?
    10.5 and even 10.4 are still pretty common.

    I think it's very likely that people looking for Mac software will find it just fine using Google if they decide they just can't use the App Store.

    Hopefully. It would suck if you got to the developers website and it just linked back to the app store to buy it.

  • by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:31PM (#34777642) 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. They also, I suspect, have some guidelines/rules related to functionality, packaging namespace, privacy functionality,

    Honestly, aside from the guidelines which mainly pertain to for-pay programs and legal liability (crude content, violence, etc.) I didn't really see anything in the Apple dev guidelines that jumped out at me and said "bad!" It's mostly just "if you want to play ball with us, you have to play by our rules." Exclusionary? Sure, if the dev wants to do something different, sure.

    FreeBSD doesn't do 'repositories', so to speak. They do ports, and then FreeBSD. They're conveniently independent (I suspect so that the FreeBSD project can claim superior security to everything else). Even then, ports don't really have 'guidelines'. "I maintain this port and I'll update it as I please, consequences be damned" seems to be the guiding message, though.

  • Re:Can't run it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Americano ( 920576 ) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:33PM (#34777682)

    What the fuck are you on about? The Mac App Store has the same requirements as the Snow Leopard release:

    1) Mac system running Intel processor;
    2) 1 GB of RAM;
    3) 5 GB of disk space;
    4) DVD Drive

    That's it. The entirety of the "required specs" to run Snow Leopard. There is no Intel mac that's been released since 2006 that doesn't have at least those specs, unless you ripped hardware out of it, or put together a Hackintosh of your own, and did it badly, and cheaply.

    Or are you complaining because *you decided* not to upgrade to Snow Leopard, and now can't upgrade to the latest Snow Leopard patch, which includes the App Store?

  • Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:37PM (#34777738)

    Really? Is that why I can move my home directory from one linux install to another and the programs will still run?

    Please don't even argue this point. Linux is a bit behind the curve and the only people who would argue otherwise are people who don't use both OS's. Sure you can copy your home directory on Linux, or use the stored installer (if you are expert enough to know where they go) for an individual app (on some distros)... all provided you are running on the same architecture.

    With OS X you can literally drag an application into a chat window to a friend, who is running a different version of your OS, running on a different chipset and that friend can double click the app and run it. It's a great deal more painless since all the apps are the installers and are self contained directories ending in .app. It's one of the things Apple got right and where no Linux distro has enough pull to push change, especially since it is not a big pain point for end users. Additionally, the OpenStep packages make running software off a network drive or flash drive or anywhere really, easier by allowing for multiple sets of preferences and multiple included binaries to get around the whole hack of symlinks or multiple copies for multiple architectures.

    Linux is not ahead in every area, just as OS X and Windows are behind in other areas. Get over it.

  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:48PM (#34777982)

    If "developers will hand over 30 percent []of the purchase price to Apple," what will consumer prices be?

    Have you ever worked in the end user software development business? 30% going to distribution, credit card processing, and managing updates isn't bad. When you add in the amount of publicity it generates by being in THE searchable software database for end users, well, likely prices will drop as advertising will drive more sales, more price competition, and larger volumes.

  • Re:Innovation (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:50PM (#34778044)

    Apple "innovates" again and re-invents the package manager Linux has had for ages...

    The difference is that Apple will make more money from the Mac App Store during its first five minutes online than all the Linux package managers have made combined during their entire collective existence.

  • Re:Can't run it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @01:00PM (#34778284)

    My four year old Intel-Mac doesn't have the required specs.

    It has. You are just too cheap to spend $29 on Snow Leopard.

  • Re:Innovation (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 06, 2011 @01:12PM (#34778522)

    This isn't actually true is it? Can I send an app built on my linux box to someone running a different arch & distro -- no! Can an Apple user send a current intel-only app to someone running OSX on PPC or iOS on a mobile device -- no! Then we get to the question of why anybody would ever want to copy a raw binary instead of using a linux distros package manager?

    Fat binaries were a temporary workaround and both Apple and MS include emulators. Can I run a linux ARM binary via a distro under QEMU from another arch -- yes.

  • by v1 ( 525388 ) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @03:12PM (#34780804) Homepage Journal

    Why do we need to upgrade and reboot the operating system to run, just, a new application?

    Love it or hate it, Apple will drag its userbase, kicking and screaming if necessary, forward. In the end it's for the good of both Apple and their customers. If you want to live in the past, install windows xp ;)

    Apple supports their OS to, at most, one version back. Period. No exceptions, no extensions. But they also do their damndest to make the transitions as painless/smooth/transparent as possible. (classic,rosetta,etc) If you make it easy and orderly, and do it periodically, it's not a problem for the vast majority of users.

  • by Americano ( 920576 ) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @04:56PM (#34782510)

    The PPC system is, even if it was the last PPC system produced, at least 4.5 years old. The PowerMac G5 was last produced in July/August of 2006. It's now January 2011.

    So let's look at the facts:
    1) The App Store is not the only way to get software. It will *never* be the *only* way to get software for your Mac. There is NO reason to believe it will *ever* be the *only* way to get software for your Mac.

    2) It's been known since 2005 that PPC macs would eventually be unsupported.

    3) If you want to continue running your PowerPC system, you can keep running whatever release of 10.4 or 10.5 is on it just fine. You can also install new software whenever you like: just not through the Mac App store.

    So how are you being "forced" to upgrade your hardware by this patch? Pray tell, how is Apple going to lock down your system and prevent you from installing or doing whatever you like with your PowerPC system?

    (Hint: They can't do a single thing to it, other than 'end support' for it. Which means you can keep running it until the hardware self-destructs if you want.)

I owe the public nothing. -- J.P. Morgan