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."
I can't wait to buy things!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It should be said that Apple is closing down their previous marketplace because of this, though. :p
http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20101221/tc_zd/258336 [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that anyone without OSX 10.6.6 can't get the app store, and therefore can't access the traditional software downloads area from their Mac?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, provided they also decide they will never again apply a patch to their install of 10.6, for whatever stupid reason. This isn't a "Leopard" to "Snow Leopard" upgrade. It's a routine patch, just like previous ones with security fixes, bug fixes, etc. Skipping it would basically mean you're not going to ever patch your system again.
But considering the "traditional software downloads area" was simply a directory with links to various development shops' websites, and not a repository run by Apple, I thin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:I can't wait to buy things!!! (Score:4, Informative)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
You can't seriously expect Apple to include new features from a paid software update into their old systems. The $29 upgrade to 10.6 is hardly an issue for anyone able to afford a Mac to begin with.
The only people that can really complain are the G5 owners who don't have the option to upgrade to 10.6. But they should be considering themselves lucky that their computers haven't already been killed by the PSU/Logic Board capacitor
Re: (Score:2)
They do as they normally do, go buy a boxed copy of iWork from the Apple Store, or go download TextWrangler or Delicious Library from the developers' websites.
OS X Stats from major website (Score:5, Interesting)
Here are the stats I see on our website (major financial institution):
The remaining 2.73% is crap data.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a PowerBook from 2003 that still works. Of course, when I say 2003, I mean from around 2005, because the first time I sent it back for repair they lost it and replaced it with a new one,and it had its logic board replaced just before the warranty expired in 2006.
And when I say 'works' I mean that the SO-DIMM slots aren't properly attached to the logic board, so when it gets hot the board deforms very slightly and you start getting memory errors (the same problem that caused the previous three logi
Re: (Score:3)
I really can't see doing this (I'm a Mac developer myself)... I'd much rather sell "directly" through my existing payment processor (about 10-11% fees in total) than through the App Store (30%), but I'd still like to have the App Store as an option, since it will undoubtedly provide me better exposure. But I'm certainly not looking at going to an App Store-only model.
The one unfortunate thing - I'll have to have parallel releases of my app, as the App Store version can't have any home-brewed copy protectio
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I can't wait to buy things!!! (Score:4, Informative)
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:I can't wait to buy things!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:I can't wait to buy things!!! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure they have. For example, 10.4.11 was released in November 2007, just after Leopard was introduced.
Re:I can't wait to buy things!!! (Score:5, Funny)
I feel your pain. I've been trying for months to find new 6581 chips for my Commodore 64. I can't believe no one is supporting it anymore. Sure, GEOS runs fine, and I can still get my software the way I always have (at the flea market), but good luck finding a decent REU these days. But that's how it always is -- the vendors get you hooked, and then call you "obsolete."
I don't care what Commodore says, there's no way I'm "upgrading" to a C=128. This kind of forced obsolecence should be illegal!
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely the hard copy costs substantially less than £125 or so per box for Aperture or even £19 per box for iLife. People turn a profit selling things off the shelf for less than that total with higher marginal costs and lower volume.
Seems to me they should cost only slightly less than hard copies, if anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I can't wait to buy things!!! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
That boxed copy was *probably* easier to install on multiple systems. Via the app store, it's likely going to be locked to just that one computer, or at least that one purchaser/owner.
"You can install apps on every Mac you use and even download them again."
Re: (Score:3)
Taking your made up example at face value: If the same product that used to be $75 is now $25, then they'll sell more of them. If they sell 5 times as many, then they'll have more income.
And it's not just the lower prices that are going to drive increases in unit sales, it's convenience. Just as it was with the iPhone App Store.
Indie developers with decent products are going to be doing much better out of the app store than they did before i
Re: (Score:3)
People were previously not able to buy enough Apple products online, in the Apple store, and Best Buy and Walmart. Finally a new way to consume more!
Now they can do it without using gas and 'consuming more' helps the economy. See what thoughtless hate buys you?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, some people (e.g. me) already removed the CD/DVD drive from their Macbook Pro and replaced it with 2nd harddrive (because the primary SSD is maybe a bit small, especially if you're using Bootcamp as well).
So far I'm doing just fine (I even bought MS Office as a download).
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. 100GB SSD an 640GB Hard Drive.
Re: (Score:2)
The Macbook Air models already include no optical drive whatsoever.
Apple makes a USB "Macbook Air Superdrive", and sells it for about $80.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Linux users today: "Haha, stupid Apple consumers, just another way for you to pay money!"
But, my package manager (portage) is local to my box, not being monitored by some other company out there knowing and tracking what I do or do not have on my box.
Also, never had to pay for software to download and install on my linux box before...
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that nobody pays for consumer apps on Linux is the reason that consumer apps on Linux suck. Which in turn is the reason why "This is the year of desktop Linux" was always a false hope.
Another slashvertisement (Score:2, Insightful)
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'".
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you mean the CNN School of Journalistic Neutrality?
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you could notice the fact that the story starts with "Orome1 writes " and that the text is a direct quote from TFA.
So, maybe someone just refrained from editorializing to suit your tastes.
We could equally say "SirGarlon (845873) needlessly pisses and moans about articles he feel should be slanted to his tastes".
When Firefox (or whatever piece of software floats your boat) gets its next announcement on Slashdot, are
I wonder how this will affect FLOSS on the Mac (Score:2)
It would be interesting to hear from anyone with more experience on the subject.
Hachintosh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you updated the last delta without having to replace your kernel and rebuild the cache, etc., then you SHOULD be able to, but you'll probably get a more definitive answer on one of the dedicated OSX86 sites. I can tell you that VMware installs require nothing more than running the updater and rebooting, though.
Meh (Score:2)
I don't think we're going to see this blow up like the iPhone app store. I don't think people are crazy for apps - they are crazy for mobile apps. The mobile platform offers a specific set of benefits and drawbacks that makes it ideal for the app explosion we've seen:
- Location awareness
- Accelerometer functionality
- Forward and/or rear-facing cameras
- The novelty and utility of the web in your pocket
- Bandwidth limitations and limitations imposed by the form factor, reducing the utility of what's possible
Why an OS upgrade? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apps have to return a special exit code when the appstore verification fails (for example when the app was copied from another Mac). The global app launcher has to check for that exit code and launch the verification process in that case. I guess the dock app also needs minor modifications for that download animation.
Re:Why an OS upgrade? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, I'm using SL with Exchange 2003. No problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
based on marketshare, I'd say... No.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's good news especially for indie developers to get more attention. Pixelmator can now be fighting on the same place as Photoshop. If consumers also rate products well, this can give them a serious competitive advantage. I think this is a background to why a small company like those behind Angry Birds has been able to grow this popular so quickly.
I know it's good for me anyway. I love orderly stuff, and can't complain about a well categorized store with user reviews, simple installs, and automated
Ranking (Score:2)
Pixelmator can now be fighting on the same place as Photoshop.
Not if the ranking algorithm includes counting inbound links from web sites. Photoshop's existing brand recognition may serve to boost its visibility in the App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
"People", as in "end users", just want it to work without hassles.
I'm sure to a lot of people who have no interest in fiddling with downloading and installing software will like this. You think Apple hasn't asked people?
I'm sure for someone like my parents (in their 70s) would find an App Store model far easier to work with.
Re: (Score:3)
It's an interesting move, and it brings us one step closer to the end of the "PC era."
Does it?
As far as I know, it does nothing new besides offering Mac users a shortcut.
Before, you'd have to Open Up Google and type in "Mac Apps" and then sift through the top 20 ranked pages! The horror!
Re: (Score:2)
The more informed people used versiontracker.com but since cnet bought it and turned it to a smothering pile of crap, we had no centralized repository.
I welcome this so that we finally will have a package manager that is useful and can track updates.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing though - I've never felt the need for 1 single repository to look for applications. That's what the internet has done for me.
Whenever I want to do something, I Google "How to Do X" where X is what I want to do.
Then if it's available in an application, it'll be listed there.
As for the idea of just impulse App shopping, thats not something I use my PC for.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's an interesting move, and it brings us one step closer to the end of the "PC era.""
Apple makes it easier to buy software for their PC and you somehow interpret this has making a step closer to the end of PC? That's some fancy reasoning you have there.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the fancy reasoning (as I've seen it on Slashdot) goes something like "Zomg! Teh App Store is going to take away our freedoms and make us all rent software and not be able to own our own computers".
Personally, I have no idea why a simplified mechanism of software distribution is causing people to get their knickers in a twist. Giv
Re: (Score:2)
Anything Apple gets promoted to a worldwide conspiracy.
Then reverse the meaning of what ever Apple is doing and if singular make it "for all". Example: Apple is adding a new distribution mechanism. In /. speak this translates to "Apple is taking away all other distribution methods."
Then make vague allusions to all governments becoming Apple and all people becoming Apple (except for the brave /. rebels).
Re: (Score:2)
A single place to go and download most of the software you could ever need for your system. How will that cause the end of the "PC era"? What do you mean by "PC era"?
Now, they should add automatic dependency management, class by source availability and freedom, and have unstable and stable repositories.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see this being incorporated into softwareupdate.
I already use it to update stuff when I'm away from home. ...]
usage: softwareupdate [
-l | --list List all appropriate updates ... specific updates
-d | --download Download Only
-i | --install Install
-a | --all all appropriate updates
Watch sparks fly over guidelines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like that [google.com] would ever happen...
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting to note, games are a lot cheaper on the App Store than on Steam. Example, Bejewelled 3 £14.99 on Steam, £11.99 on App Store.
Re:Watch sparks fly over guidelines (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And the Windows world will probably have to wait for another couple of years until something like gains traction.
Guess I'm spoiled from all those years of using Ubuntu and Debian for my coding work. :D
Re:Watch sparks fly over guidelines (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Watch sparks fly over guidelines (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore, the framework is open to ANYONE.
You can package ANY app and create your own Debian repository if you so desire. It doesn't matter who you are or what your app is or what it does or how it's licensed.
apt itself is licensed and distributed like any other bit of free software.
Skype, Hulu, Sun, Oracle, Indie developers. They can all have their own deb packages and repositories.
They can all be managed with the same interface as your "main" packages.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried to put something in the mainstream deb repository? There is a cut and dry process, but it's not short nor sweet if you aren't already a maintainer. This isn't a knock to debian, I like the guidelines. It should be noted you just don't "throw things" into their official repos though.
Soon (Score:2)
They had to change a few features and re-brand it to avoid confusing it with the full version, but you can already download it:
http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html [lisanet.de]
Re: (Score:2)
They had to change a few features and re-brand it to avoid confusing it with the full version, but you can already download it:
http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html [lisanet.de]
There's no ads in that version! Where are my ads?!?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget vuvuzela and air horns. :-P
The difference is no PPAs (Score:3)
without a community repo.
And that's the big difference. Developers can't just set up their own PPAs and the like; instead, they have to pay $8.25 per month for hosting and rely on review guidelines that will be hotly contested [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
OR, they can do their own thing, and continue distributing .dmg or .mpkg files over the internet, or on physical media, and avoid the App Store altogether!
You keep overlooking that little tidbit in your relentless whoring of your "ZOMG ITZ TEH EVILZ" post from yesterday's "Armageddon" article.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a ton of Open-Source app distribution systems aside from Apple's nice GUI one.
Fink [finkproject.org]
DarwinPorts [darwinports.com]
The list goes further on...
Re: (Score:2)
TFA makes it sound a lot like apt or the package manager for any Linux, except here you have to pay for some of the apps, and without a community repo.
What do you mean you don't have to pay for any of the apps on Linux? Ubuntu has included paid apps in the USC for some time now.
Re:Watch, more censorship to come.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since it's all about money... (Score:2, Flamebait)
...all OS X users are sincerely fucked.
iOS devices outsell OS X devices 7 times over. OS X also doesn't provide further revenue for Apple in App Sales. Today's release is market research to see what happens when an App Store is present on a desktop system. If it's at all successful, 10.7 will be the last operating system in which a user has the option to legally install their own software without going through the app store.
Steve will present it as a future free from viruses and crashes, and 99% of the user
Re: (Score:2)
> everyone always told me macs were perfectly safe and never get viruses!
OH HAI WE PATCHED SOME 0DAY SPLOITZ B4 NE1 COULD P0WNZUS
Re: (Score:2)
Security? But... but... everyone always told me macs were perfectly safe and never get viruses!
I think they're referring to the security of your information, but go ahead and keep trolling. As a side benefit, yes, this would provide more oversight if a virus ever did successfully make it to the wild.
Also, a lot of people think this is something that's forced upon the user and is the only place to buy an application (which clearly isn't the case.) I think it's meant for the majority of the computer-using public that really has no idea that there are other options than going to a brick-and-mortar store
Re: (Score:3)
Apple "innovates" again and re-invents the package manager Linux has had for ages...
Yeah, pretty much. I wish it had not taken them so long though. I wish they'd do a better job copying virtual desktops while they're at it. I notice Canonical innovated and added apps for sale to their own app repositories. Now I wish Linux distros would innovate and re-invent GNU-step style packages and required package signing with real credentials to get into the default repositories, and heck system services while they're at it.
I really, really like it when OS's copy the best parts of other OS's and my
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Is that why I can move my home directory from one linux install to another and the programs will still run?
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't even argue this point.
Of course I will.
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.
OK, you clearly do NOT understand how Linux works, or ironically OSX. The underlying mechanisms are then same in both operating systems that we may as well consider them the same for the purposes of discussion.
Linux and OSX implement self-contained programs in exactly the same way. They ship around and
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Is that why I can move my home directory from one linux install to another and the programs will still run?
I believe he's just talking about your application directory, not your entire home directory.
Really, it completely depends on the software. Mac OS apps tend to be packages, basically directories with a pre-defined structure and extension that the GUI treats as a file instead of as a directory. You can still open them like a directory through a special command but when you use the normal open/run command they run like an application. Since the entire application is a directory it contains pretty much everyth
Re: (Score:2)
Dang Apple and their short-term support of hardware.
Since you have an intel Mac there's always the Linux upgrade option. Personally, I plan on installing Slackware on my iMac when Apple decides that they no longer wish to support it. I agree, their support life is way too short.
Re: (Score:3)
I've had Macs for about 6 years now. So far I haven't found anything that restricted me. I do have enough sense to keep my data in formats that I can move around but there's nothing in OS X that forces me to stay there. On the Mac I keep my photos in iPhoto but only use jpgs, all my music is in iTunes but ever file is an unrestricted mp3, I use Firefox or Chrome, OpenOffice, Emacs, Adium, KeepassX, etc. A couple of times I've backed up my data onto an external drive and moved it over to a Linux computer
Re:Can't run it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Weren't intel macs first released in January 2006? (In other words wouldn't every intel mac meet those specs?)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, though I believe some of them (esp. the early Minis) don't fully support all Snow Leopard features - some of the video stuff, I believe, actually requires ATI or Nvidia graphics, and iirc, the early minis used the integrated Intel graphics.
Re:Can't run it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Now now, it's just barely possible he's too cheap to spend $25 on memory.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. This upgrade will run on all Intel Macs. It you've bought Snow Leopard. You of course don't get updates to software you haven't bought.
Just like your Intel Mac is upgradable to Snow Leopard. For considerably less money than the Windows upgrade would cost you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think small developers were really getting a better deal running stores themselves?
Actually, much better. It's more like 8.9% when going with Fastspring.
Re:All your moneys are belong to Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
If "developers will hand over 30 percent [yahoo.com]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: (Score:3)
I'll go to my grave not knowing why people freak out so much about this. I have not heard of a single developer who has done WORSE in iOS than they did in Palm, WinCE, etc. Didn't anyone ever take Econ 1, or hell, 2nd grade math? Which would you rather have: 100% of a very small number, or 70% of a much, much larger number?
Hell, Apple could take 99% of my money if it meant I'd sell 1000x more copies of my app, because (0.01 x 1000) > (1 x 1).
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, this is more like what Canonical is doing in Ubuntu right now.
Mac OS X have had open source repositories for years, both Fink (apt based) and MacPorts.
Re:What about applications I already own? (Score:4, Informative)