×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple To Distribute OS X Lion via the Mac App Store

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the but-i-miss-dvds dept.

Apple 517

An anonymous reader writes "Apple this Summer is expected to release Mac OS X Lion. As opposed to other OS X releases, however, Lion will also be available for purchase via the Mac App Store, further solidifying Apple's efforts to make the Mac App Store an integral part of the Mac user experience." A lot of questions surrounding this related to the ability to make bootable disks. And also, why don't they just use apt-get? I gotta admit: it makes me nervous getting my OS from an App Store — which is strange considering how many kernels I've downloaded, built and booted over the years.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

517 comments

Macs will be a closed platform in the end (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034334)

This is just the latest attempt to promote the Mac app store, but it's also another step toward what's ultimately coming. Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores. Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.

I would like to think that people would howl about this when it happens, of course. But I bet that Apple will sell it as a necessary security measure to protect against viruses and attacks, and that most Mac users (and most members of the public) will be all-too-willing to trade freedom for security. Sadly, it will probably only increase Mac sales--prompting other PC makers to follow suite with their own closed systems.

I shudder to think that we may one day look back and ask "Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?"

And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034354)

Your mom would never do that.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034370)

nah, i'm with you: it certainly seems apple is going this way which really sucks, as os x is my preferred os atm.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034422)

You are right!

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (3, Interesting)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034446)

I think you're probably correct about the direction Apple is headed in. I bought my first Mac in 1987 but their behavior has effectively alienated me the last couple of years, along with the fact that OS X is nearly as buggy as windows now, and plus the Applestore techs were not competent to repair the last Mac I owned (If you have to replace the replacement "logic board" then maybe the problem wasn't ever the "logic board").

As far as the OS goes, Tiger was the pinnacle -- it's gone downhill since then. I think I knew in my heart this would happen in 2005, the day they issued the Tiger update that eliminated console login.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034702)

the big problem with doing a motherboard swap is any time you replace one of the MB , CPU/RAM , PSU triad you stand a 20% chance of having to replace either or both of the OTHER parts of the triad.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1, Interesting)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034880)

As I said, the problem was the only answer they seem to have at the Applestore (at Lennox Mall, Atlanta) is "replace the 'logic board'". And when that "logic board" dies, replace it again. That'll fix it!

They may have been trying to just patch it up and get rid of me because I was nearly out of warranty and by "fixing it" to work for just a few more weeks they expected I'd be back with cash to spend. Maybe that works on some people, but when it died yet again, this time out of warranty, I just junked it and replaced it with an old tank of a G4 running Tiger (It's a recording studio Mac, not a personal machine). It isn't as if the state of multitrack recording software has changed all that much in the last decade. :) So until Linux has it's pro multimedia act together I'll just use the old Macs that were tanks and ran forever with the old software. They still work just fine for that purpose.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034710)

If you have to replace the replacement "logic board" then maybe the problem wasn't ever the "logic board"

Or there's a defect in the design. ....wouldn't be the first time.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034894)

You can still log into the console in 10.6, I still do it every now and then. Plus there's always Terminal or iTerm. And for me stability has been.... up and down. Always buggy on release, but after about 2 months, stable for me.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034460)

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple were to introduce desktop solutions along the same, restrictive lines as the mobile devices. However, their base of creative and technical users is sufficiently wide to ensure that a whole-hearted switch to this methodology would be met with a reduction in sales. Blocking all but Apple-approved apps on any of their devices makes it even more sensible to continue in-browser app development, not least taking advantage of the new web storage features available via HTML5 for working offline.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034462)

> I would like to think that people would howl about this when it happens, of course.

Like they howled about the same thing on iPads? Lock down their platform, restrict what they can do, and people eat that stuff up. People *love* being told what they can and cannot do with their own computers.

> Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?

We're not quite there yet, but I've been watching the industry a long time - since about a decade before the first home computers from Altair started showing up - and that is certainly the vector. Sadly, nobody seems to care.

I give it another 20 years. It'll happen for "security" reasons, under guise of protecting us from spams and malwares, to protect Sony from break ins, to protect content providers. Whether it'll do that does not matter; it will be the excuse for needing permission to use our own machines.

And people will eat it up. They always do.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (-1)

ZankerH (1401751) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034676)

Like they howled about the same thing on iPads? Lock down their platform, restrict what they can do, and people eat that stuff up. People *love* being told what they can and cannot do with their own computers.

Ipad was locked down to begin with. Real Apple computers have an existing user base of thousands (?) of people who won't take kindly to their shiny toys^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H computers being reduced in functionality to a cellphone without the phone part.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034826)

My work alone has over 5,000 Macs, so your "user base of thousands" quip isn't really that funny. I *think* I read 9% of computers on the planet run some form of OSX.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (2)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034794)

People *love* being told what they can and cannot do with their own computers.

I can't speak for all people (nor can you, but that won't stop you anyway), but I personally *love* being able to use a nicely designed machine with as little fuss as possible. I also *love* the fact that if I wanted to dork out on my machine I could boot into Linux or Windows as well.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034832)

I give it another 20 years. It'll happen for "security" reasons, under guise of protecting us from spams and malwares, to protect Sony from break ins, to protect content providers. Whether it'll do that does not matter; it will be the excuse for needing permission to use our own machines.

Not to me. I will be running Silly Sea-monster. It is funny, that the majors are making Linux look more viable all the time. That with the fact that Linux is improving as well, can only help. Already, every Humble Inde Bundle, 25% or the revenue is Linux. Not bad for a niche OS with less than 1% market share... Or could that be wrong?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034834)

Like they howled about the same thing on iPads? Lock down their platform, restrict what they can do, and people eat that stuff up. People *love* being told what they can and cannot do with their own computers.

No, it's just that not everyone is "into" computers, and want a simple device for internet access and streaming. It really is just that simple.

Some day you ragged geek filth will pull your heads out and look through he telescope the right way. Until then, you scumbags will continue to say stupid stuff like this.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (2)

bunhed (208100) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034464)

I think that's clearly where they are headed too. Apple was never into 'open' and I'll bet these last 10 years spiking the koolaid with FOSS have grated on their sense of rightness. iTunes was one thing but this app store business... it's all coming home now. I've already moved my world back to linux. OS/X was great for a while though. I'll probably even miss it a little bit, but that's all.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034472)

And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

If that were Apple's plan they would just come out and say it. They make no bones about doing it on their iPhones, iPod Touches, iPads so why what do they gain from lying and saying they AREN'T doing it to OS X? Oh, right, that doesn't make for a great bit of Apple trolling.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034590)

If that were Apple's plan they would just come out and say it. They make no bones about doing it on their iPhones, iPod Touches, iPads so why what do they gain from lying and saying they AREN'T doing it to OS X? Oh, right, that doesn't make for a great bit of Apple trolling.

If he was trolling, which I don't think he was, doesn't that mean you just fed the troll?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (2)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034658)

Since when, exactly, is Apple known to be open about what they're doing or planing to do?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (3, Interesting)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034474)

This is just the latest attempt to promote the Mac app store, but it's also another step toward what's ultimately coming. Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores.

It's also eating their own dog food and getting the OS upgrade over the internet seems like a good thing: less pollution, no waiting, etc. Apps downloaded through the Mac App Store are regular files just like those downloaded from anywhere else. I'm guessing this software update will be just an image stored somewhere on your hard disk. I won't say Apple would never do what you're suggesting but I will say they can't. You can't get the toothpaste back into the tube. If they truly wanted to do what you describe they'd have to replace computers entirely with iOS based devices, I can't see that happening.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034586)

If they truly wanted to do what you describe they'd have to replace computers entirely with iOS based devices, I can't see that happening.

Considering the enormous amount of money they have made on iOS and the App Store, I do not see any reason why they could not pursue such a strategy, or perhaps a slightly modified version: iOS for "consumers" (priced at a level that a typical home user can afford) and high powered workstations that are not locked down for "professionals" (which will be priced at a level that consumers are unlikely to pay).

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (4, Insightful)

powerlord (28156) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034692)

Except that a lot of the people that consist of the Apple "Grass Roots" are power users who are likely to balk at such a setup.

More likely, someone realized that since OS X DVDs do NOT come with a License key, and you can already make an ISO image of them easily using the software built into OS X, why not just sell it through the App Store and let people download and burn their own image?

It costs less to the Manufacturer. (packaging/shipping costs)
It cuts the middleman out. (don't need to give Best Buy or other non-apple on-line/retail stores a cut)
It provides quick availability. (as fast as their servers and your pipe can handle)
It provides a remote backup for customers. (a + for non-technically savvy customers)

All in all it seems like wins all around, I'm not sure why Apple WOULDN'T do this.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034746)

Except that a lot of the people that consist of the Apple "Grass Roots" are power users who are likely to balk at such a setup.

And where will they turn? Linux? Get real.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034906)

This is in fact my problem; I use Apple computers in the home exclusively now, and I can't say that the Mac App Store makes me happy. I don't know if Apple will completely close off the desktop platform or not; I think it could still go either way, but I get nervous when stuff like this happens. On the other hand, every time I decide to expand my options with an eye to the future, I'm forcefully reminded why I switched to Macs from Windows and linux boxen in the first place; linux, after all these years, still requires too much tinkering to make it work unobtrusively, and with major recent/upcoming upgrades to the main desktop environments, guarantees me configuration/learning curve headaches for years to come. As for Windows, well all I have to do is get asked to work on one of my extended family's computers to remember all the things I loathe about windows. It will suffice to say that I do not want an OS that causes me to gnash my teeth and rend my clothes on a daily basis.

Mac OS X is getting more closed all the time, but it's still better for me (at getting the hell out of my way and letting me enjoy my computer) than all the other options. So, what do?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034754)

Because some of us live in rural areas with usage caps on our Internet connections and downloading a DVD worth of OS would use up nearly all of that cap? Because some of us LIKE having a physical disc in hand? Because Apple had sold "family packs" allowing upgrades of multiple computers with the same set of discs, which is nice for those of us who hand down our old hardware to our kids when we upgrade?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (2)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034858)

Mac app store purchases are good for 5 computers. Not sure if this would be different. What I see happening is them charging $30 for it on the App store and go back to $129 for the retail store pricing.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (2)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034910)

More likely, someone realized that since OS X DVDs do NOT come with a License key, and you can already make an ISO image of them easily using the software built into OS X, why not just sell it through the App Store and let people download and burn their own image?

Exactly this. The article questioned just how would the poor soul who downloads Lion make a physical copy? Uhh, use the disk imaging utility that comes with every Mac and make an image of it, then burn it to a disk (or back it up to time machine, other backup drive, other computers in your house). I wouldn't be surprised that if you lost your download you would be able to redownload it (not that you can do this with iTunes, but I hear rumors...)

My older MacBook's cd player stopped working a couple years ago. I just upgraded it from Leopard to Snow Leopard by making a disk image, then copying the image to the MacBook desktop and running it from there. Really, every time articles pop up like this with faux problems, there is generally a very simple, and often preferred, workaround.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034706)

If they truly wanted to do what you describe they'd have to replace computers entirely with iOS based devices, I can't see that happening.

Since Microsoft Windows is heading in the same direction as Apple and the App Store, Apple will not need to take over -- Microsoft does not want unsigned programs and/or sideloading except for with business editions.

antitrust laws will not let M$ do a app store lock (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034772)

antitrust laws will not let M$ do a app store lock in and apple may also hit that if they go to far. Also the law said that you can hack your phone for any network or any app.

What apple said you can only use att dsl or dial up on your mac?

What if M$ said we only let you use cable ISP's?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034484)

Of course, Apple has made it clear that boxed versions with a disk will also be available as always. The App Store is just another means of distribution. I thought choice was good and more choice better...?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034504)

Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.

More likely, Apple will sell two increasingly separated lines of computers: the "consumer" line and the "professional" line, and the professional line will cost many times more and not be locked down like the consumer line. Those who pay the "professional premium" will be allowed to run their own programs without approval from Apple, including compilers and scripting environments, and will of course be able to develop programs for consumer computers (but will naturally have to pay Apple for distribution privileges).

And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

Ditto.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034546)

Much like how the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad would all fail when competing against more open products?

Techies and slashdot users in particular SUCK at predicting the future, particularly where Apple's concerned.

I can see a future where it becomes more difficult to shoot yourself in the foot. But removing the option to install software that isn't from the App Store? get fucking real.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034890)

Having just helped migrating a user from XP to Windows 7, I appreciate openness even more than I did before. No, you can't just buy a new mainboard when the old one is fried, since your OEM version of XP won't run on it. No, you can't use your old corporate install of Office on your new Windows 7 install. You're supposed to pay 100s of dollars for a new license when you upgrade. And no, migrating your own mail from Outlook 2003 to a free -- or commercial -- alternative basically sucks sweaty donkey balls and is barely possible (interestingly, the solution was to copy the files to a Linux box and convert them with one of the readily available tools there).

A future where you depend on corporate support for everything isn't one where shooting yourself in the foot has become more difficult, it's one where you've already shot yourself. Techies know this because they've got experience. Inexperienced users are inexperienced because they still haven't learned this.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034564)

And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

Oh, they'd like to. But do you really think they'd get away with it? They got away with it on iOS, because that was a completely new market. So there wasn't a previous version to compare it with. If they cripple an existing product (Mac OS), you bet their users will complain.

This is to end Hackintoshes (and VMs?) (2)

dublin (31215) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034582)

Apple is definitely looking to strengthen their stranglehold on the OS X environment. This move makes it much harder to run OS X on non-Apple hardware - they'll make sure your system passes Apple genuine validation before you're allowed to download it.

Now I know that Apple's OS X license agreement says you can only run OS X on Apple hardware, but I also think that's an illegal restriction, and this move will make it nearly impossible to run O X on any hardware except what Apple has decided to allow you to run it on.

It'll be interesting to see what they do w.r.t. virtualization - will they allow VM images to only be downloaded to and run from Apple OS X Server instances? Do you now have to buy hideously expensive Apple server hardware to be able to benefit from virtualization?

This stinks to high heaven. I like Apple's products, but haven't been able to bring myself to buy them in several years - I just can't willingly march into the gulag...

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034612)

unless apple changes the rules software meant for corporate use will never be sold via the Mac App store. Software is a low margin product for a retailer and a PITA for a developer to sell it to a distributor and retailer who have to take their cut.

distribution via the Mac App store will give small developers an easier way to sell software

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034752)

Apple's desktops are already not really geared towards corporate use though. Apple's target market has always been home use, and the creative types working on films and other such artistic pursuits (ie, the type of environment where there usually isn't a formal IT department, and if there is, it's not your standard corporate setup).

Just about anybody running payroll, crunching spreadsheets, and doing all the other mundane stuff associated with plain old business computing, is doing it on a PC. I think a big part of that is just due to the mountain of obscure niche software that most businesses run. Most businesses are tied to an industry, and most industries have incredibly specific little things they need done. I work in government and we have to use very specialized software for tax billing, property appraisals, building permits, veteran's claim form tracking, etc. All things things are very specialized but used in few other industries. As a result, you have at most 2 or 3 vendors to choose from for most of this stuff and naturally, hoping to target the largest amounts of customers (particularly given that they might only have a few dozen customers total), this software gets written for Windows.

 

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034614)

I bow my hat to your successful trolling, good sir.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (2, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034618)

It isn't just Apple doing this - Microsoft is rolling out an app store of their own, BlackBerry has an app store, Google's got an Android app store...

And, what you've failed to realize, is that most people think this is a good thing.

No shopping around. Don't have to go out to the store. No discs to keep track of. Just click a button and your software appears.

Sure, I want to be able to install my own software without having to jailbreak/hack/crack/whatever my devices... But I'm in the minority these days.

Apple isn't forcing this on anybody, people are begging them for it.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (5, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034806)

I don't think anyone is claiming that app-stores in general are a bad thing. It's just that Apple has in the past proven that they are more than willing to set up a platform so that their app-store is the ONLY method for getting software on the device. The other players you mention have not done that.

Consider it like a kitchen knife. I use kitchen knives all the time - they're wonderful tools with a lot of utility. If Wolfgang Puck asks to borrow one I wouldn't regard that with a bit of suspicion. If Charles Manson asked for one though, there's going to be an issue.

Apple has already destroyed my trust in them. The locked down situation on their mobile devices isn't a "What if", a "You know, they might . . .", or any other situation. It's real, it's here. They did it. I don't trust them anymore. End of story.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034920)

IS THAT YOU STEVE?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034628)

Forget the end, Macs were closed from the beginning. Why anything thinks they were ever open is beyond me.

But no-one has the last laugh... (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034664)

...because if MS have are their usual selves, they'll be planning to duplicate the exact same scheme for Windows 8 and beyond

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

thoromyr (673646) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034682)

I don't think Apple would do it, but I sure wouldn't say never. At the least, developers will need a computer to actually develop on and Apple wants them to use one of /their/ computers to do so and pretty much by definition a development system can't be locked down against unapproved software. So I doubt they will entirely do away with "open" systems. On the other hand, they might very well market a "home computer" that was effectively locked down.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034726)

I don't shudder, as I don't use their fucking software, I don't give them my money, and I don't care if they set their customers on fire and put them out with explosives like a Boots and Coots does oil well fires.

"Waah. The bad proprietary software man broke it off in my ass because I craved the shiny!"

Choices have consequences.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034784)

Well aren't you special.

This isn't bad at all; it's a good thing! (4, Insightful)

Jahava (946858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034804)

This is just the latest attempt to promote the Mac app store, but it's also another step toward what's ultimately coming. Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores. Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.

I would like to think that people would howl about this when it happens, of course. But I bet that Apple will sell it as a necessary security measure to protect against viruses and attacks, and that most Mac users (and most members of the public) will be all-too-willing to trade freedom for security. Sadly, it will probably only increase Mac sales--prompting other PC makers to follow suite with their own closed systems.

I shudder to think that we may one day look back and ask "Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?"

And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

So here's my question: is it really so bad?

So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate. Apple works diligently to prevent malicious code from entering the App Store, push out software updates, etc. Their system is no longer open / free, and that sucks. Fortunately, we have Linux, FreeBSD, Windows (although I suspect MS will follow in Apple's footsteps), and a host of other operating systems to turn to if we want software freedom, console login, etc.

If Apple closed off their devices, I would still not rule them out. Obviously I wouldn't use them as a hacking platform, but if Apple allows FOSS into their App Store, I don't see how even my daily usage of their systems would change much. Apple systems would become less suitable for some niche things, like debugging, emulation, penetration testing, etc., but most of the time that's not what people use Apple for.

The issue comes when / if Apple starts preventing legitimate software from entering their App Store. If Apple makes the App Store the only gateway into their devices, you can bet that there will be a suit of lawsuits from whatever company gets barred, the EFF, etc.; if Apple loses these, then their platform will become open "enough" again. If they win, then that is the day I stop using Apple products, as they are no longer free and flexible enough for my tastes.

And even then, while Apple systems may not meet my tastes as a developer, the App Store gateway is a perfect model for my parents, grandparents, cousins, and siblings. The less maintenance they have to do, including software vetting and updates, the better.

This is a good thing; Apple is defining its market, and through this move it will be far more suitable for the 95% of the population that only ever wanted to use a computer as an appliance.

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

grrrgrrr (945173) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034812)

This is mostly a commend about slashdot moderation. The original poster is entitled to his opinions of course but how the hell can baseless wild speculation be considered insightful????

Abject whining (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034892)

For years people have complain or wondered why the Apple Software Update does not update third part apps. Well the reason is simple, apple does not have the right to distribute those or manage fees for non-free updates. So now they created a unified update mechanism and all the henny penny's are abjectly whining about a walled garden.

Personally what I want is a wallwd garden I canuse for 90% of my enterprise apps. Then for the ones that I am less dependent on I can use some feeble error prone mechanism like Fink (apt-get) or mac ports or enthought to get the other apps outside of the walled garden. For those I'll accept the problems and higher risk of viruses. But for canned apps why not make it simple and robust?

Re:Macs will be a closed platform in the end (1)

golden age villain (1607173) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034900)

I would tend to agree with you but it seems likely that Father Steve is not going to run Apple for several more decades. I wonder how much of this "closing" comes from his drive and if this culture is going to stay or be abandoned as he ultimately leaves the direction of the company to someone else. Time will tell.

Bootable (4, Insightful)

shitzu (931108) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034372)

"A lot of questions surrounding this related to the ability to make bootable disks."

You should really try a mac sometimes.

Re:Bootable (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034406)

I'm curious as well. I always have done a clean install instead of an upgrade when I have upgraded the OS on my macbook pro. It gives me a chance to clean up my mac and to fix the inevitable fragmentation of the drive.

I wasn't planning on upgrading snow leopard. I was planning on doing a fresh install of Lion.

Re:Bootable (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034652)

Another option is to remove the optical drive in the MBP and install a second hard drive. Do a fresh install there and tell it to look on the other drive for all your apps, documents and settings. It worked well for me.

Remember to add the "old" drive to the exclusions list for Spotlight and Time Machine, and unmount it on boot. Use it a week or two this way so you can make absolutely sure you aren't using anything on the old drive. Eventually you can pull the plug so to speak and use it as a seconday backup (I use CCC to clone the drive periodically and Time Machine for backups whenever I'm home and connected to the NAS).

Re:Bootable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034908)

I actually just purchased a new drive, and an enclosure for the old one, you can then browse it as needed. And when you finally tire of it, make it a portable drive.

Re:Bootable (1)

shitzu (931108) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034416)

Just to elaborate a bit: during the years i have installed hundreds (if not thousands) of instances of Windows, Linux as well as OSX. The amount of questions i have had related to the ability to make bootable disks on OSX vs Linux and Win is comparable to the relative national debt of Vatican vs USA

Re:Bootable (5, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034434)

I wouldn't be surprised if the "retail" version was just a USB jump drive. The MacBook Air doesn't have an optical drive. I removed the Optical drive from my MacBook Pro so I could have 2 hard drives. Spinning media has an expiration date that is quickly approaching.

Re:Bootable (1)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034558)

I upgraded my mbair from leopard to snow leopard by sharing the snow leopard disk from another mac. Expect I will do the same for lion because my mbair drive is pretty full; there's not enough room to dl the lion drive image.

It is fine until third parties are required (3, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034386)

The day they require app installation for third party products to go through the "App Store" is the day I stop buying Apple computers. I don't care about the restriction on the iPad, that was there when I bought it. If anything all the App Store has proved to me is that its nearly impossible to separate good programs from bad ones because it costs nothing to get them on the store. By that I mean, to have a successful product in the retail environment today means being quality enough or a well enough known group to get stores to stock your products. With the App Store there is such a small barrier to entry it just becomes a cluttered mess.

Back to the story, I don't care where I get OS versions/updates. Whats so different from an App Store than downloading from a corporate website (like you do with Windows Service Packs which is what Lion feels to me - just like Snow Leopard was before it... etc)

Re:It is fine until third parties are required (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034498)

The day they require app installation for third party products to go through the "App Store" is the day I stop buying Apple computers.

And since they've repeated stated they won't be doing such a thing, you won't have to worry. They have nothing to gain by lying about it.

Re:It is fine until third parties are required (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034774)

They have nothing to gain by lying about it.

Other than buying some time until people can get used to the idea and they can announce a working solution. When Steve Jobs says something will never happen, it's a safe bet Apple is already working on making it happen.

Re:It is fine until third parties are required (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034600)

Whats so different from an App Store than downloading from a corporate website

Centralized autoupdate for all apps bought off the store. A bit of quality checking.

(like you do with Windows Service Packs which is what Lion feels to me - just like Snow Leopard was before it... etc)

Service packs, yep. Small incremental improvements. However, Lion will for me be a step back, UI-wise, as no service pack could be. What they're doing with buttons, with tabs, with scrollbars makes me think that Snow Leopard will be the pinnacle of the UI design. Maybe in a year or two I'll disagree with myself and I'll like it. Let's wait and see. There are only a few announced Lion things that I want in Snow Leopard, such as improved Expose.

Re:It is fine until third parties are required (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034602)

indeed. sounds like windows update to me. technically, they could distribute f.e. vista to win7 upgrades trough it without troubles, too.

Re:It is fine until third parties are required (1)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034616)

nearly impossible to separate good programs from bad ones because it costs nothing to get them on the store

And by "nothing," I assume you mean $100/year.

(Yes, I did read the rest--you mean that anyone who submits will be accepted, unlike a physical store where they'd have to have some interest in stocking your product. I understand this sentiment, although Apple tries not to accept apps that crash, rely on outdated APIs, do any user--un-friendly activities, look bad, otherwise violate any of the Store guidelines. Not as stringent as a physical store, but perhaps better for the average user than finding something on the Web.)

adobe and office will not take a 30% cut of the pr (0)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034830)

adobe and office will not take a 30% cut of the price in the apple app store.

office is $149.99 - $279.99

CS 5 full starts at $1900

there is no way that they give up 30% of that.

Apt-get??? (2, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034402)

Why is apt-get significantly different than the app-store? Plus the app-store handles the paid transaction which apt-get is not intended for.

Re:Apt-get??? (5, Insightful)

creepynut (933825) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034532)

The difference is that package managers like apt, yum, etc let you specify your own sources. Apple's App Stores do not allow this. Without jailbreaking, the iOS devices can only get apps from Apple.

If I install Ubuntu and want to get the latest and greatest from vendor X they can just give me an installer which adds themselves to my apt sources. I think Adobe does this, but it's been a few years since I've used Linux and my primary desktop.

I've been primarily an Apple user, but if Mac ever goes closed like iOS does I'll be back on Linux in a split second.

Re:Apt-get??? (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034648)

I use apt-get on my macs and linux boxes. It is one method among many I use. In my experience it is chaos. I much prefer installing canned stand alone apps on my mac. I use apt-get to get ones that are more widespread projects like scipy and so forth that cant be as easily encapsulated into apps. and even there many times I've had to give up on apt-get from fink or mac ports and install some pre-built tar ball or other customized installer.

I don't want to see apt-get go away. But for encapsulated app distribution its too fragile for my mom to use. And for me, when i'm at work, it's not worth my time to deal with all the inconstancies it has if there is just a way to get an app pre-packaged even if I have to pay for it.

Re:Apt-get??? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034550)

Because people really want to use Ubuntu with a Rolls Royce sticker price on it so that they can pretend that they are both trendy and wealthy. At least, that is my assumption. It's the only one that makes sense in this context.

Why not make things easy for users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034802)

Because people really want to use Ubuntu with a Rolls Royce sticker price on it so that they can pretend that they are both trendy and wealthy. At least, that is my assumption. It's the only one that makes sense in this context.

Trim your neckbeard and get out of the basement.

Many non-nerd people use computers these days, and making things easier for them is a worthy goal.

Re:Apt-get??? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034934)

Some people want the support of major commercial software (Flash, Silverlight, Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, Final Cut Studio) while still having a powerful terminal that runs familiar commands underneath. Not even Ubuntu with Wine gives me that

Re:Apt-get??? (1)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034606)

Indeed.

Unix had pkg_add long before Linux even existed. It lives on in the BSDs and OS X, and probably Solaris too for all I know.

The community could have enhanced/extended the pkg tools instead of reinventing them as rpm/apt/rpath....

Oh, NIH, nevermind.

Re:Apt-get??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034632)

Ubuntu's Software Center has a for-pay section. It's got around 11 items in it =/

World of Goo and Crossover Office are there.

North Carolina data center (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034424)

This explains Apple's recent push to build an east-coast data center in North Carolina. Regardless, the bandwidth demands will be astounding on day one (I'm reminded of the HalfLife2 launch, with tens of thousands of people (more?) being locked out/delayed/experiencing problems as the "new" Steam network was swamped.

If Apple was smart about it, they'd integrate P2P file sharing and "offload" the burden to the greater network (and their customers), perhaps in exchange for a small discount? But then they might have to move away from the unprotected image and go to an activation-key scheme like Microsoft. On second thought, I'll just pick up a DVD.

This makes me realise how much I love... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034430)

...running GNU/Linux.

What about download caps / multi system / slow dow (1, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034486)

What about download caps that get in the way of downloading a 4-8 GB OS?
What about when you have like 3-5 systems and only want to download the os one time and use a disk or usbkey to load it on all of your systems?
What about systems that only have dial up and you need to go off site for higher speed downloads?
What about people with slow downloads in lots of areas 1.5 meg dsl is the best that you can get.
What about if you need to reload the os on a blank HDD?

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034562)

For you, buy the disc version.

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow (2)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034570)

That's why this is in addition to the traditional DVD which will still be sold. Also if they distribute it as a dmg image you can probably load it onto a USB drive and install from that, that's in fact quite a common way to install OSX on hackintosh netbooks.

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow (1)

tooyoung (853621) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034578)

What about download caps that get in the way of downloading a 4-8 GB OS?
What about when you have like 3-5 systems and only want to download the os one time and use a disk or usbkey to load it on all of your systems?
What about systems that only have dial up and you need to go off site for higher speed downloads?
What about people with slow downloads in lots of areas 1.5 meg dsl is the best that you can get.
What about if you need to reload the os on a blank HDD?

Then you just buy it from the store like normal, instead of downloading it. Sheesh....

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034722)

What about download caps that get in the way of downloading a 4-8 GB OS?

then you'll have to do it the old fashioned way.

What about when you have like 3-5 systems and only want to download the os one time and use a disk or usbkey to load it on all of your systems?

Good question. so far I've been able to move apps by USB key to other machines. the apps are tethered to my account not to my machine. In the past apple, unlike MS, has always treated the OS as your property. you can move it where you like or re-sell it as long as it's not on multiple machines at the same time (unless you bought a multi-machine lic).

What about systems that only have dial up and you need to go off site for higher speed downloads?

then you'll have to do it the old fashioned way.

What about people with slow downloads in lots of areas 1.5 meg dsl is the best that you can get.

then you'll have to do it the old fashioned way.

What about if you need to reload the os on a blank HDD?

good question. I bet there is an answer too.

Re:What about download caps / multi system / slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034824)

Slow down cowboy. it said the app store is just an additional way not the only way. If you have reservations then buy a DVD. My bet is that the app store will be simply the software update mechanism plus a good way to get it fast if you can't wait to buy the DVD. They did not say it was the only way to install it.

In fact for years people have complained that the software-update apple provides does not also update other apps. With the app-store they could unify that for apps that they have the right to distribute.

Can someone step up to the plate? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034496)

With the advent of App Store for OS X and problems getting GPL software in app stores (how to distribute source?), what is needed is an open source app store.

Can someone port Synaptic (or any other repository-based system) to OS X and Windows? The benefits are huge and should be obvious.

I'm not a programmer, but wouldn't mind paying a token sum to get a free app store for OS X.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034540)

Have you tried macports or fink?

Re:Can someone step up to the plate? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034644)

Yes. I've done both. They're not what's needed.

What's needed is a .dmg image file to an application with a GUI with repositories set to easily install end user applications, such as Firefox, GIMP, Filezilla, etc.

Not necessarily something like Synaptic. In fact, it should be a more polished UI, similar to Mac App Store with a way to find applications by type.

I want to be able to install the newer version of rsync without going to the command line. I want to get filezilla and get it updated without having to wait until the next time I run it.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate? (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034704)

Unfortunately I have tried both -- and those were the only times I got my Mac to the point where I had to reinstall. Well, other than the time I used Monolingual and removed all PPC code from Tiger. All so I could re-use some scripts I built for work...

Re:Can someone step up to the plate? (5, Informative)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034660)

With the advent of App Store for OS X and problems getting GPL software in app stores (how to distribute source?), what is needed is an open source app store.

Can someone port Synaptic (or any other repository-based system) to OS X and Windows? The benefits are huge and should be obvious.

I'm not a programmer, but wouldn't mind paying a token sum to get a free app store for OS X.

You've already got 3 repository type systems for OSX : Fink [finkproject.org], MacPorts [macports.org] and Homebrew [github.com].

Re:Can someone step up to the plate? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034798)

Any of them have a GUI that will allow installation and removal of apps? Something that's even close to as polished as Mac App Store or Synaptic?

It sounds stupid, but a central repository for Mac GPL apps can really spread interest in GPL code and it's advantages in the Mac ecosystem.

For instance, free automatic updates that will fix a security fix in a library that is shared by many GPL apps without having to update all the apps.

Re:Can someone step up to the plate? (1)

frinkster (149158) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034736)

With the advent of App Store for OS X and problems getting GPL software in app stores (how to distribute source?), what is needed is an open source app store.

The only issue with the Apple App Store and the GPL is that the App Store requires you to agree to not distribute the binary beyond the 5 computers (at a time) on which you are allowed to install the application. The App Store page for any particular application shows the publisher and the publisher's URL. If you want to distribute the source, just put it on the linked web site. How is that a problem?

Re:Can someone step up to the plate? (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034856)

On Windows, what you are asking for is what CoApp is intended to provide.

Its intended to be a system for installing open source software and libraries on Windows. Its intended to handle dependancies and libraries including the infamous "dll hell".

More importantly (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034574)

Should the editors refrain from posting their opinion in TFS?

Remain neutral, guys, despite your sentiments, else I would relegate this to 'yet just another blog site'. If you must, post a pro- and a con-, but really it shouldn't be your pro or your con. Post a comment in the discussion instead, and we won't mod you redundant.

Anti-trust time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034598)

OK, time to finally pull out the long anti-trust knives against Apple.

Simple answer to all this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034608)

...get yourself an ipad, switch off any remaining brain cells, and consume!

"Think Different" should be updated to "Don't think", but that's always been the unofficial Apple motto anyhow, let's face it!.

Am I the only one spotting a problem here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034650)

OSX Lion would be a nice upgrade for Leopard, Tiger, etc. Except...only Snow Leopard has app store access, and Snow Leopard is the least in need of upgrading, being the newest.

The last time I bought a drive for physical media. (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034708)

I bought a SATA DVD-R for about $20 so I could install Windows 7 from disc. Prior to that I'd been using a 4x IDE CD-ROM drive from 1997 (the kind with a headphone jack, back, forward, play and stop buttons in addition to the standard eject button on the front) that came out of some off the shelf PC at a big box store. I'm not even sure I have a floppy drive in my junk box any more.
 
I have no beef with getting rid of physical media wherever possible. As long as future computers can boot from an onboard ROM and connect to a server and download a copy of the OS (local server, internet linux distro, commercial OS, whatever) I'm fine with that. It feels very old fashioned to actually handle media these days, except to plug in a wired cable... and even that is becoming less common.

Avoid the fear mongering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034866)

First off, if you don't like what Apple is doing, don't use Apple products. You can always switch to Windows, Linux or one of the many other OSs out there.

Secondly, it's a bit too early to start the scaremongering about Apple locking down the Mac. Apple is clearly aiming iPhones and iPads at the majority and Macs at the market that needs to do more. If you look at the Mac App Store, it is very different to iOS. First off, software can easily be bought/downloaded from elsewhere. It also requires developers to implement copy protection to make sure it is a valid purchase, which isn't required on iOS. There's also the issue that developers need to use Macs to develop for iOS and Mac, and as such they need more flexibility. Same goes for many businesses, scientists, schools & universities who use Macs.

Lastly, some people are quick to jump on the "Apple is taking away our freedoms". That is bullshit. You can easily jailbreak an iOS device if you wish. You can also pay the $99 a year to get a dev account and then you can install any software you like on there. Are Apple locking down the devices though? Yes. But they're doing it because they're not targeting iPhones and iPads at geeks, but at the majority of people who just want to get stuff done.

The problem is that "freedom" in software is an iffy thing. First lets take the GPL version of "freedom". Sure you can go through and analyse all the code and replace components and customise and hack to your hearts content. But the vast majority of people couldn't care less about things like that. They just want to get stuff done. They want to grab their computer, have it instantly come on, do a task on it and go away. They don't care about customising it. They'll just contact the person who creates it if they do and report bugs or give feature requests. They don't know how to program and they have neither the time nor the desire to learn as they have better things to do.

And the same goes for me as a developer. Occasionally I wish I could have the source to another app to fix an annoying bug, but most of the time I'd rather submit a bug report or feature request and have someone else, who is more intimately familiar with the source code, do the coding. That way I can continue getting what I need to do done, rather than something else.

"Freedom" has many different aspects in regards to anything, and software is no different. Some people prefer the freedom to tinker, some people prefer the freedom of not having to tinker. Some consider it freedom to have access to the source code, some consider it freedom to be able to just open an app, do something and then move on.

Some of the more arrogant and snobbish amongst us are keen to write off the latter group as stupid cattle, but in fact they are generally fairly smart people. It's just they value their time enough to know that they'd rather get crap done rather than arse about with settings and configurations. Ultimately it comes down to, are you designing for those who want to tinker with your software, or those who want to do something useful with it.

We have to wait and see -- (1)

Silfax (1246468) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034918)

I can see both sides of this
From Apple's point of view (and also from that of an independent developer & the non-tech user's) - with a closed software system (just like the hardware) there are a limited number of variables to deal with. This makes it easier to use the "it just works" marketing, fewer systems to test on, no "brand x video does not work with brand y software when there is a brand z network interface present". From the independent developers view, Apple provides some of the marketing, assures that the app meets a certain set of standards, handles the finances and limits the number of potential competing apps.

On the other hand --
As an independent developer
- I have to do it the approved Apple Way or not at all
- Apple takes a cut of my sales


As a User --
- I have to do it the approved Apple Way or not at all
- Apple controls what can or cannot go onto my own system


Overall, I can see this going either way, I guess we will have to see how everythiong shakes out.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...