This is very exciting. The problem of distribution and monetization for desktop software is significant and largely unsolved. Steam is already proof that a digital store can make desktop users really happy, but it addresses gamers, who are cheerful early adopters. Most other people who don't game only know this model through their mobile device, but now they're ready for more.
As for developers? For more than half of 2009, the App Store paid for my rent and cell phone bill. It helped me move across the country to the west coast. This was huge for me. I barely had to do much more than write code, design UI, and ship things. A huge chunk of the business of actually selling bits to other people was abstracted behind a bunch of buttons on iTunes Connect. This was such a powerful thing – I couldn't have had anything close to the moderate success I did without Apple's App Store strategy.
This is going to enable a new wave of great work for OS X. This platform already has some of the best shareware and freeware ever. Now that indie Mac devs will have an easy way to get paid, they'll be able to devote even more attention to their wares.
I'm not so excited about this. Am I the only one who thinks this is Apple's first step in exerting more control over developers and users on the OS X platform like they do on iOS?
EDIT: to all the replies about how you still have a choice of distribution on OS X: yes, you do right now, but who knows how long that will last? As I said, this might be the first step in locking down the platform. I don't believe this will happen in 1 or 2 or 3 years, but maybe 5 years.
I see some potential negatives for developers (arguably positive for consumers).
1 - Price deflation. There is a bit of a connotation that App Store means lots of 99 cents apps. Yes, it's not the same platform as the iPhone, but people jumping from the iPhone App Store are going to have some preconceived expectations.
2 - Family licensing. You normally pay a premium for family licensing of a lot of Mac software. This is going to disappear as a pricing tier, so how are developers going to react, given item #1, above?
3 - Marginalization of devs who don't want to participate in the App Store. App Store will be a major way for users to find software. If you're not in there (whether by your choice or Apple's choice), your revenue opportunities could head south.
Having said that, I think the App Store is going to be great for the more non-technical users who use the Mac.
I disagree it's unsolved. Folks have been distributing and monetizing software for desktop-class machines since the 80's, just's fine, thanks. Been there, done that, have the T-shirt, and the T-shirt still fits fine.
it also provides iphone-style copy protection for these 3rd party apps (the last bulletpoint on the slide was "apps licensed for use on all your personal macs").
I wonder if this means something for Steam? The UX for the Mac App Store is almost certainly going to be better than Steam's clunky app... And then I wonder about Game Centre too? It's not that great at the moment, but with Jobs meeting Zuckerberg the other day....
This is how it was supposed be for Java, provisioning your desktop apps on the fly, on demand, over the network. Another Sun idea resurrected, like Google are with Chrome (nee NEWS, with Postscript instead of Javascript). Maybe they shoulda hung on just a little longer...
One thing that's always been really annoying about Mac apps has been the lack of an update system. Most Mac apps check for updates on launch, which is spectacularly annoying, since you're being prompted on the update right when you're most wanting to use the app, and it makes it really hard to make sure you're up to date (since you'd have to manually cycle through your Applications folder).
Compare this to Linux package managers, where a simple "sudo apt-get yada yada" line or two updates everything on your system, whether first party or third party.
Insofar as a Mac App Store solves that problem, great.
1. I hope I can still build my own custom Emacs.app from source and install it.
2. I hope App Store apps will be sandboxed and prevented from polluting the system.
3. I hope Adobe switches to the App Store model, and that it will mean that the behavior of the horrific Creative Suite installer will finally be reigned in (take a look in /Applications/.AdobePatchFiles and check how large it is).
Does anyone know if you have an app in the OS X app store, but you also want to distribute on your own, if this is allowed under the terms? Or, is it pretty much once you go into the app store there is no coming out of it?
From Apple's business perspective, it would make sense to lock you in -- they probably don't want to foot the bill to advertise for you and then you go sell your software on the side full price without Apple getting their cut.
From developers' perspective, this would severely limit distribution channels, and force them to give up 30% of revenue.
In theory, a developer could release the "lite" version of his app, and link to his own distribution mechanism within that app. Is this allowed?
A more interesting question to me is, if I install an app—that's also on the App Store—manually, will the App Store still update it for me? To put that another way, are these apps "App Store apps" that make particular calls to the OS to tell them as such? Or are they just regular bundles, with external metadata stored only on the Store's servers?
The bigger question I have is: why would you/anyone move them at all? If you're already selling for OS X and have an avenue for updating your app, are you really going to give up 30% of your revenue to Apple for the same-old? This only works on the iPhone because it's the only way to get software on the device. Unless that's the next step...
How many customers do you have? I imagine most of the backend powering this will be the same as for iOS, so you can do a couple of things:
1. Give out promo codes. IIRC, you get 100 codes per app version, so if you've got a lot of customers this isn't really feasible.
2. Discount the product for a given time period (ie the first 24 hours you're live) and blast out an email to existing customers. In the backend, you can even set automatic price changes so you don't have to go and manually change it back.
3. Release a new version. Customers are used to paying for major updates. If you give existing customers discounts on updates, see #2.
This brings up another question. In iOS, there is no good way to charge for an update - user buys once and gets free updates for life. Will they change that with the OS X App Store?
This is just conjecture, but couldn't they simply allow you to give your customers voucher codes? I was under the impression that the iOS app store supported something along those lines.
Make 2 versions, the original that retains the auto-update stuff most mac apps already have, and another that abides by whatever Mac App Store dictates. Continue selling the original however you are right now, charge 43% more (1/0.7) for the new one on the Mac App Store.
As long as it's not the only way to get software on your Mac -- and I don't really see Apple doing that with their "truck" line of devices since there's probably always going to be obscure stuff that the publishers aren't going to want in the app store.
For that matter, I can't really see Adobe (for example) wanting to give 30% of the cost of Photoshop to Apple.
On the other hand, I think this is potentially fantastic for smaller developers -- it will make it easier for people to find their apps, and as with the iPad/iPhone, that 30% cut to let Apple manage all the billing issues for you might be well worth it.
> For that matter, I can't really see Adobe (for example) wanting to give 30% of the cost of Photoshop to Apple.
Makes me wonder if big companies like Adobe will be able to negotiate a better price with Apple behind closed doors, in exchange for helping to legitimize the new store to both users and developers.
OTOH, if they don't jump on board, they might lose a large number of potential "prosumer" customers to upstarts like Acorn and Pixelmator.
Its about time this happened really. Its an obvious idea, and could potentially be a great user experience. I bet Microsoft have their own within a year.
The big difference being that the App Store will be preinstalled, and probably have a default place on the Dock and a permanent home under the Apple menu in the top left of the screen.
I guess next will be iAds availability for desktop Apps? I am not seeing anything about Free apps in the description of the Mac App Store, but free with iAds makes sense.
For users, Macs are great. But Apple has always had a contentious at best relationship with developers. Their tone has always struck me as small developers are a pain, and they would rather have fewer developers ergo less software.
That said, I think developers should be very concerned for a couple of reasons:
1. People will automatically associated this with the iOS App Store experience, which will drive prices way down for richer desktop applications. That was my very first thought.
2. Apple will justify a review and approval process for desktop applications on the basis of something like "application security" and "keeping viruses off your Mac". They went that direction with the argument of eliminating porn, which was silly.
In the end, this closes the software ecosystem. It may work for Apple, but I'm not sure I would want to be a part of it.
It will be interesting to see how well it does on Mac OS X. I doubt it will bring in the same number of new developers as iOS did, but I imagine it will bring in a nice chunk of new revenue for Apple and hopefully help some indie dev shops reach some more customers.
There's an approval guidelines document for the Mac App Store up on the Apple developer site now. It's behind a login wall, so I assume it's under the usual NDA, but if you're a registered Apple dev, you should be able to get it at the following URL:
There seems like there's one serious flaw in this idea.
What's to prevent people from inserting malware into their applications? Unlike the iPhone, OSX isn't sandboxed. And there's no way Apple's approval process can possibly check for possible badness hiding in the compiled code.
Unless, of course, they are building a special sandbox for these OSX apps as well. Which means that you'll have to write apps specifically for this platform.
Well, if you're going to stick malware in your OS X app, there's nothing stopping you from doing it right now.
Why you would wait until there is an app store that gives a large company a lot more information on who you are and where the authorities should come find you before inserting malware, I can't even begin to guess.
I'm surprised this is not getting more discussion. Are these apps going to be iOS-based or genuine OS X applications? (I think the latter.)
In the days when I used Windows, I naturally only downloaded "official" apps and avoided any sort of non-famous/non-open source shareware for years -- the spyware/toolbars/etc. are just too rampant. I have an Android phone that I use for development, and there, I too am incredibly cautious about what I download. The "open" Android platform actually prevents me from discovering potentially amazing indie software because, well, I just can't trust it.
The fact that once one user reports the malware, apple can:
Revoke the developer's code signing keys
Freeze the developer's payments
Alert the authorities about the developer
Revoke the app from the app store
Push an "upgrade" notification to every registered user to remove the application
Or even more drastic, engage the application kill switch
I'm really not sure how you think a fully managed software platform will have more malware problems than the run-arbitrary-code-off-the-internet system we have now. It seems like it's actually a killer solution to the problem.
How many malware writers are going to pay $99 a year to Apple for the privelege of trying to sneak malware into Apple's store under the guise of something useful?
This is very exciting for those users who would love a fully integrated computing experience.
I am someone who uses multiple computing devices throughout my day, and the idea of having my phone, a hand held tablet, and my desktop/laptop all in sync sharing my data with a click of a button is a very enticing proposal.
Yes there are concerns about whether Apple completely closes down developers of OS X, but I just cannot see this as a likely event.
Apple is all about user experience. What Apple is doing right now is laying the ground work for the future.
Imagine 10-15 years from now your vehicle, home, place of work, even a personal robotic assistant all running on one platform acting in sync. Some may think it is scary, but to me it is the natural progression of technology.
Helping to make life more entertaining, and helping to rid us of our everyday problems is why we consume these devices. I think we are all lucky to experience what is happening in this industry.
Change is hard, but we are the consumers of these products and we get to shape them contrary to what it sometimes feels like.
While I share tlrobinson's concern about the mac getting locked down (and therefore dumbed down) like iOS, I think at least it is now clear that we have several years in front of us, at least, where Apple won't try that.
A Mac app I worked on a couple years back got "Staff Pick" on Apple's old, lame, "Get Mac OS X Software" page that just linked to our site. Lame as that page was, we saw a considerable sales bump. But it was nothing like the gargantuan effect we've seen from getting featured on the iOS app store.
The exposure from getting featured is major, but even if it doesn't happen, the fact that Apple handles billing and provides the one-step, one-click process is a huge win for the developer.
I expect that with an Apple-backed Mac app store, if you have Mac apps that are at all successful in the market now, you're going to see a massive increase in unit sales.
I think that would be the case even if the Mac installed base was magically frozen at this point in time. (And that definitely _isn't_ the case.)
If it works similar to Ubuntu Software Center then it should be a very nice option for many people. I like being able to quickly download applications through the Software Center, while also having the ability to manually install packages or compile code when necessary. As long as those choices remain on OS X, it should offer a good balance for all user types.
Years ago, my boss at the time told me that every 5 or so years, the hot trend switches between client-based and server-based architecture. It was probably 2004 at the time, and web apps were getting hot.
He was definitely right. ~6 years later, and we're about to see a bunch of web apps re-written as desktop software.
I think we'll begin to see a ton of improvements to both App Stores once the Mac App Store is open for submissions, namely: bundles (see iLife), more/unlimited promo codes (for transitioning users from non-App Store to App Store), and customizable "developer" pages (rather than just a list of apps).
[+] [-] danilocampos|15 years ago|reply
As for developers? For more than half of 2009, the App Store paid for my rent and cell phone bill. It helped me move across the country to the west coast. This was huge for me. I barely had to do much more than write code, design UI, and ship things. A huge chunk of the business of actually selling bits to other people was abstracted behind a bunch of buttons on iTunes Connect. This was such a powerful thing – I couldn't have had anything close to the moderate success I did without Apple's App Store strategy.
This is going to enable a new wave of great work for OS X. This platform already has some of the best shareware and freeware ever. Now that indie Mac devs will have an easy way to get paid, they'll be able to devote even more attention to their wares.
[+] [-] tlrobinson|15 years ago|reply
EDIT: to all the replies about how you still have a choice of distribution on OS X: yes, you do right now, but who knows how long that will last? As I said, this might be the first step in locking down the platform. I don't believe this will happen in 1 or 2 or 3 years, but maybe 5 years.
[+] [-] slantyyz|15 years ago|reply
1 - Price deflation. There is a bit of a connotation that App Store means lots of 99 cents apps. Yes, it's not the same platform as the iPhone, but people jumping from the iPhone App Store are going to have some preconceived expectations.
2 - Family licensing. You normally pay a premium for family licensing of a lot of Mac software. This is going to disappear as a pricing tier, so how are developers going to react, given item #1, above?
3 - Marginalization of devs who don't want to participate in the App Store. App Store will be a major way for users to find software. If you're not in there (whether by your choice or Apple's choice), your revenue opportunities could head south.
Having said that, I think the App Store is going to be great for the more non-technical users who use the Mac.
[+] [-] mkramlich|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] there|15 years ago|reply
that could be a draw to some developers.
[+] [-] JofArnold|15 years ago|reply
But yes - definitely excited!
/me stops speculating and gets back to work
[+] [-] gaius|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fharper1961|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZachPruckowski|15 years ago|reply
Compare this to Linux package managers, where a simple "sudo apt-get yada yada" line or two updates everything on your system, whether first party or third party.
Insofar as a Mac App Store solves that problem, great.
[+] [-] stevelosh|15 years ago|reply
* Don't Install * Install Update Now * Install Update on Quit
The third option is perfect. I wish more apps did this.
[+] [-] grandalf|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdemare|15 years ago|reply
My hope is that this will lead to a renaissance of development for the desktop.
[+] [-] phamilton|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gcv|15 years ago|reply
2. I hope App Store apps will be sandboxed and prevented from polluting the system.
3. I hope Adobe switches to the App Store model, and that it will mean that the behavior of the horrific Creative Suite installer will finally be reigned in (take a look in /Applications/.AdobePatchFiles and check how large it is).
[+] [-] mirkules|15 years ago|reply
From Apple's business perspective, it would make sense to lock you in -- they probably don't want to foot the bill to advertise for you and then you go sell your software on the side full price without Apple getting their cut.
From developers' perspective, this would severely limit distribution channels, and force them to give up 30% of revenue.
In theory, a developer could release the "lite" version of his app, and link to his own distribution mechanism within that app. Is this allowed?
[+] [-] derefr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alextgordon|15 years ago|reply
From developers' perspective, this would severely limit distribution channels, and force them to give up 30% of revenue.
Or increase their prices by 43% just for the store.
[+] [-] slantyyz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bconway|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aqua_Geek|15 years ago|reply
1. Give out promo codes. IIRC, you get 100 codes per app version, so if you've got a lot of customers this isn't really feasible.
2. Discount the product for a given time period (ie the first 24 hours you're live) and blast out an email to existing customers. In the backend, you can even set automatic price changes so you don't have to go and manually change it back.
3. Release a new version. Customers are used to paying for major updates. If you give existing customers discounts on updates, see #2.
This brings up another question. In iOS, there is no good way to charge for an update - user buys once and gets free updates for life. Will they change that with the OS X App Store?
[+] [-] troygoode|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tolmasky|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shade|15 years ago|reply
For that matter, I can't really see Adobe (for example) wanting to give 30% of the cost of Photoshop to Apple.
On the other hand, I think this is potentially fantastic for smaller developers -- it will make it easier for people to find their apps, and as with the iPad/iPhone, that 30% cut to let Apple manage all the billing issues for you might be well worth it.
[+] [-] lukifer|15 years ago|reply
Makes me wonder if big companies like Adobe will be able to negotiate a better price with Apple behind closed doors, in exchange for helping to legitimize the new store to both users and developers.
OTOH, if they don't jump on board, they might lose a large number of potential "prosumer" customers to upstarts like Acorn and Pixelmator.
[+] [-] ceejayoz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] al_james|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qeorge|15 years ago|reply
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/06/leaked-windows...
I'm still skeptical that MS can ship an app store with Windows and not run afoul of anti-trust laws. We shall see.
[+] [-] jcromartie|15 years ago|reply
http://appbodega.com/
[+] [-] goatforce5|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] siddhant|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YooLi|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akadien|15 years ago|reply
That said, I think developers should be very concerned for a couple of reasons:
1. People will automatically associated this with the iOS App Store experience, which will drive prices way down for richer desktop applications. That was my very first thought.
2. Apple will justify a review and approval process for desktop applications on the basis of something like "application security" and "keeping viruses off your Mac". They went that direction with the argument of eliminating porn, which was silly.
In the end, this closes the software ecosystem. It may work for Apple, but I'm not sure I would want to be a part of it.
[+] [-] Aqua_Geek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JofArnold|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iloveyouocean|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rcoder|15 years ago|reply
https://developer.apple.com/appstore/mac/resources/approval/...
[+] [-] jonhendry|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makecheck|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sshumaker|15 years ago|reply
What's to prevent people from inserting malware into their applications? Unlike the iPhone, OSX isn't sandboxed. And there's no way Apple's approval process can possibly check for possible badness hiding in the compiled code.
Unless, of course, they are building a special sandbox for these OSX apps as well. Which means that you'll have to write apps specifically for this platform.
[+] [-] msbarnett|15 years ago|reply
Why you would wait until there is an app store that gives a large company a lot more information on who you are and where the authorities should come find you before inserting malware, I can't even begin to guess.
[+] [-] fjarlq|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d_r|15 years ago|reply
In the days when I used Windows, I naturally only downloaded "official" apps and avoided any sort of non-famous/non-open source shareware for years -- the spyware/toolbars/etc. are just too rampant. I have an Android phone that I use for development, and there, I too am incredibly cautious about what I download. The "open" Android platform actually prevents me from discovering potentially amazing indie software because, well, I just can't trust it.
[+] [-] risotto|15 years ago|reply
Revoke the developer's code signing keys Freeze the developer's payments Alert the authorities about the developer Revoke the app from the app store Push an "upgrade" notification to every registered user to remove the application Or even more drastic, engage the application kill switch
I'm really not sure how you think a fully managed software platform will have more malware problems than the run-arbitrary-code-off-the-internet system we have now. It seems like it's actually a killer solution to the problem.
[+] [-] wtallis|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gabea|15 years ago|reply
I am someone who uses multiple computing devices throughout my day, and the idea of having my phone, a hand held tablet, and my desktop/laptop all in sync sharing my data with a click of a button is a very enticing proposal.
Yes there are concerns about whether Apple completely closes down developers of OS X, but I just cannot see this as a likely event.
Apple is all about user experience. What Apple is doing right now is laying the ground work for the future.
Imagine 10-15 years from now your vehicle, home, place of work, even a personal robotic assistant all running on one platform acting in sync. Some may think it is scary, but to me it is the natural progression of technology.
Helping to make life more entertaining, and helping to rid us of our everyday problems is why we consume these devices. I think we are all lucky to experience what is happening in this industry.
Change is hard, but we are the consumers of these products and we get to shape them contrary to what it sometimes feels like.
[+] [-] masonmark|15 years ago|reply
While I share tlrobinson's concern about the mac getting locked down (and therefore dumbed down) like iOS, I think at least it is now clear that we have several years in front of us, at least, where Apple won't try that.
A Mac app I worked on a couple years back got "Staff Pick" on Apple's old, lame, "Get Mac OS X Software" page that just linked to our site. Lame as that page was, we saw a considerable sales bump. But it was nothing like the gargantuan effect we've seen from getting featured on the iOS app store.
The exposure from getting featured is major, but even if it doesn't happen, the fact that Apple handles billing and provides the one-step, one-click process is a huge win for the developer.
I expect that with an Apple-backed Mac app store, if you have Mac apps that are at all successful in the market now, you're going to see a massive increase in unit sales.
I think that would be the case even if the Mac installed base was magically frozen at this point in time. (And that definitely _isn't_ the case.)
[+] [-] neovive|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnrob|15 years ago|reply
He was definitely right. ~6 years later, and we're about to see a bunch of web apps re-written as desktop software.
[+] [-] martingordon|15 years ago|reply