I don't think the slope is tilting in the right direction. iOS started off with NO installable apps at all. Web apps would be enough, right? Then the app store opened, and the whole industry changed. Was this a move away from closed or towards it?
Personally I think iPhones and iPads and iPods are going to become more capable, and as they do, they will become more open. There will be API calls specified in HTML 5, so from inside Safari you can access the camera, the address book, the accelerometer, the compass, the GPS system, song lists and media library, and all the other things that app store apps can access. HTML 5 already allows for (some) offline storage, right?
It might be true that you can't access the deeper functionality of the hardware, but the creative people who make software will want to be working with the simplest ways to get to their vision, and that will be through the app store or through web apps, which will probably work cross-platform.
When I mean "open" in this case, I'm muddying the definition. I mean the system will be opened to people from outside the app store process, so you won't have to pay the $100 dollars or go through the app store process. You'll be making apps for a hobbled device compared to Apple's native apps, but anyone will be able to program anything from within those parameters, across any brand of phone, not just iPhones.
In this case, the walled garden will still exist, but it will include all mobile OS's, and if you want to do some super funky shit, you'll probably have to go with Android.
As for OSX Mountain Gorilla (or whatever the 2015 release is called), I think it'll be app store only by default for offline applications (or anything that uses iCloud) which is where you'll go if you want to make money, web apps with hardware API calls for the majority of other cases where you want cross-platform apps for free, and there will STILL be a way to load programs after ticking a box. I'd take a bet, but I'll let George have your money.
I'm not willing to throw much more than $10 into the ring right now, but I'm in George's camp as well. I think Apple knows that the pushback from something like this will be too strong. All it will take is a couple popular applications to not have themselves signed or whatever and people will get upset and not upgrade to the next OS, and possibly switch to Windows.
The time to start pushing back is now (or, rather, when Mountain Lion is released). Ideally, developers of popular applications should not get their apps signed and instead educate their users to flip the switch to allow unsigned apps. Then, if Apple tries to only allow signed applications, people will see what they're trying to do and fight against it.
I mean, lets look at the use cases of some of the most vocal Apple proponents: web designers. If I couldn't install unsigned apps, I wouldn't be able to use curl, wget, git, vim, apache, ngix, mysql, mongodb, ruby, rails, grep...
I hope you get the picture. Apple's most influential supporters (think Marco Arment, John Gruber, MG Siegler, etc) would immediately switch away. It's very unlikely that Apple would do something so mindbogglingly stupid as ending OSX as a development platform.
I hope you get the picture. Apple's most influential supporters (think Marco Arment, John Gruber, MG Siegler, etc) would immediately switch away. It's very unlikely that Apple would do something so mindbogglingly stupid as ending OSX as a development platform.
I dunno... as long as the tools they need (or equivalents) are available via the App Store, those web designers/developers are fine. It's not like they're deploying their apps on Macs -- at most they're probably using their Macs as glorified dumb terminals to edit text and images on on. Besides, I'm sure Apple's development tools for iOS and OS X will remain awesome even if the tools for other stuff, like web, etc., aren't.
Remember, Apple deprecated Java and basically tossed it over the wall to the community to develop -- despite many Java developers working on Macs. I don't think they cared about the outcry from the Java community with that decision.
Also, I don't trust Gruber's on opinion with regards to anything Mac. I swear, he must have an IV pumping the Kool-Aid directly into his blood stream as he seems to think everything Apple comes up with, no matter how bone headed, as a great idea. He honestly thinks that Gatekeeper is one of the best features of Mountain Lion. Yes, I know I'm treading into logical fallacy territory here with this statement, but in my opinion Gruber rarely seems like an unbiased reporter on all things Apple.
I'm also wary due to Apple's slowness in updating their Mac Pro line... I honestly feel like Apple has less and less interest in the professional/power user and is more interested in the consumer market.
A bit more scary stuff... Apple is limiting certain APIs only to App Store apps. Right now, the most obvious ones are iCloud and the new Notification Center, but there may be others buried deeper. Even if they don't completely kill off sideloading apps, it's obvious they want sideloaded apps to be treated as second class citizens.
Think Adobe will let Apple take a cut by selling through the app store? Think again! While there is still photoshop on OSX, OSX will be able to run non-app store apps.
My point was that the tools that developers use are, by and large, not available in the Mac App Store, nor are they likely to be (mostly because of their variety of open source licenses).
While we may disagree slightly about Gruber, I used him as an example of someone influential. Also, this is what he says about that feature:
"This default setting benefits users by increasing practical security, and also benefits developers, preserving the freedom to ship whatever software they want for the Mac, with no approval process." (emphasis mine)
I really don't think this is going to slip down the slope into Apple restricting OSX, but I'm prepared to eat my words and part with my money (and become a vehement Apple-hater) if it does. As it is right now, I don't think it's terrible that lusers have to expend a small amount of effort (ticking a checkbox) to be able to install anything and potentially screw themselves over.
I do agree about the Mac Pro line, though right now it's mostly video engineers being affected, no? Laptops + external drives seem to fit more and more professionals' needs nowadays.
EDIT: This is interesting. It's actually even less effort than mucking about in Settings:
"If you choose to you can manually override Gatekeeper by pressing Ctrl and clicking on the name of the app within Finder." -LaptopMag
Think Adobe will let Apple take a cut by selling through the app store? Think again! While there is still photoshop on OSX, OSX will be able to run non-app store apps.
Apple doesn't care. As a greater and greater percentage of their sales are to people who are not content producers. Apple already makes a bunch of content production tools for consumers, and some for pros as well, so they can probably even keep most of the users who are. The number of Mac sales they would lose from Photoshop loyalists if Adobe goes Windows only will not make them lose sleep.
Also, you are ignoring the possibility that Apple can win the battle and strong arm Adobe into going into the app store. Every time you install Adobe apps a warning pops up "this shit is not trusted and secure" that's mega unprofessional. Anyone who runs Adobe apps has to make their computer insecure? This is exactly Apple's strategy, and it will work without legal intervention.
Think Adobe will let Apple take a cut by selling through the app store? Think again! While there is still photoshop on OSX, OSX will be able to run non-app store apps.
Apple doesn't care. As a greater and greater percentage of their sales are to people who are not content producers. Apple already makes a bunch of content production tools for consumers, and some for pros as well, so they can probably even keep most of the users who are. The number of Mac sales they would lose from Photoshop loyalists if Adobe goes Windows only will not make them lose sleep.
Also, you are ignoring the possibility that Apple can win the battle and strong arm Adobe into going into the app store. Every time you install Adobe apps a warning pops up "this shit is not trusted and secure" that's mega unprofessional. Anyone who runs Adobe apps has to make their computer insecure? This is exactly Apple's strategy, and it will work without legal intervention.
Actually, Adobe would love to drop Apple like a bad habit if they could -- and this could be the excuse they're looking for. They've already been treating OS X as a bit of a second class citizen compared to Windows -- it took them a couple of years after the 64-bit release of CS for Windows to release a 64-bit version for Mac.
The more mandatory the OSX app store is, the more logical it is for people to develop and release apps through it. The biggest coding talent will be drawn to either forming their own company (since Apple handles distribution and sometimes advertising) or working at a OSX/iOS dev company, as it'll have the highest potential for profit. The best new software will be first released on and tailored to these platforms. Old companies will try to rely on brand recognition, but typically won't be able keep up because their internal structure is too large and convoluted. Apple might move to an all app store model and restrict what can be done with applications, but it wont't matter much anyway, cause it wont be restricted enough to prevent the development of the highest quality, most marketable apps or professional quality content production. Welcome to the Apple future!! It's good healthy capitalism
Oh, the App Store is great in many respects... It's probably a great platform to ship apps for as it solves a lot of problems that setting up your own web site, ecommerce system, etc., entail. Hell, as an Apple stock owner I love it. I also see the business case for going with an App Store only model. Again, as an Apple stock owner I love it as well.
However, as an Apple user (specifically power/professional user), I hate it. It's great for computer newbies and such, but it's too limiting for power users and professionals. I don't mind having the App Store as one of several methods of acquiring apps -- but if it's the only method and Apple curates everything, we could see all sorts of unfortunate side effects. For example, we may see a world where you have to jailbreak your map if you wish to install Firefox or Chrome as Apple would block them for the Mac store for "reproducing the features of Safari," much like how they block most alternative browsers on the iOS App Store.
Firefox and Chrome aren't blocked from iOS for reproducing the functionality of Safari. They're never going to be on iOS as long as the code is confidential because they're open source.
There are other browsers like Opera available in the App store.
Opera is only on the app store because it does some funky caching -- it's not a straight browser. It's a combination browser/proxy since it goes through Opera's proxy servers which downloads the pages, recompresses them, and then has the Opera browser download that.
Open source is a red herring in this case -- the core of Safari, WebKit, is also open source.
Then again, I gave browsers as only one example of an app blocked by the iOS app store. Another app was a program, Podcaster, that would download podcasts for you -- Apple blocked that one for reproducing functionality in iTunes (despite the functionality not even existing in iTunes at the time).
The last thing is that Apple's approval policy is so capricious, you never know if your apps will get on the store to begin with. If your app ends up being handed off to someone who got up on the wrong side of the bed that morning for evaluation, you're screwed.
Wow, a lot of tin foil hats around today. None of the arguments for OS X becoming totally locked down make long term business sense. I'll take the bets, but instead of $100, or whatever, let's make it face slaps. If in three years time I can get an app to run on OS X (or whatever the then equivalent operating system for laptops or equivalent computing devices is) without having to have the app be in the app store, I get to slap you in the face and say "You are a silly person".
Think about this What will happen to Steam on OSX? Yeah, now you see how bad this is.
If in three years time I can get an app to run on OS X (or whatever the then equivalent operating system for laptops or equivalent computing devices is) without having to have the app be in the app store, I get to slap you in the face and say "You are a silly person".
If in three years time I can get an app to run on OS X (or whatever the then equivalent operating system for laptops or equivalent computing devices is) without having to have the app be in the app store, I get to slap you in the face and say "You are a silly person".
Without jailbreaking or hacking of any kind.
No Jailbreaking, no hacking.
However, this also assumes that by "app store" we mean the current "Apple reviewed apps only" version of the app store. If in the future self signed unreviewed apps are in the app strore by Apple fiat, the bet is off (and I consider it a win). The main point, I assume, in this whole conversation being that you want to avoid Apple's reveiw process.
Also, there is a tiny possibility that Apple won't even make Macs anymore. I don't think that will happen in three years, but it will happen eventually. It could be that all hey make are phones, tablets, TVs, and such. I'd give that more like ten years, but if it happens then we also win.
Also, there is a tiny possibility that Apple won't even make Macs anymore. I don't think that will happen in three years, but it will happen eventually. It could be that all hey make are phones, tablets, TVs, and such. I'd give that more like ten years, but if it happens then we also win.
Also, there is a tiny possibility that Apple won't even make Macs anymore. I don't think that will happen in three years, but it will happen eventually. It could be that all hey make are phones, tablets, TVs, and such. I'd give that more like ten years, but if it happens then we also win.
No, fuck that. Bet's off in that case.
HA! The lack of confidence on your side shows we have already won. You guys are betting that Apple will be not evil? What are you thinking?
Also, there is a tiny possibility that Apple won't even make Macs anymore. I don't think that will happen in three years, but it will happen eventually. It could be that all hey make are phones, tablets, TVs, and such. I'd give that more like ten years, but if it happens then we also win.
No, fuck that. Bet's off in that case.
HA! The lack of confidence on your side shows we have already won. You guys are betting that Apple will be not evil? What are you thinking?
No we're betting whether or not Apple will lock down OS X. If they kill OS X entirely the bet is off.
Also, there is a tiny possibility that Apple won't even make Macs anymore. I don't think that will happen in three years, but it will happen eventually. It could be that all hey make are phones, tablets, TVs, and such. I'd give that more like ten years, but if it happens then we also win.
I agree... At some point they'll probably come out with an "iPad Pro" or whatever that developers can use to write apps for iOS. The current iPad already comes pretty close with Bluetooth keyboard support and the ability to hook up to an external monitor with the right adapter. All it needs is more storage (bigger internal flash and/or the ability to interface with an external hard drive directly and/or on a NAS) and a port of Xcode (including git, which is bundled with Xcode and seems to be the preferred VC software there) and other necessary tools and bingo, you've got the new iOS development platform. This is also not that new -- just look at this video from 1987 about Apple's "Knowledge Navigator" vision of what computers would be like in the future. It looks a lot like the iPad to me.
Apple is the only tech company that makes good products specifically tailored to the American consumer market. I'd bet on them continuing this trend.
Agreed... which is why as an owner of Apple stock (yes, I'm not joking, I do own about 10 shares of Apple which I bought quite a while back), I love what they're doing. However, as a user of Apple's computer products (as opposed to their mobile products), I'm not a fan. It's great for consumers, such as my mom, but not so great for professional/power users such as most of us here.
Look, the very first post was about the fear that soon no apps except those purchased through the app store will run on Mac hardware and about the associated implications for apps hat Apple may not agree with.
That is what "our" side is adressing and I think this will not happen in three years if ever.
As for OS X / Macs not being around in three years; that is ridiculous. Apple needs developers, they are not going to port Xcode to windows. If the Mac truly becomes completely irrelevant from a consumer point of view it will still be valuable to Apple as the dev platform. If building Macs only for devs is cost prohibitive Apple may just open it up and allow installation on generic hardware.
One always hears about the problems between Apple and developers because that is good writing material. Never mind that the success stories outnumber the failures by a large factor. Regardless of even that though, I think it is foolish to infer malice on Apple's part when incompetence is just as good an explanation. Incompetence is much, much easier to overcome than being evil.
If the Mac truly becomes completely irrelevant from a consumer point of view it will still be valuable to Apple as the dev platform.
One doesn't write Droid software on Droid: one simply tests it there.
Exactly, that's why the above "Xcode on iPad pro" idea is ridiculous. Development will always be the domain of devices/computers with the highest possible computing power.
If Apple does not manufacture these devices themselves then they will almost certainly make Xcode vailable on them. In that sense Xcode on windows might come true, but I would bet that Xcode on "OS X DEV" which you can install on specific intel machines is much more likeley under those circumstances.
I'll take the bets, but instead of $100, or whatever, let's make it face slaps. If in three years time I can get an app to run on OS X (or whatever the then equivalent operating system for laptops or equivalent computing devices is) without having to have the app be in the app store, I get to slap you in the face and say "You are a silly person."
Comments
Personally I think iPhones and iPads and iPods are going to become more capable, and as they do, they will become more open. There will be API calls specified in HTML 5, so from inside Safari you can access the camera, the address book, the accelerometer, the compass, the GPS system, song lists and media library, and all the other things that app store apps can access. HTML 5 already allows for (some) offline storage, right?
It might be true that you can't access the deeper functionality of the hardware, but the creative people who make software will want to be working with the simplest ways to get to their vision, and that will be through the app store or through web apps, which will probably work cross-platform.
When I mean "open" in this case, I'm muddying the definition. I mean the system will be opened to people from outside the app store process, so you won't have to pay the $100 dollars or go through the app store process. You'll be making apps for a hobbled device compared to Apple's native apps, but anyone will be able to program anything from within those parameters, across any brand of phone, not just iPhones.
In this case, the walled garden will still exist, but it will include all mobile OS's, and if you want to do some super funky shit, you'll probably have to go with Android.
As for OSX Mountain Gorilla (or whatever the 2015 release is called), I think it'll be app store only by default for offline applications (or anything that uses iCloud) which is where you'll go if you want to make money, web apps with hardware API calls for the majority of other cases where you want cross-platform apps for free, and there will STILL be a way to load programs after ticking a box. I'd take a bet, but I'll let George have your money.
The time to start pushing back is now (or, rather, when Mountain Lion is released). Ideally, developers of popular applications should not get their apps signed and instead educate their users to flip the switch to allow unsigned apps. Then, if Apple tries to only allow signed applications, people will see what they're trying to do and fight against it.
I hope you get the picture. Apple's most influential supporters (think Marco Arment, John Gruber, MG Siegler, etc) would immediately switch away. It's very unlikely that Apple would do something so mindbogglingly stupid as ending OSX as a development platform.
Remember, Apple deprecated Java and basically tossed it over the wall to the community to develop -- despite many Java developers working on Macs. I don't think they cared about the outcry from the Java community with that decision.
Also, I don't trust Gruber's on opinion with regards to anything Mac. I swear, he must have an IV pumping the Kool-Aid directly into his blood stream as he seems to think everything Apple comes up with, no matter how bone headed, as a great idea. He honestly thinks that Gatekeeper is one of the best features of Mountain Lion. Yes, I know I'm treading into logical fallacy territory here with this statement, but in my opinion Gruber rarely seems like an unbiased reporter on all things Apple.
I'm also wary due to Apple's slowness in updating their Mac Pro line... I honestly feel like Apple has less and less interest in the professional/power user and is more interested in the consumer market.
While we may disagree slightly about Gruber, I used him as an example of someone influential. Also, this is what he says about that feature: I really don't think this is going to slip down the slope into Apple restricting OSX, but I'm prepared to eat my words and part with my money (and become a vehement Apple-hater) if it does. As it is right now, I don't think it's terrible that lusers have to expend a small amount of effort (ticking a checkbox) to be able to install anything and potentially screw themselves over.
I do agree about the Mac Pro line, though right now it's mostly video engineers being affected, no? Laptops + external drives seem to fit more and more professionals' needs nowadays.
EDIT: This is interesting. It's actually even less effort than mucking about in Settings:
Also, you are ignoring the possibility that Apple can win the battle and strong arm Adobe into going into the app store. Every time you install Adobe apps a warning pops up "this shit is not trusted and secure" that's mega unprofessional. Anyone who runs Adobe apps has to make their computer insecure? This is exactly Apple's strategy, and it will work without legal intervention.
However, as an Apple user (specifically power/professional user), I hate it. It's great for computer newbies and such, but it's too limiting for power users and professionals. I don't mind having the App Store as one of several methods of acquiring apps -- but if it's the only method and Apple curates everything, we could see all sorts of unfortunate side effects. For example, we may see a world where you have to jailbreak your map if you wish to install Firefox or Chrome as Apple would block them for the Mac store for "reproducing the features of Safari," much like how they block most alternative browsers on the iOS App Store.
There are other browsers like Opera available in the App store.
Open source is a red herring in this case -- the core of Safari, WebKit, is also open source.
Then again, I gave browsers as only one example of an app blocked by the iOS app store. Another app was a program, Podcaster, that would download podcasts for you -- Apple blocked that one for reproducing functionality in iTunes (despite the functionality not even existing in iTunes at the time).
The last thing is that Apple's approval policy is so capricious, you never know if your apps will get on the store to begin with. If your app ends up being handed off to someone who got up on the wrong side of the bed that morning for evaluation, you're screwed.
However, this also assumes that by "app store" we mean the current "Apple reviewed apps only" version of the app store. If in the future self signed unreviewed apps are in the app strore by Apple fiat, the bet is off (and I consider it a win). The main point, I assume, in this whole conversation being that you want to avoid Apple's reveiw process.
That is what "our" side is adressing and I think this will not happen in three years if ever.
As for OS X / Macs not being around in three years; that is ridiculous. Apple needs developers, they are not going to port Xcode to windows. If the Mac truly becomes completely irrelevant from a consumer point of view it will still be valuable to Apple as the dev platform. If building Macs only for devs is cost prohibitive Apple may just open it up and allow installation on generic hardware.
One always hears about the problems between Apple and developers because that is good writing material. Never mind that the success stories outnumber the failures by a large factor. Regardless of even that though, I think it is foolish to infer malice on Apple's part when incompetence is just as good an explanation. Incompetence is much, much easier to overcome than being evil.
If Apple does not manufacture these devices themselves then they will almost certainly make Xcode vailable on them. In that sense Xcode on windows might come true, but I would bet that Xcode on "OS X DEV" which you can install on specific intel machines is much more likeley under those circumstances.