6 ms·

Mac OS X App Store Poses Problems for Open Source Software

31 points by starkness 16y ago

tehchoyce 16y ago
more and more developers seem to be really unhappy with the new app store.. probably not the best model
- DrJokepu 16y ago
  You know what, as a user, I quite like it. It's a really convenient way to get software. I like all the categories, featured apps, simple payment & deployment and the good signal vs noise ratio. I just simply don't care whether developers like it or not. (Having said that, I'm a software developer too but I understand that my convenience is less important than the customer's convenience.)
CrazedGeek 16y ago
"apps that require optional installations (such as Java) will be rejected" What additional installations do OS X apps usually need, though? Flash and Java are already included; the only additional thing I can think of is SIMBL, and that isn't usually used for normal apps.
YooLi 16y ago
Of course Apple doesn't want beta software in the Mac App Store. I don't want it either. If I want to experiment with some Firefox nightlies, I'll go and get them from the dev site. The Mac App store is geared at people who want software installation and maintenance to be painless and worry free. They are 'curating' it to be that way. It's not a software directory listing service where everyone can list their offerings.
- starkness 16y ago
  What happens when Apple "curates" it such that apps of a political nature are no longer allowed? Or apps that compete with their own? EDIT: (1) There is a risk that the vast majority of the population (non-geeks), will increasingly rely on the store to get apps, so smaller innovators/FOSS projects will not have the same exposure as others if rejected. (Think the Microsoft antitrust issue with the preinstallation of IE on Windows. People could still get Netscape elsewhere.) (2) This could also be a first step, much like the iPhone/iOS app store, in Apple being the arbiter of all apps that are allowed on Mac OS X.
  - msbarnett 16y ago
    Then you have to go somewhere else to get those apps? Walmart doesn't sell Target's house-brand goods either.
  - YooLi 16y ago
    Not sure I follow you. What do you mean what happens? To me it means they won't be in the store and you will have to get them like you have been getting them this whole time. What happens when Shell 'curates' their convenience stores so Newsweek is no longer sold there? edit:typo
  - YooLi 16y ago
    In reply to your EDIT:, then people who are bothered by that switch to a different OS. Apple's OS isn't the only OS out there.
msbarnett 16y ago
Well that article certainly wears its editorial slant on its sleeve. I'm not really seeing the problem here; Apple isn't interested in selling, or giving away, in-progress beta apps or apps which exhibit obvious bugs because they want to maintain a certain quality of experience for people who use their store. If Apple isn't interested in distributing your app, that's their prerogative. You're not entitled to it, and you certainly don't need it; Firefox has been doing just fine distributing their software through their own servers. They're free to continue doing so. Nordstroms isn't interested in selling my janky, lumpy, hand-carved ash trays either, but that hardly makes them tyrants. They're just maintaining their store's brand.
- ed 16y ago
  But Nordstroms doesn't own the city. Apple does. When all roads lead to the local men's department, yeah I'd be concerned with which products do, and don't make the cut. No kexts? Seriously? No outside updates? Can't wait for the first app store 0-day.
  - msbarnett 16y ago
    > But Nordstroms doesn't own the city. Apple does. Er, no they don't. This is about the completely optional Mac App Store. To extend the metaphor, there's a Macy's next door and a Farmer's Market across the street.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - ed 16y ago
      Maybe it's time to step away from the metaphor. Just so we're clear I'm referring to the operating system -- the thing on which the store is built. It is, quite literally, owned by Apple.
al_james 16y ago
It might not be the best solution for geeks, but Apple is serious about smooth user experience. I might not mind a few bugs in the software I download, but it will confuse/frustrate the hell out of Mr Average Joe.
thought_alarm 16y ago
Correction: the App Store doesn't work with buggy, unfinished software that's in a constant state of beta. The author sure has a low opinion of open source software quality, doesn't he?
- cletus 16y ago
  Perhaps the author has a slanted view of how open source software tends to work. You often have nightly builds, development (alpha/beta) releases and stable releases. Most people want and use the stable releases. It's true the Mac App Store won't work for distributing the rest. This is hardly surprising and not the way you'd want to distribute this anyway I would think. For stable releases, the App Store guidelines will probably result in more stable software. That's probably a good thing.
jws 16y ago
The current HN title is wrong. The article doesn't address Open Source. It states that the store will not be used for the distribution of beta versions of software. The tweet just says firefox betas won't be in the store. Especially note: Free software is allowed. There are classes of software that won't work in the store. The article mentions: • Things that implement their own copy protection. • Buggy software. • Things that need root. See the whole list: http://pastie.org/1236378 http://pastie.org/1236378 but you will go blind before you finish if your don't have readability plugin. I would characterize the forbidden stuff as "obnoxious, useless, or malicious" applications. There is some collateral damage along the way, e.g. anything with a kernel extension, and there are some morality/legality driven restrictions e.g. encourge minors to consume alcohol or realistic human killing. The most alarming exception to me, is that the application can only distribute updates through the store. I would hope Apple doesn't hold up new versions like they have with the iOS stores. As a developer I cringe when I read of customers living with month old defects because the update is stalled in queue. Customers will have a reasonable belief that stuff from the store isn't tearing through their computer looking for email addresses or credit card numbers to sell. But that's ok, they have other channels for distribution. It isn't a Apple Store or nothing proposition like the iOS devices.
- starkness 16y ago
  The title was on the basis of this part of the article "If an app even exhibits a bug, it will be rejected -- does Apple know how many apps, open-source or otherwise, have bugs?" The point that this could make FOSS especially vulnerable, although am open to discussion otherwise.
  - msbarnett 16y ago
    They can't, by the very nature of software, reject all software containing any bugs. The store would never contain anything. But if your software contains obvious bugs that impact the user during normal usage (it crashes when you try to save, or the preference pane only stays open for 5 seconds), they're not interested in being associated with your software. That seems fair to me. This is only "unfair" to FLOSS if you take the position that FLOSS is significantly more likely to contain such significant, user-facing defects. Now, I'm not saying that's true, but if it were true, that seems to me to be an indictment of FLOSS, not of Apple's rules for being in its store.
gfodor 16y ago
This App Store isn't the same as the iOS one. If the iOS one didn't push your app, nobody could use it (practically speaking.) Obviously this isn't true here. (For now!) So, it's hard to give Apple flak for any rules they have in their approval process.
cletus 16y ago
No beta software? Great. No license keys? Why do you need license keys? You're now in the iTunes ecosystem like apps on iDevices. No optional add ons? For a start, java isn't optional on OS X. Apps on iOS are completely self-contained. I guess the same philosophy is coming to the Mac. Not surprising but there are potential issues I guess. No root privileges? This one has potential issues but I guess apple wants to play it safe. Not surprising. Same censorship as the App Store? I took this as a given when I heard about it. No issue here. The author's bias is pretty obvious and expect the Apple-haters to roll out the predictable criticisms. But apps don't need to be distributed via the app store on the Mac. You can still use download links from a website at which point it's a question of choice as to whether you want to be part of that ecosystem. I see a bigger issue being the 70/30 split. 30% is a lot to lose when you can sell it yourself. Even small sellers can use third party payment services. It'll be interesting to see how the software makers big and small react to this. I suspect that those in the app store will sell more units. This is probably why Steve pushed the discovery argument (with some merit).
- DrJokepu 16y ago
  License keys can be really useful for institution-wide software licensing. Imagine an advertising agency trying to buy 30 instances of Photoshop. How are they going to do that with the App Store? Without some support for bundle purchases, the Mac App Store won't be very useful for developers of software for a professional audience.
  - msbarnett 16y ago
    I don't think Apple is aiming to provide a means of covering every possible kind of licensing deal a developer might potentially want to strike. They're aiming this at average, small developer to lone buyer sales. If the bulk of your sales are site-licenses to labs and universities, this app store probably isn't the correct venue for your product.
  - cletus 16y ago
    The App Store has always had this "problem". Just like an IT desk can't easily manage, say, 500 iPads. That's really what Windows is built for. Apple is really targeting consumers not enterprise customers.
xpaulbettsx 16y ago
"Apps that use non-public APIs will be rejected" So many OS X apps today use non-public APIs, this would exclude the vast majority of applications in use today. "Apps that install kexts will be rejected" There goes VMWare and Parallels.
- msbarnett 16y ago
  VMWare and Parallels are already well-known and have their own direct sales infrastructures. I don't think they would ever have been interested in this.
  - xpaulbettsx 16y ago
    So that's the thing - if Apple promises that there will always be a way to directly install to the machine, I'm totally okay with these rules, they're quite reasonable. However, this sets them up to do the same thing they did with iPad / iPhone, then require me to pay $100 to bless my machine as a "Development machine", then I can install what I want. Or maybe even then, I can only use Apple-certified binaries but I can use XCode. Curated experience is fine, but only if I have the freedom to choose an alternate one.
    - msbarnett 16y ago
      I don't think it sets them up to do that at all. The rules also block things like MatLab or Photoshop, which have their own licensing schemes and updaters and downloadable plugin systems. All of which signals that this isn't some plan to lock down the desktop; when the rules exclude the VMWares and the Photoshops and the other Things-Lots-Of-People-Use, it's a good sign that the store isn't intended to be the only game in town for software acquisition.
    - jonhendry 16y ago
      Promises? Corporate promises are worthless. Rely on logic and assume Apple is reasonably rational. They mentioned AutoCAD and Steam today. Steam isn't compatible with the guidelines, and Autodesk isn't about to sell AutoCAD through the store. Apple isn't going to cut them off, nor are they going to cut off the myriad other software vendors for whom the App Store is either unworkable or unattractive or unneeded.
tealtan 16y ago
A question: can open source projects submit just their most stable versions to the App Store and then also release in-progress versions through their own sites? If so, that would seem to address most of the issues. The people downloading software from the App Store don't want buggy or untested software, and those interested in cutting-edge versions are likely to be aware and active enough to download it themselves. Win-win situation.
- tealtan 16y ago
  I mean, open source projects already have stable branches and dev branches, so it wouldn't even require that much additional work from developers.
- jonhendry 16y ago
  Depends on the license. App store apps are limited in how they can be copied among machines, so depending on the license, a person submitting an open source app to the App Store might conceivably be violating the license. (This wouldn't be Apple violating it. It'd be the submitter.)
ozten 16y ago
The crux of the matter: 1) Will Lion change the software install policy to App Store only (like iOS) 2) Will the App Store create an un-level playing field years from now by training users to only install Apple certified software.
- joshzayin 16y ago
  Re: 1: No, Jobs was clear that there you'll still be able to install software on your mac as you can now. 2: It could, depending on how Apple implements and pushes their App Store.
- jonhendry 16y ago
  "1) Will Lion change the software install policy to App Store only (like iOS)" No, unless you think Autodesk wants to give Apple 30% of the $4000 price of AutoCAD for Mac on each sale.

31 points by starkness 16y ago

tehchoyce 16y ago

more and more developers seem to be really unhappy with the new app store.. probably not the best model

DrJokepu 16y ago
You know what, as a user, I quite like it. It's a really convenient way to get software. I like all the categories, featured apps, simple payment & deployment and the good signal vs noise ratio. I just simply don't care whether developers like it or not. (Having said that, I'm a software developer too but I understand that my convenience is less important than the customer's convenience.)

CrazedGeek 16y ago

"apps that require optional installations (such as Java) will be rejected" What additional installations do OS X apps usually need, though? Flash and Java are already included; the only additional thing I can think of is SIMBL, and that isn't usually used for normal apps.

YooLi 16y ago

Of course Apple doesn't want beta software in the Mac App Store. I don't want it either. If I want to experiment with some Firefox nightlies, I'll go and get them from the dev site. The Mac App store is geared at people who want software installation and maintenance to be painless and worry free. They are 'curating' it to be that way. It's not a software directory listing service where everyone can list their offerings.

starkness 16y ago
What happens when Apple "curates" it such that apps of a political nature are no longer allowed? Or apps that compete with their own? EDIT: (1) There is a risk that the vast majority of the population (non-geeks), will increasingly rely on the store to get apps, so smaller innovators/FOSS projects will not have the same exposure as others if rejected. (Think the Microsoft antitrust issue with the preinstallation of IE on Windows. People could still get Netscape elsewhere.) (2) This could also be a first step, much like the iPhone/iOS app store, in Apple being the arbiter of all apps that are allowed on Mac OS X.
- msbarnett 16y ago
  Then you have to go somewhere else to get those apps? Walmart doesn't sell Target's house-brand goods either.
- YooLi 16y ago
  Not sure I follow you. What do you mean what happens? To me it means they won't be in the store and you will have to get them like you have been getting them this whole time. What happens when Shell 'curates' their convenience stores so Newsweek is no longer sold there? edit:typo
- YooLi 16y ago
  In reply to your EDIT:, then people who are bothered by that switch to a different OS. Apple's OS isn't the only OS out there.

msbarnett 16y ago

Well that article certainly wears its editorial slant on its sleeve. I'm not really seeing the problem here; Apple isn't interested in selling, or giving away, in-progress beta apps or apps which exhibit obvious bugs because they want to maintain a certain quality of experience for people who use their store. If Apple isn't interested in distributing your app, that's their prerogative. You're not entitled to it, and you certainly don't need it; Firefox has been doing just fine distributing their software through their own servers. They're free to continue doing so. Nordstroms isn't interested in selling my janky, lumpy, hand-carved ash trays either, but that hardly makes them tyrants. They're just maintaining their store's brand.

ed 16y ago
But Nordstroms doesn't own the city. Apple does. When all roads lead to the local men's department, yeah I'd be concerned with which products do, and don't make the cut. No kexts? Seriously? No outside updates? Can't wait for the first app store 0-day.
- msbarnett 16y ago
  > But Nordstroms doesn't own the city. Apple does. Er, no they don't. This is about the completely optional Mac App Store. To extend the metaphor, there's a Macy's next door and a Farmer's Market across the street.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - ed 16y ago
    Maybe it's time to step away from the metaphor. Just so we're clear I'm referring to the operating system -- the thing on which the store is built. It is, quite literally, owned by Apple.

al_james 16y ago

It might not be the best solution for geeks, but Apple is serious about smooth user experience. I might not mind a few bugs in the software I download, but it will confuse/frustrate the hell out of Mr Average Joe.

thought_alarm 16y ago

Correction: the App Store doesn't work with buggy, unfinished software that's in a constant state of beta. The author sure has a low opinion of open source software quality, doesn't he?

cletus 16y ago
Perhaps the author has a slanted view of how open source software tends to work. You often have nightly builds, development (alpha/beta) releases and stable releases. Most people want and use the stable releases. It's true the Mac App Store won't work for distributing the rest. This is hardly surprising and not the way you'd want to distribute this anyway I would think. For stable releases, the App Store guidelines will probably result in more stable software. That's probably a good thing.

jws 16y ago

The current HN title is wrong. The article doesn't address Open Source. It states that the store will not be used for the distribution of beta versions of software. The tweet just says firefox betas won't be in the store. Especially note: Free software is allowed. There are classes of software that won't work in the store. The article mentions: • Things that implement their own copy protection. • Buggy software. • Things that need root. See the whole list: http://pastie.org/1236378 http://pastie.org/1236378 but you will go blind before you finish if your don't have readability plugin. I would characterize the forbidden stuff as "obnoxious, useless, or malicious" applications. There is some collateral damage along the way, e.g. anything with a kernel extension, and there are some morality/legality driven restrictions e.g. encourge minors to consume alcohol or realistic human killing. The most alarming exception to me, is that the application can only distribute updates through the store. I would hope Apple doesn't hold up new versions like they have with the iOS stores. As a developer I cringe when I read of customers living with month old defects because the update is stalled in queue. Customers will have a reasonable belief that stuff from the store isn't tearing through their computer looking for email addresses or credit card numbers to sell. But that's ok, they have other channels for distribution. It isn't a Apple Store or nothing proposition like the iOS devices.

starkness 16y ago
The title was on the basis of this part of the article "If an app even exhibits a bug, it will be rejected -- does Apple know how many apps, open-source or otherwise, have bugs?" The point that this could make FOSS especially vulnerable, although am open to discussion otherwise.
- msbarnett 16y ago
  They can't, by the very nature of software, reject all software containing any bugs. The store would never contain anything. But if your software contains obvious bugs that impact the user during normal usage (it crashes when you try to save, or the preference pane only stays open for 5 seconds), they're not interested in being associated with your software. That seems fair to me. This is only "unfair" to FLOSS if you take the position that FLOSS is significantly more likely to contain such significant, user-facing defects. Now, I'm not saying that's true, but if it were true, that seems to me to be an indictment of FLOSS, not of Apple's rules for being in its store.

gfodor 16y ago

This App Store isn't the same as the iOS one. If the iOS one didn't push your app, nobody could use it (practically speaking.) Obviously this isn't true here. (For now!) So, it's hard to give Apple flak for any rules they have in their approval process.

cletus 16y ago

No beta software? Great. No license keys? Why do you need license keys? You're now in the iTunes ecosystem like apps on iDevices. No optional add ons? For a start, java isn't optional on OS X. Apps on iOS are completely self-contained. I guess the same philosophy is coming to the Mac. Not surprising but there are potential issues I guess. No root privileges? This one has potential issues but I guess apple wants to play it safe. Not surprising. Same censorship as the App Store? I took this as a given when I heard about it. No issue here. The author's bias is pretty obvious and expect the Apple-haters to roll out the predictable criticisms. But apps don't need to be distributed via the app store on the Mac. You can still use download links from a website at which point it's a question of choice as to whether you want to be part of that ecosystem. I see a bigger issue being the 70/30 split. 30% is a lot to lose when you can sell it yourself. Even small sellers can use third party payment services. It'll be interesting to see how the software makers big and small react to this. I suspect that those in the app store will sell more units. This is probably why Steve pushed the discovery argument (with some merit).

DrJokepu 16y ago
License keys can be really useful for institution-wide software licensing. Imagine an advertising agency trying to buy 30 instances of Photoshop. How are they going to do that with the App Store? Without some support for bundle purchases, the Mac App Store won't be very useful for developers of software for a professional audience.
- msbarnett 16y ago
  I don't think Apple is aiming to provide a means of covering every possible kind of licensing deal a developer might potentially want to strike. They're aiming this at average, small developer to lone buyer sales. If the bulk of your sales are site-licenses to labs and universities, this app store probably isn't the correct venue for your product.
- cletus 16y ago
  The App Store has always had this "problem". Just like an IT desk can't easily manage, say, 500 iPads. That's really what Windows is built for. Apple is really targeting consumers not enterprise customers.

xpaulbettsx 16y ago

"Apps that use non-public APIs will be rejected" So many OS X apps today use non-public APIs, this would exclude the vast majority of applications in use today. "Apps that install kexts will be rejected" There goes VMWare and Parallels.

msbarnett 16y ago
VMWare and Parallels are already well-known and have their own direct sales infrastructures. I don't think they would ever have been interested in this.
- xpaulbettsx 16y ago
  So that's the thing - if Apple promises that there will always be a way to directly install to the machine, I'm totally okay with these rules, they're quite reasonable. However, this sets them up to do the same thing they did with iPad / iPhone, then require me to pay $100 to bless my machine as a "Development machine", then I can install what I want. Or maybe even then, I can only use Apple-certified binaries but I can use XCode. Curated experience is fine, but only if I have the freedom to choose an alternate one.
  - msbarnett 16y ago
    I don't think it sets them up to do that at all. The rules also block things like MatLab or Photoshop, which have their own licensing schemes and updaters and downloadable plugin systems. All of which signals that this isn't some plan to lock down the desktop; when the rules exclude the VMWares and the Photoshops and the other Things-Lots-Of-People-Use, it's a good sign that the store isn't intended to be the only game in town for software acquisition.
  - jonhendry 16y ago
    Promises? Corporate promises are worthless. Rely on logic and assume Apple is reasonably rational. They mentioned AutoCAD and Steam today. Steam isn't compatible with the guidelines, and Autodesk isn't about to sell AutoCAD through the store. Apple isn't going to cut them off, nor are they going to cut off the myriad other software vendors for whom the App Store is either unworkable or unattractive or unneeded.

tealtan 16y ago

A question: can open source projects submit just their most stable versions to the App Store and then also release in-progress versions through their own sites? If so, that would seem to address most of the issues. The people downloading software from the App Store don't want buggy or untested software, and those interested in cutting-edge versions are likely to be aware and active enough to download it themselves. Win-win situation.

tealtan 16y ago
I mean, open source projects already have stable branches and dev branches, so it wouldn't even require that much additional work from developers.
jonhendry 16y ago
Depends on the license. App store apps are limited in how they can be copied among machines, so depending on the license, a person submitting an open source app to the App Store might conceivably be violating the license. (This wouldn't be Apple violating it. It'd be the submitter.)

ozten 16y ago

The crux of the matter: 1) Will Lion change the software install policy to App Store only (like iOS) 2) Will the App Store create an un-level playing field years from now by training users to only install Apple certified software.

joshzayin 16y ago
Re: 1: No, Jobs was clear that there you'll still be able to install software on your mac as you can now. 2: It could, depending on how Apple implements and pushes their App Store.
jonhendry 16y ago
"1) Will Lion change the software install policy to App Store only (like iOS)" No, unless you think Autodesk wants to give Apple 30% of the $4000 price of AutoCAD for Mac on each sale.