5 ms·
If that's all it is, then I'm happy. But I doubt it will be. For example, Apple's current app store is not merely an installation mechanism; it also allows the
by ggchappell 16y ago
If that's all it is, then I'm happy.
But I doubt it will be. For example, Apple's current app store is not merely an installation mechanism; it also allows them, to disable apps they don't want running on your machine. And after 30 years of flailing around, Apple has finally found a business model that works for them. I expect them, therefore, to copy as much of it as they can on the Mac.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y agoEvery time I run an install from a bit of software I've bought whether it be on CD or download, it could do pretty much anything it wants given (many of them demand root access). Apple or Microsoft could already use software updates to disable anything they don't like if they wished (and could probably do it far more subtly by introducing a minor incompatibility in the OS). How is this any different? The reason they don't completely screw people's machine isn't technical, it's commercial, it would be utter suicide. That applies to Apple as much as anyone else and the app store doesn't change that (the kill switch for iOS has never been used in the three years it's been there).
- ggchappell 16y agoThe difference is a contractual one. If I bought some program, and an Apple software update deleted it, I might sue them. And I might win. But if Apple uses the iOS kill switch, then they are within their rights. The difference is similar to that between a plumber I call in now & then to fix some pipes, and a plumber who gets a key to my house, and my written permission to do anything he wants, whenever he wants. Both of them have the capability to rearrange my plumbing in any way they want. But the latter is scarier.