
Mac App Store vs Buying Direct - aaronbrethorst
http://rentzsch.tumblr.com/post/24207015641/mac-app-store-vs-buying-direct
======
filmgirlcw
As good as Wolf's points are, it doesn't change the fact that more and more
Mac developers are starting to shift to a MAS-preferred market.

At this stage, even though I would _rather_ buy most of my apps direct from
developers, I'm often half-afraid to do that because of the inevitable "what
happens when they shift to MAS-only" question arises.

It's already happened with 1Password, Coda 2, Pixelmator and a number of my
other favorite Mac apps -- it's hard, as an end-user, to support the old
regime when maintaining two separate software branches continues to be a PITA
for developers.

And that's the real problem. Developers retain two branches because they want
to offer customers options (as well as legacy support for regular pre-MAS
releases), but most of the Mac developers who are both selling direct and in
the MAS are seeing much more income from MAS. If forced to choose, I can't
imagine a developer picking the option that gets in front of fewer customers.

Still, there are some very, very real concerns for Mac software due to the new
Sandboxing rules. Fortunately, now that the deadline has passed, we'll
actually get to see just how bad it is.

~~~
saurik
Apple should provide the ability to import "legacy users" (Cydia offers this
feature, for the record, and it has come in very handy and made the decision
to support it much easier for both developers and customers, so I'm not just
talking out of my ass without knowing the ramifications of having such).

~~~
ryannielsen
I don't disagree, but how do you define and identify "legacy users"? Most
importantly from Apple's perspective, how do _they_ properly identify "legacy
users" who purchased apps from a vendor's site before the App Store launched,
vs. users who purchased apps from a vendor's site after the App Store
launched.

If Apple allowed vendors to import any user as a "legacy user", then that's a
clear and supported way for vendors to get around Apple's 30% cut.

~~~
saurik
As has already been discussed ad nauseum, Apple is not bein irritating to get
a "30% cut" (which is a bothersome way of describing it as they don't den get
30%: they get what is left over after paying you your 70% cut and then
handling their numerous fixed costs with relation to selling your products):
they want control over distribution. For more information, read this entire
thread.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4037065>

As for how you do it, in practice 99% of licensing schemes are based either on
"serial number", "mac address", "license key given to user and typed into
app", or a combination of such. While some people then can't import still,
almost everyone can, and that is enough to be game-changing.

Note: you don't even need to allow this list to e changed after you import the
product if you are still concerned about a "30% cut". (Though, Cydia does
allow this, and even fully automates it by way of a backend licensing API
vendors can implement to take control of the purchasing process, and in
practice vendors that start using this mostly use it as a temporary measure
and eventually just switch over entirely).

~~~
ryannielsen
Apple doesn't care about the distribution of apps. Gatekeeper makes that
abundantly clear. Please present a cogent argument that takes that under
consideration.

Apple, however, doesn't want to be on the hook for maintaining and supporting
and spending bandwidth on users who haven't given them a cent. I can't blame
them. Again, I'd love to be granted the ability to bless "legacy users" into
the Mac App Store, but I also don't understand why Apple has any incentive to
_ever_ allow me to do so. It costs them money and resources, with absolutely
no benefit in return.

Why do you think they have an incentive?

~~~
easp
And yet, they have all these free apps...

------
melvinmt
"Fortunately Apple now only accepts sandboxed Mac apps, clarifying the
situation: customers should buy Mac apps directly unless there’s a good reason
not to."

This article seems heavily biased towards the app developer's interests. Is it
really better/safer for everyday customers to use non-sandboxed apps?

~~~
achille
Did you bother reading the article? There's a slew of improvements listed that
are mainly useful to users, like better integration with finder etc.

~~~
ryannielsen
Many of the arguments provided by the article are straw men and ignore a
provision that Apple offers (and encourages the use of!) – custom sandbox
entitlements. Apple has repeatedly stated that custom entitlements can and
will be granted for apps that need access not granted by existing sandbox
entitlements. Certainly not all exception requests will be granted, but for
some of the ones he listed – Growl, file read access for Omnifocus – those are
perfectly legitimate exception requests.

Apple is working hard to provide a secure and still fully functional system.
Some things will break, undoubtedly. Some apps will be abandoned, either
because of legitimate technical limitations Apple refuses to address, or
because of political stances taken by the apps' developer. Things aren't
perfect right now, and Apple still needs to continue refining and enhancing
the OS X sandbox.

Is it as clear-cut as Rentzsch makes it out to be, though? Absolutely not. In
fact, I think he takes a very biased stance in this article. For the vast
majority of users, sandboxing is an enormous step forward for the safety and
security of their data and system. For that reason alone, I encourage everyone
to purchase apps via the App Store. It's a safe and trusted distribution
vector that is now helping improve OS X's platform security. That's an
enormous benefit to almost all consumers.

(And I say all of this as a developer who's having to wrangle with the sandbox
right now.)

~~~
irons
I'd agree with you that sandbox entitlements offer a path to the future, if
their proper name wasn't "Temporary Exception Entitlements":

[https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/Misce...](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/Miscellaneous/Reference/EntitlementKeyReference/AppSandboxTemporaryExceptionEntitlements/AppSandboxTemporaryExceptionEntitlements.html)

Assuming that they'll be available indefinitely strikes me as a willful
mistake.

~~~
talentdeficit
They are temporary because they are granted for situations where Apple has not
yet implemented an API or formalized an entitlement. Apple bends over
backwards to be developer friendly, they are not going to pull the rug out
just for the hell of it.

~~~
duaneb
> Apple bends over backwards to be developer friendly,

You clearly haven't heard about this new 'iOS'...

~~~
ryannielsen
The new 'iOS' which is still surprisingly developer friendly, despite the
attitude it receives on forums such as HN.

iOS, for all of it's failings and deficiencies, still offers one of the finest
– if not _the_ finest – development and distribution platforms in the world.

Yes, it's not open. Yes, it's restrictive. Yes, it's censored.

But, perhaps, those qualities are some qualities that make it the most
successful software sales vector we've ever seen.

I agree it's not perfect. But to say it's not developer friendly is quite
disingenuous. The iOS development toolchain is actually quite powerful and
flexible (though still faulty), the distribution mechanism is broad and simple
(though restrictive and censoring), and I can't think of a single other
platform, including the web, that has been as developer friendly. At least for
developers who wish to make an income. (Something about which I admit, without
any bit of judgement, some developers aren't concerned.)

~~~
duaneb
I'm sorry, but making people pay $100 to develop on _systems they own_ is not
developer-friendly. I would much rather they had NO apis and we were allowed
to access the hardware we bought.

------
drumdance
Having recently suffered a hard drive failure, I have a new appreciation for
the idea of being able to download and re-install my applications from a
single location.

~~~
jaaron
Why don't you have backups? I _expect_ my hard drive to fail.

~~~
drumdance
I do have backups, but it's still a PITA to copy everything over, especially
applications.

~~~
chmars
You have backups but apparently no feasible restores.

I have always an up-to-date image of my Macs created and updated each night
with Carbon Copy Cloner (before that, I use SuperDuper!). In case of a problem
with any of my Macs, I can simply boot from the image on another Mac and
continue to work. If I cannot fix the problem, I copy the image to the
respective Mac or a new Mac …

Carbon Copy Cloner (CCC): <http://www.bombich.com/> SuperDuper!:
<http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/>

------
chj
It used to bother me as well, now it is clear, i am not going to invest any
more on Mac, seeing the system is going down the road after iOS.

------
chmars
Buying direct has another important advantage if the buyer doesn't live in the
US: Pricing!

In the Mac App Store, prices in non-USD currencies don't compare favorably
with the original price in USD due to the exchange rates Apple uses. If you
can still buy an app directly from the developer in USD, the price is usually
less than in another currency. In many cases, the difference in pricing is
substantial and the developer gets more from the paid prices anyway.

------
tubbo
I get updates for my apps through the App Store, and more than just minor bug
fixes...feature enhancements as well as new features and big version changes.
I think it really depends on the app.

For what it's worth I have also bought Divvy directly so I don't know what you
mean when you say you "won't receive updates" for it.

