
Mozilla Director Says Apple Trying to "Bypass the Web" - lotusleaf1987
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/mozilla_director_says_apple_trying_to_bypass_the_web.php
======
GHFigs
_@silviocabral I was actually talking about iLife, not the Mac App Store, when
I tweeted that._ \-- <http://twitter.com/beltzner/status/28045413547>

I'm getting a little tired of this new-new-pretend-journalism wherein the
blogger tries to build their story out of somebody's content-free twattage.
Especially when they misinterpret it.

~~~
someone_here
It seems like limiting yourself to 140 characters leaves yourself open to
misinterpretation.

~~~
jamesbritt
" ... leaves yourself open to misinterpretation."

Which, for some, is a golden opportunity.

------
tptacek
Well, that sure was an easy way for Mozilla's director to get a press hit.

In reality, the OS X app store is nothing more than a turbocharged version of
Apple's own OS X software directory site. If you don't want to bend your app
to qualify for it, just set up your own site. It's not reasonable to say Apple
has to promote arbitrary applications.

~~~
sprout
For security and ease of use' sake it really is useful to provide a
standardized interface for deploying applications through Apple's own update
channels. I don't see why Apple can't manage feature parity with most of the
major Linux distributions. Something like _universe_ in Ubuntu would greatly
benefit OS X users.

That is very different from asking Apple to promote apps - just host them,
police malicious apps, and take a small cut of profits for the service.
Admittedly, that's a bit different from a package manager, but it's clear,
consistent, and really the best option for Mac UX.

~~~
tptacek
Anybody can build this function on OS X, not just Apple. If it's that
valuable, make it and get people to sign up.

Reasonable people can argue about the downsides of the iOS app stores, but I
don't see how reasonable people could think that Apple should give an inch on
it's Apple-branded OS X app store. The platform already has extremely good
unrestricted third party development support.

~~~
sprout
When it comes to security, people should not re-invent the wheel. An
integrated installation and update method makes a lot of sense, and Apple
negatively impacts the security of their ecosystem by using criteria beyond
malicious intent to bar third-party vendors from the integrated system.

They also reduce the quality of third-party software, as even blessed software
developers will still have to put time into planning for pushing their own
updates should they fail to win Apple's blessing.

------
brisance
Let's face it, the current way of installing applications in OS X is extremely
confusing for newcomers to the platform. Apple should be lauded for trying
something that is proven on iOS devices and getting it to work on OS X.

Additionally, the Mac App Store is opt-in and there is no indication that it
will be the only way to install binaries. Let's not get ahead of ourselves in
the conspiracy theories.

~~~
narkee
Confusing? Users either run a package installer, basically identical to
installation wizards on Windows, or plop a *.app in the Applications folder.

Under what circumstances is either of those options "extremely confusing"?

~~~
GHFigs
The trouble with your question is that you've left out any mention of the .dmg
that the user actually downloaded.

Don't get me wrong, I like disk images as much as the next nerd, but it has
been my observation that there are way too many ways for the process of
getting from .dmg to in-dock-ready-to-rock to go awry. People can and do
figure it out, but the process is still far from optimal.

"Internet Enabled" disk images were an attempt to deal with this, but not
every application ships as one, not every browser supports them, and plenty of
people have the auto-open option turned off in Safari either because they
think it's obnoxious or insecure. (And even if it works perfectly--even if the
.dmg turns directly into an .app--the .app ends up in ~/Downloads/. Where for
some it will forever remain.)

So you're left, at least some of the time, with this file icon with a weird
silvery box thing on it. If you're lucky ("you" being both CEO of n00b, Inc.
_and_ Mayor of n00btown) the download page of the application (or if you
figured out how to mount the .dmg, within the .dmg itself) you just downloaded
has instructions on where to go from here. (Instructions which you, Hacker
News reader, have seen a million times without ever really noticing that they
are a symptom of a problem.)

But let's suppose there are no instructions. But you can figure this out.
You're _Mayor_ of N00btown, after all. So you double-click the .dmg and here's
a new window, and _yay_ , there's the app icon. ::click click::. Yay! Bouncing
icon in the Dock! It works! And it will probably continue to work just
fine...until you shut down or restart (which could be six months from now--
given how busy and productive you all are at n00b, Inc. you can't afford to
waste time every week on "Software Updates") at which point your disk images
unmount and suddenly some of your programs just don't work anymore! So you
download them again...

The thing is, none of this (the many ways users can fail with installation) is
so disastrous or commonplace that it constitutes an Obvious Problem that Must
Be Addressed. Even in the above scenario (which is only a little contrived)
the applications still actually _work_. The user is not confused, but there is
still a pathology at play. The user does not go complain to their nerd until
things actually fail, and the nerd typically puts a band-aid on it and asks
the user to stop doing the wrong thing, while the root problem persists.

My point being that even if the ".app inside a .dmg" approach to installation
isn't "extremely confusing" (and I would agree, even after the above, that it
is not) it still has an unnecessary capacity for undesirable side effects
(including confusion) that you don't see with an app store or repository
approach.

------
tomlin
While it might be a little FUD-ish, I don't think it's completely unfounded.

Banning Flash from iOS devices could be seen as banning the "App"-space
competition at the door. Apple talks a lot about "the open web" but
consistently pushes Apps.

For example, my iPhone's Safari is absolutely clueless to the file input tag,
while it could easily access the "Camera Roll" to allow a user to upload a
photo. Yet, Apps can access the file system as necessary - giving Apps the
clear advantage.

I don't necessarily think that Apple is trying to "bypass the web", but they
are definitely attempting to fork it. Successfully, even.

~~~
Anechoic
_Apple talks a lot about "the open web" but consistently pushes Apps._

But when Apple was pushing the open web, _developers_ were pushing apps.

~~~
tomlin
Reference? I'm a developer. I never pushed Apps, although I am not against
them, either.

~~~
Anechoic
[http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2007/06/the_iphone_sdk_in...](http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2007/06/the_iphone_sdk_insult_or_oppor.html)

------
alanh
Director Struggles for Relevancy as Browser Stagnates, While Competitor from
Apple Gains; Ignorant of Irony

Webkit is the new Firefox. Apple doesn’t hate the web.

~~~
carussell
Webkit isn't a browser.

~~~
jimbojohn
No, it's a hundred browsers. So?

~~~
carussell
So "Webkit is the new Firefox" doesn't make any sense. Nobody downloads
Webkit.

Citrus trees are the new apples.

------
kule
From a bigger picture I can see the issues that are getting people nervous
however I really couldn't see Apple cutting off their nose by blocking the
usual App installations.

From a usability point of view it makes so much sense.

Currently a user has to: 1) Go to a website (or search for it) 2) Enter credit
card details (are they trustworthy?) 3) Download the dmg file 4) Open the dmg
file 5) Drag the app to the apps folder

Or they can 1) Open iTunes 2) Search for an app 3) Click download

Not to mention app updates which are handled differently in every app. iTunes
will make this trivial for you and keep your apps up-to-date.

On a different note how long before iTunes just becomes iStore it's not really
a music player any more is it!

~~~
lotusleaf1987
I think the biggest problem is just finding a relevant application that you
want. I think an App store will help with visibility and awareness of smaller
applications that would otherwise be unheard of. The only way now is to really
either know of the app and search it on google or search on google mac +
"keyword of what you want the app to do" sometimes you have to go through page
after page of google results reading random forum threads and never find
anything remotely useful. Apple realizes this.

~~~
slantyyz
Agree. Discovery is an issue.

Whenever Macheist rolls around, the real upside for me is discovering useful
apps I otherwise would not have heard of.

------
jonhendry
Has this person every complained about GameStop, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or other
retail outlets selling shrinkwrap software?

I doubt it. They've been 'bypassing the web' since before there was a web
(well, not GameStop), but I guess it's only a problem if Apple does it.

