

The Slippery Slope of an App Store, and Why Windows Should Never Adopt It - StevenHodson
http://www.winextra.com/archives/the-slippery-slope-of-an-app-store-and-why-windows-should-never-adopt-it/

======
pak
Did he seriously write that entire article without bringing up Steam?

Wake up and smell the coffee, Windows users: you've had an app store for seven
years now, and its primary target (gamers) are actually pretty damn happy with
it now. If they branched out and sold regular apps (not that they would, it
seems too dilutive for the brand) you'd basically have a pretty competent
Windows App Store. (I can see it now: "Achievement Unlocked, 10 page paper")

~~~
eagleeye2
Ya, I seriously did. Reason being is basically what you said actually. Their
primary target is gamers, and it will probably stay just for gamers, and even
if Microsoft releases their own store with games, it probably won't be better
than Steam.

But that is also what makes me not bring up Steam. It is not an "app" store.
It's a game store, and a very damn good one at that.

~~~
StevenHodson
They do have their own store for games: Games for Windows - LIVE

------
malkia
"Mac App Store is basically a copy of what many popular Linux distributions
such as Ubuntu have had to offer for years."

There is MacPorts, Fink, homebrew and probably other systems that are like
Ubunutu's apt, deb, and other linuxes rpm (and other) systems.

What's the point?

Also as other people have mentioned there is Steam on Windows, Impulse, used
to be GameTap, and lots of other digital download stores.

------
Xuzz
He makes a few good points: Linux _has_ had this for years, and they have done
quite a good job with it (especially with the Ubuntu Software Center). But, as
he says: Linux only has 1% market share. Mac OS X has almost 10% market share.
If Linux has used this concept to good effect for years, why is it a bad thing
that it's now being exposed to a more mainstream computing audience?

~~~
bradleyland
The author is not afraid of an app store, he is afraid of a "closed" OS X.
Closed being:

* Unable to install apps that aren't App Store Approved(TM)

* Unable to run commands as root

* Unable to access the filesystem

Basically, the author fears OS X becoming iOS.

There's a lot of speculation about what OS X will become, but there is only
one sure bet: It will follow the money.

Consumers -- in general -- have been proven not to care about things like
"open". If you ask Joe Blow Android owner about why he/she likes their phone,
they might tell you that they like how it's "open", among other things, but
I'd lay you odds that they don't know what that really means. And you can bet
that most people are not rooting their Android phones.

I'm not talking about _your_ friends. I'm talking about your mom's friends;
your dad's friends; your cousins' friends. The ones who can't figure out how
to update their anti-virus. They don't care about open, root access, or
filesystems. They care about the specific task they want to achieve: to be
entertained (music/movies), have some fun (games), do some work
(productivity), or communicate with others (email/social networking).

These are the people that will drive the direction of OS X and Windows. But
don't freak out just yet. There will always be another layer to the computing
world. Apple builds a very small set of core iOS apps. A large part of iOS's
success is owed to independent developers. Not big companies. Independents.
The Mac has many popular independent developers, and Apple knows this. There
will always be an "open" Mac, in the sense that there will always be a Mac you
can develop on, if only by neccessity.

Let's consider what happens if I'm wrong. Even though we're (hackers) a tiny
part of the market, we're not a "small" group by any measure. Imagine that all
the talented people who like using OS X for development are suddenly forced to
use Linux. So, you have this large group of talented people, and all of the
sudden their platform is yanked out from under them. Where do they go? They go
to the platform that solves their needs. They go to the next thing. That thing
would be Linux.

I don't believe there will be any rug-yanking going on. I think the process
will be much slower, and many won't even notice, but I do think we'll start to
see more hackers moving to Linux as Apple develops their "walled garden"
approach for OS X. That's not a bad thing. It's going to bring a lot of talent
over to the Linux side of things, and that's gotta be a good thing.

~~~
Xuzz
Unless it has a door out of the garden, like Android's "install unsigned apps"
toggle. It's the best solution to this "issue", but so far only certain
Android phones offer it (and all but the Nexus series are locked down in other
ways).

If Apple could just hide a Jailbreak button under 10 pages of warnings in
iTunes, this wouldn't be an issue. But they don't, so fear of a locked-down
Mac is reasonable. But, as you conclude, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

------
CountSessine
The irony is that the article's author doesn't realize that of all platforms,
Windows needs an app store more than any of the others.

While most of my Windows use is confined to snapshot'ed VMs, I still don't
download or use closed-source Windows software of any kind, free or otherwise.
Spyware and malware have ruined the market for free-and-ad-supported,
freemium, and nearly-free Windows software. A heavily curated and controlled
Windows software market could improve the signal-to-noise ratio for low-cost
windows apps from legitimate developers.

------
eagleeye2
Author here.

I am assuming the worst possible situation here. I do firmly believe that OS X
will eventually be just like iOS, and we are seeing a lot the industry adopt
methods that Apple has pursued previously. My worry is that Microsoft, if they
happen to release an App Store themselves, will go down the same path. They
have done this with WP7 and the Marketplace.

It's a slippery slope releasing an App Store IMO because I don't want to own a
Mac that will eventually be locked down like the iPhone, and since that method
will "most likely" still be a success, other companies, including MS, might be
curious to adopt this.

Is an App Store bad? Hell no.

Is the way they are being implemented in our every day technology bad? Hell
yes. Even on Android phones with AT&T you can't install from unknown sources.
Granted, Android phones in this respect are not the norm, and thankfully so.

In short, let's all proceed with caution.

~~~
shinkansen
> I am assuming the worst possible situation here. I do firmly believe that OS
> X will eventually be just like iOS...

This will never happen. As others have already stated, Apple would lose their
developers and because they don't command the market with OS X they would
never risk doing that. Let's not forget the professionals that use Macs: the
design industry, the film industry, the music industry: these rely in some
cases on third-party applications like the Adobe Suite, these industries are
another reason why OS X cannot ever become iOS; they require a fundamentally
open, extensible environment. Add that to the fact Apple has stated that the
App Store will never be the only method through which developers may publish
their applications to the OS X platform, and it just will not happen.

Your paranoia is irrational.

------
pornel
The closest thing Linux had to App Store was Lindows' Click-N-Run.

Typical Linux repositories, while very useful, don't address the important
point — payment.

App Store is for commercial software, while Linux distros usually even put
"non-free" software in separate silo.

------
StevenHodson
just as a follow up to this in case any one is interested I posted a rebuttal
to the original post - <http://wnx.me/Ku>

------
foljs
> But if we are to follow precedence set by other Apple products, the Mac will
> become more closed than ever, with the Web as our only option to access the
> outside world. Much like the iPhone and the iPad. As a Mac owner, the
> writing is on the wall, a closed computer is my future.

Em, the "other Apple products" mentioned were never open to begin with. And
they are not general purpose computers.

The Mac, on the other hand, always had XCode built-in. I don't see a "closed
computer" in the near future...

~~~
orangecat
_Em, the "other Apple products" mentioned were never open to begin with._

Right, which indicates that Steve's preference is for closed systems. Every
argument Apple makes in favor of locking down iOS devices applies equally well
to Macs.

 _And they are not general purpose computers._

Only because of artificial limitations.

 _I don't see a "closed computer" in the near future..._

I believe with 60% probability that by the end of 2015, Apple won't sell any
consumer-targeted products that allow root access or installation of arbitrary
software.

~~~
brownleej
There's one aspect of the iOS situation that doesn't apply on the Mac: Apple
can't get away with it on the Mac, and they know it. It's much easier to open
platforms that are closed than to close platforms that are open. If they
locked down the Mac as much as iOS, you wouldn't even be able to install
another operating system, which I think is fairly common among Mac users. Even
if it's not common, they've used the ability to do it as a big part of their
push for people switching.

Even if there are a lot of users that wouldn't object to the Mac being a
closed platform, developers would. Developers want root access to their
development machine. Apple doesn't want to lose developer support, because
they know that it is the lifeblood of the platform.

I'd make the exact opposite prediction. I think it's more likely that iOS will
allow sideloading than that Mac OS will forbid installation of software other
than through the App Store. On the other hand, I can see both platforms moving
toward a system where it is locked down by default, but it is trivial, and
officially supported, for the user to allow installing software through
unapproved sources.

------
shinkansen
It seems like ever since the conception of iPhone people have worried that
somehow OS X will merge with iOS and the desktop platform will be completely
closed and therefore dead, leaving only Windows and Linux.

I just don't see it.

> But if we are to follow precedence set by other Apple products, the Mac will
> become more closed than ever, with the Web as our only option to access the
> outside world. Much like the iPhone and the iPad. As a Mac owner, the
> writing is on the wall, a closed computer is my future.

What's all the rage? It's an application distribution platform. You can still
and will still be able to install applications of your choosing. The operating
system is still and will still be largely open source
(<http://opensource.apple.com/>). Compared to Microsoft and Windows, OS X is a
paragon of openness.

Will Apple encourage people to use the App Store? No doubt. But that doesn't
mean the door is closed to other distribution methods.

The fact remains that the operating system is far from closed, and there
doesn't seem to be ANY indication that that will change in the near or even
distant future; it would serve very little purpose as Apple does not have a
commanding market share with OS X.

~~~
BornInTheUSSR
Right on, just because there is an app store doesn't stop any app makers or
users from installing applications from other sources. However, finding and
installing apps just became easier for users as well as providing a
centralized distribution channel for the app makers.

------
recoiledsnake
Thought Windows was already going to adopt it in Windows 8.

I think the Mac app store would encourage a lot of adware(aka spyware) because
consumers like free apps and developers would like a steady revenue stream.

~~~
foljs
adware != spyware.

