I do welcome the UI possibilities. UI innovation was languishing for a decade, as companies essentially spent their time tweaking the 1984 Mac and 1993 Mozaic UIs. And then Apple changed all that. Good for them. Bring some of that to the Mac; I'm all for it.
On the other hand, the trend toward the computer being something that some company controls, and I am allowed to use as they see fit, is not something I want to be a part of.
I recently bought a home computer. I run Linux on my office desktops & laptop, but, after much reflection, I decided I could not inflict even the relative friendliness of Ubuntu on my family. So we got an iMac. Great machine. We love it.
But now it's looking like, in a few years, there might be no computer at all that my family would enjoy using, and that I would allow in the house. Not a pleasant thought.
a) there's a lot of supposition in the whole "Apple is going to lock the Mac down" line of thought.
Personally I think it's unlikely they will simply because I think it would be a bad decision commercially. I can see an OS that is more restricted by default but software developers, designers and corporates simply won't accept heavy restrictions and will look elsewhere if the changes impact them.
Regardless though, it seems odd to me how worked up people are getting about something which is, at best, a prediction about something which might happen two or three years (at the earliest) down the line.
b) I love the idea that you might not allow a more locked down Mac into the house despite the implication that your family would enjoy and benefit from it.
Surely you judge each device on it's merits? Personally I'll accept the restrictions of the iPad because I have no need for it to be more open than it is but I won't accept those same restrictions on a computer.
You shouldn't impose your needs for a compute on your family and more than it would be reasonable for a professional chef to insist that their son or daughter had a professional standard cooker or knives when they're completely excessive for what they do?
> there's a lot of supposition in the whole "Apple is going to lock the Mac down" line of thought.
True. Actually, I doubt they will lock it down.
However: Apple's online stores, beginning with iTunes, and heading into the various app stores, have been a huge success, and, from a business standpoint, they would be foolish not to do something almost identical for the Mac. (I know they're going to do it; it's the "almost identical" part that I'm pointing out.)
And then, of course, from developers' point of view, Apple has created something wonderful. It is now possible to sell a file for $1/copy, never deal directly with end users, and make decent money at it. So given a Mac app store, developers signing on is obvious.
The result is that, even if the OS itself is not locked down (which, as I said, I consider unlikely), we end up with a situation in which getting quality software requires giving Apple control of your machine.
That is what I consider unacceptable. Quality software is why I bought a Mac. Linux's opennness, scriptability, etc., is great, but there is nothing on Linux with anywhere near the polish and usability of iMovie, GarageBand, etc. Nor will there be for some time, I think. And when that kind of thing moves over to the we-run-your-computer world, then I don't see any options left for a home computer I'd be willing to buy.
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.
Every 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).
The 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.
It's just a thought though. A fantasy born out of hysterical rumor mongering. Apple has in no way indicated that the future of the Mac is locked down in such a fashion. It's all fear, uncertainty and doubt.
I do think the good software is going to start being app-store-only, and that will require giving Apple full access to my machine. Good software is why I got a Mac. Not being able to get good software without giving Apple the ability to delete files of mine that they don't like, is why I might not get another.
The Mac App Store will be most helpful to the small unestablished developers, since it will alleviate things like marketing, billing, support, etc.
Bigger more established developers (like Panic, Bare Bones Software, Delicious Monster, The Iconfactory, The Omni Group, just to name a few) have already solved these problems (not in perpetuity and not without limit, of course).
I don't think that companies like these are going to place the fate of their best-selling software in Apple's hands for the relatively small gains the Mac App Store will provide them. That is not to say that I think they'll stay out of the Mac App Store either, it's just to say that it won't be Mac App Store exclusive.
I expect most of them to "try out" the Mac App Store with new software releases of smaller scope, rather than retrofit their best-selling software and offer them exclusively on Mac App Store, with the straightjacket that comes with it.
Where they go from there will depend on the results of the Mac App Store. They won't be forced to use it for their key software, so they won't if it doesn't suit their needs.
I think the Mac App Store is going to be an absolutely enormous runaway success. But not because you can find already established and popular software on there.
> I don't think that companies like these are going to place the fate of their best-selling software in Apple's hands for the relatively small gains the Mac App Store will provide them
Let's hope so.
> I think the Mac App Store is going to be an absolutely enormous runaway success.
I do welcome the UI possibilities. UI innovation was languishing for a decade, as companies essentially spent their time tweaking the 1984 Mac and 1993 Mozaic UIs. And then Apple changed all that. Good for them. Bring some of that to the Mac; I'm all for it.
On the other hand, the trend toward the computer being something that some company controls, and I am allowed to use as they see fit, is not something I want to be a part of.
I recently bought a home computer. I run Linux on my office desktops & laptop, but, after much reflection, I decided I could not inflict even the relative friendliness of Ubuntu on my family. So we got an iMac. Great machine. We love it.
But now it's looking like, in a few years, there might be no computer at all that my family would enjoy using, and that I would allow in the house. Not a pleasant thought.