By now, we all know about the funny thing that happened in 2007 (the next coming of computing). We all know what happened in 2008, when the App Store was introduced to fill the third-party void in a way that didn’t also let people unlock their phones. And we all know what’s coming up within a week; the rise of the Mac App Store.
I have tread the landscape of this topic far and wide, but since people keep framing it differently (although not maliciously so), I would like to keep correcting the viewpoint. The latest to this party was Chris Clark:
It’s been a recurring theme this week, but the Pro users of yesteryear’s products, the people with the biggest investment in old technologies, are not the people who should be calling the shots in the design of their successors. These are the people who complain that an iPad can’t have third party software installed from anywhere but the App Store, ignoring the massive convenience and security gains the policy affords average users. These are the people who are still using slotted screwdrivers and Edison light fixtures and manual transmission cars.
Did we bury Artie MacStrawman just for “the old computer user” to be the next stereotype?
I am not intrinsically opposed to the purest form of “one App Store”, if that App Store was perfect in its inclusion of working software and perfect in its exclusion of malicious software. But such a pure App Store is, like the perfect DRM, a work of fiction. The world is not perfect. Software, and not even the reduced creatures that apps are sometimes caricatured into, is not consistently an atomic being with ill or good will, or a defined or undefined purpose.
The convenience and security gains that can be traced back to Apple’s App Store can be directly compared to just that — their policy and their implementation of that policy, where apps have to have a defined purpose, but where whoppee cushions are fine, except for, after a set number, they no longer are. I am skittish about living in this world for the same reason that many would be worried about only being able to shop from Wal-Mart, albeit a Wal-Mart with slightly higher standards, and one with holiday shutdowns.
And even the automatic transmission easily allows use of the manual transmission according to taste, right from the factory, on nearly every automatic transmission. Apple does offer avenues alongside the App Store to get software onto an iOS device that does not need to conform to their standards, but it is clearly a long, expensive or adventurous walk, as if you had to fill out mail-in rebates in triplicate and pinky swear on the altar of Detroit to receive the manual transmission privilege.
I can’t speak for every painted loather of the App Store concept, but my considered criticism involves only the lack of a simple opt-out button. When Android Marketplace fails by allowing malicious software, Android Marketplace fails by allowing malicious software! Arbitrary software is free will; the whole of humanity doesn’t empirically fail the moment some numbnut sticks a fork down a toaster, and by the same token Android doesn’t fail by allowing arbitrary software.
I have four products, and I have decided to stay off the Mac App Store completely and to be proud of that. Two of them are products that come in forms that are fully accepted and supported citizens of the Mac OS X ecosystem and yet not allowed into the App Store. One in an application in its purest form, but would show up in the menu bar instead of the dock where all app downloads will go. The remaining one creates and celebrates standalone system services, the likes of which are also not available from the App Store, and the concept of which is not only foreign to the iOS-like model and has to be bolted on after the fact like so many other concepts of computing, but a concept which Chris Clark himself thirsts for in iOS for entirely justifiable reasons.
I am not opposed to the rebirth of computing as such. By all means throw out every single piece of old garbage that you can find, and don’t hold back. Adopt code signing, verification, sandboxing, a single installation model and the ability to lock down everything. But please do not mistake iOS or App Stores and the way that Apple’s been going about it as the only way to get those amenities in the hands of people. The right way is out there for people’s freedoms and rights to be respected along this ride, for a single vendor’s role as a mandatory gatekeeper to be eliminated, and for the new technology and new way of thinking to be used as a tool for good for the “user”, solely. Nothing about a sane streamlined installation technology screams “needs a first-party provider”. Nothing about the security measures preclude anyone beyond Apple themselves to hold the approved root certificates on a configurable basis.
Those who seek to frame this conversation as “the old guys” vs “the new guys” are doing themselves and the possibility of a remodeled computing experience a disservice. They are proposing that instead of holding ourselves back by old mistakes, we should now instead hold ourselves back by new mistakes, often while bemoaning the lack of one of the handy side-effects that the old way brought. I for one won’t go along.
As for the Mac App Store, I will watch the Mac App Store win some well-deserved ground, and then watch it sputter and not completely win the entire market — as it should be. Yes, the wares I am offering are not mass-market and not for everyone. Welcome to software! Some of the best software out there is “not for everyone”. Resoundingly, some of the very best software is for very particular markets. Relatively few software is intended for everyone. In iOS, there’s just about one supported model to provide anything; in Mac OS X, there are lots, and all of them make sense for software that people already use. Apple can’t pull the rug under them without also dropping those users.
Apple might be fine with losing those users, and we don’t know that today. If that day comes where either those avenues are made unavailable or they will have to go through an App Store-like process, one of those fleeing users will be me, to a platform that will have me. But as I said, we don’t know what they’ll do. As the saying goes, predictions are hard to make, especially about the future, and this one doesn’t just involve Apple’s own mind but the reception of the Mac App Store.
I’m still hopeful about all of this. Even the arc of the “apps” story on iOS bends towards more openness: first Apple’s apps, then “third party apps”, then in stages increased freedom for companies to subvert the App Store, last seen with the addition of wireless app distribution and upgrades for iOS 4. I am not beyond hoping that iOS 5 will bring a third rail for more free-form app development and distribution (Ad Hoc but without the ridiculous restrictions) — as it should always have been, but nevertheless then finally within grasp.
~~
Should old acquaintance be forgot, and never brought to mind? Should old acquaintance be forgot, and days of auld lang syne?
The first 34 years were just the beginning.
“Did we bury Artie MacStrawman just for “the old computer user” to be the next stereotype?”
Two things;
First, it’s good to see you come out against Gruberism at least once. I was beginning to lose all hope for you.
Second, it’s really worth noting that Clark wasn’t railing against “old” users. He was railing against “power” users.
Think about that one for a bit. It’s an important distinction. And it has pretty deep implications.
Old drivers don’t want manual transmissions. Power drivers do. And power drivers actually tend to skew young.
“In iOS, there’s just about one supported model to provide anything; in Mac OS X, there are lots, and all of them make sense for software that people already use. Apple can’t pull the rug under them without also dropping those users.”
We’ve been over this ground in other words before.
But since it’s at the crux of the matter…
When I look at the numbers, I don’t see why Cupertino won’t decide that it’ll move the share price higher if it does decide to drop those users.
Cupertino doesn’t serve all markets. And they sure as hell seem to be dropping pretty loud hints that power users aren’t a market they see themselves serving in the future. They seem to think there are more profits to be had in a scenario where they do indeed drop those users.
And, of course, power users tend to look out a bit into the future. As I’ve mentioned before, we’re rapidly approaching the point where I become highly resistant to buy new Mac boxes that I intend to keep for three years.
Cars are different that way. I’m a manual transmission guy, and I’m willing to buy a manual transmission car without regard to whether or not I think the manufacturer will continue to make manual transmission cars for the lifetime of my car. That info is irrelevant to me. But when computer platforms die, equipment tied to that platform becomes far less useful. So I continue to painfully familiarize myself with Redmond’s OS in my spare time, and wait until more data points arrive.
By Chucky · 2011.01.01 16:49
I’m sure you recall who made this scarecrow’s stuffing: http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/various_ipad_thoughts
It is amusing when Americans raise this transmission metaphor, unaware or not that other cultures did not relinquish precise control of the powertrain so completely. I loathe automatic transmissions personally. I think they have a lot to do with the unskilled and careless driving that is common in the US, a total lack of interest in the mechanics and responsibilities of propelling tons of equipment across the landscape.
The ongoing attempt to brand resistance to centralized software control as “old fashioned” also ignores the current and rising popularity of systems that are less centralized, and less controlled. Only Apple could have any success convincing people that bureaucratic control of a software platform is youthful and cool. I’ll cosign your prediction about what will happen with Mac App Store’s first stage. Explicitly excluding a large and popular chunk of the market is a good way to be sure you will not win the the whole market. Until you cut off that portion of the market from everyone.
But I can’t make any more threats about leaving the Mac platform myself since I just installed Ubuntu on my last Macbook. It wouldn’t boot, and I didn’t have any OS X DVDs handy! :( This makes me a radical freetard who can’t comprehend what regular people want (obviously, they want their choice of software screened by boring Californians).
By n8 · 2011.01.01 18:18
Chucky: And as I’ve said before, let’s wait it out. Even if Apple is dead set on eventually killing everything besides the App Store on whichever OS runs on Macs in the future, they can’t do it if reality doesn’t collaborate. Waiting for more data points, indeed.
n8: I agree with the need to overhaul computers, but I don’t see where it is needlessly intertwined with a) refusing to improve on things that didn’t work instead of just dumping them, and b) locking them down in an attempt to confuse a more friction-free experience with loss of control.
Gruber is correct that needing to tend to a system folder in any way makes for a bad experience, but misses where the monumental overcorrection on iOS’s part makes for a plain, barren landscape in terms of the possibility to build what you want and the freedom to bring it to who you want. Mac OS X has a lush, innovative environment, but with iOS, Apple started out by paving the earth and are starting to pipe whitelisted foliage to the surface and selling pickaxes for use within contained domes. It’s just not hard at all to concede that Mac OS X isn’t the epitome of computing while making a sane case that the iOS remodel isn’t the best way to go.
I’m not making any threats, I’m making a promise, and I’m hoping that what transpires won’t lead me to fulfill it. I’m not interested in reclining into any half, tossing insults about freetards and fascist Californians one way or the other. I acknowledge that both sides can be blinded by taking their own arguments and approaches to their extremes. I wish we could just shelve that and take the best from the old and the current to build the new.
By Jesper · 2011.01.01 18:44
“Even if Apple is dead set on eventually killing everything besides the App Store on whichever OS runs on Macs in the future, they can’t do it if reality doesn’t collaborate.”
But what reality do they need to collaborate? They don’t need you or me if they think they can make more money by selling things to other people who don’t mind a locked down OS.
The only reality they need to collaborate is an increase in their share price, and they don’t need you or me to do that.
“And as I’ve said before, let’s wait it out … Waiting for more data points, indeed.”
Again, the problem is that there isn’t much time to wait anymore. A smart developer or power user must look a few years out.
Would you, as a developer, start a new OS X software project today that isn’t AppStoreMonster compatible?
For me, as a power user, the data points of 2010 have already led me to pause buying Apple boxes and OS X software. The data points of 2010 have already led me to buy a copy of Windows for the first time in my life.
We’ll see what the next set of data brings in 2011, but it’s already getting very late in the game.
“It’s just not hard at all to concede that Mac OS X isn’t the epitome of computing while making a sane case that the iOS remodel isn’t the best way to go.”
But what matters is not being able to make a sane case for that. What matters is what Cupertino intends to do.
If you were running Apple, Jesper, I wouldn’t be painfully learning Windows. But you’re not.
If you were running Apple, Jesper, I’d assume you’d settle on a sane two OS policy that sold both kickass UNIX for Ordinary Folks™ pro boxes, and kickass game console boxes for non-pros. But Apple’s actual management has been sending signals that they’re not interested in that kind of concept going forward.
I think the preliminary decisions have already been taken in Cupertino, and they aren’t in favor of your sane case. If you want to make your case, make it now, make it loudly, and make it repeatedly. It may not matter, but by the time all the data is in, it really will be too late to do anything but grumble.
By Chucky · 2011.01.01 20:16
Calling everything that isn’t root-accessible UNIX a “game console” isn’t a sane case either. Can we please stop seeing the world through the status quo?
I would start projects that aren’t App Store compatible because there are customers there that would use applications using techniques that you can’t get through the App Store — that remain unfulfilled by definition. Continuing that market and making it thrive ensures that there are fingers in the way when you consider slamming the lid.
And even so, I would gladly start App Store-compatible projects and not put them on the App Store simply because it gives me greater flexibility as a developer. In order for them to increase this, they would need to start dismantling its core pillars.
I am certain that even if Apple handles the Mac App Store twice as smoothly as the iOS App Store, there will be a massive backlash, because it’s not the same process that you’re in control over. The part of the software industry at large that is concerned with shrinkwrap is starting to move away from brick-and-mortar stores. The Mac App Store is an introduction of several replacement millstones around their necks. The exposure and availability will be a huge draw and a big deal, but it’s not something that can’t be counteracted.
Apple can’t shut down Mac OS X tomorrow or within five years. They can cripple it, but I think they know better than that because iOS doesn’t do everything that people want. If I believed that the topic was fiction or not urgent, I wouldn’t be writing this post, but let’s be realistic about which parts are set in stone and which are shaped by actual development.
The worst case is a purge of “our kind of users” from the platform, and eventually the platform itself as it evolves into a coddled, closed husk of a replacement. But that’s the worst case, not the entire extent of possible outcomes, and everyone can play a role in tilting at the actual outcome.
By Jesper · 2011.01.01 21:00
“Calling everything that isn’t root-accessible UNIX a “game console” isn’t a sane case either.”
At the moment, sure it is.
And there is nothing wrong with game consoles. They play a useful role in my life. My TiVo HD is a kickass game console. It sure as hell ain’t root-accessible UNIX, but it does its job, and it’s got the hooks so it can pleasantly talk to my root-accessible UNIX computer.
“Can we please stop seeing the world through the status quo?”
In order to do that, we need a vision of a new status quo.
If Apple were painting a picture of a New Paradigm that wasn’t what we think of as a root-accessible UNIX computer, but still would let power users do their thing, I’d likely follow them with a smile on my face.
But that doesn’t seem to be anything like the picture Apple is painting.
And without the vision of a new status quo that seems sane, I’m afraid we’re still locked into the place where it really matters whether or not you can get root access on your computer.
By Chucky · 2011.01.01 21:46
“Apple can’t shut down Mac OS X tomorrow or within five years. They can cripple it, but I think they know better than that because iOS doesn’t do everything that people want.”
Within the next 3 years, I’m assuming they can lockdown OS X and still have it do everything that 85%+ of people want. It seems a pretty simple process to me.
By Chucky · 2011.01.01 21:54
Call me crazy, but I believe that there will be a choice for a new-but-not-iOS-like computing experience within ten years, be it from Apple or someone else. (It might even be from the group within Microsoft which is developing the next generation of Windows, although not from the group within Microsoft which has Ballmer guffaw at every Apple move and then work for 18 months to carbon copy it.)
That’s not the same thing as saying that it’ll magically appear without needing to fight for it, though.
I’ve said what I believe about the future of Mac OS X and I’m going to stick to that. You’re welcome to your own beliefs or assumptions, and as far as I know, none of us have the facts unless you’re packing a DeLorean, so that’s as close as we’re going to come to settling it today.
By Jesper · 2011.01.01 22:43
“none of us have the facts unless you’re packing a DeLorean”
No doubt.
But I’m not saying the scenario I lay out in comment #7 is guaranteed to happen.
I’m just saying that, according to my math, that scenario is a perfectly viable business option for Apple, and it’s why I think the “Apple can’t cripple OS X because iOS ain’t there yet” line of reasoning is faulty.
And, yet again, by the time we do have all the facts, it’ll be too late to do anything but grumble.
•••••
“Call me crazy, but I believe that there will be a choice for a new-but-not-iOS-like computing experience within ten years, be it from Apple or someone else”
I agree. It could be Apple, Microsoft, or someone completely else who sees an opportunity and swoops in. However, I think the New Paradigm for general purpose computers will be more of an evolution from today’s OS X than a revolution. You don’t reinvent the wheel; you just keep improving it.
But I just like being an Apple customer, and I’d consider it a loss if I had to get my dial tone from someplace else than Cupertino simply because they want to extract every last penny of revenue from idiots.
By Chucky · 2011.01.02 16:57
Admittedly, and you can make it a damn fine wheel. But hoverboards are not in any way evolved from the wheel.
By Jesper · 2011.01.02 19:33
“Admittedly, and you can make it a damn fine wheel. But hoverboards are not in any way evolved from the wheel.”
Three thousand years after the Hyksos used the wheel to conquer the Pharaohs, we discovered the magic of engines powered by fossil fuels. And we immediately set about attaching that magic to the wheel.
Core technologies generally develops through a process that looks a lot like accretion.
(Working hoverboards and jetpacks would be damn cool game consoles, however…)
By Chucky · 2011.01.02 20:09
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail_(metaphor)
The expression “third rail” is loaded. Perhaps you mean “third track”?
By Cory · 2011.01.03 00:51
On one hand I don’t think Apple will block apps from non-App Store channels on Mac OS X. That’d mean blocking everything, from plugins to shell scripts to AppleScripts, otherwise there’ll always be a way to create and launch an unauthorized application. The Mac is Apple’s development machine. Having to sign every script, every piece of executable on a development machine would be a nightmare for everyone with an automated workflow, and this includes both independent developers and Apple’s own developers.
On the other side, Apple has taken some very stupid stance from a programmer’s perspective recently (like banning abstraction layers on iOS…). They reversed this decision under pressure from the government, but it tells a lot about the mindset of the decision makers. I haven’t much trust in their sanity when things revolves around the App Store.
One thing that developers will have to do is make sure users are still aware there’s a lot of apps available outside of the App Store too. I fear many users, used to the iOS App Store exclusivity, forget there’s other apps to be found out there… we’ll see how it turns out.
By Michel Fortin · 2011.01.03 15:10
Cory: It was an ironic reference to the third rail, given Apple’s aversion to it on iOS (although not on Mac OS X).
Michel: Like so many other things, I see it as a case of waiting out the freakshow and never letting the sun set on the sound alternative. Most people do not feel that the [iOS, for the remainder of this comment] App Store is a good model, but understand that it may be expedient, by which I mean big, slow and stupid but still much more controllable. Eventually, the tide will turn inside Apple as well.
It’s hard to run the App Store, and it’s even harder to run the App Store well and fairly. They can’t run it as strict as they’d like to because then they’d squeeze the life out of it, and no one would see the use. So they have to compromise and keep growing the operation. Apple’s not good with that. It’s hard to sustain with steady activity and harder still with growth. Maybe the worst thing that could happen would be that they stabilize against Android at a size where they can just still manage everything.
By Jesper · 2011.01.03 18:28
“On one hand I don’t think Apple will block apps from non-App Store channels on Mac OS X … The Mac is Apple’s development machine. Having to sign every script, every piece of executable on a development machine would be a nightmare for everyone with an automated workflow, and this includes both independent developers and Apple’s own developers.”
That’s easy. Do both of the following:
1) Charge $99 or $199 per year to get a developer certificate that gives you root access to your machine.
2) Stop making consumer hardware that runs OS X in a root-accessible manner. If you want to develop, you’ll have to buy a $3,000 Mac Pro. (Maybe they won’t even call it a Mac anymore. It’ll be called an Apple development console.)
That should eliminate pretty much everyone but actual working developers. Not to mention that utilities that non-developing power users rely on will no longer have an large enough audience to justify development, making it even easier to force everyone but actual working developers onto the locked-down platform.
More importantly, simply let OS X separate from the AppStoreMonster wither on the vine over the next 3 years.
For example, notice how Apple has stopped providing power hooks for new features in OS X development in the past few years. Things like Spaces and Expose and CoverFlow are great, but notice how no AppleScript or UI accessibility hooks for GUI scripting have been added for those features, many years after their introduction.
If Apple wants to let OS X wither on the vine for power users, simply stop developing System Events.app. (As well as a host of stuff like deprecating Java for cross-platform apps.) And that’s precisely what Apple’s done over the past few years.
In addition, I expect in the next year to two that we’ll begin seeing features that AppStoreMonster apps have access to that are not available to non-AppStoreMonster apps.
Three years from now, when Steve-o stands up for his keynote and puts up a slide on how 85%+ of new OS X users have only AppStoreMonster apps on their machines, the protests for the lockdown will be muted and irrelevant.
Imagine a scenario where Apple needs to sell a handful of machines to developers, and wants to sell locked down “Mac” machines to the 99% of everyone else to extract the most revenue. It’s not hard to do. They should be able to get everything in place for the transition within three years rather easily.
As always, I’m not saying I’m guaranteeing this is the path that Cupertino will take. But I am saying that the signals they have been sending are all about taking this path. And I’m also saying this path is probably their best method to maximize their share price in the mid-term, which is all they seem to care about.
By Chucky · 2011.01.04 14:49
Chucky: I know it’s not that hard form a technological standpoint. I know Mac OS X can be locked down. I think however you’re underestimating the consequences of such a lockdown. Just think of web developers, researchers, or even hobbyists who’re learning programming, will they be willing to pay Apple for the privilege of developing on the Mac? If Apple wants to show the door all the non-App developers then a lockdown is probably what they want.
The other problem is the applications themselves. Even Photoshop has its own scripting system (actions) which allows you to manipulate files. Will Photoshop be allowed in the App Store with the same features it has on Windows? If so, will other applications capable of executing user-generated scripts be allowed too? And if so, what prevents someone from writing a full shell inside an application?
I’m not saying it won’t happen. It could happen, especially since it could be beneficial for the security of many users to have a more locked down system. If it happens however, I’m pretty sure unlocking it won’t involve an annual fee to Apple. I say I’m pretty sure, but then I don’t really trust Apple when it comes to the App Store, so I might be wrong too. Time will tell.
By Michel Fortin · 2011.01.05 15:08
“I know it’s not that hard form a technological standpoint. I know Mac OS X can be locked down.”
I’m asserting it’s not that hard from a business standpoint.
“The other problem is the applications themselves. Even Photoshop has its own scripting system (actions) which allows you to manipulate files. Will Photoshop be allowed in the App Store with the same features it has on Windows? “
Well, three years is a decent amount of time for Adobe and Microsoft to get AppStoreMonster compliant.
And, of course, the AppStoreMonster rules are essentially ad hoc, which means Apple could let certain apps into the AppStoreMonster even if they don’t fully play by the rules, just as long as Apple deems them crucial from a business standpoint.
Finally, Cupertino doesn’t serve all markets. Just because content creators were big for Apple in the 1980′s doesn’t mean that Apple won’t blink about letting them go if they think they can gain more money elsewhere in the 2010′s.
“I’m not saying it won’t happen.”
I’m not saying that I’m guaranteeing that it will happen. I’m just saying that it sure seems to be the direction we’re headed, as best as we can tell from the smoke signals coming out of Cupertino.
“It could happen, especially since it could be beneficial for the security of many users to have a more locked down system.”
I believe this to be nonsense.
If it happens, it’ll happen because it’s beneficial to Apple’s share price; because it’s beneficial to Apple’s ability to extract “beyond the box” revenue from “Mac” users. That’d be the entire rationale from Cupertino’s POV.
When was the last Steve Jobs speech where he didn’t make a special point of emphasis about just how many credit card numbers the iTunes Store has on file?
Apple could make beneficial tweaks to the OS X security model while still allowing users to override protections if those users so chose. They don’t need to move to an iOS model for security reasons. That’s not what a lockdown would be about.
John Gruber will relentlessly spin a lockdown as beneficial to users on security grounds, but that’s not why it would happen.
“but then I don’t really trust Apple when it comes to the App Store”
The nice thing about Steve Jobs’ unwillingness to outright lie is that Apple hasn’t even been asking anyone to trust them when it comes to the App Store.
They’re being reasonably up-front about their discretion to do evil with the AppStoreMonster. I respect the non-lying, but I’m still learning Redmond’s OS and putting a pause on buying new Apple boxes…
By Chucky · 2011.01.05 18:46