Of course you're not excited about this. You're a brilliant nerd who founded a startup that invented a new programming language. This isn't for you. Or for me.
Getting to be Nerd Jesus every time a computer runs into trouble is gratifying. We get to be important. We get to trick out our gear to do all kinds of goofy, custom stuff. We get to build things that are neat.
Serving our needs is certainly important. It's important, also, to understand that we are the minority. Everyone else just wants a tool that works. The majority of human beings on earth find computers to be mystifying, frustrating, even scary things. Absent Nerd Jesus, the computer just seems to have a mind of its own. It has its own agenda and interacting with it is an exercise in guesswork and black magic.
What the iPad, and the iPhone before it, has taught us is simple: people want a computer they understand. They want technology, but optimizing for Nerd Jesus has given them shit technology that doesn't respect them, so they're used to being defensive around it.
This is all a long way of saying that I agree with you – this could be a first step in "locking down the platform" for you and me. And streamlining it so it's actually useful for everyone else who doesn't fetishize the Terminal, kernel extensions or compilers.
I think there will always be a place for Nerd Jesus to do his thing. But instead of being the focus of the market, we're finally going to focus on the vast majority of what most people actually care about doing.
We'll see what it costs us from a nerd perspective. I suspect it's less than we think – aside from the high of our indispensability as troubleshooters, of course.
What the iPad, and the iPhone before it, has taught us is simple: people want a computer they understand. They want technology, but optimizing for Nerd Jesus has given them shit technology that doesn't respect them, so they're used to being defensive around it.
...except that so many Apple fans have also retroactively determined that OS X is actually completely unusable unless you're an uber-nerd.
And streamlining it so it's actually useful for everyone else who doesn't fetishize the Terminal, kernel extensions or compilers.
How does getting rid of the terminal improve the experience for the average user who has no idea it even exists?
A product like the iPad, which didn't exist a year ago, provides an interesting reference for what computing could be outside the existing rules. My mom has a much, much easier time using the iPad than her Mac, and can do many of the same tasks with it.
Oh, orangecat. Look at these strawmen.
> OS X is actually completely unusable unless you're an uber-nerd.
Not really. It's just a lot more usable for nerds. And less so the less you know about technology. Again, compare this to the iPad, whose usability remains about the same regardless of where you exist in the tech savviness distribution. Once you learn how to use it, which is easy, you're fine.
> How does getting rid of the terminal improve the experience
It... doesn't. Liking the terminal, like caring about compilers or kernel extensions, signals being a technical user. Getting rid of kexts or gcc would be similarly irrelevant to the user experience.
Apple dedicated a huge chunk of today's talk, and consequently a huge chunk of development resources, to their creative tools. The whole bicycle for the mind stuff – this is very important to Apple's overall mission, history and perception.
And in the end, being technically creative is something I think they'll always want to support. I don't know what form it will take but I do not think Apple is going to turn its backs on the sort of people who can help them make the very best stuff for their platforms.
It reminds me of At Ease, actually. When I was a kid, I was tired of the rest of the family breaking the computer in one way or another. So I set up At Ease for a couple of years and everything was great. When I needed the Mac, I'd log into the desktop proper.
I doubt the final mainstream outcome will be as draconian in its limitations as was At Ease. But I think it will be just as simple. And hopefully, just as opt-out for everyone who needs more.
I've run Linux on the desktop in one form or another (laptop, desktop, or server) since Red Hat Linux 6.2. That was over a decade ago. And, guess what? We're still fighting over GNOME vs. KDE (or fluxbox), and apt-get vs yum (or port), .rpm vs .deb (or .tar.gz). You still can't grab a package from Ubuntu and install it on your Fedora box (well, not without a tremendous amount of headache), and if you go strictly upstream, you have to be at the terminal every time a new version comes out (./configure + remember the build options you want, make, make install).
Windows, unfortunately, is in the middle, and it's still, 15 years later, a virus-prone rooted-zombie mess, albeit with a supposedly pretty good modern browser coming real soon now.
> Of course you're not excited about this. You're a brilliant nerd who
> founded a startup that invented a new programming language. This isn't for
> you. Or for me.
> Getting to be Nerd Jesus every time a computer runs into trouble is
> gratifying. We get to be important. We get to trick out our gear to do all
> kinds of goofy, custom stuff. We get to build things that are neat.
Secondly, what does 'tricking out your gear to do all kinds of goofy, custom stuff' have to do with being 'Nerd Jesus?' Would you call car-modders 'Auto Jesus' if they were to complain that an car company made it harder to perform 3rd party modifications to their products?
How does building neat things and 'tricking out your gear' make you 'Nerd Jesus' or make it so that you 'get to be important?'
> Serving our needs is certainly important. It's important, also, to
> understand that we are the minority. Everyone else just wants a tool that
> works. The majority of human beings on earth find computers to be
> mystifying, frustrating, even scary things. Absent Nerd Jesus, the computer
> just seems to have a mind of its own. It has its own agenda and interacting
> with it is an exercise in guesswork and black magic.
> What the iPad, and the iPhone before it, has taught us is simple: people
> want a computer they understand. They want technology, but optimizing for
> Nerd Jesus has given them shit technology that doesn't respect them, so
> they're used to being defensive around it.
> This is all a long way of saying that I agree with you – this could be a
> first step in "locking down the platform" for you and me. And streamlining
> it so it's actually useful for everyone else who doesn't fetishize the
> Terminal, kernel extensions or compilers.
To frame this discussion a little differently, do you believe that instituting a police state would result in a more stream-lined society?
Things like kernel extensions and compilers aren't "going away." Apple is just trying their best to obfuscate them, and the fears in technical groups is that Apple wants to make it impossible to access them. Are you really of the mind that it is impossible to have a stream-lined experience on a technical device if the possibility of gaining access to a compiler exists?
Most of people's annoyance with iOS is not that it's streamlined. It's that Apple wants to be the gatekeeper, who gets to tell you what kind of software you can run on your device. There are plenty of types of software that are outside of the realm of uber technical people that Apple will not allow on the device that would enhance the lives of many.
> I think there will always be a place for Nerd Jesus to do his thing. But
> instead of being the focus of the market, we're finally going to focus on
> the vast majority of what most people actually care about doing.
> We'll see what it costs us from a nerd perspective. I suspect it's less
> than we think – aside from the high of our indispensability as
> troubleshooters, of course.
To all that upvoted this: Really HN? Really? Anyone that doesn't want a locked-down system is just some 'stupid nerd' that thinks he's going to lose his 'in' with pretty girls because they won't need their computers fixed? That seems to be the crux of this argument.
Besides, Apple are being much more liberal re iOS approval of late - the old times are long gone except the odd mistake here and there.
EDIT: I wonder if this will act as a proving ground for apple re dual App Store + adhoc distribution ala android market?
EDIT2: I'm just going to come out and say it... At times I worry about installing random dmgs I find on the web. If Apple can approve the apps and ensure they are genuine and won't harm my system then I wouldn't be surprised if I'd end up switching to the Mac App Store for all my apps... With exceptions for companies I know well. This is a potentially an awesome social-engineering solution to malware/viruses in the long-run.
EDIT3: Final edit as my startup won't launch itself! :P To anyone suggesting Apple will take away adhoc OSX installations and replace purely with Mac store: 1/ On what timescale? This would be very long-term - we'd adapt 2/ Is it really a problem? See Edit2 above for at least one benefit.
I personally don't think Apple would try to go this way, but I also didn't think they'd be such pains in the ass about cross-compiled applications getting on to iOS devices (i.e. Flash apps compiled down to work on iOS).
As for integrity - personally I think they've done many things that lacked integrity. The language ban was very low and put many small companies that were developing cross compilers right out of business. That's a huge ethical issue even if you think it was justified for whatever reasons Jobs claimed it was necessary.
Today OSX users are very fortunate that they don't have to deal with viruses or spyware, but the good times will change eventually and Apple will lose the marketing advantage of being able to brag about being worry-free. If they felt that their market would be interested in some kind of Apple version of Microsoft Bob then why wouldn't they pursue that?
You clearly seem to be a fan of Apple's products, help me understand how speculating on the possibility of Apple converging its operating systems is even remotely FUD?
Google says "do no evil" yet arbitrarily punishes websites with ranking, cancels people's adwords and adsense accounts, and employes (apparently) zero customer service and has no interest in resolving any issues people might have.
Microsoft- do I really need to go over the history of microsoft's lapses in integrity?
Dell-- was making all of its profit via kickbacks from intel and failed to report it to investors, denying investors an honest accounting of how its business was really cratering.
I could go on....
Apple brands itself as "different" and progressive, using '60s counterculture icons, then turns into the most prudish schoolmarm imaginable and bans any app that could offend anyone — including a Pulitzer-winning political satirist, and any book-reading app that doesn't explicitly block you from reading the Kama Sutra. I swear I am not making that second example up.
Apple proceeds to promise developers that adult-oriented apps will be accepted once parental controls are in, accepts a bunch of them at that time, then retroactively removes all of them from the store with no recourse for the developers. Apple also arbitrarily rejects apps (much more viciously than Google rejects Web pages — Google around and you'll read horror stories), and kept Google Voice in approval limbo for more than a year.
Not saying it's fixed, but I do think it's a lot better.
REPLY TO EDIT2: The iOS App Store's review process doesn't do much for security. As demonstrated by the flashlight WiFi proxy app it's trivial to get code (malicious or not) past the reviewers. The security on iPhone comes from sandboxing of apps.
With the phone, it was a new device, and in many ways, it makes sense to lock it down.
The Mac has a 25 year legacy, and if they were to take away that choice, so many people would leave the platform. Apple might be jerks a lot of the time, but they're hardly stupid.
Absolutely. It's happened (and happening) to Android. Carriers block rooting. Carriers block sideloading. Carriers add apps that can't be removed. They swap search engines and remove the settings. Each time a change flies in the marketplace, they get emboldened.
Today, experiencing the "choice" Android promised is contingent on flawless and thorough research, with tomorrow looking increasingly worse.
But where's the earnest geek concern about the slippery slope when we talk about Android fragmentation? That ball is busily picking up speed, but we don't talk about it.
We talk about how fragmentation isn't real or isn't a big deal. Even while every tom, dick and harry lets loose their plans of an Android future that doesn't include Google's marketplace, likely won't include side-loading, rooting or half the "choice" we like to pretend separates Android from iOS.
Yet in the context of Apple --where this change would require Apple reversing momentum, against developer wishes, after having quite publicly reversed the scope-creep of 3.3.1 after developer backlash-- we seem to be unable to talk about anything else.
So while an Apple U-turn is a legitimate concern, it's still FUD to put this big a spotlight onto it for those two big reasons:
1. Recent evidence suggests, if anything, it's less-likely than ever.
2. The focus is completely out of proportion with what the issue receives in other contexts.
The more realistic outcome out of this is that the App Store will be so popular that it marginalizes any developer who uses any other method of distribution.
That, I see as a negative, and more likely outcome than a complete application lockdown on the OS.
It's also worth noting that the slippery slope argument is widely regarded as a fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
I know CS5 is now 64-bit on both Windows and OSX, but the OSX users had to wait an extra 18 months because of Apple, not because of Adobe.
Also, a lot of us who develop on OS X actually use the unix tool chain. Something like homebrew or fink just won't fit into the app store framework.
Edit: that said, I do see the positive aspects of it. So long as it is permanently optional, I think it's a good thing. Sadly, it seems Apple does not have good relationship with it's developers. At least if you take the number of fearful comments as evidence.
Matlab, Photoshop, etc, are not compatible with the guidelines, so unless Apple wants to do away with entire market segments, they're going to continue allowing traditional development and installs, with the App Store being an optional distribution method.
It seems pretty clear to me that this is aimed at enticing small developers who are interested in finding a way to get exposure and don't want to deal with the hassle of setting up their own licensing and billing infrastructure. It's probably great for a one-man hobbyist looking to turn a small profit on the side.
It's manifestly not going to be interesting to companies that already have mind-share and marketing arms and multiple retail channels, and why would it be? They don't need the exposure or the overhead.
That more than anything else ought to indicate that this isn't some dastardly plot to lock down the desktop.
Many Mac developers initially learnt by making small apps and making them available to everyone. I bet the iPhone App Store would have a lot less crap on it if new developers were able to learn iPhone development without having to pay a subscription and put their first apps on the App Store (and no, ad hoc does not count).
Meanwhile, those of us who have been developers for apple platforms during that time have never seen apple screw us over and find this kind of fear to be asinine.
It makes for good press to boost your page views, though, and so any burp eminating from cupertino is used to rationalize wild speculation and assertiosn that it is proof that steve jobs is a control freak who wants to run your life.
Apple introduced App signing in Leopard. You've been able to produce signed apps since around that time. That's all the appstore on the mac needs. Apple won't care what toolchain you use...
As a multi-platform developer that doesn't use objective-c, but still finding OS X to be a great development platform, I am very much distrustful of Apple. Why? Because of how they've conducted themselves with iOS.
Is such fear reasonable? I feel it is. Mostly because I don't see users such as myself to be in Apples current or future target market. Few to no new features target users like myself, and the iOS platform is almost hostile towards anything that doesn't fit with Apple technologies and apis.
Not only that, but iOS has been extremely successful for them in terms of income. It makes a lot of business sense that they would want to push OS X towards the same highly profitable model. I do hope that they keep OS X as open as it is now, but I'd say the mistrust is very reasonable.
You must be terrified by all things in general.
Hint: there's an easy fix for that. Search for people reviews on that download service or app ;)
Remember, OSX is mainstream now. And mainstream is not sourceforge/github/aptitude/macports
Ultimately I don't think that they will ever take away the ability to run arbitrary code on their desktop OS.
In practice, it seems like the difficulty of getting eyeballs and converting them into sales is generally much more likely to kill your app than having Apple reject it. Optimizing for the latter case is not rational unless you have a strong reason to believe your app will be rejected.
Cohabitation: it could be fatal! Best to be avoided.
As much as I want to sell offline web apps to any platform, that store doesn't yet exist.
In order to lock down the desktop so as to make a Mac App Store the only way to obtain executable content, Apple would have to fundamentally re-invent the way people build iOS and OS X apps. I just don't see developers sticking with the platform once Xcode is a hosted web app. Chasing away their developer community would effectively cede the market for mobile apps to Android.
Apple's strategic, long term focus is clearly and unambiguously "mobile computing for the common man." Providing a dirt-simple app distribution platform makes sense within the context of mobile computing. Making it substantially harder to create iOS apps, relative to other mobile platforms, is contrary to Apple's strategic goals.
If any discounts amounted to more than the cost of the premium developer content (i.e., $99), non-developers would pay the fee just to get the discounts.
More likely is that more of Apple's product line, and more of everyone's computing, will shift to iOs.
I'd bet there's a huge number of computer owners who don't understand or don't care to buy and install software. They get their computer from Dell preloaded with Office 20XX and never (intentionally) install software again. Apple is creating a market of normal people who impulse-buy software.
Well... It's still exciting, specially if you root for Apple's competition ;-)
EDIT: to all the replies about how you still have a choice of distribution on OS X: yes, you do right now, but who knows how long that will last? As I said, this might be the first step in locking down the platform. I don't believe this will happen in 1 or 2 or 3 years, but maybe 5 years.