Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I avoid buying from the mac app store as much as possible.

If Apple ever decided to change mac os x to no longer allow external applications, I would switch to Linux right away. I don't want to do that because I do like the os X better a GUI... But there's no way I'd stay on a system that wouldn't allow me to do what I want with it.



> If Apple ever decided to change mac os x to no longer allow external applications, I would switch to Linux right away.

Even if that did happen, which it wouldn't, what would stop you from compiling the application yourself, theoretically? If Apple computers allow for compilation of their own software, which they probably always will given that a Mac is the only way you can make OS X or iOS apps at this time, then OS X will never get to a point like the iPad wherein you are very limited in what you can do.


Maybe you'll only be able to run your own software after getting an expensive code signing certificate and going through an identity verification process. Or it'll be like games consoles, with the "dev" versions being different from the retail ones.


They're actually moving in the opposite direction. With iOS 9, you no longer need an expensive code signing certificate to load your own software onto an iPhone.


You can compile software for iOS too. If you consider this to be an adequate escape hatch for the Mac, then it must also be one for iOS. If OS X "will never get to a point like the iPad" then the iPad can't get to that point either!


But you can't compile software for iOS on iOS, can you? You'd need an iPad + Mac to compile the software. You don't need {{external machine with different OS}} + Mac to compile OSX software.


That is true, so we could limit it to "if you own a Mac" then the iPad is not limited. But basically nobody actually bothers to work around the limitations in this way, aside from recent events surrounding f.lux.


What if they restrict running compilers?

Edit: I see from down votes that people disagree with this idea (no problem with that).

Still, why not?

You need a developer licence for iOS that effectively means that you are restricted to run compilers on iOS.

Why not extend it to OSX?


Because you would lose your customers. If my operating system limits me from doing things that I can do on other platforms and I want to do them, I will simply not use the system.

Are you realizing Mac is used also by creative people that use Adobe tools, tools for 3D and so on and if everything was sandboxed you couldn't do it anymore.


To reply to sibling: Apple has never catered to PC power users, going back to Jobs arguing against slots in the Apple ][ and getting his way in the first Mac. That a Mac user at all is now considered a power user indicates which way the wind is blowing. Apple's pointed in the right direction.

Given that the PC is an increasingly obsolete platform for most people, I don't think Apple's going to expend a lot of energy changing the status quo one way or another. Its style is to start over from scratch.


Their ecosystem is powered by power users, who do you think is creating apps, games, design, books, videos and so on? If Apple forces to move these users out, they will probably focus on other platforms where they are not so restricted.


Are you realizing Mac is used also by creative people that use Adobe tools, tools for 3D and so on.

I.e. not programmers but users of software from big software companies.

and if everything was sandboxed you couldn't do it anymore.

Yes, you could not run arbitrary programs and Apple may see it as a feature.

You seem to be in big denial as it would be horrible thing to happen. I still see this as very likely possibility.


Of course, it is a horrible thing to happen. Just to give you some apps from my dock.

Chrome, Spotify, Outlook, HipChat, Viber, Skype, SourceTree, Atom, Sketch, Dropbox.

All these would be not be usable because they are not sandboxed. Basically I would have to install Windows on my Macbook and I would virtualize Mac OS X so I can use Xcode and I would use Windows for everything else.

It would be suicide for Mac OS X and if you think Apple is so stupid to do it, okay then...


SourceTree, Atom are not needed by an Apple usual user.

Others are Apple competitors.

It would be suicide for Mac OS X and if you think Apple is so stupid to do it, okay then...

They dried to get rid of Google Maps on iOS.


I don't think apple tried to get rid of maps.

Instead, they allowed their contract with google to end and built their own clone to prevent google from using it to blackmail apple.

I disagree that's anything like getting rid of google maps, particularly since my partner still uses it on her iphone all the time.


Well, I remember it differently. Here is one example: http://www.businessinsider.com/ios-6-removes-google-maps-201...


A: Business Insider is rarely a source of truth, at least when it comes to anything Apple. "Click bait" seems to be their sole goal in life.

B: Apple never precluded Google from putting their own Maps app into the store, they simply replaced the preinstalled version with their own when (if memory serves) Google both demanded too much user information and declined to offer vector-based maps


which google did by sometime in dec '12


What would they gain at the end? I would leave their system and also many others. Thinking people would switch just to Apple products is naive.


What would they gain at the end?

Control and from there perhaps more money.

I would leave their system and also many others.

Yes, but what if there are only about 100k of such people?


There is too many ifs and perhaps... stop speculating. If it was really good choice, they would already do it.


Well, the original question was What if they restrict running compilers? and not What if they remove compilers?.

Restriction might be a requirement of special licence.

This would effectively remove ability to execute arbitrary code from most of the users.

The ones who want to run arbitrary code or develop software will have to pay. If someone complains about this, they would be told to shut up and would be explained how this is actually a benefit for majority of the users.

Anyway, I will stop here.

Edit: I think that Apple is not doing it only because it is not their focus at the moment.


Apple is going actually in opposite way and you can see it with recent changes on iOS. To run apps on iPhone, you don't need to buy a developer licence for 100$ anymore. They support more extensions for apps. On last Apple keynote Microsoft was presenting Microsoft Office running on iPad Pro.

The special licence you are talking about actually exists. You can sign your Mac apps with a certificate and it will not ask a user if you want to open it, but this is not restrictive at all. This is actually a benefit because nobody can modify your app so if they would force this, I wouldn't mind. Most of apps that I use are signed anyway.


I hope it goes better (the future of liberty in computing seems very dim), but I would be not surprised if it goes to the opposite direction accompanied by big ovations.


Apple's core customers are iPhone and iPad customers now. They realized that catering to consumer electronics customers is far more profitable than catering to pc power users, and adjusted everything to fit the profit model that makes them the most money. At times, I wish they had spun off Apple Computer as a separate entity with OS X so that the computer division wouldn't have to sit and play fourth seat to the rest of the business.


They sell a lot of Macs http://9to5mac.com/2015/10/27/apple-earnings-fy15-q3-2/ Killing that segment would be silly from them.


It is silly, yet Apple continues to do things that are hostile to power users.


> what would stop you from compiling the application yourself, theoretically?

What do you do about third party closed source Mac software?


I don't want to do that because I do like the os X better a GUI

I think that in the current pity world of 16:9 displays, actually Ubuntu has the most logical GUI layout because they conserve the vertical screen real estate as much as possible. This means they merge global toolbar, menu and window title bar when windows are maximized.

I see that OSX has followed this trend but their solution seems to be more ad-hoc and application based that it does not feel natural for me.


This is relevant on the laptops or devices with smaller screens mostly, 1080p(24in) monitors are fairly common those days which gives more than enough screen estate to fit at least 2 side by side windows, ~100 char width text is recommended width for text reading.

And as for linux distro with a good GUI I would suggest looking into Elementary OS which is a ubuntu based and UX oriented. I used it on a daily basis for about 6 months and had good experience (not excellent though, it has some issues but what doesn't?)


I would switch if I could find a good open source RAW image editor to rival Photoshop.


Not a direct photoshop replacement, but for specific photo editing of RAW photos, have you tried darktable? (http://www.darktable.org/)

It's not as good as Lightroom, but I'd say it's 80% of the way there, and you can replicate some of the missing functionality with other applications.


The latest Photoshop on Linux is quite attainable; I have CC running smoothly via VMWare Worksation 12 / Windows 7 (new versions of VMWare have DirectX/OpenGL and let you allocate GPU memory)

... but unfortunately that combines 2 proprietary solutions so guess it doesn't exactly fit your criteria.


So "Photoshop on Linux" means "Photoshop on Windows on Linux"... that's not really a solution. That's Windows.


Heh, good point at least though with this setup you don't have to boot into it or use it for anything else.


I've been using RawTherapee for a few months. It doesn't rival Photoshop, but it is useful.


Photoshop runs pretty well on virtualbox last time I tried it (~6 months ago). That was for very very basic projects though, not sure how it behaves in big ones


Or simply a linux port of the creative suite?


Yeah, simply.


I feel the same way. And it's funny how many people think along similar lines and then go straight to their iPhone without a second thought. It's as if because it's always been that way with the iPhone (no external apps) that it makes it ok.


I think one reason is that you use your Mac to create/develop, whereas you use your iPhone to consume (I'm obviously generalizing). You need more flexibility and control with tools that you use to create/develop.


I only have an iPhone because I need to have one for testing and developing. I've always kept my iphone jailbroken for this very reason.


Because limitations imposed by iOS are not limiting me from things that I want to do and benefits outweighs negatives.


[deleted]


Would you prefer exclusive Mac OS games through Steam or Mac App Store?


Steam all day, especially after this disaster of expired certificates this year [0]. I had a copy of a game from 2007 that will probably never be touched by the developers again, which leaves me $20 in the hole with a broken game. I bought it again from Steam, works better than the App Store version ever did.

[0]: http://www.macrumors.com/2015/11/17/apple-responds-mac-app-s...


I am sorry to hear you had such a bad experience. This game, was it a OSX/iOS exclusive or cross-platform AAA game?


AAA, Call of Duty 4


Ah alright. Yeah that's the impression I get as well. Cross platform games would probably be better bought from Steam than MAS.

While games that might focus on Apple would be better through the App Stores.


I wouldn't be too afraid of the Linux GUIs. With the amount of customization that is available for these you can probably make it operate very similar to the way your OS X GUI does. Granted that could take some extra work on your part.


It would take a ton of polish that I don't believe any non-corporate team could accomplish. There is elementaryOS, which is my favorite Linux distro. It's absolutely beautiful and looks a lot like OSX, but OSX is still much more enjoyable to use, for reasons I can't exactly specify.


If you like the OS X user interface, you'll feel right at home with https://elementary.io


> there's no way I'd stay on a system that wouldn't allow me to do what I want with it.

But there's a big difference between allowing you to do something and allowing you to not change the way you do something.


> But there's a big difference between allowing you to do something and allowing you to not change the way you do something.

I've read this sentence 5 times and I'm still not sure what you mean. Can you expound, please?

I'd say that semantics aside, it's pretty black and white: either OSX allows users to install apps as they please, or they don't.


I just mean it's easy to conflate a reluctance to change one's process with changing software capabilities.

I prefer to edit video on iOS over Windows/OSX but it required me to change how I get video editing done.


EDIT: That would be suicide (for the whatever 5% of their sales the mac brings in!). If they imposed a rule like that AND continued to neglect the app store the way they do, droves of developers would leave.

Unless they rethink or overhaul their sandboxing system to allow a bigger class of applications (essentially, most of what's out there), they won't be able to move power users to the App Store.


> That would be suicide

Most big companies commit suicide. If you think OS X and the MacBook Pro users are being neglected now, just wait until they have the car.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: