Posted on 01/07/2011 10:16:46 AM PST by stripes1776
Earlier today, Apple officially launched its application store for Macintosh, with about 1,000 free and paid applications available. Snow Leopard users download the Mac OS X 10.6.6 update, and the store is included. But people using the software are in for a change. Consumers typically buy software by machine. Those people buying from the Mac App Store purchase by person. The software is attached to an identity. This is a dramatic departure from how consumer software is typically licensed.
Licensing agreements typically restrict installation on one PC, sometimes two or even three...
The Mac App Store changes the paradigm and usage rights associated with it. Buyers use an existing Apple ID (usually from iTunes) or create another. Software purchases are tied to that identity, not the PC. If a licensee buys another Mac, he or she can redownload the software using the same ID without paying again. People buying music from iTunes or apps for iPad, iPhone from iTunes are used to this kind of identity approach, but it's not common for computer software.
...
The rights are hugely generous and more in line with consumer expectations: That they buy software once and use it anywhere within the household. According to the Mac App Store FAQ: "Apps from the Mac App Store may be used on any Macs that you own or control for your personal use." Emphasis: Any. Not three Macs, or five or any other number. Considering that most software is licensed for one PC -- although many developers probably don't have realistic expectation of 1:1 installation -- any is quite a change. Something else: applications purchased from the store do not require activation keys, registration numbers or serial numbers. Only the Apple ID and password are required.
Actually, it's not a website. It is a service that Apple offers by means of an application that comes on the Mac operating system. It provides an easy way to purchase apps. Also a lot of the apps at the Mac App Store are free.
Without seeing it, i’m sure that the mac store is “cool”. Apple stuff typically is. Cool and typically much more expensive.
Yes, it is very cool. But the apps are not very expensive. As above, a lot of the apps are free.
Yeah, I’m not saying the apps are expensive. The computers are. And yeah, not a website. Apple is big on things like that. Like Itunes. Apple really likes to put things in its own software that it could easily do with a standard website on the internet.
So, you understand. There are certainly the risks, but people don’t care. I’m just saying that what we have right now, free software, easy to get, the way it has been for a long long time, it’s hard to see exactly how gee whiz it is.
And I’m not really dumping on Apple’s new download thing. I haven’t seen it. It probably is a clean, easy to use, visually attractive. Certainly it’s something. And Microsoft doesn’t really have that thing. If you want to buy software really really easy, Apple has it and Microsoft doesn’t.
But I don’t see how its quite as revolutionary as people try to say it is. I already know about downloading software.
This seems like a great opportunity for people who just realized they could download software on their computers to tell Windows people this, or any people who know what computers can do.
Licenses can get pretty stupid. Back when Quark was king, they wanted a newspaper to pay for all new licenses because they were moving their offices. According to Quark, the license was for the old location, and didn’t cover the new one.
There is the little fact that you won’t be violating anyone’s copyright by using the App Store as opposed to the Pirate Bay. Developers will actually be making money for their work.
I tried an app from the App Store and it was the easiest thing I’ve ever seen on a desktop. I clicked it, and a few seconds later it had been installed on my Mac, sitting right there in the Dock ready for me to launch.
I worked in print production in the early '90s, and everyone in the business had a love-hate relationship with XPress (the software) and a hate-hate relationship with Quark (the company).
Quark was incredibly slow with bug fixes, and positively glacial with updates for new hardware and OS revisions. Knowing Quark workarounds was a core professional competency. Production shops kept 680x0 machines around, and in later years kept OS 9 around, years after the rest of the world while they were waiting for a stable Quark on PowerPC and OS X. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still shops with PowerPC machines because Quark has lingering issues with Intel.
As you mentioned, Quark was insufferable with licensing terms. They were the 800-pound gorilla in the industry, and threw that weight around in ways that were downright abusive. I do not know of any software product that was more eagerly awaited or enthusiastically embraced than InDesign, more because of disgust with Quark than a deep and abiding love for Adobe.
You could say the same thing about iTunes. It was possible to steal music before iTunes, but not to buy it legally, conveniently and inexpensively. iTunes was gee-whiz enough to become the world's largest music retailer in the span of a few years.
i’m trying to recall the old days of mp3s. mp3.com was big.
i know that there were others. amazon sells a lot now.
Itunes did well in part because mp3s were fairly new. Software has been around a long time. People with Windows really don’t have a problem getting software. Whether it’s free, or freeware, shareware or pay. I’m not saying this is a bad thing at all for mac users, I’m sure it’s an improvement for them.
The exception is the arrangement MS has with OEM hardware companies for installing Windows. Other than that, you're right. The software is licensed to you, not the machine.
Not sure if the author of the article doesn't understand that, or does but doesn't think we do so he can get away with proclaiming this to be some kind of big new thing in how software is licensed.
Surely you are not implying that Photoshop, through Apple’s App store, will now have unlimited licenses, or not need licences for every computer it is installed on? Nor Windows Office for Apple?
As a Droid phone owner, I know the power of apps, but I don’t think the big software vendors will suddenly give up all the profit that individual licenses provide them. Yeah, little apps that do some small specific thing, but the big complex code suites? Those guys want to get paid.
Perhaps someday someone will develop a BETTER and CHEAPER app than the big vendor programs, one that will go head-to-head with them with the same functionality, but then they may get into all kinds of copyright problems if they code for that vendor’s file type, specifications, etc. For example, look at Open Office. It’s free, but Microsoft still sells the vast majority of desktop application suite software.
I am certainly opposed to piracy. Anyone who downloads for pay code for free from some hacker site is violating the law. I thought Free Republic was a conservative web site? How can a FReeper advocate software piracy?
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the obvious; Steam has been using this business model for the PC games market for several years and it’s a SMASHING success. The games can be reinstalled as often as needed and are tied to the account, there are no worries about malware, things are kept up to date effortlessly.
That’s exactly the way Gametap and a number of other online based distribution systems have worked since day 1, the license belongs to the “login” and can go on as many machines as the person wants to login from. It’s nice that Apple’s on board but it’s not new.
I think the store is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It’s targeted initially at people who aren’t web gurus. It comes down to the ease of use, and it’s going to be a lot easier. I don’t know how the numbers break down on computer users, but a ton of people use computers, and probably less than 15% of them are advanced users. That’s a huge potential market in the less experienced users. Sometimes it’s not the huge changes that force something over the tipping point to general acceptance, it’s the small things that reduce complexity. I think that’s why some experienced users are flummoxed by Apple’s success in these areas. With the iPad, there were a bunch of Freepers saying “It doesn’t have a USB port, it doesn’t have a smart card reader, it doesn’t have a real keyboard, it doesn’t read Flash!” Apple, however, figured out that these features were only wanted by a small percentage, and that for the majority they were clutter and increased manufacturing costs and confused the target consumer.
Advantages for developers are that they save a ton on marketing, sales and delivery costs.
For users, they have the advantage of having a defined store. Unlike a developer web site, where the developer can scrub negative comments or hide flaws, there are reviews of apps. Users don’t have to give a credit card number to “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Software Company.”
I also think there’s an advantage in the updating area. In the update area, the old model was the user either had to negotiate back to the web site and check, or the software program had to have a “check on launch” feature, which adds to the size of the program and also creates system usage overhead. For me personally, I don’t start a program unless I want to use it, and it annoys the heck out of me that when I start an Adobe program, for example, Adobe updater starts, tells me I have an update, and if I decide to install it, I’m supposed to close my web browsers and the program I want to use and wait fifteen minutes for the download and installation. Adobe also has a real problem with about twenty percent of their updates failing.
While I’m complaining about Adobe, the only Adobe programs I need are Photoshop and Acrobat. Adobe figured this out, and either charges out the wazoo for Photoshop or packages it with their less successful programs.
As the article points out, "Identity licensing isn't new, and it's widely used for content licensed for other purposes or mobile devices." But it does not involve a license. I think the argument could be made that the distribution and installation of software based on identity began back in the 1970s with FTP servers. You can pretty that concept up with a graphical interface and make it a lot easier for the average person to use.
It’s funny that it starts by saying they “fundamentally change” the business, then say it’s not new. The headline is wrong, the story is right. It’s no fundamental change, it’s just a large company joining an idea that’s been around a long time and in actually rather heavy usage lately.
You are correct. I am not implying the Photoshop is now sold in the Mac App Store. But programs like Pixelmator ($30.00) are available. Nor am I implying that MS Office is now sold in the Mac App Store, but Apple's iWork suite is available. Pages, Numbers, and Keynote give me all the functionality I need for creating documents, spreadsheets, and slide presentation for a lot less money. And I only have to buy once, and I can then install them on as many Mac's as I want.
I am certainly opposed to piracy. Anyone who downloads for pay code for free from some hacker site is violating the law. I thought Free Republic was a conservative web site? How can a FReeper advocate software piracy?
I haven't seen anyone on FReeRepublic advocating software piracy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.