Mac OS X App Store Poses Problems for Open Source Software

Well that article certainly wears its editorial slant on its sleeve.<p>I'm not really seeing the problem here; Apple isn't interested in selling, or giving away, in-progress beta apps or apps which exhibit obvious bugs because they want to maintain a certain quality of experience for people who use their store.<p>If Apple isn't interested in distributing your app, that's their prerogative. You're not entitled to it, and you certainly don't need it; Firefox has been doing just fine distributing their software through their own servers. They're free to continue doing so.<p>Nordstroms isn't interested in selling my janky, lumpy, hand-carved ash trays either, but that hardly makes them tyrants. They're just maintaining their store's brand.

The current HN title is wrong.<p>The article doesn't address Open Source. It states that the store will not be used for the distribution of beta versions of software. The tweet just says firefox betas won't be in the store.<p>Especially note: Free software is allowed.<p>There are classes of software that won't work in the store. The article mentions:<p>• Things that implement their own copy protection.<p>• Buggy software.<p>• Things that need root.<p>See the whole list: <a href="http://pastie.org/1236378" rel="nofollow">http://pastie.org/1236378</a> but you will go blind before you finish if your don't have readability plugin.<p>I would characterize the forbidden stuff as "obnoxious, useless, or malicious" applications. There is some collateral damage along the way, e.g. anything with a kernel extension, and there are some morality/legality driven restrictions e.g. encourge minors to consume alcohol or realistic human killing.<p>The most alarming exception to me, is that the application can only distribute updates through the store. I would hope Apple doesn't hold up new versions like they have with the iOS stores. As a developer I cringe when I read of customers living with month old defects because the update is stalled in queue.<p>Customers will have a reasonable belief that stuff from the store isn't tearing through their computer looking for email addresses or credit card numbers to sell.<p>But that's ok, they have other channels for distribution. It isn't a Apple Store or nothing proposition like the iOS devices.

Of course Apple doesn't want beta software in the Mac App Store. I don't want it either. If I want to experiment with some Firefox nightlies, I'll go and get them from the dev site. The Mac App store is geared at people who want software installation and maintenance to be painless and worry free. They are 'curating' it to be that way. It's not a software directory listing service where everyone can list their offerings.

"<i>apps that require optional installations (such as Java) will be rejected</i>"<p>What additional installations do OS X apps usually need, though? Flash and Java are already included; the only additional thing I can think of is SIMBL, and that isn't usually used for normal apps.

Correction: the App Store doesn't work with buggy, unfinished software that's in a constant state of beta.<p>The author sure has a low opinion of open source software quality, doesn't he?

"Apps that use non-public APIs will be rejected"<p><i>So many</i> OS X apps today use non-public APIs, this would exclude the vast majority of applications in use today.<p>"Apps that install kexts will be rejected"<p>There goes VMWare and Parallels.

A question: can open source projects submit just their most stable versions to the App Store and then also release in-progress versions through their own sites?<p>If so, that would seem to address most of the issues. The people downloading software from the App Store don't want buggy or untested software, and those interested in cutting-edge versions are likely to be aware and active enough to download it themselves.<p>Win-win situation.

It might not be the best solution for geeks, but Apple is serious about smooth user experience. I might not mind a few bugs in the software I download, but it will confuse/frustrate the hell out of Mr Average Joe.

This App Store isn't the same as the iOS one. If the iOS one didn't push your app, nobody could use it (practically speaking.) Obviously this isn't true here. (For now!) So, it's hard to give Apple flak for any rules they have in their approval process.

The crux of the matter: 1) Will Lion change the software install policy to App Store only (like iOS)<p>2) Will the App Store create an un-level playing field years from now by training users to only install Apple certified software.

No beta software? Great.<p>No license keys? Why do you need license keys? You're now in the iTunes ecosystem like apps on iDevices.<p>No optional add ons? For a start, java isn't optional on OS X. Apps on iOS are completely self-contained. I guess the same philosophy is coming to the Mac. Not surprising but there are potential issues I guess.<p>No root privileges? This one has potential issues but I guess apple wants to play it safe. Not surprising.<p>Same censorship as the App Store? I took this as a given when I heard about it. No issue here.<p>The author's bias is pretty obvious and expect the Apple-haters to roll out the predictable criticisms.<p>But apps don't need to be distributed via the app store on the Mac. You can still use download links from a website at which point it's a question of choice as to whether you want to be part of that ecosystem.<p>I see a bigger issue being the 70/30 split. 30% is a lot to lose when you can sell it yourself. Even small sellers can use third party payment services. It'll be interesting to see how the software makers big and small react to this.<p>I suspect that those in the app store will sell more units. This is probably why Steve pushed the discovery argument (with some merit).

more and more developers seem to be really unhappy with the new app store.. probably not the best model