How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

Simple proposal.. How about a zipping an application and merely naming it .appz (or just plain zip)<p>The only reason why Mac application can't be distributed like Windows .exe files is that Mac applications are actually directories. Excluding .pkg installers 99.99% of the time the .dmg file is merely just a container for the single .app directory.<p>Safari automatically unpacks .zip files by default on download. Where's the mystery here. Why bother with dmg in the first place

re: all the zip suggestions. Apple already provides a solution:<p>"Internet-Enabling a Disk Image<p>Although all disk images can be transported through the Internet, users need to open them, retrieve their contents, and discard them. An Internet-enabled disk image automates this workflow. After a user downloads an Internet-enabled disk image from a network using a web browser, the image is automatically opened, its contents placed at the user’s download location, and discarded (in the Trash). This improves the manual install experience by performing a few tedious tasks for the user. "<p>Too few devs seems to be aware of this.<p>Anyway a custom installer for Firefox is a backward idea.<p>= tmk =

On launch, your application can check to see what directory it's in. If the directory is mounted as the same name as the .dmg image you shipped, then you could prompt the user. "You appear to be running this application from a disk image. This will make the application run slower. You should copy the application to your Application Folder. Do you want to move it there now automatically Y/N/don't show this again." or whatever.

The problem isn't the dragging to the application folder itself. I've seen my mother do this and it went fine.<p>He problem is that the application isn't moved, it is copied. After putting a copy in the Applications folder, she just drags the application from the disk image to the dock. Now she has two copies, and uses the slower one in the disk image. Sometimes she even drags the disk image to the Application folder too. It's all very confusing<p>I agree that the disk image system is very confusing for the casual user. The zips seem to give a much nicer interface

<i>As it stands, they’re following the common pattern of delivering the Firefox app on a disk image, which, when mounted, uses a background image and alias to the /Applications/ folder to encourage users to copy the app from the mounted image to their startup drive.</i><p>I'd bet this pattern would be a whole lot more effective if there were text prompting the user to take this action. It seems like most implementations of this pattern focus on bling rather than usability.

With apt-get.

If Apple can be persuaded to do something, either prompting user to move an unzipped .app to Applications folder or treat .appz (zipped app) as an .app should work.

By going to the domain where it's hosted.

Ever install Skype for the Mac? They actually have a link to the Applications folder in their .dmg, and a little arrow icon to show exactly what you have to do. It's pretty sweet.