183 replies to this topic

[Eric5h5]

Screens on the Amiga were neat, but for the way I use stuff anyway, Exposé in OS X obviated the need for them.


--Eric

[teflon]

I'm not sure the impact this will have yet. Some of the early rules include:
- Your game portrays realistic images of people or animals being killed or maimed, shot, stabbed, tortured or injured.
- "Enemies" within the context of your game solely target a specific race, culture, a real government or corporation, or any other real entity.

So mini games, yay! AAA titles? Nope...

Also, there is:
-It spawns processes that continue to run after a user has quit the app without user consent.

Which means you might see background demons, but they'll always have to ask you. I wonder, then, if we'll see apps like 1Password in there. And

- It changes the native user interface elements or behaviors of Mac OS X.

Which I guess means that iTunes itself won't be downloadable from the Mac App Store... Nor Garageband or many of Apple's programs which break their own guidelines...


Mission Control could be quite a decent consolidation of Expose, but I find the rebranding someone banal and stupid. Expose sounds classy, Mission Control sound like you're a 5 year old playing in a box...

I'll never, ever use full screen mode, either. That's just not how I do stuff. I guess it could be nice when I'm within a single app, and don't plan on changing, but I resent that Apple are changing one of the core tenants of the traffic light window controls...

Only thing I do rather like is the launcher app thing (name escapes me). It looks quite decent, but, knowing Apple, it'll be restricted to my dock, and I'll have to use my cursor to select the app, when I want it to be in my menu bar, summonable by a keystroke, and navigable by the arrow keys... Basically, I would use it to replace Overflow.

[the Battle Cat]

The Mac App Store doesn't mean anything to me.  As always I'll search for a bargain and Apple almost never offers those.

[Smoke_Tetsu]

First you forgot to mention those things you listed are things they said would get an app rejected in the app store. But knowing that especially that one about enemies in a game says volumes about how little current games stores have to worry about the Mac App store cannibalizing them.

teflon, on 20 October 2010 - 06:10 PM, said:

Mission Control could be quite a decent consolidation of Expose, but I find the rebranding someone banal and stupid. Expose sounds classy, Mission Control sound like you're a 5 year old playing in a box...

Now that you mention it... it does sound like that.

Anyway, I'll have to try it before I totally pass judgement but like I said if one can't do traditional virtual desktops in it as well I'm not sure how much I'll like it because in my opinion it'll be less flexible.. not more.

Quote

I'll never, ever use full screen mode, either. That's just not how I do stuff. I guess it could be nice when I'm within a single app, and don't plan on changing

I'm not sure how much I'll make use of it either. The only applications I really care to use full screen are games, plex and sometimes iPhoto. Even browsers have had full screen modes for the longest time but I've never had the need for it except those few times I wanted to watch a flash cartoon full screen.

Quote

I resent that Apple are changing one of the core tenants of the traffic light window controls...

I hear you, although when I was watching the keynote it almost seems to me that apple figures hardly anyone uses the zoom function any more so they decided to co-opt the zoom button for the full screen mode but to me it seems like another one of those changes they are making for changes sake.

Quote

Only thing I do rather like is the launcher app thing (name escapes me). It looks quite decent, but, knowing Apple, it'll be restricted to my dock, and I'll have to use my cursor to select the app, when I want it to be in my menu bar, summonable by a keystroke, and navigable by the arrow keys... Basically, I would use it to replace Overflow.

I do like the launcher too... it's called launchpad (the name makes me think of duck tales Launchpad McQuack though ) I don't even mind how iPhone'esque it is although it did worry me a bit when I first saw a screenshot because I almost thought they where replacing the desktop with it but since it just pops up when you need it and goes away when you don't it may be fine. Right now I use stacks to launch all my applications and games and I think it may have a chance of replacing that for me.

One last thing and this is something I noticed in the keynote... it almost seems like they may have adopted the custom stacks icon overlay as an actual feature as I think I may have seen one on the stack they have in the dock in the keynote. I'd like if they did and I didn't have to put an icon item into the folder to do that as one currently has to with the current stacks.

[Sneaky Snake]

We know next to nothing about Lion, except that it will have the App Store, the LaunchPad thingy, and the few other features. The core OS is identical. I wouldn't be so quick to bash it

[Smoke_Tetsu]

Sneaky Snake, on 20 October 2010 - 06:53 PM, said:

We know next to nothing about Lion, except that it will have the App Store, the LaunchPad thingy, and the few other features. The core OS is identical. I wouldn't be so quick to bash it

Apart from the person who said it looks like ass who's bashing it? I'm not I'm just expressing my opinion on some key features they have so far announced. The core OS does so far look like the same old although I'm pretty sure there'll be some improvements and I hope so too. Personally I would like to see greatly revamped graphics drivers\opengl and perhaps dolby digital live audio integrated that would benefit games.

[teflon]

I'm not saying it'll be a bad OS by a long shot. It's still OSX, after all.

Having said that, they keep moving certain things in directions that constantly break or contradict their very own Human Interface Guidelines.
That which I have linked you to is the section that talks about zooming and resizing of windows. Note how it's not a "full screen" button, and there is no mention of this. It's "Standard State" and "User State", where the standard can be determined by the app, so that when you click on the button, it resizes to include all of or as much of the contents of the window as is possible. The User state is then what you yourself resize a window to, and the Zoom button then acts as a toggle between the two.

If Apple have now re-purposed that button to go full screen in a small handful of applications, that's one huge, messy and completely idiotic contradiction that just confuses the issue. How is a novice user to know whether that button is going to switch to full screen, or just resize the window? In fact, how is a regular OSX user who's switching up from 10.6 for 10.7 with iLife 11 to know this?

And then Apple has the cheek to say that if your application has a complex user interface, or it changes how a window behaves in OSX, then it won't be allowed onto the Mac App Store. So, how can Apple possibly justify letting their own apps go on sale, if that is one of the bleeding rules?!



Anyway, aside from the stupid name, looking at Mission Control makes it seem somewhat better. At the very least, it seems that it's more of an extra layer that binds all the features together, rather than a whole new entity. So, as is currently the norm, it would seem that you'll be able to bind a function key to Expose directly, or the Dashboard directly...
Full screen apps then appear to be in pseudo-spaces, and Spaces still exists (as it's mentioned as a separate entity). It's better to think of the Full Screen apps in terms of them just being hidden and summoned, rather than being new spaces. A bit like if you're watching a video file in full screen, and Cmd-H hide the application... That's basically what they've done, but tarted it up a little for ease of use with Mission Control.

So aside from the name being stupid, I think it sounds fairly good.

[Smoke_Tetsu]

Quote

Having said that, they keep moving certain things in directions that constantly break or contradict their very own Human Interface Guidelines.

Very true, one not even need to look further than the titlebar on the mac app store to see a glaring example. However isn't apple completely replacing the zoom button function with the new full screen function in all apps now? It seemed to me like in Lion it's going to be a system wide thing. But I could be wrong.

Quote

If Apple have now re-purposed that button to go full screen in a small handful of applications, that's one huge, messy and completely idiotic contradiction that just confuses the issue. How is a novice user to know whether that button is going to switch to full screen, or just resize the window? In fact, how is a regular OSX user who's switching up from 10.6 for 10.7 with iLife 11 to know this?

And then Apple has the cheek to say that if your application has a complex user interface, or it changes how a window behaves in OSX, then it won't be allowed onto the Mac App Store. So, how can Apple possibly justify letting their own apps go on sale, if that is one of the bleeding rules?!

Sort of made me think of the quote from Ghostbusters where Peter Venkman said "I make it a rule... never get involved with possessed people.... actually it's more of a guideline than a rule". I guess that's how Apple looks at it especially as they called them guidelines. Like I said before some of these changes they are making seem to be changes for changes sake rather than for an improvement i mean especially fudging around with the titlebar placement like they are doing. The app store itself breaks its own rule.   To be technical though they've already broken the zoom button "rule" with iTunes where it's a "shrink to mini player" button.

Quote

]Full screen apps then appear to be in pseudo-spaces, and Spaces still exists (as it's mentioned as a separate entity)

I wouldn't mind it so much if this is indeed how it works. If they limited spaces in favor of full screen apps though then I wouldn't be happy.

Yes, in the end it's still OS X after all but that doesn't mean we have to like every single change they make nor does it mean that all the changes are automatically good either. Again I'm also hoping to see some changes that directly benefit games coming up in it.

[DaveyJJ]

I've read the developer agreement to get your apps on that store ... not a long document but there are 62 times where the words "will be rejected" are used. Hmm.

I'm of two minds (although that my be the Prosac talking) about the App Store. There are enormous benefits to distribution, ease of app updating, market, etc.

One might also make the argument that apps for computers, which we have been trained to pay more for, may actually bring the price for game apps/devs upwards a bit, while possibly lowering prices for other what might be called shareware apps. For example, a developer like Cultured Code (being used strictly as an example of superb app dev) might find that a $30 price tag for an organization app won't fly because there will always be someone who can produce an app of (nearly) the same quality and function and charge only $9.99, or $4.99 for it. Or less. So we OS X users might find that the price of innovative shareware comes down, while alternatively boosting the perceived value of games on the store, thus marginally raising prices for those devs.

The other side of the App Store remains problematic. Devs will be unable to develop unique, game-changing, startlingly cool apps that Apple doesn't like because they won't be allowed. And over time, as the App Store dominates software sales, and there is no doubt that it will become a juggernaut, the role of indie devs who want to remain indie, will slowly die out because to promote yourself against something as big as the Store will become will be increasingly hard. Devs of course have a choice to sign up with Apple or not, the contracts they (and I) sign are not being forced onto them. But Apple is creating an even taller wall around their garden, and this is definitely going to kill off innovative apps that compete with or that Apple doesn't approve of, leave distributors like MacGameFiles.com and others in a huge hole, etc.

So that edge of the sword is, indeed, quite sharp. I guess we'll see how it plays out, and Apple has every right to create this of course, and it will be a huge boon to many. But it will come at a price and a loss of control, and the inevitable end that Apple wants to control most everything in their ecosystem. Good or bad? I don't really know.

I'm a bit sad, I think.

P.S. It's a huge opportunity for someone to come along and create an online place to buy apps and become the Avis of OSX apps, the number 2 guy, the land of misfit apps where there is innovative, weird, quirky, controversial apps that Apple rejects.

[Janichsan]

Smoke_Tetsu, on 20 October 2010 - 08:23 PM, said:

Very true, one not even need to look further than the titlebar on the mac app store to see a glaring example. However isn't apple completely replacing the zoom button function with the new full screen function in all apps now? It seemed to me like in Lion it's going to be a system wide thing.

I hope not, since it really looks crappy and somehow changes these buttons from specific window controls to just another toolbar buttons. I have the impression that Apple wants to do away with the whole title bar of the windows: the new iTunes hasn't got one (at least not when you don't hack the settings), the Mac App Store hasn't got one – what's next?

Regarding the App Store: I think the the regulations are strict enough to keep quite a few developers away from it – as I already mentioned, unlike on the iDevices, the App Store has actually competitors on the Mac. The limitation of not allowing demo versions alone will limit the appeal. We can expect the prices for apps be higher on the Mac than on the iDevices, so I don't think many people would be keen on shelving out their money for some software they cannot try beforehand.

Zobeid, on 20 October 2010 - 05:27 PM, said:

On Amiga, an app could open a custom screen...

The Amiga custom screens also crossed my mind when I thought about the "new" full-screen apps on Lion. It's sometimes funny how "innovation" turns in circles.

[ikir]

Tuncer (IMG), on 20 October 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

Inside Mac Games makes no money, unfortunately.

Banners, premium subscription, donations?

[DaveyJJ]

Janichsan, on 21 October 2010 - 02:21 AM, said:

Regarding the App Store: I think the the regulations are strict enough to keep quite a few developers away from it – as I already mentioned, unlike on the iDevices, the App Store has actually competitors on the Mac. The limitation of not allowing demo versions alone will limit the appeal.

I had forgotten to mention that demo/trials/etc apps will not be permitted in my note and that will, indeed, limit the appeal for many devs. $0.99 is fair enough to shell out for a well marketed, slickly shown game that actually fails to deliver the punch you want. If I'm paying $9.99 for some piece of similarly marketed productivity app that fails to deliver because I can't get a demo, that's a whole other thing.

As stated: the benefits of an App Store are enormous, without question. So are the downsides.

[the Battle Cat]

DaveyJJ, on 20 October 2010 - 08:59 PM, said:

But it will come at a price and a loss of control, and the inevitable end that Apple wants to control most everything in their ecosystem. Good or bad? I don't really know.

Bad.

[PeopleLikeFrank]

Doubleplus ungood.

[teflon]

Smoke_Tetsu, on 20 October 2010 - 08:23 PM, said:

Very true, one not even need to look further than the titlebar on the mac app store to see a glaring example. However isn't apple completely replacing the zoom button function with the new full screen function in all apps now? It seemed to me like in Lion it's going to be a system wide thing. But I could be wrong.

I don't think it will be system wide, though. I can't see that being even vaguely a good idea for Safari, Mail, iTunes, Finder, or many other apps that come out of Apple. Some, yes, but all, definitely not. Also, fingers crossed that it won't be an enforced change to third parties for the app store. Why on earth would you want a twitter client that goes full screen on a 24" display?  

Good point on the term guideline too. BUT, it IS a rule, since you have to abide by those guidelines if you want your app to get onto the app store. So how is it fair that Apple get to constantly break its own guidelines, create new exceptions and generally mess about?

iTunes is quite simply an abomination when it comes to Apple breaking the current look of OSX. Sometimes it's a change for the better, and it's generally a preview look at how the next OSX is going to appear. We first got the current unified look with iTunes 6 or 7, and now it's been tweaked again in what will likely be the new title bar gradient within 10.7. Aside from that, though, it's completely stupid and constantly breaking Apple's own rules.

As I said in my first post, it's ironic to an extreme that iTunes would, if submitted by a third party, be rejected from the app store. Lunacy.

Sometimes Apple just do my head in with their changes for changes sake...

[XxtraLarGe]

Can't you just set up as an iTunes/App Store affiliate and sell games that way? Seems like less overhead actually.

Tuncer (IMG), on 20 October 2010 - 12:36 PM, said:

Probably. Unfortunately means the death of Macgamestore.com and Inside Mac Games. This just changed everything....

[DaveyJJ]

I have two more questions that I've not seen the answers to yet, but have a nagging feeling that I won't like the answers when I do hear them ...

1. Will Apple allow developers to sell their $19.99 app on the App Store if they also sell it for $14.99 on their own website?

2. Or more basic: Will Apple allow devs who sell their app on the new App Store to even sell it *anywhere* else?

Not sure the answer's known.

[Smoke_Tetsu]

Here's something interesting. It has been noted that the mac app store has the full screen button (formerly known as the zoom button) disabled because apparently it doesn't have a full screen mode.

Quote

In fact, the Mac App Store appears to be designed not to enter full screen app mode, as its green Zoom button is dimmed. In the presentation, Federighi also explicitly noted in passing that the green button is now considered a full screen app button rather than the "zoom to the largest window size that makes sense" that it always has been on the Mac.

[DaveyJJ]

I have decided to change my IMG signature to reflect what I'm feeling re: the App Store.

It's been an odd few days watching the range of brilliant OS X developers that I love for their creativity, perfectionism, love of the platform, etc get so vehement about their particular view on the App Store initiative. I am really saddened, in a sense, by how polarizing the App Store has become and look at the two camps, both of which have outstanding people in them, disagree so much about what the whole App Store means for OS X developers and applications.

This is what it boils down to for me. "For better or worse: I predict that by the fall of 2012 Apple will control 80–90% of software sales for all OS X apps via App Store."

Anyone trying to compete against this de facto standard that Apple will have created to market their indie apps outside of this channel, for whatever their reasons, might as well simply give up before they write a single line of code. Honestly, does anyone think that they'll be able to compete against what will become the single place (in most OS X user's minds) to get OS X software? Really?

I am disappointed that the developer who are coming out so pro-App Store do not seem to have looked at both the pros and cons of the idea. I am the first to admit that there are a huge, huge number of advantages to this route. But the cost may be too high. I'd be happy to be proved wrong ... that Apple allows demos and trials, allow paid upgrade pricing, more leniency on what's acceptable, allow devs to include their own copy protection schemes, lowers their 30% cut, allows developers direct contact and customer information, and a better mechanism for devs to know at the idea stage of Apple will reject their work. There's so many questions.

I was asked directly by one dev who disagrees with me ... "What's the upgrade pricing on a $0.99 app?"

He knows I'm not talking about (cheap) $0.99 games and $2.99 task management apps. I'm speaking to the ecosystem of great Mac OS X apps that cost users between $30-50 dollars. The Transmits and Codas and Acorns and Things of the world. Some of his own titles included. The apps that make us happy to be running and loving OSX. The ones that allow us shareware users to pay for a new version at a (sometimes steeply) discounted price. I respect his work a great deal and he's a great guy ... but he's wrong on this count IMHO.

And don't even get me started on trial/demo software. The system I rely on to know if I want to invest $30-50 of my hard-earned cash on your app. Apple's not allowing that at all.

So there you have it: For better or worse: I predict that by the fall of 2012 Apple will control 80–90% of software sales for all OS X apps via App Store.

I think that's going to be a sad, sad day.

[Janichsan]

Quote

For better or worse: I predict that by the fall of 2012 Apple will control 80–90% of software sales for all OS X apps via App Store.

I'm still convinced that's far too pessimistic (or optimistic, depending on your point of view). I only have to look at the stuff that is installed on my Macs to see that this won't work out. There's simply too much software that's violating one App Store rule or the other.

Among my currently installed programs, the following would not be allowed on the App Store:
* Adobe Photoshop
* BlitzMax
* CrossOver/CrossOver Games
* Flip4Mac
* Microsoft Office
* Parallels Desktop
* Speed Download
* Wacom Tablet Drivers
* Toast 10 Titanium
* Google Chrome
* Opera
* RipIt
* smcFanControl
* The Unarchiver
* Transmission
* VLC
* Path Finder
* Interarchy
* Age of Empires III
* Battlefield 1942
* Battlefield 2142
* Enemy Territory Quake Wars
* Counter-Strike Source
* Left 4 Dead 2
* Neverwinter Nights
* Civilization IV
* StarCraft
* Unreal Tournament 2004
* Steam
* SNES9x
* VICE
* Basilisk II
* OpenEmu
* MAME OS X

Even without the freeware, that's still the majority of apps on my computers.

Quote

Honestly, does anyone think that they'll be able to compete against what will become the single place (in most OS X user's minds) to get OS X software?

I think that those users getting their software from the Mac App Store only, would be the ones not savvy enough to get software from other outlets in the first place. Primarily those people who are using their computer only for email, internet, maybe some online shopping, but not the target audience for slightly more sophisticated software.