Yeah, I agree. Worst case scenario would be that Apple would not allow other apps than those which are made by Apple devs who pay that 99$ every year!
Steve is worse than Kim Jong-il if he does this...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No software will be able to run on OS X 10.7 without being approved by Apple [u]
- Thread starter *LTD*
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, I agree. Worst case scenario would be that Apple would not allow other apps than those which are made by Apple devs who pay that 99$ every year!
Steve is worse than Kim Jong-il if he does this...
It's already happened on the iPhone and the iPad. It's a very very small leap to having it happen for the Mac.
This walled garden environment is turning into a prison.
Come on, guys, people have been saying nonsense like this for years. This isn't a rumor or even speculation; it's a willful misinterpretation of facts.
Heck, you'll occasionally run across people who believe the Mac platform is already locked down in this way. Doesn't make it true or even particularly noteworthy.
Heck, you'll occasionally run across people who believe the Mac platform is already locked down in this way. Doesn't make it true or even particularly noteworthy.
It works because people will put up with that crap on the iPhone since it's not their main computer and they know they have a computer to go back home to that will let them run whatever they want. It won't work on a full computer, people will not put up with it. And if Apple does do it, I'm done with them forever.
LOL, I love that people actually read a poorly-written entry on some obscure website and start getting outraged as though it were true.
I was interested in seeing the reaction.
Yes, Steve is most definitely worse than a North Korean dictator that runs an entire country.
LTD, are you now in the business of floating trial balloons for Apple?
The source is highly suspicious. I would browse around on their Web site before you get too worked up.
http://rixstep.com/0/
The source is highly suspicious. I would browse around on their Web site before you get too worked up.
http://rixstep.com/0/
LTD, are you now in the business of floating trial balloons for Apple?
The source is highly suspicious. I would browse around on their Web site before you get too worked up.
http://rixstep.com/0/
Apple's just doing their part to keep up international relations.
Obviously it's stretching the seams of likelihood, but it sure as Shantanu makes for a fun thread!
Yes, Steve is most definitely worse than a North Korean dictator that runs an entire country.
LMAO!!!
Spilled my beer on my desk when saw that
Apple to control desktop apps too? NFW
I will admit I am a fanboy, but this is probably too far.
http://9to5mac.com/mac_like_iphone
I will admit I am a fanboy, but this is probably too far.
http://9to5mac.com/mac_like_iphone
LMAO!!!
Spilled my beer on my desk when saw that
I think he's on right after "Magical" Scott Forstall.
Now try to imagine Scott as the next CEO. Overlook the fact that he's a Sith Lord, and you'll warm up to him right away.
Since Apple is releasing less and less appealing products every year, it wouldn't even need something that huge to push me to Windows 7.
speaking for myself, there's no way i would continue doing mac development. currently i start with a win32 version and then port, but if there's any chance my app might get rejected after months or years of work, that's not going to be an option for my business.
this model works fine for smaller projects or for new cocoa developers, but on a full-on os platform, i think such a move would be detrimental to apple.
this model works fine for smaller projects or for new cocoa developers, but on a full-on os platform, i think such a move would be detrimental to apple.
I honestly doubt the validity of this report. I mean, let's be honest, Apple does a good job running their business, and something like this would be instant death. If Apple is doing this, then the only logical explanation is that someone at Microsoft or Google is paying them to put themselves out of the market.
I'm with scanf on this one. I'm currently learning mac development because it's a better system than winblows, but if Apple were to do something this, well fascist, there's no way I'd bother writing any programs for it.
I'm with scanf on this one. I'm currently learning mac development because it's a better system than winblows, but if Apple were to do something this, well fascist, there's no way I'd bother writing any programs for it.
An Apple-approved software section of the iTunes store doesn't sound too far-fetched. I'm convinced the software repository model is coming to Mac. I just don't know when.
Mac OS X 10.7 Personal Edition: $40.us, limited to the Apple App source
Mac OS X 10.7 Professional: $160.us, user controllable, fewer ads ("free" XCode included)
But either one will still allow Kremlipertino to brick your Mac remotely if you upset them.
Mac OS X 10.7 Professional: $160.us, user controllable, fewer ads ("free" XCode included)
But either one will still allow Kremlipertino to brick your Mac remotely if you upset them.
I think apple is moving in this direction, they may not completely embrace the methodology in 10.7 but I believe its on their roadmap of the future
I am in the "open is better camp".... now with that said, I can reconcile in theory, and even applaud, Apple's approach/theory on keeping the quality of applications high through direct "approval" and distribution. The Apple brand is based on high quality... so that makes sense.
However, with power comes corruption. When Apple starts placing their own judgement on "suitability" rather than "quality" --- the revolution would begin.
Imagine a Mac world where you are forced to use Safari ---- Yuck!
However, with power comes corruption. When Apple starts placing their own judgement on "suitability" rather than "quality" --- the revolution would begin.
Imagine a Mac world where you are forced to use Safari ---- Yuck!
Could actually be positive if implemented correctly. I mean, if they had a biiig team who could certify an app in a single day, and if they just blocked malware (and not porn or "unworthy" apps). Maybe they could allow unsigned apps to run but unable to perform potentially malicious functions.
Otherwise, I doubt they'll ever do it since that would never work.
Otherwise, I doubt they'll ever do it since that would never work.