Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Will Mac App Store ever get the major freeware?

Z

zombiecakes

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jul 11, 2012
201
59
Is there something stopping the major freeware makers like Transmission, Perian, Flip4Mac, Chrome, Firefox, VLC, Flash, etc from putting their stuff in the app store? Maybe Apple has restrictive terms that makes them give a cut of advertising or something else?

I tried using the app store to install all the stuff I need to get up and running and could not find a single thing. Whatever Apple is doing for the app store, it really is not working to get devs to sign up.
 
While I thin it is a great idea and has a future, at the moment the Mac App store is a major waste of time.

Wait until is it as established as similar services like Steam though, then it will be great.

EDIT: I would love to see all the major freeware on there.
 
Well its been out for quite a long time and none of the good freeware is on there, and they all knew Mountain Lion would be using it extensively. It cant be that hard to submit their app, thats all they have to do, submit the already made app.

So why havent they done it yet? My guess is theres something preventing them from doing it, and until that is resolved the App Store will continue to be useless.
 
If its anything open source, I doubt that you will ever see it. GNU licensing is probably not compatible - VNC got taken out of the iOS app store for that reason. Plug-ins like perian (which they are discontinuing) and flip4 mac might not be allowed either. Transmission might not be allowed by policy alone. They also have to meet technical requirements too...

Many of the programs you cite are cross platform as well. Since they have to handle other platforms anyway as far as distribution goes, they typically just keep to themselves and not bother.
 
1. Many of these programs probably do not pass Apple's requirements, therefore can't be in the MAS even if the developers wanted them to be.

2. It costs $99 to submit even a free app. You need that yearly developer program membership. Freeware developers aren't making money from their programs, unless via donations. So submitting to the MAS is an unnecessary expense.

3. This point may be less relevant than the two reasons above, but the MAS is considered a ridiculous idea by some. There's plenty of reasons any "classic" user (people who prefer the "old" way of doing things) can find to dislike the MAS. One is that you can't submit installers (to my knowledge), and you can only submit standalone apps. Another is that apps are restricted, probably the worst part. And another, that you have to pay even for submitting a free app.

I personally prefer installing things the "old fashioned way" as opposed to the MAS. Whenever something is on the MAS that I want I look around on Google and the developer's website to see if I can download it anywhere else. When I can't find a web download version I get quite annoyed. If you ask me, the MAS is a bad version of what should've been a package manager. Anyone who's used a Linux distro may know what I'm talking about. Cydia is a package manager too, for those of you who have jailbroken iPhones.




Package managers are freedom. They simply download a package, and install it according to how it was put together. You can add repositories that have packages you want, and anyone can start their own repository. There's no approval process and nobody to make arbitrary decisions as to whether or not your package is allowed. And packages can work just like installers do. Package managers have no walls, no boundaries. They put the user in control.

Now the MAS, is a walled garden. Things may be nice and pretty inside the garden. You may have some good things inside the garden. But the fact is, there are walls, there are restrictions. You can't get anything outside the boundaries of the garden. You don't control it. If Apple doesn't approve of your app, they don't let it into their garden. It is the opposite of freedom.


For this reason alone, I would not want to put any program I plan to develop on the MAS. I'd rather release it on a website. Plus, what if I need an installer? What if I need to set certain files in place before the app runs as they are required by it? Well too bad, Apple seems to hate installers for some reason.

As I said, walled garden.



/endrant.






Anyways, as I said, reasons 1 and 2 are probably the most relevant. Although developers who have a philosophy of sorts when it comes to things like this, like I do, that may be their only reason for not using the MAS.
 
It already has some of the major freeware. It will likely never get others. As has been mentioned, the MAS has certain non-negotiable requirements that can't be met by every app out there.

It's not an advertising revenue issue. It's a licensing issue, and a restrictions issue. Perian, for example, is not an app; it's a prefpane. Prefpanes can't be listed in the App Store. Flash and Flip4Mac are also not apps. Not to mention, Perian has been discontinued anyway. Chrome is on the iOS App Store, so it could definitely make the cut given probably a small change on or two with the Mac version. Firefox, maybe or maybe not; in iOS, only WebKit based browsers are allowed. Apple may or may not want to enforce that on OS X as well, but I would lean towards yes.

Some open-source software's licenses violate the terms. VLC was on iOS's App Store for awhile until some spiteful ******* developer who didn't even work on it sued to get it removed over the TOS (which apparently doesn't allow DRM to be put on VLC, even FREE DRM). Now there's a crappier version of it in Cydia. There are, however, (better) alternatives to VLC on the MAS, like Mplayer, which uses the same FFmpeg library VLC does, and has a much better UI for Mac.

As far as devs signing up, that just isn't true. There are scads of software on the MAS. It's especially good for games, and pro-level content creation. Just not the stuff you use, apparently.
 
Meyvn said:
It already has some of the major freeware. It will likely never get others. As has been mentioned, the MAS has certain non-negotiable requirements that can't be met by every app out there.

It's not an advertising revenue issue. It's a licensing issue, and a restrictions issue. Perian, for example, is not an app; it's a prefpane. Prefpanes can't be listed in the App Store. Flash and Flip4Mac are also not apps. Not to mention, Perian has been discontinued anyway. Chrome is on the iOS App Store, so it could definitely make the cut given probably a small change on or two with the Mac version. Firefox, maybe or maybe not; in iOS, only WebKit based browsers are allowed. Apple may or may not want to enforce that on OS X as well, but I would lean towards yes.

Some open-source software's licenses violate the terms. VLC was on iOS's App Store for awhile until some spiteful ******* developer who didn't even work on it sued to get it removed over the TOS (which apparently doesn't allow DRM to be put on VLC, even FREE DRM). Now there's a crappier version of it in Cydia. There are, however, (better) alternatives to VLC on the MAS, like Mplayer, which uses the same FFmpeg library VLC does, and has a much better UI for Mac.

As far as devs signing up, that just isn't true. There are scads of software on the MAS. It's especially good for games, and pro-level content creation. Just not the stuff you use, apparently.
Click to expand...

My problem that it's not just on smaller apps such as these, but you don't even see the big apps such as Microsoft Office, Parallels/fusion and the Adobe suite (to name a few). Which makes the store suck very much if you use your computer for more than playing Angry Birds...
 
Transmission
Apple probably would deny it since "only criminals use bittorrent"

Perian
Has to install system components, so that's out.

Flip4Mac
Ditto

Chrome & Firefox
There's rumors about this, but it would have to use webkit... no putting competing browser tech into the app store (although I don't know if Apple is as anal about MAS apps as it is with iOS in this regard).

VLC
Nope... GNU licenses problems

Flash
Not a chance. IT has to install all sorts of system components to work.

Basically, anything that has to do anything out of the sandbox isn't going to be there.
The apps for adults will have to be found elsewhere.
 
Meyvn said:
Chrome is on the iOS App Store, so it could definitely make the cut given probably a small change on or two with the Mac version. Firefox, maybe or maybe not; in iOS, only WebKit based browsers are allowed. Apple may or may not want to enforce that on OS X as well, but I would lean towards yes.
Click to expand...

The MAS has Opera browser on it, I don't think its webkit based. I could be wrong however.
 
As far as devs signing up, that just isn't true. There are scads of software on the MAS. It's especially good for games, and pro-level content creation. Just not the stuff you use, apparently.
Click to expand...
Ive looked through the app store and the selection is exceptionally bad. Like I said, where is the major freeware? It has an alright selection of premium stuff but where is the popular stuff millions of people use?

The problem with the app store seems to be from the ridiculous restrictions being put in place on a desktop environment. Apple should restrict malware and things that are too buggy and thats it. Especially since they are enabling the "dont install anything we didnt approve" by default. The restrictions may work on a phone but its nuts to do it on a computer, the app store is doomed and is nothing more than a nuisance if they dont open it up.
 
zombiecakes said:
The restrictions may work on a phone but its nuts to do it on a computer, the app store is doomed and is nothing more than a nuisance if they dont open it up.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I have found a lot of great programs on the MAS and it makes it very easy to reinstall. I don't mind the rules, as long as they keep OSX open to allow third party sources for software. Its not like apple is not letting you install programs the "old fashion" way. But yes there are lot of junky programs in the MAS too.
 
TheGdog said:
I disagree, I have found a lot of great programs on the MAS and it makes it very easy to reinstall. I don't mind the rules, as long as they keep OSX open to allow third party sources for software. Its not like apple is not letting you install programs the "old fashion" way. But yes there are lot of junky programs in the MAS too.
Click to expand...

its exactly the same as it was in Lion, which was a usage disaster, why would it be any different this time around with the same restrictions in place causing a lack of popular apps?

I really like the idea of an app store with a simple install button and storing a list of apps so I can easily reinstall if I get a new computer. Im just not sure if I'll ever get a chance to use it since they dont have anything worth downloading.
 
Last edited:
iVoid said:
Transmission
Apple probably would deny it since "only criminals use bittorrent"

Perian
Has to install system components, so that's out.

Flip4Mac
Ditto

Chrome & Firefox
There's rumors about this, but it would have to use webkit... no putting competing browser tech into the app store (although I don't know if Apple is as anal about MAS apps as it is with iOS in this regard).

VLC
Nope... GNU licenses problems

Flash
Not a chance. IT has to install all sorts of system components to work.

Basically, anything that has to do anything out of the sandbox isn't going to be there.
The apps for adults will have to be found elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Transmission is open source.
Perian is a plug-in.

The Mac App store is for Apps not plug-ins.
 
iVoid said:
Chrome & Firefox
There's rumors about this, but it would have to use webkit... no putting competing browser tech into the app store (although I don't know if Apple is as anal about MAS apps as it is with iOS in this regard).
Click to expand...
Opera is available on the Mac App Store.
 
I think the primary, and in many cases the only, restriction is the sandboxing.

Some of the apps in the MAS are crippled or limited feature versions of regular one you find online (example: hyperdock).

For me, this means I know never to look for any of the truly useful apps in the MAS. Also out of principal, I will never spend a dollar there.
 
In contrast to many others here I find app store quite useful, because i do not have to search for the developer and share my credit card details with various companies. And with using app store I am customer of apple not the developer so developer never gets my contact details.

I hate most small developers accept payments only through paypal, with app store I avoid can paypal, google checkout and all other useless stuff.

Many developers do spam and annoy their customers with unintended advertisements once they get your contact details.

And everything is very tidy on mas, it updates all my apps with one click.
 
Jamie0003 said:
My problem that it's not just on smaller apps such as these, but you don't even see the big apps such as Microsoft Office, Parallels/fusion and the Adobe suite (to name a few). Which makes the store suck very much if you use your computer for more than playing Angry Birds...
Click to expand...
Microsoft and Adobe already have their own dedicated software distribution channels that aren't going anywhere due to their Windows software (although as an odd exception Adobe Lightroom is on there). Adobe's creative suite is not going to be there simply because of it's complexity - all of the programs use separate libraries and have multiple apps. For these guys there is no business reason to do that when they have channels that they already maintain for distribution that work well for them without ceding profits to Apple.
 
zombiecakes said:
So why havent they done it yet? My guess is theres something preventing them from doing it, and until that is resolved the App Store will continue to be useless.
Click to expand...

Because the software is FREE and "freely" available on their respective websites. I'm failing to see where having a bunch of apps that were already well distributed and free makes the Mac App Store any more useful.
 
nuckinfutz said:
Because the software is FREE and "freely" available on their respective websites. I'm failing to see where having a bunch of apps that were already well distributed and free makes the Mac App Store any more useful.
Click to expand...

appstore is tidy and helps you find what you need.

Also it is security proof. You never get malware and does update auto.
 
I think a major factor is the time-consuming submission process. Google, for example, which updates the Chrome browser very regularly, would be slowed down quite a bit by the App Store; every update has to be checked by Apple, which can in some cases take days or even weeks.

I hope that Apple doesn't make the App Store a requirement for all Mac software. While it's certainly a great feature to have on the Mac, quite a lot of software benefits from being free from the store's restrictions/policies. I like the idea of Gatekeeper and software certification, however, and I hope that the new combination of the App Store and Gatekeeper ends up being permanent.
 
UKBeast said:
appstore is tidy and helps you find what you need.

Also it is security proof. You never get malware and does update auto.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the more obvious advantage is going to be iCloud and Notification Center support for MAS apps.

Gatekeeper can calm any fears about malware for apps that come outside the store.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back