[Salty]

OK, so I was thinking the other day about how Apple tends to often do things first on one device or side of the company and then the ideas move over into other segments. Take iTools/.mac/mobile me. Started out as email and stuff, then it started out as an iLife companion product, then it moved into being pitched to iPhone and iPod touch users. OK given what a lot of us think of mobile me maybe not the best example. But take cover flow, started out as a third party app, then went to iTunes, then the iPod and OS X's finder.

Anyway, so I tried out a really awesome app the other day called Pixelmator, I saw it on the MacNN page, and decided to try it out. It's basically photoshop but done in Cocoa (I think) with most things done by CoreImage. So It's blazingly fast, and has most of the features of Photoshop I use, (notable misses are no smudge tool, no dodging and burning) and the really sweet thing is, it's only 60 bucks! At first I was thinking, "Dude Apple should buy this and put it into iLife!" Then I was like... actually there's probably enough in the interface to get them sued to hell by Adobe, or at least strain Apple's relationship with Adobe.

Then I though, well why is it you can find all kinds of cool Apps on iTunes for your iPhone, but there's nothing like that for OS X itself? I mean think of it, how many developers spend a lot of time working on copy protection schemes and stuff that most of the time are cracked pretty easily, and spend a lot of time developing their websites and hoping someone finds them on version tracker or Mac Update? Does your mom know about Mac Update? Mine doesn't. My mom has managed to figure out how to buy stuff on iTunes though.

Now what kind of Apps would go in the App store for the finder? Honestly I doubt Adobe or Microsoft would sign on they're big enough that they don't need that sort of exposure. Really most apps that cost 100 or more would probably not need the kind of exposure I'm talking about. But I'm thinking more for smaller developers like the Omni Group, Delicious Monster, and so on and so forth. I mean I often see nifty apps that I have no need of on the MacNN home page, and it hits me that those sorts of apps aren't really well known, and it's probably pretty hard for them to hit their market.

As well the bigger apps like Adobe's an Microsoft also don't always follow the normal drag and drop install process for OS X. Basically my thinking would be to allow mainly applications that would be single packages that follow the normal OS X guidelines of storing everything except for preferences in the Applications folder.

I think this would be a HUGE boon for smaller developers, it would make Apple TONS of money, with their 30% take, and it would also get a lot of customers investing in Apple specific Software, and make it more worthwhile for developers to not just develop for Windows first, and put out a Mac version when they get around to it.

[Laminar]

Not the worst idea I've ever heard.

[Salty]

And think about it, right now you drag an App to the Apps folder, but to be honest most customers that doesn't really make much sense to. I've had a bajillion friends ask me why they need to open a disk image every time they wanna run an App. Now lots of developers include instructions, and some even have installers that do little more than move the app into the app folder, but I think it'd be great to include an App Store for users, and I think it'd really boost the amount of revenue indie developers see. Also think of how many iPhone devs might port games and what not over to OS X?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Salty 

And think about it, right now you drag an App to the Apps folder, but to be honest most customers that doesn't really make much sense to. I've had a bajillion friends ask me why they need to open a disk image every time they wanna run an App. Now lots of developers include instructions, and some even have installers that do little more than move the app into the app folder, but I think it'd be great to include an App Store for users, and I think it'd really boost the amount of revenue indie developers see. Also think of how many iPhone devs might port games and what not over to OS X?

If I had a nickel for every time I saw someone running MSN Messenger from a disk image, I'd have...like...twenty-five cents. I think disk image app installation is one of the best, but least intuitive parts of OS X.

[Salty]

Anyone else notice how it's getting more difficult to find markets where Apple will actually expand into themselves?

[mdc]

Ignoring that it's a smart idea.
I'd like it if the App Store would just download and copy the apps to your Applications folder, and then leave you free to delete them. One thing I really like about Mac OS is that installing and uninstalling apps is as simple as copying them to and from the Applications folder.
If the App Store brought in some Windows-type-Add/Remove Programs thing it would really bother me and take away all the simplicity.

[ajprice]

I like this idea, and it would give a lot of exposure to the likes of Ambrosia, Pangea etc for games, and smaller apps like Pixelator, Bento, the Omni apps etc. Its probably possible by splitting up the iTunes App Store into iPhone and Mac stores, and the software would install itself from being downloaded through iTunes. It would probably help iPhone apps for Mac remotes, trackpads and keyboards, which usually need a server app on the Mac its controlling. With this, the iPhone and Mac sides of these could install ready to go.

[Salty]

I think this would also help get people to stop clamouring for Apple to develop every piece of software they might want since they'd actually be able to find that third party developer.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

If I had a nickel for every time I saw someone running MSN Messenger from a disk image, I'd have...like...twenty-five cents. I think disk image app installation is one of the best, but least intuitive parts of OS X.

It's only unintuitive if the person cannot read the sentence developers put there telling people to drag the app to the application folder, or if the person automatically assumes every application should have an installer. People used to install applications from floppies by dragging the files over to the hard drives; disk image packages are simpler because there's only one application icon to drag. I don't think regular users were that much more intelligent back then, either. If people are so dumb they can't get the disk image concept, maybe they deserve Windows.

Perhaps the Finder could note the number of times the app has been launched off the dmg and display a dialog box with the following after the third launch:

You have launched the application "Graphic Converter" three times from its disk image. Would you like it to be copied to your Applications folder? (You can also do this manually by dragging the application to your Applications folder.)

[Cancel] [OK] Do not ask me again []

If the user were to authorize it, the app would be copied and the Applications folder opened with the app selected for the user.

Back on topic, the Mac App Store is a really good idea, although if it were to come about some would worry Apple would be working toward locking down Mac OS X the same way it locks down the iPlatform.

[Person Man]

I don't like this idea at all.

Once it is implemented it's not a stretch to imagine Apple locking down the Mac OS like the do the iPhone/iPod Touch. Think of the mess that would be. Only running "Apple approved" apps on the computer?

No, I think we'd have to be very wary of this idea. We all know Jobs too well to trust him completely on an idea like this.

EDIT: Glad to see I'm not the only one with this concern, Big Mac

[besson3c]

Great idea, especially when coupled with my global software update idea I've presented earlier.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's only unintuitive if the person cannot read the sentence developers put there telling people to drag the app to the application folder, or if the person automatically assumes every application should have an installer. People used to install applications from floppies by dragging the files over to the hard drives; disk image packages are simpler because there's only one application icon to drag. I don't think regular users were that much more intelligent back then, either. If people are so dumb they can't get the disk image concept, maybe they deserve Windows.

The whole point of being intuitive is that it shouldn't have to be explained. In the case of MSN Messenger, there was no explanation on the DMG, so someone that was unfamiliar with the concept wouldn't have a clue what to do. The Mac has always been about things "just working," so saying that something is simple to understand once you're told how to do it really isn't how things work. Sure, the Windows file hierarchy makes sense once you spend a long time getting used to it, but that doesn't mean it's good.

[64stang06]

Couldn't get any easier than that, but I've seen people running both apps from the disk image even with the visual indicators.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The whole point of being intuitive is that it shouldn't have to be explained. In the case of MSN Messenger, there was no explanation on the DMG, so someone that was unfamiliar with the concept wouldn't have a clue what to do. The Mac has always been about things "just working," so saying that something is simple to understand once you're told how to do it really isn't how things work. Sure, the Windows file hierarchy makes sense once you spend a long time getting used to it, but that doesn't mean it's good.

I don't buy it, Laminar. You can say just about anything in a GUI isn't intuitive by that lowest common denominator standard. There are certain conventions that people should understand in order to use their computers effectively. They're computers, after all, not appliances - they're serious, powerful tools, and people need some grey matter to do certain things with them. I think disk images are damn intuitive. If you guys had Apple's ear, we'd have such a dumbed down Mac OS X that it wouldn't qualify as a personal computer OS anymore.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't buy it, Laminar. You can say just about anything in a GUI isn't intuitive by that lowest common denominator standard.

But I'm not. I'm saying that until someone explains what a disk image is and why you shouldn't have to open one to run an application, most people wouldn't just "get it." I've spent enough time in tech support to understand this.

[Big Mac]

I guess these are the same types of people who still use IE 5 on their Macs, which I also have zero respect for. Really, these people should stick with Windows.

[Salty]

I don't think having an App Store means that they'd suddenly start locking down the OS. The reason the iPhone OS is locked down is to keep ATT happy, plain and simple. If they allowed a metered data plan where over 500 megs you're paying like Rogers does (IE after that point you wanna sign up for a higher end plan) then they'd have NO problem. The major reason the iPhone store is locked down is to prevent people from trying to create malware for it, and to keep network bogging apps off. The reason some apps are censored on the iTunes store is because it's a reflection on Apple.

What I'm saying would happen is that this wouldn't be required for every app to run on the platform, but it would give smaller developers a great chance to get their software seen. It would probably also help to massively drop Microsoft Messenger's market share when people discover Adium on the store.

They would though have to relax the rules a bit, for example right now every iPhone app gets approved, with something like this I'd say since desktop apps can be way more complex so Apple would need to learn to trust developers.

Essentially it would be a lot like the Get OS X software page, only it would involve Apple hosting, and billing, creating a copy protection wrapper.

By the way I still kind of think Apple should buy Pixelmator the app feels so pro! I wish the iLife apps had that sort of feel to them.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I guess these are the same types of people who still use IE 5 on their Macs

Nope.

[Salty]

So... sadly no Finder Store at WWDC this year... maybe next year?

[is not]

"Couldn't get any easier than that, but I've seen people running both apps from the disk image even with the visual indicators."

LOL

[Salty]

It's true.