Amazon has opened a shelter for Mac software developers who either can't or don't want to sell their apps in Apple's Mac OS X Mac App Store: the logically named Mac Download Store. Amazon's offering is a direct competitor to Apple's store, which was announced along with Mac OS X Lion last October and launched in early January …
Has to be better than Apple
As a Mac owner I'd certainly favour Amazon over that dipstick Jobs and his nasty little software shop. I love the kit but Jobs and Apple's attitude to their customers and third-party developers get on my nerves.
Almost always buy media and software off Amazon, unless it's some niche music CD's that Amazon or their third-party merchants won't carry, never had any issues with returns or faults. I'd trust them over Apple any day.
Nasty little software shop? Have you used it? Cheaper software, helping independent devs reduce their overheads and get exposure. Is it so shitty that it's a simple way to manage your installed software? No. So far it's only the bigger corporations selling their wares for download at the same price that you can buy directly from them, except there is a third party (Amazon in this case) who are *genuinely* not doing very much. Amazon's download offers a big fat fuck all for independent developers (like Realmac, PixelMator, Bohemian Coding etc. who incidentally all seem reasonably happy with the Mac App Store) at the moment. While I share some of your annoyance with the vetting process (again, as do some of the developers), it's keeping the standards relatively high and the prices affordable. There are better options available for less through the Apple Mac App Store than on Amazons effort, and most of the games are available through Steam. Competition is a good thing, clearly, but so far this is very 'me too' and offers none of the benefits of what is already out there.
as a mac owner
you should give mac store a go. simple, fast, link to my itunes account, simple to update an app and also install. not sure what you're talking about but from the looks of it i doubt you've tried it. and as mentioned in previous response to your comment, exposure of small devs on mac app store is something you don't get on amazon or anywhere else. i dont' give a shit about overpriced adobe products or office. there's pixelmator and iwork which replaced former products entirely.
My Mac Download now has a store
I'll get my coat & head back to the day job ....
So, how does a small independent software vendor (aka someone coding in their parents' basement) get into the Amazon store? And what is the revenue split, or other costs?
Or is it just for the big boys such as Microsoft and Adobe?
There's no mention of how the licensing works. On the Mac App Store you can download and use the software on up to 5 machines. I assume that Amazon's downloads have the same restrictions as the boxed copies, but I couldn't see any information.
Standard license applies
Amazon doesn't play any role in licensing, i.e. whatever conditions set by the developer apply.
I really like the App Store approach, where I buy the software and can very easily deploy it on the whole family's computers (we don't exceed 5 yet) and it just works (unlike other software on Amazon that has complex license controls and can stop working if you have Internet connection problems or the license management server breaks).
people are still buying office?
have times not changed....have the public not head of openoffice?
why does it have to be one or the other?
The article suggests app buyers need to head to one camp or the other
bugger that - I'll browse and buy from which ever gives me the best of what I want.
A viable competitor to anything is usually good - this is no exception
...that it's not called the Amazon App Store.
Re: How ironic
The Amazon App Store sells Android Apps.
Mac users have heard of OpenOffice, trouble is it's utterly pants on the platform*. iWork is a better option for Mac users. Before anyone chimes in with the doc compatibility issues; OpenOffice share these too. So does Microsoft Office, which amazes me.
*that's not the same as saying that OO.o is pants, just that the UX on the Mac with this app is IME poor.
Poor UI, but acceptable
I use both iWork and OpenOffice (and MS Office as a last resort). iWork is definitely smoother and easier to work with. I would use it all the time if possible. But for most of my work, I prefer the open standard of OpenOffice. *Anyone* can open the file just as I saved it. This isn't true for iWork or MS Office unfortunately (and probably never will be). Yes, you can export to other formats, but this will never be 100%.
The UI for Open Office on the Mac is admittedly a bit rugged, but still very usable. And it has a good feature set. But the big win for me is the (truly) standard file format.
"(truly) standard file format"?
ODF files? I know no-one that uses them. I'm all for ISO standards (docx *is* a ratified ISO standard BTW), but the reality is that it's doc files for word processing document, xls for spreadsheets and ppt for presentations. Do you mean *open*? Meh. Interoperability trumps openness, although admittedly interoperability between versions of Word can be hit and miss!
Why is quality control silly?
Quote: " Some [restrictions] are silly, such as "Apps that exhibit bugs will be rejected," which would, let's face it, eliminates nearly every app ever written."
That simply means that Apple actually *tests* the software before putting it up for sale in its store. If the software is obviously buggy - and that's all this kind of testing will reveal - customers won't be happy with it. Rejecting poor quality software eminently sensible to me.
Not really the same thing is it
I don't see licensing for x computers based upon AmazonID, or any sort of upgrade checking / notifications, or one click installs with no messing with serials etc.
This is just a webstore that you can download mac software from, is that a new thing? seems like there are hundreds of websites that have been doing that for ages.
Not silly, good on APPL.
'Some are silly, such as "Apps that exhibit bugs will be rejected," which would, let's face it, eliminates nearly every app ever written.'
Why is this silly? There is a difference between exhibiting bugs and having bugs. If the reviewer actually notices a bug it's rejected, if they developer noticed the bug it should have been fixed, if neither do, then it's accepted. I would even go a step further and say we can pull an App if a bug comes to light until it is resolved.
I think the "oh there are bugs in all software" crowd has lulled developers into thinking they shouldn't have to test their code, and shouldn't have to worry about quality control. Is it going to take a rehash of the Therac-25 disaster before developers start taking responsibility for their code?
Competition is Good.
So now two stores are competing to make purchasing and installing software on OSX both cheaper and easier. The customer wins, and in the end Apple wins because anything that makes their platform more attractive will increase hardware sales.
People want to just click and have something purchased, downloaded, and installed. Maybe add a check box if you want to do a custom installation and everyone should be happy except those stuck with slow internet.
As far as Open Office, while I personally find it meets all my office needs and use it on my Macbook, and Windows 7 laptop and HTPC, its not very hard to find real world examples where it simply doesn't get the job done.
I always tell people to give OO a try before buying MS Office, most of the time the stick with OO but sometimes MS Office is really the only sane choice.
- Crawling from the Wreckage Want a more fuel efficient car? Then redesign it – here's how
- Apple SILENCES Bose, YANKS headphones from stores
- Flesh-flapping, image-zapping app Snapchat NOW ad-wrapped
- Vid NASA eyeballs SOLAR HEAT BOMBS, MINI-TORNADOES and NANOFLARES on Sun
- TV Review Doctor Who's Flatline: Cool monsters, yes, but utterly limp subplots