Back in the mid-90s when I worked for Microsoft training their Windows and Office support personnel the question frequently arose, "Why didn't Microsoft test my hardware and software configuration before releasing a new version of Windows or Office or whatever product they built?" So someone at Microsoft, it sure wasn't me, sat down and calculated how long it would take to do that. The answer came back that the number of possible combinations approached infinity and that assumed all hardware and software development was frozen during the testing. So Microsoft could, and would, test with a very limited number of software combinations on a handful of hardware configurations and left the rest up to the will of the computing Gods and the companies building the hardware.
Apple, on the other hand, recognized the impossibility of the task very early on and chose to limit their risk by tightly controlling the hardware side of the equation. As others in this thread have noted, "Apple is a hardware company". The advent of the i-devices with their plethora of apps and and Apple's understandable desire/requirement for reliability resulted in the iTunes App store where Apple can at least test every apps in isolation before allowing them to be installed on the iPhone or iPad. At least partly as a result of that, the iPhone and iPad have had very few software conflicts or problems.
It seems to me the MAS is a logical extension of that thinking. Unlike the iPhone and iPad you can still purchase applications directly from the developer and install them on your Mac. In fact if you have the app already installed the MAS will recognize that it is installed but it will
not allow you to reinstall or update it through the app store. Neither are you
forced to accept an update for any app purchased through the MAS. It might be nice to have an archive and install option, but it is easy enough to simply right click on the app and select "compress" from the context menu. As far as I can tell so far all of the installs are simple drag and drop with the addition of "authorizing" the install with the MAS.
If Apple should decide to go with the MAS as their only means of distribution Apple apps, what is wrong with that? It saves Apple and the consumer money and time. I can't remember how long it has been since I purchased software on a CD/DVD from any vendor. Virtually everything on my Macs has been through electronic download. Yes I do burn a CD/DVD of the download image of major apps, but I have never used one of the burned copies. The one or two times I have had to go back a version, Time Machine, has handled the chore quickly and easily. In fact now that I think of it, between time Machine and MAS the necessity of burning a copy is pretty well obviated. I can always go back to the source or back in time.
In short, it seems to me that rather than
isolate users who like to control their own destiny, Apple is doing a pretty good job of accommodating those who
like to control their own destiny as well as those who lack either the knowledge or desire to do so. Certainly the MAS will make my support of several technophobe Mac users a
LOT easier.
Having said all that, I am not sure that Apple has all the kinks worked out of the MAS. I am still having issues installing some apps and some updates.
