I think that if every app has to explain to the user how to use their own operating system, that operating system is not intuitive. I’ve been using Macs for a long time but I had to look up how to install an app the first time I did it.
I've once made a disk image backup of the running system (and it warn that it might be a good idea) and then wiped the laptop clean and installed a new macOS. The disk image (predictably) failed to mount and there wasn't much I could do to fix it.
I'm not a fan of the .dmg thing. I do like that the .app is self-contained, unlike Windows where it's always an installer, but don't like how deleting the .app doesn't clear whatever files it put all over the place.
I'll be honest given the article title I was hoping for a detailed rant on the complex installation process that most Windows apps hide, but this was also a nice read. And as a user of Raycast they do indeed have a very nice installation background.
It makes more sense if one thinks of the disk image files as digital analogues to thumb drives, optical discs, etc.
In the Classic Mac OS days a decent chunk of software (especially shareware/indieware) didn't have an installer and was just a folder you copied from a floppy disk or CD, which this process kinda mimics. You're just opening a file instead of putting in a disc.
Even Apple is unwilling to admit it makes sense, it's not like the App Store makes you drag the icon into a shopping cart or something. It's just poor design nowadays.
Why not .pkg (next, next, installer)? For the past week, I've been tweaking my startup's CLI to install as a .pkg, satisfy Apple signing, and everything that goes along with that. I've often wondered why so many companies opt for the icon method.
As a user I don’t like installer packages as much because without special utilities, they’re opaque and it’s hard to tell what they’ll do.
Of course copied binaries can cause plenty of trouble too, but I have much less of a reason to give an installed program admin privileges than I do an installer.
That makes a lot of sense. With the icon method: The user is in full control.
In our case, the CLI is part of a data sync system, so it does need a "special" once-per-hour check for new data (keeping local and mobile in sync).
I've actually been surprised how strict Apple is before it will happily let signed code run. But the average user (including me previously) doesn't know that. I think trust comes down to being clear up front.
Note to self: Add extra details/options to installer (WYSIWYG)
Inertia? It's the standardized method on macOS. Macs have been this way at least since early 90s. InstallShield likewise had been normal on Windows since early 90s, so the modern MSI installers feel more normal and straightforward to Windows users.
Happened to me last year. My wife always taunted me because I have been anti-Apple since they hermetically sealed their iMacs so you couldn't stick in RAM with talking to a "genius". "It just works!" she says. I dunno, I guess I didn't think an "Install" button needed reworking but here we are, not an ugly instruction or tooltip in sight.
Also Apple: I bought my son an old refurbished iPad for watching Netflix on long drives. But you can't install Netflix! The OS is too old. What's the workaround? Simple, if you've previously installed a Netflix on another device you can "restore" it, and then Apple will let you install the old version. On the old OS.
Of course I didn't have an old Netflix installation so I went to install Netflix on my work laptop, but there is no Netflix app for laptops anymore! Finally, I got it working through Family Share after an hour of tedious effort. This may be more Netflix's fault than Apple, but why would an OS give that power to a 3rd party in the first place? What sense does this make?
It reminds me of NextJS where there is some minor niceties at the cost of magical thinking that you may need to move heaven and earth to circumvent in order to accomplish the most basic shit.
Who says this doesn’t add to the discussion, come on! Voting you back up one…
Also senior citizens might have no idea what they’re supposed to do with it, as I’ve seen, so could be more accessible. (Maybe that’s a feature if it’s a junk app.)
It's fine for installing, but uninstalling is madness: Windows uninstallers try to clean up all the registry and user profile stuff they install. Mac apps seem to just leave stuff behind in Local Settings or Caches forever? Containers are not such a bad idea.
Same here. I’m least familiar with macOS compared to Windows and Linux, but the uninstall story on Mac was always baffling to me.
On Windows, it’s not perfect because it’s ultimately cooperative, but at least the developer of the application can also configure how it should be uninstalled. If you mostly stick to “reputable” applications, you know they would have gotten so many complaints about random things they leave behind that they slowly fix their uninstaller. Also you usually get the option to completely uninstall or keep data files, etc. Though it’s not universal. Uninstaller apps like CCleaner used to be more popular, but I hardly hear about these things anymore and usually advise against them.
On Linux, the story is slightly better as you rely on your distro package maintainer to configure the right uninstall logic. Removing random config files in /etc/ or data files in /var/ or systemd units, etc. Usually maintainers get it right as long as you stick to those feeds, and when something is missed it’ll get fixed eventually.
On Mac it seems to be either google it to get a list of locations to clean (which is what I do), or just delete the folder and ignore the random files or use CleanMyMac ($19.99) or CCleaner ($12.99) or MacAppBeGone (that’ll be $8.99) etc. luckily you can try to stick to homebrew and the App Store, but it’s limiting.
I agree entirely, my Mac is full of half leftover data from old apps.
But that is quite independent from the creativity people show in these install workflows. You could have both a cool .dmg and a proper uninstallation process (but we don’t, for the most part).
I switched to Windows in the year 2000, or 2002, around then. It used to be cool because "the app is just a file that you can place anywhere, or trash when done" was true. They arrived usually as Stuffit or Binhex archives, rarely as disk images. There was no fussy "applications folder" with special permissions. You decompressed the file to anywhere and ran it. If you felt like updating something, this was accomplished by going and getting a new one.
Counterpoint: you reinstall something later and all your setting and preferences are still there.
It’s a classic cloud vs disk debate about where and who should persist and own the data. Lately I think it’s kinda refreshing that it’s entirely on your disk and up to you.
Maybe the correct UX could be to list the locations of settings data, their size and ask the user whether they want to leave them, put them aside in a dedicated folder ("the attic", "the basement" or whatever), or remove them
I would expect local settings and caches to remain. They are your files. Caches I would expect to be cleaned up by some operating system service. This, of course, relies on the app putting stuff in expected places and not just in random places.
I bought AppZapper years ago, and it still works. There's a free tool out there somewhere as well.
Don't knock on this feature, it can be a lifesaver if you've lost the license info. When you reinstall, sometimes the app can retrieve the license from old files.
It's truly a terrible UX decision that Apple's left in place because of apathy. (And presumably thinking someone wants to install software through the Mac App Store!?)
They should offer a first-class way of "installing downloaded apps" and push developers to use it. I would say use an Installer package but I can't remember if there's issues with it not being a single file. So a zipped installer package. And then make that not have an unnecessary 12 step wizard.
I’ve always appreciated the effort and creativity developers put into making this a good experience, and a learning experience for new users. After all, you never know which app will be someone’s first install. A well made dmg was how I learned to install apps on OS X when I first moved to it 23 years ago.
Some developers have gotten lazy with this and expect users to just know. As a result I’ve seen many people running an app out of the dmg file itself for a long time, then they wonder why they have a bunch of stuff mounted.
Yeah, it's about how Windows has .msi installers, whereas for MacOS it's a .dmg where you copy the exec binary (which itself is a folder) into the /Applications folder.
No one will ever convince me that the Mac approach for installing programs is intuitive or good UX. The whole argument of: "But if you think about it in ... way, it makes sense" is a terrible argument.
It's not a good method, as well as approving tens of following security popups, entering System Settings, finding some entries, allowing something that the user doesn't even understand, entering passwords after each mouse click.
MacOS experience is t-e-r-r-i-b-l-e and it's getting worse on each release.
People who like macOS experience for me either suffer from Stockholm syndrome, or nostalgia about lost macOS 9 base. Or simply have no idea there's something better!
macOS today is not macOS at all; it's a rebranded NeXT computer.
Since then I also read dmg as damage :)
In the Classic Mac OS days a decent chunk of software (especially shareware/indieware) didn't have an installer and was just a folder you copied from a floppy disk or CD, which this process kinda mimics. You're just opening a file instead of putting in a disc.
Of course copied binaries can cause plenty of trouble too, but I have much less of a reason to give an installed program admin privileges than I do an installer.
In our case, the CLI is part of a data sync system, so it does need a "special" once-per-hour check for new data (keeping local and mobile in sync).
I've actually been surprised how strict Apple is before it will happily let signed code run. But the average user (including me previously) doesn't know that. I think trust comes down to being clear up front.
Note to self: Add extra details/options to installer (WYSIWYG)
I prefer this one: https://mothersruin.com/software/SuspiciousPackage/
But I’ve used both at different times with equally great results.
Also Apple: I bought my son an old refurbished iPad for watching Netflix on long drives. But you can't install Netflix! The OS is too old. What's the workaround? Simple, if you've previously installed a Netflix on another device you can "restore" it, and then Apple will let you install the old version. On the old OS.
Of course I didn't have an old Netflix installation so I went to install Netflix on my work laptop, but there is no Netflix app for laptops anymore! Finally, I got it working through Family Share after an hour of tedious effort. This may be more Netflix's fault than Apple, but why would an OS give that power to a 3rd party in the first place? What sense does this make?
It reminds me of NextJS where there is some minor niceties at the cost of magical thinking that you may need to move heaven and earth to circumvent in order to accomplish the most basic shit.
Also senior citizens might have no idea what they’re supposed to do with it, as I’ve seen, so could be more accessible. (Maybe that’s a feature if it’s a junk app.)
On Windows, it’s not perfect because it’s ultimately cooperative, but at least the developer of the application can also configure how it should be uninstalled. If you mostly stick to “reputable” applications, you know they would have gotten so many complaints about random things they leave behind that they slowly fix their uninstaller. Also you usually get the option to completely uninstall or keep data files, etc. Though it’s not universal. Uninstaller apps like CCleaner used to be more popular, but I hardly hear about these things anymore and usually advise against them.
On Linux, the story is slightly better as you rely on your distro package maintainer to configure the right uninstall logic. Removing random config files in /etc/ or data files in /var/ or systemd units, etc. Usually maintainers get it right as long as you stick to those feeds, and when something is missed it’ll get fixed eventually.
On Mac it seems to be either google it to get a list of locations to clean (which is what I do), or just delete the folder and ignore the random files or use CleanMyMac ($19.99) or CCleaner ($12.99) or MacAppBeGone (that’ll be $8.99) etc. luckily you can try to stick to homebrew and the App Store, but it’s limiting.
But that is quite independent from the creativity people show in these install workflows. You could have both a cool .dmg and a proper uninstallation process (but we don’t, for the most part).
It’s a classic cloud vs disk debate about where and who should persist and own the data. Lately I think it’s kinda refreshing that it’s entirely on your disk and up to you.
Don't knock on this feature, it can be a lifesaver if you've lost the license info. When you reinstall, sometimes the app can retrieve the license from old files.
https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner
>if you've lost the license info
Or used up your free trial, you get a reminder it’s time to buy!
They should offer a first-class way of "installing downloaded apps" and push developers to use it. I would say use an Installer package but I can't remember if there's issues with it not being a single file. So a zipped installer package. And then make that not have an unnecessary 12 step wizard.
Some developers have gotten lazy with this and expect users to just know. As a result I’ve seen many people running an app out of the dmg file itself for a long time, then they wonder why they have a bunch of stuff mounted.
I’d almost forgotten about all this madness since I’ve been using homebrew to install stuff for over a decade
MacOS experience is t-e-r-r-i-b-l-e and it's getting worse on each release.
People who like macOS experience for me either suffer from Stockholm syndrome, or nostalgia about lost macOS 9 base. Or simply have no idea there's something better!
macOS today is not macOS at all; it's a rebranded NeXT computer.