Mac App Store update for SL Users! How awesome is this?!

[sekker]

https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1860?locale=en_US

[space-time]

This update:

Installs a renewed intermediate signing certificate required by the Mac App Store. The certificate ensures that you can continue to use the Mac App Store in Snow Leopard to purchase new apps and run any previously purchased apps that use receipt validation.
Includes improvements to Mac App Store alerts.

they didn't want to lose any potential sales to many users who insist using the best OS X ever made.

[sekker]

SL is reportedly only running on 4% of Macs.

Apple absolutely did not have to do this.

[hal]

sekker wrote:
SL is reportedly only running on 4% of Macs.

Apple absolutely did not have to do this.

If they want additional revenue from SL users, they certainly DID have to do it...

[RAMd®d]

Apple absolutely did not have to do this.

I'm sure it merely portends some unspeakable evilness that will befall Snow Leopard users at some point. It doesn't matter that it may benefit some SL users. If there is any possible negative interpretation to be applied, then that must be Apple's sole motivation.


If they want additional revenue from SL users, they certainly DID have to do it...

They leave more than that on the table after lunch.

Or maybe they're just trying anything to stay afloat until their stock sees better days.

[Speedy]

Does me no good on my G5.

[$tevie]

Something tells me lawyers were involved. Don't know how, don't know why, but it seems unlikely that Apple did this out of the kindness of their hearts.

[GGD]

sekker wrote:
SL is reportedly only running on 4% of Macs.

Apple absolutely did not have to do this.

If they want those Macs to be able to use the App store to "purchase" El Capitan, then they need to continue supporting the path needed to get there. They still sell Snow Leopard for that same reason, and they don't sell a retail standalone version of El Capitan.

http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MC573Z...ow-leopard

[silvarios]

I'm not sure if the intent of this update is understood, judging by most of the comments in this thread.

Hopefully, those currently using Snow Leopard, like me, realize many (most?) apps on the Mac app store no longer support Snow Leopard. Even apps that once supported Snow Leopard and were previously downloaded on Snow Leopard will only provide the newest binary as far as I can tell. Most of the apps on my list won't install anymore, even with this update.

This is just an update to allow people to download any apps that happen to still be Snow Leopard compatible or to purchase newer versions of Mac OS X. There's no additional support, it's just a newer certificate to authenticate downloads as far as I can tell. I seriously doubt there was legal pressure to do anything. I'd guess most Snow Leopard users are using direct downloads anyway since the Mac app store's compatible app selection for 10.6 is pretty low.

[silvarios]

Ps Reissuing a certificate hardly required a large amount of work. Not long ago, apps from the Mac app store refused to launch because of an expired security certificate. It is trivial to reissue these things, yet even big companies like Apple can occasionally get caught with their pants down. I'm guessing as apart of that recent snafu, someone at Apple realized these needed to reissue certificates, so why not make sure any version of OS X compatible with the app store gets one reissued?

http://www.macrumors.com/2015/11/12/mac-...ipts-issue

People see Snow Leopard update and think there's some sort of big code launch that software engineers had to slave over, but it's largely just a certificate being reissued. There's no reason not to reissue a new certificate, so kudos to Apple for doing the right thing and taking the ten minutes to roll one out. I will give props to any improvements in the notifications, that might have taken a little work, but I'm guessing it relates to not showing updates for apps not compatible with the host system. So some sort of compatibility check (i.e. Is this installed version older than version of OS X, yes or no?), but I could be wrong.