7 ms·

Canonical to Banshee: either we disable affiliate code by default or we take 75%

28 points by naner 16y ago

nkassis 16y ago
Is this serious or a joke about the latest Apple policy?
- Stormbringer 16y ago
  Indeed. See also the epic shitstorm on HN over subscription revenue. From elsewhere in the comments: "This probably isn't that controversial" No no, trying to take 75% of someone else's revenue isn't bad at all. Now if it was say... less than a third that would be purest evil. /s This illustrates one of my two main points about the Apple bashers either (a) that whenever people discuss Apple there's a vocal minority for whom all logic seems to fly out the window and it becomes opposites day or (b) Apple is held to a different standard than others, e.g. it's okay for Canonical to throw their weight around and take a massive slice of someone else's pie, but if Apple tries to take a small slice of a pie everyone screams blue murder. --- @Linux fans: sorry to post in your thread yo, but some of your guys were trolling in the Apple bashing threads recently (and getting mighty fine karma for doing so) so turn about is fair play.
  - johkra 16y ago
    As I understand it after reading http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/3345687143/why-are-vendors-annoyed-by-this-iap-thing http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/3345687143/why-are-vendors... , there's a big difference: Canonical wants to take 75% of revenue, leaving 25% to Gnome/Banshee. Apple takes 30% of the sales price - the same part a vendor would get, taking away 100% of the revenue.
StavrosK 16y ago
For some reason, I have no clue what this means. I don't know what Ubuntu One, Banshee or the Amazon store they refer to are, can someone elucidate? Thanks.
- cmsj 16y ago
  Google is a search engine which can be used to find information about particular topics of interest ;) (Ubuntu One == cloud services product for Ubuntu users. Banshee == media player, kinda like iTunes. Amazon store == mp3 store)
  - krakensden 16y ago
    Ubuntu One is also the name of the Ubuntu music store (which is a branded version of 7digital.com, a European competitor to AmazonMP3 and iTunes).
    - lukeschlather 16y ago
      Ubuntu One isn't just music. It's primarily something like MobileMe, the music thing is only a piece.
- rhizome 16y ago
  Banshee is a music player that uses Amazon as an in-app music store, with affiliate connections that feed the Banshee people. The Ubuntu people are making Banshee their default music player, but this whole money thing has broken everybody's brain.
  - StavrosK 16y ago
    It all makes sense now, thanks. Honestly, Canonical has to make money somehow, and these two choices seem much less evil than other companies' actions...
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Makes sense. The exposition Banshee will get by being the official media player on Ubuntu is huge. Banshee is Mono-based, right?
    - mscarborough 16y ago
      You are correct, it uses Mono. I am a little behind the times these days (used debian/ubuntu for a few years of laptop use), but this article seems to have a number of links to the issues, which date back to April 2009. http://techrights.org/2009/10/22/disinformation-about-banshee/ http://techrights.org/2009/10/22/disinformation-about-banshe... Too bad Amarok is KDE and not Gnome, it is such a better music player and doesn't carry the MS/Novell stigma (just QT/KDE).
technomancy 16y ago
Another thing worth considering is that while Amazon offers an official client for Linux systems, it is very difficult to install unless you have a 32-bit system for some reason.
- krakensden 16y ago
  It also doesn't run on the latest Ubuntu- some sort of Boost versioning issue.
j_baker 16y ago
Wow. This was seriously a bad move on Canonical's part. I really wonder if Canonical knew that the revenue was going to GNOME. I simply have trouble believing that Canonical would do something so boneheaded.
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  As others have said, the Amazon referrals would compete directly with Ubuntu One, meaning they would lose money if they left it in place. Canonical still needs money to function, just like everyone else. Their offer was to either disable the Amazon links by default, driving people to use Ubuntu One, or to enable them by default and take a big cut. Not that unreasonable at all.
  - evgen 16y ago
    So, to paraphrase your argument using another recent example: "As others have said, the Amazon Kindle app browser redirect competes directly with Apple iBooks, meaning Apple would lose money if they left it in place. Apple still needs money to function, just like everybody else. Their updated terms are to either disable the browser redirect, driving people to use iBooks, or to enable in-app book purchases and take a 30% cut." I guess "unreasonable" is a somewhat flexible term in the community depending on the players involved...
    - sethwoodworth 16y ago
      That's not quite correct in this case, here's another example: "The Amazon Kindle app browser competes directly with Apple iBooks, meaning Apple would lose money if they left it in place. So Apple doesn't ship the Kindle app browser by default, but can easily be installed." Actually, it's easier than that. Banshee's store will be installed, you just have to enable it. So no, not the same thing.

28 points by naner 16y ago

nkassis 16y ago

Is this serious or a joke about the latest Apple policy?

Stormbringer 16y ago
Indeed. See also the epic shitstorm on HN over subscription revenue. From elsewhere in the comments: "This probably isn't that controversial" No no, trying to take 75% of someone else's revenue isn't bad at all. Now if it was say... less than a third that would be purest evil. /s This illustrates one of my two main points about the Apple bashers either (a) that whenever people discuss Apple there's a vocal minority for whom all logic seems to fly out the window and it becomes opposites day or (b) Apple is held to a different standard than others, e.g. it's okay for Canonical to throw their weight around and take a massive slice of someone else's pie, but if Apple tries to take a small slice of a pie everyone screams blue murder. --- @Linux fans: sorry to post in your thread yo, but some of your guys were trolling in the Apple bashing threads recently (and getting mighty fine karma for doing so) so turn about is fair play.
- johkra 16y ago
  As I understand it after reading http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/3345687143/why-are-vendors-annoyed-by-this-iap-thing http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/3345687143/why-are-vendors... , there's a big difference: Canonical wants to take 75% of revenue, leaving 25% to Gnome/Banshee. Apple takes 30% of the sales price - the same part a vendor would get, taking away 100% of the revenue.

StavrosK 16y ago

For some reason, I have no clue what this means. I don't know what Ubuntu One, Banshee or the Amazon store they refer to are, can someone elucidate? Thanks.

cmsj 16y ago
Google is a search engine which can be used to find information about particular topics of interest ;) (Ubuntu One == cloud services product for Ubuntu users. Banshee == media player, kinda like iTunes. Amazon store == mp3 store)
- krakensden 16y ago
  Ubuntu One is also the name of the Ubuntu music store (which is a branded version of 7digital.com, a European competitor to AmazonMP3 and iTunes).
  - lukeschlather 16y ago
    Ubuntu One isn't just music. It's primarily something like MobileMe, the music thing is only a piece.
rhizome 16y ago
Banshee is a music player that uses Amazon as an in-app music store, with affiliate connections that feed the Banshee people. The Ubuntu people are making Banshee their default music player, but this whole money thing has broken everybody's brain.
- StavrosK 16y ago
  It all makes sense now, thanks. Honestly, Canonical has to make money somehow, and these two choices seem much less evil than other companies' actions...
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Makes sense. The exposition Banshee will get by being the official media player on Ubuntu is huge. Banshee is Mono-based, right?
  - mscarborough 16y ago
    You are correct, it uses Mono. I am a little behind the times these days (used debian/ubuntu for a few years of laptop use), but this article seems to have a number of links to the issues, which date back to April 2009. http://techrights.org/2009/10/22/disinformation-about-banshee/ http://techrights.org/2009/10/22/disinformation-about-banshe... Too bad Amarok is KDE and not Gnome, it is such a better music player and doesn't carry the MS/Novell stigma (just QT/KDE).

technomancy 16y ago

Another thing worth considering is that while Amazon offers an official client for Linux systems, it is very difficult to install unless you have a 32-bit system for some reason.

krakensden 16y ago
It also doesn't run on the latest Ubuntu- some sort of Boost versioning issue.

j_baker 16y ago

Wow. This was seriously a bad move on Canonical's part. I really wonder if Canonical knew that the revenue was going to GNOME. I simply have trouble believing that Canonical would do something so boneheaded.

redthrowaway 16y ago
As others have said, the Amazon referrals would compete directly with Ubuntu One, meaning they would lose money if they left it in place. Canonical still needs money to function, just like everyone else. Their offer was to either disable the Amazon links by default, driving people to use Ubuntu One, or to enable them by default and take a big cut. Not that unreasonable at all.
- evgen 16y ago
  So, to paraphrase your argument using another recent example: "As others have said, the Amazon Kindle app browser redirect competes directly with Apple iBooks, meaning Apple would lose money if they left it in place. Apple still needs money to function, just like everybody else. Their updated terms are to either disable the browser redirect, driving people to use iBooks, or to enable in-app book purchases and take a 30% cut." I guess "unreasonable" is a somewhat flexible term in the community depending on the players involved...
  - sethwoodworth 16y ago
    That's not quite correct in this case, here's another example: "The Amazon Kindle app browser competes directly with Apple iBooks, meaning Apple would lose money if they left it in place. So Apple doesn't ship the Kindle app browser by default, but can easily be installed." Actually, it's easier than that. Banshee's store will be installed, you just have to enable it. So no, not the same thing.