It does not seem that the author is affiliated with Canonical. Ideally, Canonical should be the ones defending their product. IMO, it is okay for the backend t

It does not seem that the author is affiliated with Canonical. Ideally, Canonical should be the ones defending their product. IMO, it is okay for the backend to be propriety as long there is a published, easy to implement protocol for talking to snapd (along with an accessible way for clients to configure snapd). Otherwise, there is lock-in to the service. It's not just the FOSS community that should be concerned, but business users as well. Do you want to internally distribute in-house snaps via Canonical's servers? > DockerHub and GitHub are insanely popular and they are completely proprietary. These are arguments against, not for, using these services. And many proprietary SaaS companies sell installations on on-prem air gapped servers.