I get the point of flatpak and I see its value. Personally I just don't need yet another channel through which I need to get stuff. IMO Flatpak solves several

I get the point of flatpak and I see its value. Personally I just don't need yet another channel through which I need to get stuff. IMO Flatpak solves several real problems: 1.) allowing third parties distribute applications in a distro-agnostic manner; 2.) allowing easy installation of packages as a user (rather than requiring root); 3.) a way to install applications on top of an immutable base OS; 4.) sandboxing of applications, or at least packaging applications such that they can move to proper sandboxing over time. Unfortunately, the development of application bundles follow the prototypical path that we are oh so familiar with as Linux users. Rather than sitting together and making one standard, Canonical (Snap) and Red Hat (Flatpak) made their own application bundle formats, in addition to an already existing format (AppImage). And now vendors have to build bundles in three different formats, like they had to build for at least two package managers before. So, the problem actually got worse. To Red Hat's credit, Flatpak was initially developed as part of freedesktop.org (initially as xdg-app). We can always hope that Canonical will give up on Snaps for desktop applications I guess (like they dropped Unity and Upstart).