7 ms·

> The "work with the community to merge your software into the repo" model is much better for things that actually help people. So you ratchet up the friction

> The "work with the community to merge your software into the repo" model is much better for things that actually help people. So you ratchet up the friction for entry, that helps devs? Say what you want about the app store, but across all the devs for iOS, how many would go through the trouble of self distributing their product? Marketing, infrastructure, payment system etc... ? The app store is a tremendously low friction way for market penetration. Sure, we may need to calibrate the revenue sharing arrangement. However the "merge your software into the repo" as an either/or alternative is laughable.

ddevault 6y ago
The benefits go both ways: the community also reaches out to the developers. A lot of software is added to repos without any input from the devs. The plain truth of the matter is that commercial app stores are malware distributors, and community repositories are not. The commercial app store model does not work, at least not for the user. Also: not all software is commercial, and not everyone wants their phones commercialized. Your business model is often simply not welcome on the platform. You're not entitled to make money. If we want a platform without commercial software incentives, that's our business, not yours.
- jordache 6y ago
  > not everyone wants their phones commercialized. While your statement is technically correct, the number of users falling into that category, and would go the extra effort to ensure a non-commercialized day to day phone is usable, is infinitesimally small. Most users embrace the convenience associated with the commercial solution. This will be a tiny niche phone
  - ddevault 6y ago
    >This will be a tiny niche phone Yes. So what?
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
      He is politely refuting your point. “The commercial app store model does not work, at least not for the user.” I will be more direct for your benefit. Not only are you wrong. You’re wrong on a scale so large, 100 years ago the average person had never thought of numbers that high. Not only is the commercial App Store system working for users, it’s working for billions of them. Billions of humans are cool with it. Your “open App Store” concept works for so few people, as to hardly be compared in the same breath.
      - ddevault 6y ago
        They might be "cool with it", but only out of ignorance that there are better models. Your argument boils down to "might makes right".
        akerl_ 6y ago
        I am an informed user who is cool with commercial app stores. The response above, which you replied to, is pretty toxic and I don’t agree with the level of vitriol they seem to have, but please don’t paint with such a broad brush. Being cool with commercial ecosystems is not only a product of ignorance.
        fouric 6y ago
        I am a user, and programmer, informed about both the commercial app store models and package repositories. I am perfectly fine with commercial app stores - there's absolutely nothing wrong with the concept. Are Google and Apple's implementations of the concept bad? Yes. But it's not very difficult to separate out the traits of the implementations with the traits of the idea. Steam seems to be doing very well, and as a user of that platform, they are executing it pretty well.
        imwillofficial 6y ago
        "They might be "cool with it", but only out of ignorance that there are better models." Way to speak for everyone bud. Including me, I never said "might makes right" or anything like it. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before trying to speak for others. My argument boils down to "Perfect is the enemy of good"
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    I think the problem here is liability. If I buy a phone from you, and then download an app that bricks it, I want my money back from you. Yes, you can argue that I'm responsible for that, but consumer protection laws will apply, and there's going to be a court case, possibly even a class action suit. Too many uneducated users who refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions. Yes, it's not ideal, but this is how people are. Your response has at some point got to include vetting the software that your users can download onto their phone, for purely financial reasons. If I buy a laptop, and then install Linux on it, and download a malicious package and install it, then that's on me. If someone buys a Dell laptop and downloads a malicious application and installs it, then Dell support gets to deal with that problem. After a while, Dell is going to install some software by default to help with this, and spy on what users have been doing purely so that if they mess up then Dell can help. Eventually this happens enough and Windows gets an app store, and fairly soon after a version of Windows that can only install apps via the app store. This is not about control for control's sake, or revenue (except saving support costs). This is about protecting people from themselves. But sure, if Pine can put a big sticker on the phone saying "do not install anything on this phone" and make that legally binding, then they won't need an app store.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      That... is not what's happening here. That narrative is bordering on delusional. App distributiors are distributing malware. The vendors and the app developers are spying on you because it's profitable to sell your data. They keep walled gardens so that they get their 30% cut of every transaction. They are doing it in the service of their financial interests, which also motivates everything else they do. The idea that they're doing it out of some kind of charitable desire to keep the user's phone working is ridiculous.
      - marcus_holmes 6y ago
        and yet, that is literally the reason they say that they're doing this
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  “ The plain truth of the matter is that commercial app stores are malware distributors, and community repositories are not.” Are you smoking crack?
- fouric 6y ago
  > The plain truth of the matter is that commercial app stores are malware distributors, and community repositories are not. Citation needed. > The commercial app store model does not work, at least not for the user. The hundred of millions of Google Play users would like to have a word with you. (rampant ad-tech and freeware model are a function of the "race to the bottom" in app pricing, conditioning users to trade privacy for free apps, and Google's existence as an advertiser, not the fact that the Google Play store is commercial) > Also: not all software is commercial, and not everyone wants their phones commercialized. You can, uh, have an app store that distributes both commercial and non-commercial apps. In particular, there's a lot of open-source stuff on Google Play (and probably on the Apple App Store too). > Your business model is often simply not welcome on the platform. What platform? Who's not "welcoming"? The Pinephone runs open-source software. > If we want a platform without commercial software incentives, that's our business, not yours. Again, what platform? Who's "we"? The users? I'm a user, and I want commercial incentives - what makes your desires more important than mine? Only a authoritarian, selfish mindset rejects a feature (commercial software) that is desired by some fraction of the user population, is useful, and is compatible with alternative features (open-source software) for a poor, vague reason like "commercialization". Or does your definition of "software freedom" sound like "you can run anything you want on your computer...except for "proprietary" programs (which we get to define), or those that "enable" proprietary programs"?
  - ddevault 6y ago
    >Citation needed. https://play.google.com/store/search?q=flashlight https://play.google.com/store/search?q=flashlight Click through some of these and see what permissions they ask for. Full network access, run at startup, view network connections, GPS location, read contacts, read the SD card, ads, microtransactions, the list of offenses goes on and on. All to do exactly one thing: call this function: https://developer.android.com/reference/androidx/camera/core/CameraControl#enableTorch(boolean) https://developer.android.com/reference/androidx/camera/core... This is malware, and the services which distribute it are malware distributors. >Only a authoritarian, selfish mindset rejects a feature (commercial software) that is desired by some fraction of the user population Only a shmuck or an abuser thinks that it's okay to exploit user's ignorance of the alternatives to monetize their every waking breath and steal as much information about them as possible through deceit and propaganda. Prohibiting the exploitation of the public is not authoritarian, even if it means you don't make as much money.

ddevault 6y ago

The benefits go both ways: the community also reaches out to the developers. A lot of software is added to repos without any input from the devs. The plain truth of the matter is that commercial app stores are malware distributors, and community repositories are not. The commercial app store model does not work, at least not for the user. Also: not all software is commercial, and not everyone wants their phones commercialized. Your business model is often simply not welcome on the platform. You're not entitled to make money. If we want a platform without commercial software incentives, that's our business, not yours.

jordache 6y ago
> not everyone wants their phones commercialized. While your statement is technically correct, the number of users falling into that category, and would go the extra effort to ensure a non-commercialized day to day phone is usable, is infinitesimally small. Most users embrace the convenience associated with the commercial solution. This will be a tiny niche phone
- ddevault 6y ago
  >This will be a tiny niche phone Yes. So what?
  - imwillofficial 6y ago
    He is politely refuting your point. “The commercial app store model does not work, at least not for the user.” I will be more direct for your benefit. Not only are you wrong. You’re wrong on a scale so large, 100 years ago the average person had never thought of numbers that high. Not only is the commercial App Store system working for users, it’s working for billions of them. Billions of humans are cool with it. Your “open App Store” concept works for so few people, as to hardly be compared in the same breath.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      They might be "cool with it", but only out of ignorance that there are better models. Your argument boils down to "might makes right".
      - akerl_ 6y ago
        I am an informed user who is cool with commercial app stores. The response above, which you replied to, is pretty toxic and I don’t agree with the level of vitriol they seem to have, but please don’t paint with such a broad brush. Being cool with commercial ecosystems is not only a product of ignorance.
      - fouric 6y ago
        I am a user, and programmer, informed about both the commercial app store models and package repositories. I am perfectly fine with commercial app stores - there's absolutely nothing wrong with the concept. Are Google and Apple's implementations of the concept bad? Yes. But it's not very difficult to separate out the traits of the implementations with the traits of the idea. Steam seems to be doing very well, and as a user of that platform, they are executing it pretty well.
      - imwillofficial 6y ago
        "They might be "cool with it", but only out of ignorance that there are better models." Way to speak for everyone bud. Including me, I never said "might makes right" or anything like it. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before trying to speak for others. My argument boils down to "Perfect is the enemy of good"
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  I think the problem here is liability. If I buy a phone from you, and then download an app that bricks it, I want my money back from you. Yes, you can argue that I'm responsible for that, but consumer protection laws will apply, and there's going to be a court case, possibly even a class action suit. Too many uneducated users who refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions. Yes, it's not ideal, but this is how people are. Your response has at some point got to include vetting the software that your users can download onto their phone, for purely financial reasons. If I buy a laptop, and then install Linux on it, and download a malicious package and install it, then that's on me. If someone buys a Dell laptop and downloads a malicious application and installs it, then Dell support gets to deal with that problem. After a while, Dell is going to install some software by default to help with this, and spy on what users have been doing purely so that if they mess up then Dell can help. Eventually this happens enough and Windows gets an app store, and fairly soon after a version of Windows that can only install apps via the app store. This is not about control for control's sake, or revenue (except saving support costs). This is about protecting people from themselves. But sure, if Pine can put a big sticker on the phone saying "do not install anything on this phone" and make that legally binding, then they won't need an app store.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    That... is not what's happening here. That narrative is bordering on delusional. App distributiors are distributing malware. The vendors and the app developers are spying on you because it's profitable to sell your data. They keep walled gardens so that they get their 30% cut of every transaction. They are doing it in the service of their financial interests, which also motivates everything else they do. The idea that they're doing it out of some kind of charitable desire to keep the user's phone working is ridiculous.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      and yet, that is literally the reason they say that they're doing this
imwillofficial 6y ago
“ The plain truth of the matter is that commercial app stores are malware distributors, and community repositories are not.” Are you smoking crack?
fouric 6y ago
> The plain truth of the matter is that commercial app stores are malware distributors, and community repositories are not. Citation needed. > The commercial app store model does not work, at least not for the user. The hundred of millions of Google Play users would like to have a word with you. (rampant ad-tech and freeware model are a function of the "race to the bottom" in app pricing, conditioning users to trade privacy for free apps, and Google's existence as an advertiser, not the fact that the Google Play store is commercial) > Also: not all software is commercial, and not everyone wants their phones commercialized. You can, uh, have an app store that distributes both commercial and non-commercial apps. In particular, there's a lot of open-source stuff on Google Play (and probably on the Apple App Store too). > Your business model is often simply not welcome on the platform. What platform? Who's not "welcoming"? The Pinephone runs open-source software. > If we want a platform without commercial software incentives, that's our business, not yours. Again, what platform? Who's "we"? The users? I'm a user, and I want commercial incentives - what makes your desires more important than mine? Only a authoritarian, selfish mindset rejects a feature (commercial software) that is desired by some fraction of the user population, is useful, and is compatible with alternative features (open-source software) for a poor, vague reason like "commercialization". Or does your definition of "software freedom" sound like "you can run anything you want on your computer...except for "proprietary" programs (which we get to define), or those that "enable" proprietary programs"?
- ddevault 6y ago
  >Citation needed. https://play.google.com/store/search?q=flashlight https://play.google.com/store/search?q=flashlight Click through some of these and see what permissions they ask for. Full network access, run at startup, view network connections, GPS location, read contacts, read the SD card, ads, microtransactions, the list of offenses goes on and on. All to do exactly one thing: call this function: https://developer.android.com/reference/androidx/camera/core/CameraControl#enableTorch(boolean) https://developer.android.com/reference/androidx/camera/core... This is malware, and the services which distribute it are malware distributors. >Only a authoritarian, selfish mindset rejects a feature (commercial software) that is desired by some fraction of the user population Only a shmuck or an abuser thinks that it's okay to exploit user's ignorance of the alternatives to monetize their every waking breath and steal as much information about them as possible through deceit and propaganda. Prohibiting the exploitation of the public is not authoritarian, even if it means you don't make as much money.