7 ms·

Seems a weird decision given even Apple do not seem able to get a desktop app store to work.

sho_hn 4y ago
The situation on Linux is a little bit different in that each individual distro (say, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) have always worked with a "desktop app store" (package repository, which you interact with e.g. with GUI store frontends or CLI commands) as the one way to get apps from. What's different here is having one that's portable across the distros, enabled by the Flatpak package format.
pxc 4y ago
On macOS, it's a lot easier to ship highly compatible applications on your own website, that anyone can just download and then run on their Mac. So Apple's App Store is competing with that paradigm as well. On Linux, the runtimes apps need vary too much from distro to distro, or even OS install to OS install, for that to be equally viable. So Flatpak here isn't just an alternative distribution model in a commercial sense, but a technical one— it's genuinely more portable than most previous options. A Flatpak-based store also need not be concerned with taking over the world— Flatpak itself supports configurable repositories, so indie developers are totally free to publish their own apps via Flatpak on their own, or perhaps even on their choice of a range of competing Flatpak-based app stores, should such a field arise. The point in the Linux case is not to corral users into using a single source for all their apps, but rather to provide a broadly compatible option, and also to make commercial development of proprietary software for Linux desktops more viable by allowing vendors to target more users with less effort. If a universal Flatpak store for Linux desktops comes to be, it would probably still be fair to call it a success even if most users prefer to get most of our software elsewhere.
mistrial9 4y ago
Canonical is fishing for an IPO ; stores make money and deliver control. signed "Ubuntu is a word in the Debian language meaning we dont care about whatever you are trying to do this week"
smackeyacky 4y ago
Might simply be the death throes of desktop applications themselves. What else does anybody (other than developers) install any more other than Chrome?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  Games, audio mixing software, media editing software, control interfaces for hobbiest equipment, piracy tools, video capture software, and literally anything that needs to work when the internet is down.
- lbwtaylor 4y ago
  Why would I want google controlling how I interact with my software? Maybe it doesn't seem like it, but it's an honest question. I don't find the browser first approach attractive at all.

The situation on Linux is a little bit different in that each individual distro (say, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) have always worked with a "desktop app store" (package repository, which you interact with e.g. with GUI store frontends or CLI commands) as the one way to get apps from. What's different here is having one that's portable across the distros, enabled by the Flatpak package format.

pxc 4y ago

On macOS, it's a lot easier to ship highly compatible applications on your own website, that anyone can just download and then run on their Mac. So Apple's App Store is competing with that paradigm as well. On Linux, the runtimes apps need vary too much from distro to distro, or even OS install to OS install, for that to be equally viable. So Flatpak here isn't just an alternative distribution model in a commercial sense, but a technical one— it's genuinely more portable than most previous options. A Flatpak-based store also need not be concerned with taking over the world— Flatpak itself supports configurable repositories, so indie developers are totally free to publish their own apps via Flatpak on their own, or perhaps even on their choice of a range of competing Flatpak-based app stores, should such a field arise. The point in the Linux case is not to corral users into using a single source for all their apps, but rather to provide a broadly compatible option, and also to make commercial development of proprietary software for Linux desktops more viable by allowing vendors to target more users with less effort. If a universal Flatpak store for Linux desktops comes to be, it would probably still be fair to call it a success even if most users prefer to get most of our software elsewhere.

mistrial9 4y ago

Canonical is fishing for an IPO ; stores make money and deliver control. signed "Ubuntu is a word in the Debian language meaning we dont care about whatever you are trying to do this week"

smackeyacky 4y ago

Might simply be the death throes of desktop applications themselves. What else does anybody (other than developers) install any more other than Chrome?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
Games, audio mixing software, media editing software, control interfaces for hobbiest equipment, piracy tools, video capture software, and literally anything that needs to work when the internet is down.
lbwtaylor 4y ago
Why would I want google controlling how I interact with my software? Maybe it doesn't seem like it, but it's an honest question. I don't find the browser first approach attractive at all.