5 ms·
>Very few versions of redsn0w ever installed just SSH It might have not been redsn0w. Perhaps blackra1n or older, in the iOS 1/2 days, when people installed Cy
by jychang 12y ago
>Very few versions of redsn0w ever installed just SSH
It might have not been redsn0w. Perhaps blackra1n or older, in the iOS 1/2 days, when people installed Cydia side by side with RipDev's Installer. My memory is pretty hazy on that. At any rate, this distinction is mostly a historical footnote at this point.
----------------------------
Anyways, I understand that from a practical perspective, it is impossible to separate Cydia-the-installer-and-store and Cydia-the-code-modification-platform. The former pays the bills, while the latter is the focus of most development effort and center of the jailbreak ecosystem, but not profitable without killing said ecosystem. As such, it probably would be foolish to ask to distinctly separate the app and platform code-wise, as people would aim to compete in the somewhat profitable storefront side- Rock is a good example, as mentioned. Again, I understand how you said <quote>It isn't about "these things are overly coupled", it is "these things are effectively coupled but don't look to be".</quote>
However, if I may: I would suggest you do a branding clarification to clarify, if not separate, the Installer and the Code Modification side of things. For people who aren't as familiar with the scene, it would probably help people understand what you do for the jailbreak community better.
As it is, the naming scheme for the entire ecosystem is pretty confusing. For non-jailbreak-devs, "Cydia" is seen as a platform containing just the APT-frontend installer app and the store; the code modification/extension side of things is less obvious, eclipsed by the installer. This is possibly part of the reason why some people are interested in competitors for Cydia: if it is only seen as a glorified app store storefront and installer, almost anyone can write a replacement, which may be the cause for discontent.
This also has the benefit of clarifying what you're trying to do for Android: the brand "Cydia" is very iOS-centered at this point, and perhaps distinguishing Substrate/etc as something else, more neutral, would be a good idea.
- saurik 12y agoOn the contrary, I would on the other side claim that allowing the branding to accidentally separate, into MobileSubstrate and Cydia, was actually a key mistake: it reinforces the belief that they are entirely unrelated things that can be thought of and selected separately. I wish I could go back in time and be more clear with the branding as always having said "Cydia Platform" and "Cydia Substrate" whenever possible, so people see all the pieces as a unified concept, as then I wouldn't run into problems where people think "well, I'll just compete with this profitable thing I see that is defined easily with this word people talk about". I actually only started being really consistent and forceful about Cydia as a platform in the last year, when I started zooming out and putting the puzzle together better. (Really, Substrate only doesn't ship together with the GUI for ancient political reasons.)
- jychang 12y ago(I've edited my previous comment a bit to clarify, probably after you read the first revision and started commenting, so just a note) (Anyways, thanks for responding and continuing the conversation. I definitely appreciate this chance to talk with you.) ------------------ ARE they something that can't be thought of and selected separately, though? I personally don't like that kind of thinking. It's similar to adding DRM to programs so that it stops pirates- just replace "DRM" with "branding uniformity" and "pirates" with "competitors". Instead, if someone was truly interested in being an obnoxious competitor, they would "crack" the "DRM" by forcibly separate the branding. Read this in a TV advertisement voice: "Rock with Cydia Substrate, ALL of the Cydia extensions, but none of the slow!" "Replaces the installer, keep the plugins!" Sounds a bit familiar, hm? The end result is still the same, just like with piracy. If anything, this may be worse. It pollutes your own brand, and if issues comes up, you can be blamed even more for stuff that wasn't your fault. By keeping the code modification clear, you definitely would be able to better advertise to the Android side of things, and perhaps have other benefits with the current jailbreak community. You are in the unique position of being the only core jailbreak dev where all of the code that they ship doesn't need to be completely replaced every jailbreak. Unfortunately for other jailbreak devs, due to this, people have established an "everything is replaceable" mentality. People can clamor to kick devs out of the scene, like I0n1c. Cydia is not completely immune: if people think it is just a store and a frontend for APT, then people will think that almost any competent programmer can replace you- this is bad! By giving Substrate the individual brand that it deserves, and advertising the difficulty in building such a live code modification platform, it becomes that much more important in consumer's eyes. Even if you don't care about the average jailbreak community member (seeing some tweets with death threats over not releasing something fast enough... make such a perspective all too understandable), the thing is that the next person to come along to compete will originate from this jailbreak community. Marketing a stronger brand to emphasize the irreplaceability of Substrate may only gather more respect and benefit you in the long run.
- saurik 12y agoYour hypothetical situation cannot happen due to a combination of trademark and copyright law: you can't redistribute Cydia Substrate, nor could you attempt to dilute my branding or somehow accidentally ascribe fault to me. On Android, Cydia Gallery was designed (very poorly) to temporarily serve the purpose of Installer until I determined whether or not it was a good idea to bring the whole stack of Cydia over. Again, your strong separation makes it sound easy to compete with Cydia separately from Substrate: what you are describing is weaker branding, because it takes two things that are only not tied together due to happenstance of technology but which are intrinsically tied legally, economically, and even user-experientially, and separates them into two things that suddenly look like you can replace one but not the other. You then talk of people thinking Cydia is "just a store frontend for APT", but that's what "Cydia" is in your version of the branding: Substrate is some entirely separate thing, leaving Cydia alone to be compete-able with. You make it sound like separating them solves this problem, but them being accidentally separate is what caused this problem in the first place: you have the entire scenario backwards :/. Again, it is only in the last year year that I've gone out of my way to attempt to fix the branding between these two things that previously the user community accidentally saw as highly separate, with "MobileSubstrate" being this thing that maybe anyone was allowed to use and "just some weird backend thing" and pulling it into the forefront as the development tool that embodies the end-to-end platform that is Cydia.