7mo ago

F-Droid exploring to include paid apps, in-apps, subscription, and ads in app

f-droid.org A streamlined and sustainable app deployment approach with Mobifree | F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository

Imagine you created your very first app. You developed the concept, workedtirelessly on the key features, design, tested it and fixed the bugs. Themoment has...

cross-posted from: https://r.nf/post/1771956

Thoughts?

F-Droid @lemmy.ml

yolo @r.nf

7mo ago

F-Droid exploring to include paid apps, in-apps, subscription, and ads in app

f-droid.org /en/2024/08/05/a-streamlined-and-sustainable-app-deployment-approach-with-mobifree.html

45 18

You're viewing a single thread.

113 comments

I'm not sure I can be as pliant as others here. Being less of an activist and more of a user of convenience, if I am making PayPal payments somebody better give me a reason why I'm not just using the same store that came in by default with my phone.
- Those are all advantages for developers and activists. End users don't care or need to care. As an end user the only reason for keeping two stores in my phone is that one does a thing the other one doesn't, functionally. That's why Samsung can keep putting their dumb store on their phones forever but people just don't engage with it.
  Now, unlike the Samsung store when I was on a Samsung phone, F-Droid is something I do use, because there is a clear use case there: Play for all the commercial apps, F-Droid for non-commercial alternatives and a stuff that Google doesn't allow on Play for whatever reason.
  If F-Droid wants to make a push for being my only store, they better provide all the functionality, support, variety and convenience Play does, because Play comes pre-installed. If I can't go to F-Droid to be guaranteed to not have to deal with payments or MTX, then it better have every single thing I need. I'm talking every game, every app, every legacy piece of software. It better have the same one-click payment convenience I get from Google Pay. And it better still have a default option to search for completely free apps, or I'll have to go find a F-Droid alternative that does that for when I want to be sure I'm not getting any hidden fees with my app.
  
  To clarify, I'm making a two step argument: One, I will only install a second store on my phone if that store serves a specific use case I don't get from the first one (which is Play by default, since it comes preinstalled). Two, if F-Droid is going to sacrifice the clear message that it's the place for noncommercial apps, then it must carry the same apps Play does, it needs to carry ALL of them so I can make it my default store.
  So I understand what you're saying, my point is that this is not a viable value proposition for me. F-Droid is positioned as the safe place for noncommercial software. If it's no longer going to be that, then it's picking the same fight with Google Play that the Samsung or Amazon stores do, and it's just as likely to lose that fight. The reason it isn't doing that at the moment isn't its moral high ground, it's that it has a clear position that doesn't overlap with Play's: noncommercial software.
  
  I think this train of thought fundamentally misunderstands how usability works and how positioning works. But hey, I don't own this, I don't have a stake on this and I already have F-Droid installed. At a glance it seems like a bad move that makes a thing I use less useful and more like a bunch of things I don't use. We'll see where it goes.
  
  My point is I don't care about the intentions of the project, I care about the piece of software that comes out the other end, regardless of whether that's intended or not. A store with a mix of commercial and noncommercial software is just an Android store, like all the other Play alternatives. A repository of non commercial software where you know all the stuff you find fits a specific set of properties is a different thing, and I don't need to read what the developers say online to feel that difference in the software.
  It´s fundamentally harder to see the difference between Play and F-Droid if both have free, monetized and ad-based applications than if Play is mostly monetized and F-Droid is all noncommercial. If F-Droid steps away from that then it has a lot of homework to do and it enters a direct competition that is easy to understand: there are many stores, Play is the best one and the default, so why would I be using another one? If it was up to me, I'd even consider doing this as a separate app and keeping F-Droid as a dedicated version to remain in the position it already has, even if for developers they´re all uploading their software to the same back-end.
  F-Droid now has a good answer to that. The version they´re proposing, regardless of their intentions, does not.
  Does that help clarify where I´m coming from?
  
  I genuinely have nothing new to add to this conversation. All my previous points stand and they either address those objections already or the caveats are self-evident.
  If anything I'll say that seeing the defensiveness come together in real time is really helping me understand many recurring narratives happening around this space. I suggest we call this process "the GIMP effect".

113 comments