F-Droid exploring to include paid apps, in-apps, subscription, and ads in app
F-Droid exploring to include paid apps, in-apps, subscription, and ads in app
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?
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
I think this train of thought fundamentally misunderstands how usability works and how positioning works.
How so? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the intentions of the project without citing anything from the post itself.
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?
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
The intentions of the project will have a strong influence over the type of software that comes out the other end. This is why the phrase "show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome" is so widely used within the technology industry. The incentives here are to support independent developers and to challenge Google's market monopoly. Neither of those incentives inherently lead to a negative outcome for the end user.
A store with a mix of commercial and noncommercial software is just an Android store
But it's not, because F-Droid primarily hosts apps that are not available on other Android stores. Additionally, the point being made here (again, refer to the post) was that many Android developers release their software on the Play Store due to the lack of an alternative.
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
Again, F-Droid is not stepping away from FOSS apps. Nothing in the post suggests this is the case. If you have inside or alternative information, feel free to share it, but at this point you are just repeatedly claiming something with zero evidence to back it up.
Play is the best one
This is highly subjective. I would argue (and I'm sure others would agree) that the quality of applications on F-Droid is actually a lot higher than on the Play Store because the developers are not driven by financial incentives. The Play Store is absolutely infested with low quality trash designed to serve ads to the user before anything else. As I said earlier, this could change if F-Droid becomes a mixture of FOSS and monetised apps and there's no way to filter out the latter. But I see no reason why there wouldn't be a way to filter between different types of apps, given F-Droid already notifies users of anti-features.
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".
There's only one person getting defensive in this conversation and it's the same one who is attempting to end it with some weird exit line takedown. You're not showing much faith in your original position by abandoning it so quickly.
That's a weird take, man. By that metric no online conversation can ever end.
I've made my point, I've said my piece. I'm not super emotionally invested on F-Droid's success, either. This seems like a bad move in a few different ways, and it's one that interferes with how I use the platform for the reasons I've stated. You don't want that to be the case, I get that, but I don't need your permission to feel that what's being proposed here is going to mess with how I use it.
I also don't need your permission to make the case that a store of monetized apps is a store of monetized apps and is competing with huge, polished, integrated alternatives in a way that F-Droid currently doesn't. You're mostly arguing with the kind of just-use-GIMP wishful thinking where it's feasible for people to step out of their comfort zone or make morality-driven consumption choices en masse. I don't feel I need to argue with you about it, though. It's gonna go the way it's going to go. The part that bums me out the most, as I said, is as an illustration for how self-reinforcing the niche position of FOSS can be sometimes. Otherwise, you do you.
By that metric no online conversation can ever end.
Conversations can end, sure. Attempting to end them abruptly by suggesting the person you're having the conversation with "fundamentally misunderstands" the topic without ever actually explaining how, or by claiming they are "defensive", is certainly not the behaviour I would expect from someone who claims to not be "super emotionally invested" in the topic. Your last few replies have sounded pretty emotional to me.
I am cringing pretty hard, doesn that count as "emotional"?
I sincerely don't care enough about the fate of F-Droid to spend too long litigating the parts of this strategy that seem ill-conceived. If you think that implies hostility... well, it doesn't. Hell, I hope I'm wrong, it'd be great to have a good indie storefront on Android to use as a default. I just don't think as described this is it at all.
Otherwise, cope as you need. I have explained the bits I think you're misunderstanding, I just don't want to repeat that over and over because man, I need to have an online interaction that doesn't devolve into that at some point. And I don't want to explain why not wanting to talk to you any longer is not conceding the point, so this is the last time I'll express that, too. Cool? Cool.
Keep typing those paragraphs about how you're definitely not emotional lol