To be clear, I’m not complaining that we don’t have these aforementioned applications on the Linux desktop. That’s not the point. The point is “we” still don’t have a robust way for developers to monetise their application development work.
Most desktop Linux users run Ubuntu. Followed by others you’ve likely heard of like Arch, Fedora, Manjaro, SUSE and friends. Most users of these desktop Linux distributions have no baked-in way to buy software.
Similarly developers have no built-in route to market their wares to Linux desktop users. Having a capability to easily charge users to access software is a compelling argument to develop and market applications.
For sure, I can (and do) throw money at a patreon, paypal, ko-fi or buy a developer some coffee, beer or something from their Amazon wishlist. But I can’t just click “Buy” and “Install” on an app in a store on my Linux laptop.
Maybe one day all the ducks will be in a row, and I’ll be able to buy applications published for Linux, directly on my desktop. Until then, I’ll just keep looking longingly at those macOS app developers, and hoping.
You must log in or register to comment.
Software was not meant to be someone’s ‘property’ that can be bought or sold. Everyone has a right to free download, modify and share, that’s the point of GNU and Linux.
Bill Gates would like to know your location
Bill gates would like to know everyones location
That’s what the whole windows telemetry enshitification nonsense is about
If you want Windows, you know where to find it.
Ubuntu Snap comes close to what OP described, and so do
npm,aptetc. They need to realize that the terminal is not an enemy. Text output makes it easier to resolve issues than “install failed” you get in many commercial app stores.Did you read the article? It’s about being able to buy and sell apps, not just about installing them.
Most are FOSS so that’s not required. Man pages and readmes usually specify the project website where a “Donate” link is.
Are you just deliberately ignoring the article?
This man is in desperate need of both tar and feathers
You mean tar and gzip?
Wtf? No. Fuck all the way off.
Flatpak started working on payments earlier this year, so that is happening. But have we forgotten about Steam? It’s mainly used for games yes, but your can sell software on it too. I’ve even bought some software on it.
People were developing proprietary paywalled software for Windows for years before Windows Store, or whatever it is called, was introduced.
And most of the revenue in software comes from outside the Windows Store anyway. As someone else said, there’s no stopping a dev from putting in monetisation options in their software directly. I don’t get the need for an app store, especially when Linux has had the superior repo and package management system.
Elementary OS has a pay-what-you-can app store https://appcenter.elementary.io/
It’s called “The package manager”. :^)
I would say that’s more of a feature than a bug.
I think I would have more of a problem with the centralisation implied by this proposal than I would with paying for apps; a centralised “store” gives too much power to one organisation - but if you could choose to download one I don’t think that’s too much of a problem. But then we already have Steam for that.
Is there anything stopping something like connecting your credit card to GNOME Software Manager and then putting a big fat “donate” button next to the “install” button? I imagine there are legal considerations.
I think I would like to see Amazon, Google, Netflix etc to pay for the free and open source projects they use to make money and sell in their AWS and database offerings.
I -personally- don’t miss a store for end users. Marketshare for Linux on the destop is slim anyways. That’s not where you earn a considerable amount of your money.
And i like things like the value-for-value model. So maybe instead include donation links in the package managers and into the databases of the gnome-software etc. (I think it’s called packagekit.)
Ow my head
“store” - n. - a quantity or supply of something kept for use as needed
A store doesn’t have to mean that something must be for sale. There are numerous Linux app stores that all function exactly as they are designed.
The term “store” grates on me a bit, until recently we just called them repositories/repos, I think that’s a better name.
It’s really just semantics. And the article just seems like a nonsensical argument, to me.
The real “problem” is how you make it work without a monopoly system like Google’s or Apple’s or Steam or Microsoft. They have to varying extents made monopolies where app makers want to list in their store, and accept they take 30% of the revenue because they are the sole gatekeeper to a large number of users. That model doesn’t work in Linux because you can’t create a monopoly to force someone to use your store.
Microsoft keeps trying in Windows via sheer scale but UWA’s are not a monopoly so people currently largely bypass it. Microsoft even now lets App makers keep every penny of money generated “in-app” (except for games) as it’s desperate to try and grow. Canonical has tried it with Linux and has also failed because ultimately it isn’t a monopoly and it’s method of Debs as the article said didn’t really work. Steam works cross platform because of sheer size and it’s managed to make a convenient cross platform library which gradually locks users in to an extent, and also forces publishers to list it’s game there. It’s very difficult to get to that kind of scale to be compelling.
For an “App store” to work in Linux under the currently “accepted” business model, you’d need to find some way of making it a monopoly or compelling somehow so that users will buy in and the 30% price tag to App makers becomes impossible to ignore due to the scale. I can’t see that happening. Google did it with Android by forking Linux and making it an entirely walled garden it controlled; the free route into that garden is there but is very marginal and you have to bypass security measures to get to it.
The only way I can see it working in a limited fashion in Linux is if someone makes an “at cost” model where the share of revenue taken by the app store is purely to maintain the store (including the payment system, any “drm” that might be needed etc). That sounds like the Flathub route. But I can’t see it growing rapidly or being compelling for App makers to take a risk on - it’ll probably take a long time to gradually grow and prove itself as a reliable way of monetising apps.
Whether or not we need monetised Apps in linux is a whole other question. For me personally, aside from Games, all the software I use on Windows and Linux is free OR a subscription service (such as Office paid for by work, or my Email, Password manager and Backup software which I pay for). On my phone, the only software I’ve ever bought has been low level - like a music player or a theme app; and that has been an engineered demand because Google has a monopoly, which largely keeps out the opensource community allowing app makers to step in. I bypass that now with F-droid. I accept I’m part of the exception in Android, but most users have that expectation in Linux and Windows.
I don’t see a substantial “app store” type eco-system growing in those environments. If someone is willing to give it away for free as FOSS, then it leaves little room for App makers for low level software. The only route to make money is then the “premium” or value added models, and a lot of that is going subscription model - software as a service. App stores are largely the result of closed eco-systems; in an open eco-system like Linux and even Windows it just doesn’t make much sense.
