The only sane way to have a productive conversation is to discuss independent subjects on their own thread. Otherwise you’ll find various people responding to small and different portions of your points, and they are all on topic. Soon nobody knows what’s being discussed anymore, and we go back home empty-handed.
That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to create 10 different topics on 10 different subjects at once, though. People will struggle to keep up, and you’ll get responses of lesser quality than they might have been otherwise.
It is implemented client side, and it’s half implemented server side. We just deprioritized it while we worked on more interesting aspects of the platform. We also have some interesting preliminary designs for entitlements, which may lead to in-app purchases at some point.
There are 6 topics here, not 10, which is a bit more reasonable. However, I am not sure about the economics of #4, so that can wait. Leaving 5 topics. I will consider a split.
I would deprioritize it from all the interesting stuff on the roadmap too. Entitlements, care to give out some ideas on how that works? (How about on a separate thread)
Actually, that is what I will do. I will create a thread for each of the topics, but only one at a time. Then, when a suitable answer / a decent discussion has occured, then the next one. In a series.
Currently, there are several methods developers monetize their apps, and paid apps are one of them.
I know that many of us here would greatly prefer having an Open-Source ecosystem, but the fact is that developers need to make money, somehow, to make quality apps that make the Snap Store beautiful, and paid apps are one of those methods.
Currently, snap supports snap buy command for monetizing apps, however the server-side has not been implemented yet for this. There are several issues with this though that I believe need to be addressed with this, or they (at least) have not been talked about yet. Namely:
snap buy offers no protection to prevent a user from copying a snap and sending it to a friend, without permission (does it?)
Will Snap take commissions? If so, where do they go?
Bitcoin/Ethereum?
My thoughts on each of these issues:
DRM is a horrible thing, and it would seem hypocritical to support it in a FLOSS stack. However, without it, many developers may be reluctant to support Snap Store, or might raise the price to include potential illegal copying. My suggestion is that, rather than create a whole DRM-debacle, we make a pop up, similar to “This software was illegally copied. Though we won’t stop you, won’t you please just pay $2.99 (or so) for the whole app, legally?” Another improvement would be to say, “you must use the terminal to install this app without permission.” In other words, the GUI won’t help you cheat (it must be manual).
Where does the commission go? All commissions should clearly go to improving Snap, and nowhere else. Is there a clear way to get this point across / prove commissions are going where they should go?
Could Snap theoretically support Bitcoin/Ethereum payments?
I know that the Snap community has not written or is ready to write the source code for buying Snaps yet. However, there is no harm in planning or thinking about it.
Again, the Terms & Conditions don’t state 20-30% anywhere. You’re likely looking at the wrong document.
Canonical is a privately held company with numerous revenue streams, as you’d expect. Like most well run private companies we don’t generally have a policy to enable random people on the internet to dictate internal revenue allocation. I know of no other privately (or indeed publicly) held companies which do that. While it’s possible that Canonical may ring-fence revenue generated from one product towards financing that department’s activities, I don’t believe that’s something we’d get into publicly.
Sure, it’s simply a matter of programming (QA, testing, legal review etc).
Woops! I initially posted this in a separate topic, where it turns out there are an old and a new Terms of Use floating around, the old one on Ubuntu.com, the new one on Snapcraft. My bad for putting it in again by mistake. Edited.
Of course. What I meant by this was to show to the community that if Snap takes commissions, Canonical isn’t going to funnel them to Ubuntu (making Snap payments benefit Ubuntu instead of being distro-neutral). I just mean, it would be a good idea to show that funds are going to Snap (or at least, say that somewhere) and not favoring one distro over another. Again, if Snap takes commissions.
Finally, my thoughts on a non-invasive DRM… do you think this is a good idea, or should it be stronger/weaker?
@G.S.1 Sorry, but I’ve moved the conversation back here. It sounds like it’s almost a copy of the original post above, still covering DRM, comissions, buying, etc. So no need for a new post.
Entitlements may allow advising the snap about the status of payments, whether that’s for the whole snap or for more specific entitlements that the snap publisher defined. We still need to finish the design and work on details about that, though.
The Snap Store will have a shared revenue model as usual on that kind of platform. What each party does with their own percentage is not the Store’s responsibility to arbitrate.
It was, but I set the topic for “Paid Purchase (buy)” and removed Ads / IAPs / Donations / Variable ideas. Still a little broad, perhaps, though.
Like there are add-ons to Snaps? Or is this similar to In-App-Purchase?
I was asking if the Store has plans to take commissions. It will, you just said (shared revenue model). “What each party does with their own percentage is not the Store’s responsibility to arbitrate.” - Yes, absolutely. I just want to ensure (to other distributions and myself) that this percentage/split will go to Snap development/hosting and not toward, say, Ubuntu Desktop refinements.
We’re still working on the details, but my own goal is to have a mechanism that is general and doesn’t force the snap to use it one way or the other. The tooling will handle the boring mechanics and the snap may decide how to use them.
That’s what I’ve tried to answer: it does not make any sense to prescribe what each party does with their own money (yours, Canonical’s, or anyone else’s). We’ve never (ever!) talked about that. That said, quite obviously the primary goal for this feature is to support the project itself.
I agree with that. The only reason I am bringing it up is because I am afraid: What if Canonical is taking the commission and just funneling it into Ubuntu? That isn’t distribution-neutral, and if buying Snaps are supported, this issue would probably be raised by many other people as well.
Like, lets say Elementary, Ubuntu, and Fedora use Snaps. Would it be a little annoying to Fedora if their users are getting commissions taken on Snaps, and they are going to fund Ubuntu (a competitor distribution)?
It is only to show this is distro-neutral as already claimed.
Meanwhile, we’ve been here working hard for years so that users, developers, and distributions all have a chance to have a have a great platform at hand for software distribution and maintenance, and perhaps even be funded by it at some point.
I, in no way, want to downplay what you are doing here.
I just see the Snap Store becoming the new Play Store (for Linux). Not necessarily in a good way though. Like, if Linux takes off, imagine how people who run Fedora or other distributions would feel if every purchase gets a cut going to Ubuntu development. Yes, Snap needs to get money back for how it was developed. In the long term though…
I just fear Ubuntu being the new Android of Linux. All other “remixes/alternatives” don’t get any funding, but Ubuntu (the Android of Linux) does.
You’ve been saying the same thing repeatedly. We understand it. The model if and when it is put in place will be revenue sharing, and we’ll do the best we can to be fair and to include those that develop and distribute software so that the success of the store is shared. Our goal is still to make the whole project a success though, and it’s unreasonable to think we can prescribe what anyone that happens to be involved in that process will do with the funding. You, me, Canonical, Elementary, or anyone else.
I hope we understand each other. I’m closing this for now so we can move on.
I know of no other privately (or indeed publicly) held companies which do that. While it’s possible that Canonical may ring-fence revenue generated from one product towards financing that department’s activities, I don’t believe that’s something we’d get into publicly.