• Ilandar@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I suppose that’s true, if you consider anything outside of your personal and immediate financial gain as “activism”. I would like to think there are more people out there who actually care about ethical consumerism and contributing to small and independent business.

    If F-Droid wants to make a push for being my only store

    I didn’t read anything in the post that suggests this is their strategy. F-Droid wants to support small developers and challenge Google’s monopoly in the app store space. Nowhere does it suggest they are expecting every application on the Play Store to also be available on F-Droid, so I’m not sure why you would assume that their goal here is to completely replace the Play Store. This is about competition, not market domination.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Ilandar@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m not sure why you think F-Droid is moving away from supporting FOSS software, though. The post made it pretty clear this is about allowing greater freedom for those developers who want to sell or monetise their work. Nowhere does it state or suggest that F-Droid will only feature paid or proprietary apps going forward. As I said in another comment, if there are filters within the F-Droid app store then there is no reason to be concerned by this news. This isn’t an all-or-nothing situation where F-Droid has to sacrifice all of the things that make it great to become a direct competitor to the Play Store.

        • MudMan@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • Ilandar@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • MudMan@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              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?

              • Ilandar@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                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.

                • MudMan@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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”.

                  • Ilandar@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    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.