Ads: F-Droid can fuck right off. If they do that, they'd be a miserable bunch of sellouts.
Yeah, as long as the payment method is FOSS, secure, and works as intended, I have no serious issue with pay-once software being introduced. There are apps from F-Droid I would pay a few dollars to use if required, and I'd be happy if it meant more and higher-quality software.
I feel like the freemium model they mention with subscriptions is just begging for F-Droid to be enshittified. F-Droid would really, really need to prove themselves with pay-once applications first for my liking before moving onto something so much more drastic.
And then ads are just a non-starter. Ads only exist to be psychologically manipulative, they're obnoxious as fuck in the present day, they're a privacy nightmare, and they're a vector for malware. I would see it as a betrayal of what F-Droid does for me, and I would actively see F-Droid as being sellouts who are only marginally better than using Aurora at that point.
There are no FOSS payment methods. In fact, you're probably lucky to find a payment processor that will handle FOSS stuff at all.
Love it or hate it, Bitcoin is an open source payment method.
Well the problem with ads is people don’t want to pay for stuff period. And things cost money so here we are in our current state with ads being used to pay for everything online.
If they were talking about Privacy-Preserving Attribution like Firefox is experimenting with supporting on MDN, that would be one thing, but it doesn't sound like that's what F-Droid is talking about.
Not only are privacy and data protection founding principles for both Mobifree and F-Droid, the use of tracking-based in-app advertising poses a moral dilemma as well. If someone wants to gain access to an app, but does not have the financial means to purchase it, they can use it at a different kind of price - their user data.
F-Droid is also considering ads that contain no tracking, which removes that moral dillema, IMO:
It should be mentioned that it is possible to include in-app advertising without user tracking. However the lead conversion ratio drops dramatically, so the efficacy of this approach is not nearly as high.
That's basically what PPA is, advertising without tracking. If advertisers want to pay for it, then great.
Edit: Downvoting without responding like
F-Droid is also considering ads that contain no tracking, which removes that moral dillema, IMO:
You assume everybody is okay with ads.
I'm not. My brainspace has been highjacked since I was a little kid by stupid advertisers. To this day, I remember ads for products that have disappeared decades ago and that I never gave a shit about at any point in my life.
Why are advertisers allowed to force their shit into my head?
I hate ads. I'm utterly intolerant of advertising. I hate the tracking and the malware that come with ads, but I hate ads even more. There are no moral ads. The advertisement industry is a despicable leech that needs to die.
If F-Droid springs this shit on me, I swear to god I'm gonna start having murderous thoughts...
Would you pay a monthly fee for everything? YouTube Facebook Reddit random site you visit.
We would need like a found in our browser and every site you visited took there chunk out or something like that. People seem to forget this stuff costs money to run.
If the service is worth it and subscribing isn't yet another opportunity to put me under surveillance - which is the main reason why, although I consume a lot of YouTube videos and I would genuinely pay Google for the service, I won't - yes.
Hint: Facebook and Reddit aren't worth it. If they want to exit the ad-supported business model and disappear behind a paywall, I won't miss anything in my life.
My brainspace has been highjacked since I was a little kid by stupid advertisers. To this day, I remember ads for products that have disappeared decades ago and that I never gave a shit about at any point in my life.
Why are advertisers allowed to force their shit into my head?
I hate ads. I’m utterly intolerant of advertising.
This. So much this.
The first quote is taken out of context:
Not only are privacy and data protection founding principles for both Mobifree and F-Droid, the use of tracking-based in-app advertising poses a moral dilemma as well. If someone wants to gain access to an app, but does not have the financial means to purchase it, they can use it at a different kind of price - their user data.
For me this reads as them explaining and condemning that dilemma, instead of considering it as an option for F-Droid.
Sorry, I was trying to save space, but I can see how only starting the quote in the middle of the paragraph is misleading. I edited the quote to include the context.
For me this reads as them explaining and condemning that dilemma, instead of considering it as an option for F-Droid.
IMO, it read more like acknowledging concerns around ads but not explicitly condemning it. But I'm not going to form an opinion about it until they do something, or at least make their intentions clearer.
Because ads in Firefox went so well...
ads in Firefox
That's a common misconception. For users like myself who use uBlock Origin, Firefox supporting PPA changes nothing at all (as pointed out by the Firefox CTO). The only users who would see an ad that uses PPA are users who would otherwise see ads that use tracking.
That is just dancing around the issue. The problem is them turning on baked in browser advertising by default.
Again, it's not advertising, it's a form of privacy protection. There are no ads in Firefox, and they did not add any mechanism for tracking users, so calling it browser advertising is advertising your own technology illiteracy.
How does it benefit me in the least?
No, weeks later you still have fuck all clue about the thing but keep raging about it. 🤦
pretty sure the venn diagram of f-droid users and adblocking users is such a huge overlap that this may not pay off too well.
This is about them offering the developers of ads they deploy in fdroid options for revenue. Not ads in fdroid itself.
If they added ads I probably wouldn't even notice because of ad blocker lol.
I might uninstall F-droid today...
No thank you. This is a slippery slope.
Yep, fuck that noise.
If you want devs to make apps without any monetization you're limiting the number of devs that will develop for your platform.
Free only means you only allow passion projects that people work on as a side project or only the developers rich enough to have retired already.
Nobody who is struggling to get by can spend all their time developing a free app that has 0 monetization.
So they monetize on Google Play.
If you care about breaking Google's control of Android you should cheer on another paid marketplace, especially one out of the clutches of Amazon.
If you want devs to make apps without any monetization you're limiting the number of devs that will develop for your platform.
So?
The point of fdroid is not to have evil pieces of shit injecting their apps with spyware and ads.
Developers deserve to be paid for their time though...
Sure for many it's nothing but a hobby and they're happy to create something for free. But that doesn't mean every developer needs to do the same.
And yes ads are a privacy nightmare and putting them into your app is bad. So either you only use apps from hobbyists or you pay for access (whether that be a set price for a finished product or a subscription for a service).
Paid apps are fine. I'm generally not OK with in-app purchases, because the overwhelmingly majority of them are abusive microtransactions.
Allowing ads is not OK. Privacy is a massive issue, but even without privacy concerns all ads are malicious.
Most F-droid apps are side projects people do for fun
F-Droid is literally just a repository. Linux manages it just fine to have repo driven "store" apps.
Cryptomator is available on F-Droid but you still have to purchase a license to use it, although the dev has to maintain all the licensing and payment infrastructure which can be a roadblock for some.
Free means freedom not cost.
The problem with online payments is that they compromise privacy and require use of proprietary software and centralized servers
What the fuck? Did F-Droid change ownership (sell out to a hedge fund or something)? Or did I somehow time-travel to April 1, or what?
Well, some members of F-Droid's central board resigned nearly a year ago, citing issues that had been ongoing for a long time prior. Statement posted to Gitlab.
I've been slowly moving my app installations over to Obtainium ever since, and have been using NeoStore for the remaining F-Droid/Izzy installations.
I really hope this is a poorly timed joke
If it is a pay what you want model I am all for it. This would be similar to how elementary OS st
The problem with a fixed price is you have to always calibrate it according to the economy of the user's geolocation. What is cheap for a person from a developed world may be unaffordable for a third world county.
I would be totally down with a pay what you want model with most proceeds going to devs.
Basically a prompt to donate to the devs with 5-10% going to the package manager.
Some apps I've used are totally worth $1-$5
Maybe it should be a pay what you want but it doesn't charge you for a week. So you can use the app and then decide whether to up the price if it's useful or cancel the payment if it doesn't work for you.
I like the delayed charge since you can't return a donation.
Something like a default of 14 days adjustable to 0-30 or reoccurring (default annual).
This is all turning into a nice idea into an alt android package manager you can sub to repos.
Ads, no, are not ok. F-droid can fuck right off if an ad appears, I'll just get apks from github
This is a good right to mention Obtanium, which is an app that basically streamlines that
Those same apks would also include ads. What makes you think if the developer has ads on fdroid, he won't on github?
Targeted advertising is a huge no. No more of that.
Static advertising I can accept, but then who's responsible for vetting ads? I don't want scams displayed everywhere.
Devs definitely need ways to support themselves and sustain development. I've shared this screenshot from the app Secure Tether before:
I like to chip in a few bucks to my most used apps/services that are donationware, but after all the middlemen take their cut, the devs are left with peanuts. This IMO is the biggest hurdle when it comes to online monetization. A less expensive way to donate will certainly help.
Additionally, there are people who cannot or will not pay for apps, and I don't want to exclude them from being able to use an app/service they need.
Monetization like how Reddit Gold was and how Discord Nitro is are some of my favorites. Few extra perks and cosmetic features for paying users. Free users are still able to use the main product at no cost and you can gift them Gold/Nitro if they aren't able to purchase it themselves. I don't know how that would translate into an app store model though.
I never expected this. What a shame.
Edit: the ads part are not an acceptable add-on for me, as someone who respects privacy and foss. I don't know of a single foss payment processor (lmk if one exists). A lot of people here are saying "pay what you want", but it's that way now, with GitHub donation links; we don't need this in the fdroid app.
They want to add paid apps where you need to make a payment before getting access to the App. It's not the same as the current donate approach
No, I understood what they're trying to do. As far as I know, there are no foss payment processors, so adding a non-foss one would defy fdroid's current foss-first approach.
Then, people on this post's comments are saying that they would be good with a "pay what you can/want" concept, but, again, that's already the case with donations. It's literally how donations work.
I don't think Fdroid is so large to be able to create something such as a Foss payment processor. If they could do that, it would be awesome.
The GNU foundation is working on GNU taler. But, it's not adopted by any known bank, or fintech company.
Then, people on this post's comments are saying that they would be good with a "pay what you can/want" concept, but, again, that's already the case with donations. It's literally how donations work.
The slight difference being its present on a source repository/website and is optional. Instead of being tightly integrated in the app like they desire.
GNU Taler looks neat. Hopefully it will take off.
The optional part of the donation payments is what makes them a donation. It can be a fund page, like the buymeacoffee, if the git link is too complicated (which it can be for some).
I guess most won't bother to read the full post and will instead react negatively to the title. Having read the entire thing I am fine with it and would be happy to see more direct competition for the Play Store. The ad thing is only a problem if the store doesn't include a filter to easily hide ad-supported apps.
I guess most won't bother to read the full post and will instead react negatively to the title.
Exactly, it talks about ads in one paragraph of a very long post, and it's mostly to talk about all the problems that an ad revenue model has for FOSS!
Honestly people need to RTFArticle. It's talking about the result of interviews with developers on how they would prefer to be compensated, not definitive plans for what is or is not going to be allowed in F-Droid in the future.
Damn, never thought I'd live to see the enshittification of F-Droid. I definitely won't be using it anymore if this happens.
That'll be a big nope, thanks.
Edit: 20 years from now, FDroid will be worse than the Play store and we'll have a "new" store that functions like FDroid does currently.
Don't wait, install Droid-ify now.
That's F-droid
No, but it uses those repositories.
Imagine they start blocking access to their repos for other clients... 🫠
Yeah they might become as important as Yahoo is to internet searches today.
That sounds kind of ify to me.
But in order to create a solution that will be mainstream enough to make in-roads into the hold Big Tech has on the market
Firstly, I doubt their users asked them to be "mainstream", only their want for a piece of the app store profit pie is asking for that.
Secondly, if the only way to make in-roads on big techs hold on the market is to become just like them, then maybe they should be trying to find a better way.
F-droid is not going to beat the Play store at its own game. And it shows how naive the maintainers of F-droid are if they really believe that.
Apparently they don't understand that the F in F-Droid is for FOSS.
I'm 100% all for adding a repository with paid apps, but it's not and shouldn't be marketed as F-Droid.
Paid and FOSS are not mutually exclusive. You can always build packages yourself if you don't want to pay. A well executed implementation might allow some projects to drop or reduce their play store efforts.
I will download APKs off a website before I use anything with ads.
I don't see ads in apps. You don't have to either.
Paid and FOSS are mutually exclusive. Open source and FOSS aren't.
But how, you ask? Free means having the right to do whatever you want with your copy including make copies and redistribute. Thus, how can it be free while demanding a payment before allowing usage?
That's why I said, FOSS Droid? Nah! Open Source Droid? Knock yourself out. I'm actually looking forward to supporting some of the developers of apps I love.
One of the things you're free to do is pay for a copy of the binary. Therefore you haven't shown that FOSS and paid are mutually exclusive. 😁
If they become the Play store, why wouldn't I just use the Play store?
You value Foss software which does not track?
Advertisment part not withstanding
After reading that post, this sounds mostly like a whole lot of tracking. At that point I think I'll just use the Play Store lol, it has more selection if I'm going to have the same level of privacy anyway
I'm a bit of a fence sitter on the actual issue, I love F-Droid as is and fear change, but I'll say as someone who thinks they'll release on Google Play in the general future, the thing that pisses me off most about Google Play is they have a "repetitive content policy" which disincentivizes you from releasing a full paid app and a demo app. The main issue is, I don't want my app to categorize as "in-app purchases" if the only purchase is the "unlock full version", because that doesn't distinguish my app from any unethical whale-hunting casino-for-children microtransaction apps, and I don't want my app to claim to be free if it's just a demo.
At least, from a pro-user, communicate everything clearly, perspective, I feel that Google is compelling devs to dark-pattern-by-default on this subject.
LMK if I'm wrong about any of that.
It's always about Ads...
Oh, they start off as unobtrusive; maybe a little banner that shows when the app is opening, or a written mention with a link.
But, this doesn't generate much revenue. Next the banner persists, and suddenly a video plays. Just one, just once.
Eventually you open the app to pop up banners and autoplay videos, and wonder where the app is. Every line you cross with adverts makes the next line easier to cross.
Everyone here is bummed out, but fails to see the upside.
To rival the Play Store, there needs to be an alternative package manager on Android which hosts proprietary apps.
The outcome is a decrease in Googles revenue and eases the hold they have on Android as a Play Store dependant operating system.
If F-Droid didn't step up, Epic would be the only contender to the Play Store. At least this way we know there will be some degree of democracy.
I don't even read this as allowing proprietary apps. They are investigating allowing different monetarisation methods for open source apps and building open source tooling to help with that.
My bad, poor choice of wording on my part.
When I'm talking about proprietary in this context, I don't mean closed source, I mean it as in the financial sense of not being copy-left, or under any sort of licence which permits free adoption of their code.
If anything this would just give me suggestions on apks of paid apps to sideload for free
It should uphold free software and user freedom. If an app developer chooses to abuse user freedom the app should be pulled (and possibly forked) like Simple model tools.
Haven't used F-Droid since I started using GrapheneOS on my Pixel lol. Just use Obtainium.
This is f*** up. I have no issues donating to my favorite apps. However what they are talking about it pure enshitification plus proprietary software
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.
How much convenience do you really gain from using the Play Store instead of F-Droid? And is that convenience worth the developers of your applications receiving a smaller cut of your payment or being charged additional fees by Google? Is it worth contributing to Google's monopoly over the Android app landscape?
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
i am good with the subscription and pay once approaches they mentioned.
the iffy portion is the in-app payment sdk. i hope f-droid will be the one providing those to have it standardized.
in-app ads are kinda okay. i won't use said app, but if f-droid labels apps like those as how it labels apps with non-foss/features-you-may-not-like, it should be okay.
In app ads are very much not ok as they are often targeted and serve no benefit to the user. I have no issue with a donate button popup with a link but we already have Google play for spyware.
i'm fine with it as long as the privacy labels remain front and centre when downloading; especially if they clearly mark which apps are ad supported, subscription based, etc and don't prioritize them over foss/ad free
otoh, i use neo store so it probably won't matter
I see many issues with that / for them.
But I'm not against experimenting and finding out. We maybe need some free and open monetizing options, maybe also ad platforms. That would give people some more options, instead of relying on Google and Apple all the time.
Please just make it respect user privacy, be FLOSS and categorize the Apps, so it's clear to me what is and what isn't licensed Free Software.
We need a way to support foundational open source projects like browsers, a open source subscription platform might be the way.
Start off with apps that are already subscription like vpns.
For VPNs, though, you're generally paying through the VPN provider, not through the app store to have access to the app itself.
It wouldn't be too much work for a open source friendly provider to accept subscriptions via f-droid, if they wanted to do it.
Can I just make a donation? Seriously though I don't see why F-droid needs to offer more than a donation link. If an app wants to put a donate pop up on first launch that's fine but don't turn it into anticonsumer bullshit.
Nothing they said was anti-consumer. They're giving options. Software needs sustainable revenue especially if you want to break Free from Google
So if you want to do a one-time donation go for it. If you want to do a recurring donation they would enable that. You don't have to do it
What purpose does ads serve to the end user? Also I don't see any reason why F-droid should be a payment system. They should just allow donation links.
Okay, it's open source, you don't have to use their platform. If they want to introduce some monetization stream for people you don't have to participate. You also don't have to be angry it exists.
I can't see this go well for them.
I get the idea. I also get not wanting to restrict devs and hence offering all kinds of payment options. But I cannot see this be visible for them given their target audience.
Wow, there is approximately 2 people in these comments that actually read the article.
Paid apps: no problem. If it's good, I'll pay.
Subscription: maybe, if it's worth it.
Ads: F-Droid can fuck right off. If they do that, they'd be a miserable bunch of sellouts.
Yeah, as long as the payment method is FOSS, secure, and works as intended, I have no serious issue with pay-once software being introduced. There are apps from F-Droid I would pay a few dollars to use if required, and I'd be happy if it meant more and higher-quality software.
I feel like the freemium model they mention with subscriptions is just begging for F-Droid to be enshittified. F-Droid would really, really need to prove themselves with pay-once applications first for my liking before moving onto something so much more drastic.
And then ads are just a non-starter. Ads only exist to be psychologically manipulative, they're obnoxious as fuck in the present day, they're a privacy nightmare, and they're a vector for malware. I would see it as a betrayal of what F-Droid does for me, and I would actively see F-Droid as being sellouts who are only marginally better than using Aurora at that point.
There are no FOSS payment methods. In fact, you're probably lucky to find a payment processor that will handle FOSS stuff at all.
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/blob/master/LICENSE
Monero is MIT style license, so it's FOSS
Gnu taler?
Love it or hate it, Bitcoin is an open source payment method.
Well the problem with ads is people don’t want to pay for stuff period. And things cost money so here we are in our current state with ads being used to pay for everything online.
If they were talking about Privacy-Preserving Attribution like Firefox is experimenting with supporting on MDN, that would be one thing, but it doesn't sound like that's what F-Droid is talking about.
F-Droid is also considering ads that contain no tracking, which removes that moral dillema, IMO:
That's basically what PPA is, advertising without tracking. If advertisers want to pay for it, then great.
Edit: Downvoting without responding like
You assume everybody is okay with ads.
I'm not. My brainspace has been highjacked since I was a little kid by stupid advertisers. To this day, I remember ads for products that have disappeared decades ago and that I never gave a shit about at any point in my life.
Why are advertisers allowed to force their shit into my head?
I hate ads. I'm utterly intolerant of advertising. I hate the tracking and the malware that come with ads, but I hate ads even more. There are no moral ads. The advertisement industry is a despicable leech that needs to die.
If F-Droid springs this shit on me, I swear to god I'm gonna start having murderous thoughts...
Would you pay a monthly fee for everything? YouTube Facebook Reddit random site you visit. We would need like a found in our browser and every site you visited took there chunk out or something like that. People seem to forget this stuff costs money to run.
If the service is worth it and subscribing isn't yet another opportunity to put me under surveillance - which is the main reason why, although I consume a lot of YouTube videos and I would genuinely pay Google for the service, I won't - yes.
Hint: Facebook and Reddit aren't worth it. If they want to exit the ad-supported business model and disappear behind a paywall, I won't miss anything in my life.
This. So much this.
The first quote is taken out of context:
For me this reads as them explaining and condemning that dilemma, instead of considering it as an option for F-Droid.
Sorry, I was trying to save space, but I can see how only starting the quote in the middle of the paragraph is misleading. I edited the quote to include the context.
IMO, it read more like acknowledging concerns around ads but not explicitly condemning it. But I'm not going to form an opinion about it until they do something, or at least make their intentions clearer.
Because ads in Firefox went so well...
That's a common misconception. For users like myself who use uBlock Origin, Firefox supporting PPA changes nothing at all (as pointed out by the Firefox CTO). The only users who would see an ad that uses PPA are users who would otherwise see ads that use tracking.
That is why the EFF supports it.
That is just dancing around the issue. The problem is them turning on baked in browser advertising by default.
Again, it's not advertising, it's a form of privacy protection. There are no ads in Firefox, and they did not add any mechanism for tracking users, so calling it browser advertising is advertising your own technology illiteracy.
How does it benefit me in the least?
No, weeks later you still have fuck all clue about the thing but keep raging about it. 🤦
Did you read the linked article?
pretty sure the venn diagram of f-droid users and adblocking users is such a huge overlap that this may not pay off too well.
This is about them offering the developers of ads they deploy in fdroid options for revenue. Not ads in fdroid itself.
If they added ads I probably wouldn't even notice because of ad blocker lol.
I might uninstall F-droid today...
No thank you. This is a slippery slope.
Yep, fuck that noise.
If you want devs to make apps without any monetization you're limiting the number of devs that will develop for your platform.
Free only means you only allow passion projects that people work on as a side project or only the developers rich enough to have retired already.
Nobody who is struggling to get by can spend all their time developing a free app that has 0 monetization.
So they monetize on Google Play.
If you care about breaking Google's control of Android you should cheer on another paid marketplace, especially one out of the clutches of Amazon.
So?
The point of fdroid is not to have evil pieces of shit injecting their apps with spyware and ads.
Developers deserve to be paid for their time though...
Sure for many it's nothing but a hobby and they're happy to create something for free. But that doesn't mean every developer needs to do the same.
And yes ads are a privacy nightmare and putting them into your app is bad. So either you only use apps from hobbyists or you pay for access (whether that be a set price for a finished product or a subscription for a service).
Paid apps are fine. I'm generally not OK with in-app purchases, because the overwhelmingly majority of them are abusive microtransactions.
Allowing ads is not OK. Privacy is a massive issue, but even without privacy concerns all ads are malicious.
Most F-droid apps are side projects people do for fun
F-Droid is literally just a repository. Linux manages it just fine to have repo driven "store" apps.
Cryptomator is available on F-Droid but you still have to purchase a license to use it, although the dev has to maintain all the licensing and payment infrastructure which can be a roadblock for some.
Free means freedom not cost.
The problem with online payments is that they compromise privacy and require use of proprietary software and centralized servers
What the fuck? Did F-Droid change ownership (sell out to a hedge fund or something)? Or did I somehow time-travel to April 1, or what?
Well, some members of F-Droid's central board resigned nearly a year ago, citing issues that had been ongoing for a long time prior. Statement posted to Gitlab.
I've been slowly moving my app installations over to Obtainium ever since, and have been using NeoStore for the remaining F-Droid/Izzy installations.
I really hope this is a poorly timed joke
If it is a pay what you want model I am all for it. This would be similar to how elementary OS st
The problem with a fixed price is you have to always calibrate it according to the economy of the user's geolocation. What is cheap for a person from a developed world may be unaffordable for a third world county.
I would be totally down with a pay what you want model with most proceeds going to devs.
Basically a prompt to donate to the devs with 5-10% going to the package manager.
Some apps I've used are totally worth $1-$5
Maybe it should be a pay what you want but it doesn't charge you for a week. So you can use the app and then decide whether to up the price if it's useful or cancel the payment if it doesn't work for you.
I like the delayed charge since you can't return a donation.
Something like a default of 14 days adjustable to 0-30 or reoccurring (default annual).
This is all turning into a nice idea into an alt android package manager you can sub to repos.
Ads, no, are not ok. F-droid can fuck right off if an ad appears, I'll just get apks from github
This is a good right to mention Obtanium, which is an app that basically streamlines that
Those same apks would also include ads. What makes you think if the developer has ads on fdroid, he won't on github?
Targeted advertising is a huge no. No more of that.
Static advertising I can accept, but then who's responsible for vetting ads? I don't want scams displayed everywhere.
Devs definitely need ways to support themselves and sustain development. I've shared this screenshot from the app Secure Tether before:
I like to chip in a few bucks to my most used apps/services that are donationware, but after all the middlemen take their cut, the devs are left with peanuts. This IMO is the biggest hurdle when it comes to online monetization. A less expensive way to donate will certainly help.
Additionally, there are people who cannot or will not pay for apps, and I don't want to exclude them from being able to use an app/service they need.
Monetization like how Reddit Gold was and how Discord Nitro is are some of my favorites. Few extra perks and cosmetic features for paying users. Free users are still able to use the main product at no cost and you can gift them Gold/Nitro if they aren't able to purchase it themselves. I don't know how that would translate into an app store model though.
I never expected this. What a shame.
Edit: the ads part are not an acceptable add-on for me, as someone who respects privacy and foss. I don't know of a single foss payment processor (lmk if one exists). A lot of people here are saying "pay what you want", but it's that way now, with GitHub donation links; we don't need this in the fdroid app.
They want to add paid apps where you need to make a payment before getting access to the App. It's not the same as the current donate approach
No, I understood what they're trying to do. As far as I know, there are no foss payment processors, so adding a non-foss one would defy fdroid's current foss-first approach.
Then, people on this post's comments are saying that they would be good with a "pay what you can/want" concept, but, again, that's already the case with donations. It's literally how donations work.
I don't think Fdroid is so large to be able to create something such as a Foss payment processor. If they could do that, it would be awesome.
The GNU foundation is working on GNU taler. But, it's not adopted by any known bank, or fintech company.
The slight difference being its present on a source repository/website and is optional. Instead of being tightly integrated in the app like they desire.
GNU Taler looks neat. Hopefully it will take off.
The optional part of the donation payments is what makes them a donation. It can be a fund page, like the buymeacoffee, if the git link is too complicated (which it can be for some).
I guess most won't bother to read the full post and will instead react negatively to the title. Having read the entire thing I am fine with it and would be happy to see more direct competition for the Play Store. The ad thing is only a problem if the store doesn't include a filter to easily hide ad-supported apps.
Exactly, it talks about ads in one paragraph of a very long post, and it's mostly to talk about all the problems that an ad revenue model has for FOSS!
Honestly people need to RTFArticle. It's talking about the result of interviews with developers on how they would prefer to be compensated, not definitive plans for what is or is not going to be allowed in F-Droid in the future.
Damn, never thought I'd live to see the enshittification of F-Droid. I definitely won't be using it anymore if this happens.
That'll be a big nope, thanks.
Edit: 20 years from now, FDroid will be worse than the Play store and we'll have a "new" store that functions like FDroid does currently.
Don't wait, install Droid-ify now.
That's F-droid
No, but it uses those repositories.
Imagine they start blocking access to their repos for other clients... 🫠
Yeah they might become as important as Yahoo is to internet searches today.
That sounds kind of ify to me.
Firstly, I doubt their users asked them to be "mainstream", only their want for a piece of the app store profit pie is asking for that.
Secondly, if the only way to make in-roads on big techs hold on the market is to become just like them, then maybe they should be trying to find a better way.
F-droid is not going to beat the Play store at its own game. And it shows how naive the maintainers of F-droid are if they really believe that.
Apparently they don't understand that the F in F-Droid is for FOSS.
I'm 100% all for adding a repository with paid apps, but it's not and shouldn't be marketed as F-Droid.
Paid and FOSS are not mutually exclusive. You can always build packages yourself if you don't want to pay. A well executed implementation might allow some projects to drop or reduce their play store efforts.
I will download APKs off a website before I use anything with ads.
You did not really read the post then.
@PopOfAfrica @aard
I don't see ads in apps. You don't have to either.
Paid and FOSS are mutually exclusive. Open source and FOSS aren't.
But how, you ask? Free means having the right to do whatever you want with your copy including make copies and redistribute. Thus, how can it be free while demanding a payment before allowing usage?
That's why I said, FOSS Droid? Nah! Open Source Droid? Knock yourself out. I'm actually looking forward to supporting some of the developers of apps I love.
One of the things you're free to do is pay for a copy of the binary. Therefore you haven't shown that FOSS and paid are mutually exclusive. 😁
You're right.
The F stands for “free” as in “freedom”, not “free beer”.
Stripe is not free software nor is any online payment system these days.
Not to mention online payments come at the cost of privacy
Neither of your statements are antithetical to mine.
Which part of the acronym "FOSS" stands for "no advertisement" again? Remind me.
The freedom part, unless they use an ad network that doesn't track users or impressions.
It stands for freedom as in protecting the 4 free software freedoms.
https://lazysoci.al/comment/11161130
If they become the Play store, why wouldn't I just use the Play store?
You value Foss software which does not track?
Advertisment part not withstanding
After reading that post, this sounds mostly like a whole lot of tracking. At that point I think I'll just use the Play Store lol, it has more selection if I'm going to have the same level of privacy anyway
I'm a bit of a fence sitter on the actual issue, I love F-Droid as is and fear change, but I'll say as someone who thinks they'll release on Google Play in the general future, the thing that pisses me off most about Google Play is they have a "repetitive content policy" which disincentivizes you from releasing a full paid app and a demo app. The main issue is, I don't want my app to categorize as "in-app purchases" if the only purchase is the "unlock full version", because that doesn't distinguish my app from any unethical whale-hunting casino-for-children microtransaction apps, and I don't want my app to claim to be free if it's just a demo.
At least, from a pro-user, communicate everything clearly, perspective, I feel that Google is compelling devs to dark-pattern-by-default on this subject.
LMK if I'm wrong about any of that.
It's always about Ads...
Oh, they start off as unobtrusive; maybe a little banner that shows when the app is opening, or a written mention with a link.
But, this doesn't generate much revenue. Next the banner persists, and suddenly a video plays. Just one, just once.
Eventually you open the app to pop up banners and autoplay videos, and wonder where the app is. Every line you cross with adverts makes the next line easier to cross.
Everyone here is bummed out, but fails to see the upside.
To rival the Play Store, there needs to be an alternative package manager on Android which hosts proprietary apps.
The outcome is a decrease in Googles revenue and eases the hold they have on Android as a Play Store dependant operating system.
If F-Droid didn't step up, Epic would be the only contender to the Play Store. At least this way we know there will be some degree of democracy.
I don't even read this as allowing proprietary apps. They are investigating allowing different monetarisation methods for open source apps and building open source tooling to help with that.
My bad, poor choice of wording on my part.
When I'm talking about proprietary in this context, I don't mean closed source, I mean it as in the financial sense of not being copy-left, or under any sort of licence which permits free adoption of their code.
If anything this would just give me suggestions on apks of paid apps to sideload for free
It should uphold free software and user freedom. If an app developer chooses to abuse user freedom the app should be pulled (and possibly forked) like Simple model tools.
Haven't used F-Droid since I started using GrapheneOS on my Pixel lol. Just use Obtainium.
This is f*** up. I have no issues donating to my favorite apps. However what they are talking about it pure enshitification plus proprietary software
Also donations can absolutely work
https://blog.thunderbird.net/2023/05/thunderbird-is-thriving-our-2022-financial-report/
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.
How much convenience do you really gain from using the Play Store instead of F-Droid? And is that convenience worth the developers of your applications receiving a smaller cut of your payment or being charged additional fees by Google? Is it worth contributing to Google's monopoly over the Android app landscape?
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
i am good with the subscription and pay once approaches they mentioned.
the iffy portion is the in-app payment sdk. i hope f-droid will be the one providing those to have it standardized.
in-app ads are kinda okay. i won't use said app, but if f-droid labels apps like those as how it labels apps with non-foss/features-you-may-not-like, it should be okay.
In app ads are very much not ok as they are often targeted and serve no benefit to the user. I have no issue with a donate button popup with a link but we already have Google play for spyware.
i'm fine with it as long as the privacy labels remain front and centre when downloading; especially if they clearly mark which apps are ad supported, subscription based, etc and don't prioritize them over foss/ad free
otoh, i use neo store so it probably won't matter
I see many issues with that / for them.
But I'm not against experimenting and finding out. We maybe need some free and open monetizing options, maybe also ad platforms. That would give people some more options, instead of relying on Google and Apple all the time.
Please just make it respect user privacy, be FLOSS and categorize the Apps, so it's clear to me what is and what isn't licensed Free Software.
We need a way to support foundational open source projects like browsers, a open source subscription platform might be the way.
Start off with apps that are already subscription like vpns.
For VPNs, though, you're generally paying through the VPN provider, not through the app store to have access to the app itself.
It wouldn't be too much work for a open source friendly provider to accept subscriptions via f-droid, if they wanted to do it.
Can I just make a donation? Seriously though I don't see why F-droid needs to offer more than a donation link. If an app wants to put a donate pop up on first launch that's fine but don't turn it into anticonsumer bullshit.
Nothing they said was anti-consumer. They're giving options. Software needs sustainable revenue especially if you want to break Free from Google
So if you want to do a one-time donation go for it. If you want to do a recurring donation they would enable that. You don't have to do it
What purpose does ads serve to the end user? Also I don't see any reason why F-droid should be a payment system. They should just allow donation links.
Okay, it's open source, you don't have to use their platform. If they want to introduce some monetization stream for people you don't have to participate. You also don't have to be angry it exists.
I can't see this go well for them.
I get the idea. I also get not wanting to restrict devs and hence offering all kinds of payment options. But I cannot see this be visible for them given their target audience.
Wow, there is approximately 2 people in these comments that actually read the article.