Buying Software in Ubuntu
The new Ubuntu App Center is an interesting addition/replacement to the old Add/Remove Applications program and the complicated synaptic package manager. It promises to bring simplicity to installing new apps to Ubuntu. It’s main function will be to unify several smaller apps into a common and manageable interface. (Add/Remove, Synaptic, Update Manager, etc)
The Ubuntu App Center used to be called the “Ubuntu Software Store”, with lots of the concepts shaped around the idea that this was a shop where we can buy “for free” all the programs we want to install. It’s a nice idea, and it does fit with the operating mode of chasing Apple even when Apple are copying Ubuntu. But it did lead to an awful lot of confusion and thankfully it was changed to something that didn’t sound like “We’re going to selling proprietary applications and take away all your hard won Freedom” *read this with tongue firmly in cheek*
I’m going to leave aside the thorny question of weather Ubuntu really needed a whole new app installer.
This does bring up an important question though: If Ubuntu ever offers the ability to channel money into the pockets of developers, should the focus be on rewarding proprietary vendors, or supporting a Free Software economy through it’s software deployment channel?
This is a thought experiment on my part.
If products must be sold, why then must they be proprietary ones?
Why not channel money back into the software projects that support Ubuntu?
Upstream the money.
If software is to flow downstream, then with bug reports and ideas we should be also able to send a golden stream of coin to help those up there, doing all the coding work, cope with the realities of a real life.
To support Free Software projects we could have optional amounts selectable on installation a kin to Jamendo in Rythembox, everything from Free to $200. So support for a project can be channeled directly through the operating system. Or better if someone has tried and liked a software package, provide them an easy way to pay the developers with money (or time).
I could also see this in things like the Flash player, want to install flass-nonfree? we’d like $20 please, we’re going to give it to the Gnash Foundation to make sure work moves forwards on the free replacements. If you don’t like it, then install flash-nonfree from a PPA or from source (I know, crule, but it’s supposed to be a thought experiment).
For the sake of argument let us say that Adobe saw the error of their ways and starting selling proprietary Adobe Illustrator through the Ubuntu Store. I would then like to see Inkscape get some money every time it was sold. Why? because channeling software products is a valuable service and Canonical should not sell it’s values in Freedom so lightly as to ignore the nature of the products it channels.
Anyway, this thought experiment is pure fantasy so long as Ubuntu doesn’t handle money in any way. Once it does however, the questions must be asked about weather we believe in Libre Software or Gratis Software.
Tags: canonical, Economics, free software, linux, software, Ubuntu
Fascinating gedankenexperiment! However, I see a few problems with the possibilities you’ve explored.
First, the case of “want to install flash-nonfree? $20 donation to Gnash required!” As much as I loathe Flash and proprietary software, and love Free software, you are attaching a greater value (by having it cost more money) to proprietary software. Therefore, people will think it’s better, and be encouraged to use it. We all see this problem all the time: “Windows costs $300 – how could it not be better than Linux, which costs nothing?” I do not want to see Canonical encouraging that worldview. Furthermore, you’re telling people who cannot afford the $20 cost that they are inferior, and due to their economic status, they should be deprived, and constantly teased by the knowledge that if they had money, they could afford a better solution. In the long run, these views, encouraged by the pricing, would ultimately hurt Gnash much more than it would be helped by these mandatory “donations.”
Second, if Canonical ever chooses to sell proprietary software (or require mandatory “donations”) through an “Ubuntu Store” is the day I waste trying different distributions on my systems, and settling on a new preferred distro. Proprietary software is ethically wrong, and I will not support distributors or supporters of it. Ubuntu may not come with proprietary software in this hypothetical, but making it easy to acquire and essentially recommended to use in a default installed “app store” is just as bad, and myself and the other testers, developers, bug reporters, etc will move elsewhere… and I hope you will, too.
I love libre software because it values freedom. Forcing users to pay for otherwise gratis software because it follows a different belief system seems not only against being gratis, but removing the freedom of the user themselves. Be careful of becoming that you fight against.
Having an easy option to donate to upstream projects though would be brilliant, especially if made super fast and easy. Ubuntu could retain your credit card / paypal details and make it as easy as enter amount / click on “recommended amount” and enter your admin password (to verify payment).
We’re definitely in agreement that creative options need to be found for helping fund struggling grass roots developers of libre software.
I want the freedom to choose proprietary software until Free Software catches up in some departments, because I may have real work to do, and I already have the freedom to use Mac OS X instead of Ubuntu in the first place.
[...] more: Martin Owens: Buying Software in Ubuntu Share and [...]
And because of your lack of support the Free Software alternative never really gets anywhere. Congratulations, you’ve just hurt others through your actions. *hypothetically speaking*
Economics is a bastard sometimes and free choice without consequence is even worse.
I will buy software, if I deem it good enough, irrelevant of whether it is free or not. I bought Nero Linux solely because I prefer Ahead’s Nero design, and how close it was to software I was used to on Windows. Would I buy or donate to Brasero, yes, but does this mean that we should expect something from the developer in return? Maybe.
With an exchange of cash for goods, there is an expectation of the developer adding features, functions or fixing bugs that otherwise people who donate wouldn’t have.
Developers should understand this before they add a donate button in Ubuntu store for their app
nice ariticle
It sounds like they’re getting ready to start chasing the tail of the iTunes App Store. Having followed developments over in iPhone developer world for awhile, I’m not sure this is a good idea.
I think if we encouraged people to “sell” software, especially proprietary Linux software, it would create an economy like the App Store or Second Life. With lots and lots of throwaway things, none of which have a community built around them … and thus, none of which have any long-term potential, except as a function of how far the developer decides to pursue her monopoly.
Your idea’s an interesting alternative … sort of like buying carbon offsets. I don’t think that’s what Mr. Shuttleworth has in mind, though.
I think it would be great if companies could sell libre software through an “App Store”. After all, the goal isn’t for software to be free as in beer, it just happens to be the case with most open source software.
That said, I would hate to have to pay to install something I might never use. Especially since half the software you can install via Add/Remove is frankly, well… crap.
Maybe a better solution would be to sell support?
I think foss projects should have a ‘donate’ button.
I would rather use MS Windows and go with Adobe Illustrator downloaded from a torrent than use Ubuntu and pay for Inkscape, which kinda blows big time because it’s fucking slow and crashes a lot…. even if it was fast and stable, I would only be paying if I had too much money, but I’ll consider donating sooner or later, atm I’m just broke.
Here’s my 2 cents about this.
I’m currently working on a social network project for Open Source developers. At some point I thought it would be nice it this platform allowed to pay the developers, it’s not something I plan for the earlier versions but when the project as matured enough.
The fundamental idea is to act as some sort of bank, to allow users to make micro payments. It’s not really worth the pain to use a payment platform like Paypal when you want to donate a really small amount of money. The solution for me is to put a fair amount of money (like, say 50 bucks) on a central website and then you would be allowed to redistribute it as you wish: 50 cents to Transmission, 3 bucks for Firefox, 5 for Kernel developers,etc…
When the amount of money for a project has reached a certain point (say 100 bucks) then the platform would make the payment to the developers.
The important thing is to allow people to donate really small amounts, so that in the end, more people give.
My project focuses on developers or at least contributors, but integrating this kind of mechanism right into the software center would be a great thing for regular users.
This kind of payment facility should be a trusted authority, I wouldn’t give unless I was sure I was giving to the right person. And it should have an open protocol, not specific to Ubuntu so that other distributions and websites can use it.
This would be a breakthrough in the OpenSource economic model because right now, I’m kinda wondering how I will pay the bills while still making what I love.
permit me to ask, but are you suggesting that NON-free software be sold in a free OS? Perhaps I did not understand you well. But, if I did, then I surely think such a move would be the beginning of the demise of Canonical. If anything at all, there could be a way to make donating to the developer of the app easy. For instance, I surely believe most people will donate once it is made convenient for them at the point of download in the app center rather than having such people go to individual sites to donate.
Providing an easy and risk-free mechanism for donating to projects would be nice.
The app center could have an link saying “This project accepts donations”, or where appropriate “This project is in dire need of funding, please consider donating”.
If Ubuntu would sell proprietary software via partner repositories I think the concept of “some of the margin on this goes toward supporting the creation of a free alternative” is a good idea.
As for non-free flash:
Until gnash runs every flash based app as good as proprietary flash we have very good reasons to provide the proprietary version easily installable (and easily uninstallable): It makes it easier to use Ubuntu.
A fee for easy access to an otherwise gratis proprietary app would probably be seen as a “punishment fee” and just upset people.
Maybe I am committing suicide or shooting myself in the proverbial foot, but I think an app store would encourage linux developers., more interest in linux, etc.
Of course as in previous comments there has to be price, app parameters .
Maybe I ain’t thinking things through, and if so I will humbly step back and put my hand over my mouth.
Support is a completely different product from development. How does selling support help development?
Perhaps some of the software in Add/Remove wouldn’t be so crap if more people were helping?
Have a look back at a few previous articles, I’ve argued in the past that Donate buttons are a bad idea and that we should sell software development services.
It’s all interesting research until something is trialled really.
If Canonical/Ubuntu ever went this route, I’d move over to Debian itself, bypassing Ubuntu altogether. I’d drop Ubuntu in a heartbeat. As for changing how apps are installed, uninstalled, etc, the way it’s done right now is fine, why change it? Just like the whole new Gnome interface for 3.0, change for change’s sake isn’t better and often times make was was good, no longer good at all.
I find this post amusing.
It looks like you want to transplant into a (healty) linux community many of the (assumed) bad habits of the main corporate competitors (read Microsoft and the like).
If linux where to start “channeling money” I’m afraid you’d soon see on the Ubuntu platform many of the traits that the linux community find despicable in others, like the Apple store platform with their selection process.
Leave ubuntu alone from marketing fluff…
It’s not supposed to be amusing, it’s supposed to be thought provoking.
I don’t know if you would see corporate traits, corporations are not free software projects and we have clear guidelines about what we mean when we say Free and Open Source Software. It’s fairly easy to test for corruption in such a system.
Although I’d love to see individual thought experiments that go through each idea.
There is definitely an issue of how to channel donations to upstream projects who really need it. I’ve put some stuff on Ubuntu brainstorm about this – http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/21212/ – please have a read and make some comments or add your own ideas.
“I could also see this in things like the Flash player, want to install flass-nonfree? we’d like $20 please, we’re going to give it to the Gnash Foundation to make sure work moves forwards on the free replacements.”
I think this levy on proprietary software (freedom tax? free software tax?) is a bad idea, as it would create a barrier to Ubuntu adoption. Coercing a payment that’s going no-where near the product that you actually want would be a forcing one particular set of ideals on the users, and I don’t think that’s where we want to go. Education and encouragement, not extortion
Additionally, doing this with proprietary but *gratis* software would be particularly bad, as the user will think something like: “I can get this for free on Windows, they’re trying to rip me off.”.
However, I think that helping charitable/appreciative users donate to Ubuntu and/or upstream is a a good idea; perhaps a framework (code and policy) that:
1) helps users contribute to Ubuntu generally, or a project of their choice,
2) (optionally) remembered the users contributions so they get warm fuzzies, and
3) feeds the money back to the project(s).
Money directed to Ubuntu generally could be put into a fund for supporting projects, e.g. covering air fares to UDS for people that ought to be there but can’t afford it, projects that need funding.
Dave-B, the problem with warm and fuzzy donations is that they do not follow the researched behavioural patterns of human beings.
Humans are very kind, generous and caring creatures. But only to what they see as an immediate need.
Humans are very fickle and uncaring when they perceive as a right, something which costs to product but for which they’re not used to paying for. Or for which doesn’t exactly meet their needs.
What this means is, unless there is an outpouring of aid workers who can write soppy stories about how programmers are dying of starvation in the streets, the amount of money gotten from unsolicited donations will be enough to cover the biscuits/cookies used at meetings and nothing more.
It means projects with potential won’t get funding, hardly anyone will get any money at all, but everyone will feel warm and fuzzy because they have the “option” to donate. And being in a community where your sure someone else is donating, makes us feel better about ourselves. So, no, too much emphasis on donations leads to a cop out and no money, it’s not economically viable for a tech science industry, even if it is for starving third world nations.
I may do a blog entry expanding my views here.
I think this discussion is fascinating, but a couple of important corrections should be made.
First, it is not true that “The Ubuntu App Center used to be called the ‘Ubuntu App Store’”. AppCenter was the original codename, before it was named the Ubuntu Software Store. There has never been anything called the “Ubuntu App Store”.
Second, it is not “chasing Apple”. The original idea dates from 2005; Mac OS X does not have anything equivalent; and comparing Ubuntu to a mobile phone OS would be, well, weird.
I will do thanks. I read your posts with interest on the Ubuntu Planet, I will look back and have a read.
How upstream would the money go?
It goes without saying that the money bypasses the distribution and goes to the app developer, but why not to the toolkit devs?
Does your idea necessitate some sort of gentleman agreement on what proportion of money gets upstreamed at each step?
Sorry to hear this idea. This article is beyond Ubuntu manifest. Shame on you!
PS. Libre Software equals Gratis Software.
PS2: ” we are committed to not charging for Ubuntu.” from Ubuntu Front Page
PS3: “Every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees”. Ubuntu.com What are you saying? Are you proposing Ubuntu ways in Africa whit IBM? Give Ubuntu for free and charges for Lotus? *Is this the way you want to start a world trend?
Ah thanks, fixed.
The chasing Apple is actually from Mark’s own modus. To improve the design and functionality of Ubuntu to rival Apple instead of Microsoft.
It it was my idea, perhaps I’d solve these issues. But it’s more of a way to get all these problems out in the open. And you point out a couple of piece that would have to be worked out.
I don’t think you really understand what my post was about, or why I question the economic validity of the Ubuntu manifesto about Gratis Software.
PS1: Not it doesn’t, ask Richard Stallman
PS2: Yes, and I don’t think that applies.
PS3: Yes, a world trend in paying for software development? How novel. You misunderstand the purpose of the proposition, it’s not to limit distribution with charges, but to find ways of creating a real economic basis for development in the first place. Unless you want free software to be nothing but the scraps of more successful businesses and for the only people to be paid well to be writing closed, proprietary software.
Shame on you for supporting gratis and ignoring libre.
I guess I was thinking of support as something like “priority maintenance”. If I’m not mistaken, that’s at least partially true for Canonical support.
Also, even though you might technically be paying for a glorified help-desk, a lot of the money goes towards further development.
I think that’s one of the hardest parts of FOSS and business. How do you make money from something that is considered monetarily worthless? I’m not saying it actually is monetarily worthless, just that that’s the public perception.
I make a lot of money off of free software (libre and graits), but sadly, so far I’ve mainly been using it to build proprietary apps for other companies. It’s the only way I know how to make a living at the moment.
On another note, a business can make a lot more money from selling a product than selling development time. The former is unlimited, while the latter is not. I’m not sure if that’s what you mean by paying for development. For me, it’s a short term goal. Yes, it pays the bills, but it’s no way to grow a business, as the only way to increase profits is to increase the amount of available development time (i.e. hire more developers), but results in diminishing returns due to the extra overhead.
If you can figure out how to sell development as a product with a healthy profit, can I hire you?
Dang. Now *thats* an interesting idea…
URL?
It would be cool if projects could easily solicit donations through the software-center, i,e, set up one off or regular payments from credit cards etc. TBH i’d rather send 10 bucks to a great FOSS project once a month than send it to Greenpeace.
The conversation about donations here got me thinking about donations, bounties, and Ubuntu’s brainstorming page.
I’ve submitted an idea that would allow bounties to be associated with ideas. Perhaps then users could pay developers to add features.
Writing a specification of the software (or feature) you want produced. in a way that makes sure you actually get what you wanted for your offered bounty money is a very complicated task. Sometimes it is more complicated than writing the program code itself – though of course those tasks requires different sets of skills.
It is called Ubuntu Software Center as of the last update. Much ado about nothing.
Most users won’t use it. You can install only one app at a time. It is for newbies only, IMO. If you don’t like it then don’t use it and try not to read between the lines and attribute things to Canonical that are pure supposition. And don’t project your fears on others.
Who’s fears? Actually this is reading other people’s positions and misreadings and the consequence of those kinds of predications.
You read far too much into my post that wasn’t there.
It turns out there’s already a proposal for bounties in ubuntu: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/1295/
Proprietary software is ethically wrong? Do you really believe that?
Maybe you should stay away from medical devices then:
http://www.jfplayhouse.com/2009/09/gpl-medical-advisory.html
The real issue is that the new Store, now Center, is WORSE than the previous “Add/Remove Apps”:
1) clumsy interface when trying to add more than one app at a time
2) got rid of the stars rating the software
Both really useful features.
A HUGE step backwards.
You wouldn’t accept a cure from a witch doctor who practices alchemy. why would you accept software that is just as much voodoo, that has no scientific process, no peer review, no social imperative and really bloody bad economic consequences.
I wouldn’t call proprietary software immoral or ethically wrong, I’d call it damn near incompetence verging on the stupid. For anyone to be involved in such an enlightenment rejecting model of production says a lot about human regression. Sure you can program it and you can deploy it, but I’ll always think less of you for doing so.
Canonical intend to sell software? OK, no problem for me, it’s time to switch to another distribution.
Is your problem on buying software or is your problem with proprietary software?
Would you not buy Free and Open Source Software? and if not, why not? Do you like to see the community that gives you all this wonderful software not able to earn a living from it?
At some point in the future, everyone will have to pay. It just won’t be like you pay for windows, it will be like you pay for your TV License, Gas Bill or Taxes. Because it’s seems obvious that normal users are too selfish to reward those who do all this wonderful work.