cross-posted from: https://r.nf/post/1771956

Thoughts?

  • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • sovietknuckles[they]@lemmy.ml
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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 lemmitor

      • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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...

      • eco_game@discuss.tchncs.de
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • sovietknuckles[they]@lemmy.ml
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

  • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • limerod@reddthat.comM
      ·
      1 month ago

      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

      • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • limerod@reddthat.comM
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
            ·
            1 month ago

            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).

  • jadelord@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • 4tnGameDev [comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

  • leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.