The Ubuntu App Store

While listening to the Ubuntu UK podcast interview with Matthew Paul Thomas from Canonical about the Ubuntu App Store a few thoughts occurred to me. Before I start with them, what is the Ubuntu App Store? The easiest description would be the merging of 4 separate applications normally found on Ubuntu Linux for installing, removing and updating applications into one single application with the added ability to include paid for software. Think Apple's App Store, but with added freedom.

This is a new idea for Ubuntu, it'll be in Ubuntu 9.10. It won't run in previous versions of Ubuntu because of various dependency issues. I've seen various criticism of this from groups who are trying to kill FOSS software as it's a threat to their gravy trains, as well as FOSS users from inside and outside the Ubuntu user base. I personally see it as a good thing, if it's done right. I have a lot of faith in Canonical to do this, I see them often try to do things which are not Ubuntu-centric but help the larger Linux community.

The merging of free (cost) and non-free (cost) applications will be a non issue as they'll be clearly marked. I'd imagine there'd be some sort of checkout feature if you install any paid applications, to confirm your choice and that you're the authorized card holder etc. I'd doubt you could buy by accident. The blurring of non-free (code) and non-free (cost) can easily be avoided by choosing a different term for paid applications. The repos all have different categories, there are different repos which can be added or enabled and used individually. So I can't see an issue here either.

Some feel that over time it'll gradually turn into a higher ratio of paid apps to free ones. This is inevitable up to a point. As soon as you add the first one, the ratio changes. Will it get to the point that the free apps are sidelined in favour of paid ones? No. Remember that as much as Ubuntu are targeting disgruntled Windows and Apple users, once people make the switch to Linux, and start using open standard file formats, they can easily switch to any other Linux distro. There is no lockin with Linux. If Ubuntu get the balance wrong, people can leave them.

What this will also do, by showing free (cost) and pad apps together, will make people question if an app is worth the money. Is that £30 spreadsheet app really £30 better than the free alternatives? So for those who foresee a deluge of Linux users abandoning Gimp just because a native Photoshop can be installed easily have nothing to worry about. How many average users will decide Photohop is £300 better than Gimp for what they plan to use it for? The fact that it will show prices will help promote the FOSS alternatives.

Will paid apps appear in searches? I'd expect so. I'd also expect a way to disable this for those who don't want it. I have no problem with Canonical making money with an apps store. They've been burning through cash to get the Ubuntu project to where it's at now. This has been good for a LOT of users, either directly as Ubuntu (or it's cousins Debian, Mint, Crunchbang etc) and the wider Linux community with upstream patches. FOSS is not about "you're not allowed to make money". It never has been and it never will be. The FOSS idealogy of giving away the code and the rights to modify, redistribute etc makes it very dificult to sell the software itself. It's about support services, and surrounding addon services, like hosting services. I do have one suggestion for the Ubuntu App Store developers however.

Assuming this takes off and they can attract companies like Adobe to Linux via this method, Canonical need to work with the other distros so that a payment for a Linux (not Ubuntu) version of say Photoshop can also be used in say Fedora, or Mandriva if they do their own app stores. I'd like to see this model take off so distros can use it like a kinda affiliate funding, where they get commission for every sign up, but the same product keys / licenses can be used across distros. This would keep the concept many Linux users value of distro hopping very much alive. Otherwise it's acts unintentionally as lockin to that one distro.

This brings us to another criticism of "why do we need more closed source companies like Adobe, with closed source apps like Photoshop?" Well, As good as many FOSS alternatives are, in some situations they're not quite there yet. Having apps like Photoshop native on Linux opens that up as a buyers option for professional media producers who demand Photoshop. They will only consider Windows or OSX because of these applications. Would I prefer these one day to switch to FOSS apps like Gimp? Of course I would, but it's all steps towards that goal. It fills a need that does not exist right now. It provides an escape hatch for those who are dependent on those applications for their business and who are desperate to leave Windows.

The other factor is, if you don't want to use them, you don't have to install them. Linux, unlike Windows and OSX is YOUR PC. Will trialware versions come pre-installed at OEM level like they do with Windows? It certainly opens that door for vendors to use. This will make it more appealing to them to offer Linux alongside Windows. The major difference is that in Linux it'll be a single application to select all of those trialware apps and remove them in one swoop. While this would be an annoyance to many, myself included, it's not really that different to what most of us do after we install a new distro anyway. We all have our favorite applications we install, for me the first to get added are SMPlayer and Audacious if the distro does not ship them as default. Whatever media players they do ship usually get removed at the same time. This would also be at OEM level too, which means that when you download, burn and install an Ubuntu .iso it won't be any different from what it has been before.

I'd rather see this expand the number of places I see Ubuntu (and other Linux distros) pre-installed on new PCs so I can vote with my wallet, and buy a new PC without paying the Windows Tax. It sends the message that I want Linux, that I will buy a pre-installed Linux PC, and if you sell Linux pre-installed I will consider buying from you. I will likely wipe it and install Linux Mint, as many will with the distro of their choice but the point is still made. It also helps knowing that the hardware will likely work well, if it leaves the store fully functioning with Ubuntu on it.

All of this helps break the stranglehold Microsoft have over retailers and hardware vendors. It forces them to accept reality, not the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) Microsoft feed them, that Linux IS a viable alternative, and people ARE buying and using it. It makes it harder and harder for them to make their hardware and drivers Windows only, as they see a market (and the money it entails) that they're missing out on. Some people have wondered why Ubuntu is copying a closed source model, that it should be doing it's own thing instead. I see that as a case of looking at the wrong target. The idea of an app's store is a good one. What people (myself included) hate about the current implementations of the idea like Apple is that Apple has total control over it, that Apple force people to use it with their software. Apple can and do reject apps which compete with their own. In short, it's the policies underpinning the app stores which make them either valuable or not. In Apples case they go way too far, that it turns people off them.

The Ubuntu App Store will always allow people to have their own PPA's (Personal Package Archive) and have a way to integrate those in easily, which is currently a little more time and knowledge intensive. There are no restrictions on the types of apps you can package. You don't even have to host your PPA on Ubuntu's servers. This means that Ubuntu can't reject them. Remember Linux in general and Canonical in this case are culturally very different animals from closed corporate entities like Apple. Good ideas are good ideas, regardless of who thought of them. Often the idea itself will be good, but not implemented all that well, or have some conditions attached which reduce the usefulness of something.

Thinking of it this way, is like a manager listening to ideas from his or her staff and judging them on merit, rather than on who suggests them. The pragmatic approach benefits everyone involved. Like anything, the proof is in the eating. Currently the Ubuntu App Store is in very early development, and only available on unstable 9.10. It'll likely take a couple of releases to get the way they want it, but that's fine. Other distros will be watching how Ubuntu do it, and (I hope) do something similar, either by building on the Ubuntu software for their own needs in the usual FOSS model, or by creating their own solution. Who knows, maybe someone in a different distro will think of the killer feature Ubuntu need to add. That's the beauty of FOSS.

I do see this as something new for Linux in general and has the potential to add more splits and schisms between various competing methods if it's not handled right. We already have plenty of those, from the toolkits (GTK & QT), DE's (Desktop Environments), WM's (Window Managers), package formats (.deb & .rpm) and the number of distros and respins of distros. As much as it'd follow tradition, the last thing we need is another fresh schism. This needs to be uniformly compatible across all distros. It's something the BSD community could benefit from too.