Ubuntu Software Store Generates Questions
The Ubuntu Software Store debuted last month in the latest alpha release of Ubuntu 9.10. Since its announcement, however, there has been more than a little debate over the application’s name, if not the concept behind it, with many commentators questioning the implication of the word “store.” Here’s the scoop.
Billed as an eventual replacement for the Add/Remove Programs application, the Software Store, which will ship in an early form with Ubuntu 9.10 in October 2009, aims to make finding and installing software in Ubuntu even easier, and to unify software-management tasks under a single interface.
But the name assigned to the application has met with a lot controversy on the basis that “store” is not an accurate description of the program’s current function, and that it carries implications that are at odds with the Ubuntu spirit. As one user put it most succinctly, “Doesn’t ‘store’ imply that the user will be paying for the software?”
Indeed it does. So what does Canonical really have in mind?
Canonical’s motives
To be clear, Canonical has yet to announce a plan to sell software through the Software Store. Instead, the official rationale for the project focuses on the need to simplify the task of managing applications, especially for users coming from Windows who are perplexed by the fact that Ubuntu doesn’t require them to download bloated installers from random untrusted websites in order to install applications.
That said, it seems highly unlikely that no one among Canonical’s 300 employees noticed that the term “store” might sound confusing if nothing will actually be sold through the application, so I’d put my money on an effort by Canonical to use the program as a channel for selling software somewhere down the road.
Moreover, if improving usability were really the only motive behind the Software Store, it’s unclear why a totally new application was necessary in the first place. Add/Remove Programs is pretty intuitive as it as; it doesn’t make sense for Canonical to scrap it entirely unless it has something more than a simplified interface in mind.
Freedom isn’t (necessarily) free
The unifying trend in messages on the Ubuntu developers’ list regarding the naming controversy is that few people want to have to pay for software. As one commentator wrote:
I don’t like “Store” because it inclines me towards thinking it’s a for-profit venture, and I guess that’s because the word ‘store’ is now tainted by all the proprietary software repos out there that have previously been listed. I’d be more inclined to like something that took the ethos of Ubuntu…
In other words, selling software contradicts the “ethos” behind Ubuntu, according to this user. In some respects, it could be argued that this is true, since Ubuntu promises to be always “free of charge.” But selling certain optional components–like DVD codecs, for example–is not incompatible with Ubuntu’s free-as-in-beer commitment, and no one should criticize Canonical if it employs the Software Store towards such ends. After all, Canonical deserves to make money.
Indeed, a channel for distributing for-purchase software could open up a lot of new opportunities for both developers and users. It would make it easier for proprietary vendors to reach out to the open-source world, and perhaps allow open-source programmers to generate a little cash from their software, even if the code remains open. Selling optional software through the Store doesn’t mean Ubuntu itself will cost money.
A better name?
Given the likelihood that the Software Store will eventually become a channel for selling applications in addition to distributing Free ones, and that that development is in the interests of everyone, I don’t see a reason to worry so much about the implications of the term “store.” Although the application won’t serve as a store in Ubuntu 9.10, it may well become one in future releases. And that’s fine.
You know, I keep wondering why Open Source in general can get so fixated on trivial things like names and titles. I just get amazed.
I was perplexed by their use of the word store as well but I chalked it up to the lay person being familiar with Apple’s app store. Not too many people would know what repositories are and likening it to something as popular as the iPod/iPhone’s app manager would help people realize just what Ubuntu has to offer.
The name for something should represent its primary purpose. Unless the primary purpose of the Software Store is to sell software, it makes no sense to call it that. And since its primary purpose will be to install updates and other free applications, its name should reflect that.
On the other hand, I see no problem with having a category or group filter within the Add/Remove programs application called Software Store, and with offering for-pay applications along with free ones within the usual categories of software already present, as long as they are clearly marked as commercial.
I’m with sinaisix on this one, the name just doesn’t matter so much. Everyone now knows what an app/software store is and, as there are actually very few software packages for Ubuntu/Linux that you have to pay for who would get confused?
Also, if calling it a store is so bad, what else could we call it that everyone would understand quickly and easily? We already know that calling it a repository, whilst accurate just doesn’t grab people so easily. So, what else could you call it?
And, to add my two pence about the add/remove programs dialogue, I don’t really like it. Although parts can be resized I feel that by default it doesn’t make great use of the space it has. Screenshots could be added to the review/overview space but instead there’s often a bit of white space. Also, for those not familiar with all of the software available it could be good for the service to suggest alternatives to the ones that they are installing.
What’s a store?
Is it similar to a shop?
I don’t have a problem with it. You have to “store” your applications somewhere until it is time to download and install it?
It is my hope that they use this to unify FOSS applications as well as paid-for codecs and professional applications.
I think that between Ubuntu’s presence, being sold installed on hardware and easy to control Store(front) that this may help draw in the professional, proprietary software vendors we need to bridge the gap of “yeah, but Linux doesn’t run xyz”.
Take down this wall and it’s a whole new game with Windows!
I hope they DO add support for paying for software. There should be a fair way to donate money to projects you use often (that you might not realize you are using, and that aren’t getting money from elsewhere).
And there should be a way to pay for proprietary codecs, so we get the same experience as the machines that come with Ubuntu pre-installed, legally and smoothly.
And there should be a way to pay for proprietary software that has been developed specifically to be compatible with Ubuntu. It would install with the package manager and integrate smoothly with the OS. This would encourage software manufacturers to target Ubuntu as the de facto standard Linux distribution, which would make it a lot easier to support.
Free software has never been anti-money or had political aims. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html Stop trying to dictate what other people can do with their computers, and let them run commercial software if they want to.
Christopher, thanks for writing about the Store, but I’m rather perplexed that your “scoop” consists of speculation about a question that has been answered explicitly for months on the very same wiki page you linked to.
Personally i don’t care what they call it and I really wish some open source zealots would get off the freebie band wagon. However I see this new application as needless duplication unless Canonical are going to actually provide a proper app store where people can buy commercial software.
With an easy to use system for purchasing and installing software ISVs that would normally develop for Windows or Apple will start developing for Ubuntu.
The open source community is supposed to be open and welcoming. But ironically it shuts it’s self off from the world at times.
@aikiwolfie:
Canonical has a for-pay store front already… its a website.
store dot canonical dot com
There is a tiny software section. It would be interesting to know how many people have purchased software through that interface..but I doubt Canonical is going to release hard numbers on that ever.
-jef
I can understand the confusion — but I don’t understand the controversy.
I do indeed love the free as in beer aspect of Linux and of Ubuntu.
On the other hand, it should probably be more socially acceptable than it is for Linux native apps to be non-free. By “should”, I mean that it’s good for all of us users if Canonical or someone can monetize their investment in Linux – when Linux makes gobs of money for someone, I think we’ll see a lot of the problems around developer support (think drivers and games) melt away.
The earliest articles I remember about the Ubuntu Software Store made it pretty plain that there was a plan to eventually sell (gasp!) software there, but that there would be several stages on the way to that point. I don’t understand all the brouhaha.
I love the idea of the “store”… maybe they can call it the Ubuntu “Free Market” ;D sorry, I’m a Libertarian.
I think it would be great to have a place where you can download/install all the ‘free’ stuff and also install commercial stuff from companies that actually care enough to provide linux versions. It’d be great to install id’s games or s2’s Savage 2 games easily without worrying you’re botching your system. Also this may be a way to ensure that installs go nicely. Heck yeah, i hope Canonical makes a little bit of dough off something like that! Has anyone seen the Android Market? It’s LOTS of ‘free’ stuff and some pay-for items. That’s what I imagine the store could be… I just hope it’s better built/organized than Android Market.
I love Hmm’s idea. It could be a great way to donate to software projects.
I’m also with Hmm on this one.
Many project websites offer options to donate to the project but most users will never see this if they install from a distro’s repo.
i hate the thought of a “store”
everywhere, ubuntu and open source states that it is FREE
if you have to buy shit, its not free
they are on their way to becoming microsoft jr.
Justin:
Uhm….while Canonical specifically has made a promise[1] that Ubuntu will always be available at no cost, the larger “open source” movement has never made that claim about software. Even the free software movement has never made that claim. The GPL itself specifically talks about the right of distributors to charge people money for binaries as long as they get access to source code as part of the deal. All OSI approved licenses must allow for the selling of software[2].
Do not confuse the promise Canonical has made about Ubuntu, with the more complicated economics of the larger open ecosystem. Shuttleworth is underwriting that Ubuntu promise. It is incredibly naive to think that Ubuntu can continue to exist without Canonical finding more revenue sources. Which would you rather see? The Ubuntu project fold because Canonical can’t operate as a self-sustaining business or the introduction of optional for-pay software products into the Ubuntu user experience?
This isn’t going to stop here. it looks like Canonical is also planning on introducing a storefront for purchasing pre-compiled cloud appliance images to run inside the UEC platform running on your iron. Though that hasn’t gotten any press yet I expect it to be a big part of the next LTS. Whether this sort of thing breaks the Ubuntu promise that Canonical has constructed, is a matter of interpretation. But ultimately it really doesn’t matter, as the promise Canonical has made is unenforceable.
[1] www dot ubuntu dot com
“Ubuntu will always be free of charge, including enterprise releases and security updates.”
[2] www dot opensource dot org /docs/osd
“The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:”
…
“The license shall not restrict any party from SELLING OR GIVING AWAY the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.”
…
-jef
I just remembered something. Click-n-Run by Freespire or whatever it was called. It failed. I wonder how this will be different?
“Many project websites offer options to donate to the project but most users will never see this if they install from a distro’s repo.”
Exactly. There are lots of programs and libraries that you use every day that request donations, but you’ll never see that because you don’t visit their web sites. Firefox added a donation field to their Add-on page, so you can keep track of which projects you’ve donated to (vs the ones that suck or that you barely use, and don’t feel any need to donate to). I think something similar should be built into the Add/Remove programs tool.
Some FOSS stuff is written by paid employees (Mozilla, Canonical, Novell, etc.) but other stuff is written by volunteers. I think having a “donations tracker” (alongside pay-to-download apps) would be a great change and help improve the quality of open source software (and improve Ubuntu’s compatibility with commercial software, which I don’t believe to be inherently evil, like some people…)
“However I see this new application as needless duplication unless Canonical”
I’ve always thought this, too. How many different Apt front-ends are there, now? And they feel they have to make another one instead of building on something that already exists? If there’s one thing open source is great at, it’s duplicating effort; producing mediocre implementations of the same functionality over and over again. How many media players are there for Linux now? Maybe they should call it “YASS”, for “Yet Another Software Store”.
“There is a tiny software section. It would be interesting to know how many people have purchased software through that interface..but I doubt Canonical is going to release hard numbers on that ever.”
I’d never even heard of that section. I wonder how many people have.
“if you have to buy shit, its not free
they are on their way to becoming microsoft jr.”
And maybe once they start making a little money, they’ll have the resources to make their OS run more smoothly, like Microsoft’s.
I’m not being sarcastic. A modern Windows installation is better than Ubuntu in lots of ways. It would be great if Ubuntu reached the same level of quality someday, while still providing all the freedoms of open source.
[…] Ubuntu Software Store Generates Questions Given the likelihood that the Software Store will eventually become a channel for selling applications in addition to distributing Free ones, and that that development is in the interests of everyone, I don’t see a reason to worry so much about the implications of the term “store.” Although the application won’t serve as a store in Ubuntu 9.10, it may well become one in future releases. And that’s fine. […]
Software Store for Human Beings!
Now on a serious note. I think they should keep the “Add/Remove Applications” as it is and make another application called “Software Store” which will offer only proprietary applications for users who are willing to pay.
This way lots of developers or companies who are writing software applications for Windows will be interested in porting their applications to Ubuntu.
If it becomes a trend, then more Linux distributions will adopt this idea. After a while, we will see more and more applications that people use on Windows available on Linux too, so people will no longer complain that they would love to use Linux as their main operating system but they need some applications which are available on Windows only.
I just noticed today (9/27) in my Ubuntu 9.10 beta updates that “Software Store” has been replaced with “Ubuntu Software Center.” I think the big U must have given into the naming arguments.
But, I agree, proprietary software should be available to the user at his or her discretion.
lalitpatanpur: interesting note; thanks for pointing it out. I’ll check this out when I get a chance to upgrade my Karmic installation.
http://d0od.blogspot.com/2009/09/ubuntu-software-store-renamed.html
# Jef Spaleta Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
@aikiwolfie:
Canonical has a for-pay store front already… its a website.
store dot canonical dot com
There is a tiny software section. It would be interesting to know how many people have purchased software through that interface..but I doubt Canonical is going to release hard numbers on that ever.
-jef
You’re right. Canonical does have a web based store. It’s pretty barren. Always has been and likely always will be. Canonicals existing store has never been highly publicised. Never been pushed. It’s always just sort of been there.
Click ‘N’ Run is also still limping along. It has never really taken off in a big way. If it had we’d all be using it. But we’re not. People seem to like the idea of an App Store. That’s people, not geeks.
An app store is more like a software repository. Except you pay for what you use. It works for Apple and it works for Googles Android. Why not Ubuntu?
Haven’t we been here before. Whenever this happens I move on to the next distribution. I stopped using Mandriva back in the Mandrake days when it took serious recoding to get drivers like madwifi to work because they customized their driver to work with their wireless tools, and you had to pay the annual fee to get the “legal” driver because thats what their forums said.
I hope this is not an effort to divert to a proprietary fork, then I have to switch back to debian. Or is Canonical’s new found love and support for Debian about pushing for the commercialization of Ubuntu (or components thereof) — speaking to the release support now being accorded to Debian.
I agree that projects must be supported with cold hard cash, but perhaps there should be an easier way for ppa publishers to have their wares more visible, and make it easier to add/authorize repositories without the usual command line dance that doesn’t get any easier with the add repositories gui. Maybe a simgle gui rather than three separate menu entries in buried in different drop down menus, then package-kit and apt-get and aptitude to add to the confusion and exasperation.
[…] l#8217;Ubuntu Software Store ha fatto la sua comparsa in una delle alpha di Ubuntu Karmic, le polemiche non sono mancate. In effetti la scelta del nome non era affatto felice: il concetto di […]
Agree on what you said: ” After all, Canonical deserves to make money. ”
Obviously they will sell apps in some release, and there is nothing bad about it as it is not the OS but some apps, it could really enhace the comunity, the developers make some profit, etc.
In conclusion I love the idea of an app store in ubuntu i don’t see any problem only progress 😉
I think the “store” is a great idea. if there was a good legal channel for proprietary software developers to sell software to ubuntu users then hardware manufactures might take more notice to linux driver support. Proprietary software will never kill open-source software. Open source software just forces proprietary software to be better. And whats wrong will better software for linux? Most open source programs have donation boxes anyways this might help them gain donations.