To be clear, I’m not complaining that we don’t have these aforementioned applications on the Linux desktop. That’s not the point. The point is “we” still don’t have a robust way for developers to monetise their application development work.

Most desktop Linux users run Ubuntu. Followed by others you’ve likely heard of like Arch, Fedora, Manjaro, SUSE and friends. Most users of these desktop Linux distributions have no baked-in way to buy software.

Similarly developers have no built-in route to market their wares to Linux desktop users. Having a capability to easily charge users to access software is a compelling argument to develop and market applications.

For sure, I can (and do) throw money at a patreon, paypal, ko-fi or buy a developer some coffee, beer or something from their Amazon wishlist. But I can’t just click “Buy” and “Install” on an app in a store on my Linux laptop.

Maybe one day all the ducks will be in a row, and I’ll be able to buy applications published for Linux, directly on my desktop. Until then, I’ll just keep looking longingly at those macOS app developers, and hoping.

  • raubarno@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Software was not meant to be someone’s ‘property’ that can be bought or sold. Everyone has a right to free download, modify and share, that’s the point of GNU and Linux.

  • dark_stang@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Flatpak started working on payments earlier this year, so that is happening. But have we forgotten about Steam? It’s mainly used for games yes, but your can sell software on it too. I’ve even bought some software on it.

  • ulkesh@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    “store” - n. - a quantity or supply of something kept for use as needed

    A store doesn’t have to mean that something must be for sale. There are numerous Linux app stores that all function exactly as they are designed.

    • anothermember@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The term “store” grates on me a bit, until recently we just called them repositories/repos, I think that’s a better name.

  • moreeni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    People were developing proprietary paywalled software for Windows for years before Windows Store, or whatever it is called, was introduced.

    • HidingCat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And most of the revenue in software comes from outside the Windows Store anyway. As someone else said, there’s no stopping a dev from putting in monetisation options in their software directly. I don’t get the need for an app store, especially when Linux has had the superior repo and package management system.

  • Sentau@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well there were/are attempts to make flatpak with flathub an universal app store on linux. If I remember correctly, there were some ideas mooted on adding paid apps in to flathub.

  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The solution is not centralization, the solution is a protocol. The team at Flattr tried to do something that worked for content, but it was centralized. The team at Ganxy tried to expand the definition of monetize, but it was centralized. If we had a protocol where teams could publish metadata that enabled users to use any data-driven app to generate some form of compensation for the contributors, then we could build all sorts of workflows into package managers that made it easier.