[ale] Canonical makes Apple look so good...

[Don Lachlan]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Wolf Halton <wolf at wolfhalton.info> wrote:
> Canonical is talking about
> collecting .075% of the list price to distribute the product, and the
> developers do not have to pay anything to Canonical.

It is correct to say they don't pay anything "up front", but is it
correct to say they don't pay anything? Canonical is taking a large
(75%) cut of any revenue that is generated by the application, which
would otherwise have gone to the developers (and then to GNOME). That
seems like the developers are paying Canonical; beyond semantic
discussions of the word "pay", how is it not payment? If it is not
payment, what is it?

Ubuntu has a large install base. An argument can be made that Banshee
will get more users if Canonical distributes it and 25% of that
revenue is significant compared to the current revenue without Ubuntu.
Questions exist: How many of those users would have obtained Banshee
from another distribution method where 100% of the revenue went to the
Banshee project? Are we comfortable with Canonical requiring a cut,
75% or otherwise, of any revenue for providing distribution? Do we
want the market to be dominated by a company who acts as a tollbooth
operator and intercepts revenue streams?

Even if Banshee obtains more revenue through this distribution than it
would have without it (an uncertain proposition), the same may not be
true for other projects. However, the more dominant Canonical is, the
more projects will need to be distributed by Canonical to obtain
users; thus, the less likely the project can earn revenue without that
access. If we support Canonical by saying, "It will earn the Banshee
project more money," then we make that argument more true for every
other project in the future.

-Lachlan