Canonical to Banshee: either we disable affiliate code by default or we take 75%

http://gburt.blogspot.com/2011/02/banshee-supporting-gnome-on-ubuntu.html

by naner • 15 years ago

28 21 15 years ago

gburt.blogspot.com

StavrosK2• 15 years ago

For some reason, I have no clue what this means. I don't know what Ubuntu One, Banshee or the Amazon store they refer to are, can someone elucidate? Thanks.

cmsj• 15 years ago

Google is a search engine which can be used to find information about particular topics of interest ;)

(Ubuntu One == cloud services product for Ubuntu users. Banshee == media player, kinda like iTunes. Amazon store == mp3 store)

krakensden2• 15 years ago

Ubuntu One is also the name of the Ubuntu music store (which is a branded version of 7digital.com, a European competitor to AmazonMP3 and iTunes).

rhizome• 15 years ago

Banshee is a music player that uses Amazon as an in-app music store, with affiliate connections that feed the Banshee people. The Ubuntu people are making Banshee their default music player, but this whole money thing has broken everybody's brain.

StavrosK2• 15 years ago

It all makes sense now, thanks. Honestly, Canonical has to make money somehow, and these two choices seem much less evil than other companies' actions...

rbanffy• 15 years ago

Makes sense. The exposition Banshee will get by being the official media player on Ubuntu is huge.

Banshee is Mono-based, right?

naner• 15 years ago

Ubuntu currently uses Rhythmbox as a music player. Ubuntu added an integrated music store (https://one.ubuntu.com/music/) to Rhythmbox that is part of a service called Ubuntu One. Revenue from this is part of what funds Canonical.

Ubuntu has decided to use Banshee for the official music player instead of Rhythmbox. Banshee already has Amazon mp3 purchases integrated into the application. Purchases through Banshee use the project's own referral link. Banshee gives this money to the GNOME Foundation which is a nonprofit that coordinates GNOME development.

Ubuntu is going to use Banshee but they don't want it displacing Ubuntu One. They gave the Banshee project two choices. Either

a) Disable Amazon store by default, and if switched on by users it will still use the Banshee referral link where they get %100 of the funds

b) Leave the Amazon store enabled by default, but use a Canonical referral link that gives %15 percent to the Banshee project.

This probably isn't that controversial but I thought it might be worth discussing as it relates to the Apple marketplace restrictions.

YooLi• 15 years ago

"...I thought it might be worth discussing as it relates to the Apple marketplace restrictions."

How exactly? Not everything has to do with Apple.

technomancy• 15 years ago

Another thing worth considering is that while Amazon offers an official client for Linux systems, it is very difficult to install unless you have a 32-bit system for some reason.

krakensden2• 15 years ago

It also doesn't run on the latest Ubuntu- some sort of Boost versioning issue.

nkassis• 15 years ago

Is this serious or a joke about the latest Apple policy?

Stormbringer• 15 years ago

Indeed. See also the epic shitstorm on HN over subscription revenue. From elsewhere in the comments:

"This probably isn't that controversial"

No no, trying to take 75% of someone else's revenue isn't bad at all. Now if it was say... less than a third that would be purest evil. /s

This illustrates one of my two main points about the Apple bashers either

(a) that whenever people discuss Apple there's a vocal minority for whom all logic seems to fly out the window and it becomes opposites day or

(b) Apple is held to a different standard than others, e.g. it's okay for Canonical to throw their weight around and take a massive slice of someone else's pie, but if Apple tries to take a small slice of a pie everyone screams blue murder.

---

@Linux fans: sorry to post in your thread yo, but some of your guys were trolling in the Apple bashing threads recently (and getting mighty fine karma for doing so) so turn about is fair play.

johkra• 15 years ago

As I understand it after reading http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/3345687143/why-are-vendors... , there's a big difference:

Canonical wants to take 75% of revenue, leaving 25% to Gnome/Banshee.

Apple takes 30% of the sales price - the same part a vendor would get, taking away 100% of the revenue.

j_baker• 15 years ago

Wow. This was seriously a bad move on Canonical's part. I really wonder if Canonical knew that the revenue was going to GNOME. I simply have trouble believing that Canonical would do something so boneheaded.

redthrowaway• 15 years ago

As others have said, the Amazon referrals would compete directly with Ubuntu One, meaning they would lose money if they left it in place. Canonical still needs money to function, just like everyone else. Their offer was to either disable the Amazon links by default, driving people to use Ubuntu One, or to enable them by default and take a big cut.

Not that unreasonable at all.

evgen• 15 years ago

So, to paraphrase your argument using another recent example:

"As others have said, the Amazon Kindle app browser redirect competes directly with Apple iBooks, meaning Apple would lose money if they left it in place. Apple still needs money to function, just like everybody else. Their updated terms are to either disable the browser redirect, driving people to use iBooks, or to enable in-app book purchases and take a 30% cut."

I guess "unreasonable" is a somewhat flexible term in the community depending on the players involved...

Canonical to Banshee: either we disable affiliate code by default or we take 75%

Related Stories