It should be pretty obvious to you why they aren't exactly going to claim 30% commission on nothing from users who are as cost averse as possible. It should be plainly obvious to you also how they don't have the clout to bully software vendors to publish for them.
They have already plenty of evidence that profitability of distribution of linux software isn't exactly a lucrative market like Google or Apple. The fact that you think that is their aim or that it is feasible in the FOSS Linux community with large scale players like Google/Microsoft/IBM is ludicrous. Canonical tries to attempt to get such vendor lock-in and they would lose so much marketshare apps on their store instantaneously. They aren't even in a position like Apple/Google/Microsoft here who charge money to publish apps.
I have already explained how that argument is complete nonsense.
The backlash from Linux Mint and other distributions was partly caused by Canonical using Snap for Chromium when the user intended to install it through apt. This sleight of hand is not as extreme as a 30% commission, but it's a step in the wrong direction. The FOSS community is able to reject moves toward vendor lock-in even if the closed source Snap server does not mandate a 30% commission.
You keep repeating yourself. Having a default mechanism for installing software installed on Ubuntu distros that is using Ubuntu based infrastructure does not constitute vendor lock in. Guess what, Ubuntu uses apt rather than yum. That isn't vendor lock in either.
Having a proprietary back end does not constitute vendor lock in.
What you are saying is the equivalent of using spotify is vendor lock in. That or using Firefox. Heck Canonical's model here is practically no different from Firefox with their addon store.
A developer can choose to ignore snap all together and still distribute on Ubuntu. A user can choose to ignore snap all together and still install software on Ubuntu. They will have to face the consequence of not having to use chromium because nobody is willing to maintain it other than Canonical. What is this nonsense that you are spouting.
>The backlash from Linux Mint and other distributions was partly caused by Canonical using Snap for Chromium when the user intended to install it through apt. This sleight of hand is not as extreme as a 30% commission, but it's a step in the wrong direction. The FOSS community is able to reject moves toward vendor lock-in even if the closed source Snap server does not mandate a 30% commission.
Because any move that you or Mint disagrees with is a 'step' in the wrong direction? So be it, I and probably Canonical would rather be wrong.
Snap has 10x the install base for each snap compared to flatpak. It also has more first party software support.
If this was true FOSS projects wouldn't be publishing things on the snap store (they are, and they publish on google play, winget, and other closed app stores).
No one can claim they speak for whatever you think "the FOSS community" is, let alone what it opposes or supports.
