Much discussion has taken place about a possible Pay-the-Producer (PtP) feature on Safe Network. With all the recent news about Apple and Google becoming more restrictive on what they allow on their networks should we be talking about a possible PtG (Pay-the-Gatekeeper) also? Would it be worth it to avoid the inevitable pushback from the gatekeepers? After all, if we can’t even get the Safe App into the App Stores a working network doesn’t do anyone any good. If this were to happen would PtG need to include ISP’s as well?
Novel idea. Something to marinate on and curious to see others responses to this.
It’s rather easy to manually install an app on Android. One or two clicks max. No need to worry about google inclusion or exclusion either way. The point you raise is not an issue.
It is an issue because it presents a barrier, and one that I expect most people will fail to get past. This is of course by design, Google use this to keep most in the Play store.
There’s not much we can do here. The idea of paying the gatekeepers is innovative, but I’m not sure how or why they’d become involved. Apple and Google are too big and powerful to listen to a small upstart project, and by the time Safe is on their radar this will be less of an issue, but maybe still worth considering. I confess that I do not like the idea of paying those corporations!
I’m reading App Store Review Guidelines - Apple Developer right now and it doesn’t seem likely that Safe Network App would be eligible for the apple app store but like others have mentioned a ‘read only’ Safe Browser should be just fine. I’m hoping that @maidsafe at least make an easy way for apps to authenticate within their own apps, maybe with a QR code displayed via SNAPP on the users PC, so that devs can still provide apps that use Safe to the App Store. I don’t imagine JAMS Mobile being a problem at all (unless I’m missing something) and as long as the user can login or auth from within the app then mutations should be cool. The mobile app probably wouldn’t be able to show any kind of balances and even if their was issue with balances being deducted and what not in the background than it could be read only too but obviously not as functional or competitive which would be greatly disappointing.
I think this is more in line with my thoughts as well. While it is possible to install apps manually, I think it’s easy to underestimate the inertia people have with downloading new apps. People who need or are very interested in SAFE’s capabilities (e.g. living behind a firewall or living in a country with suppressed freedom of speech) will find a way to download it, sure.
But, if we’re talking about going mainstream one day, most people I know will, anecdotally at least, not download an app unless they know they will use it near every day and it’s easy to get. There’s a reason that it’s kind of a meme that apps on the app store that cost a whole dollar are “expensive”. Inertia.
Badly written, glass half empty ramble follows, feel free to ignore.
Interesting idea though I’m not too sure if it would be a big enough incentive for those platforms to hand over that little bit of control they seem to want to keep desperately.
But even if it was I still don’t think it’s a great idea, let’s say our wettest dreams come true and the safe network is facilitating 99% of daily data usage, all those companies are now making a good chunk of pocket change for allowing the safe network to exist on top of whatever people have to pay them.
I don’t think its right to permanently reroute funds that should go to vaults, producers or even cachers to go to an unrelated third party that does nothing but just allow the network to exist.
It’ll be fine if it’s designed to disapear over time, though I really doubt that any company would take a deal that would inevetably lead to their demise if the network is succesfull, which they need to get a good amount of cash for these ‘safe coins’.