Again, I think trying to agree on what is or isn’t an app is just asking for more fruitless discussion.
With regard to “app” rewards, it is the mechanism that will define what is rewarded as an app and what isn’t. So in the current scheme, it means anything that users can use to PUT to the network.
Doesn’t this make the case for PtP even stronger then? Because app and content devs are now not only similar in principle, but now also in the technical terms of the network.
That’s indeed the initial thought behind the whole reward proposal. The concept that by rewarding the GET request you would cover both the content uploader and app developpers. So you would need only one piece of code to cover both option which is very appealing especially if the piece of code is trivial to write.
But as the hundreds of comments made in the last week suggest, there are concerns to take into consideration.
I don’t think it affects it significantly, because the strongest argument against its I think concerns about it being exploited/gamed. The other issues are significant but don’t really come into play unless we can deal with that question satisfactorily first.
@smacz Actually, one person has defined what they perceive it to be. Nothing was clarified to any sort of degree.
minimum rules required by the launcher:
and what might they be?
@DavidMtl comes close to something that maybe could be a clear definition. (Whether or not you agree with it being another thing.)
Thing is can make you an HTML page that uses an API. Actually… you’re using one right now.
If this is the distinction, then instead of just uploading HTML files, I’ll make an HTML files that fetches content I created via the API. Wooo! It’s an App!?
My point is that there is no clear distinction and to suggest there is, I think, suggest a misunderstanding of web technologies.
As far as the network is concerned, yes, it’s an app. A pretty simple app, but one nonetheless.
To push the example further, a monkey typing API calls in a console is also an app as far as the network is concerned. And if there was a reward attached to that API call then the monkey would get it. The network can’t tell the difference between a monkey and the next Facebook, all it sees is the API call.
What this means is that if we want to define what an app is, we need to define exactly in which context we are talking about. Since here, we usually talk about app in the context of the safe network, the definition I gave is the correct one. And it includes the monkey and the simple html file even though these would never be considered to be an app in other context.
I dont think you read my OP.
Why should MaidSafe involve itself in someone elses business?
We are not talking about the content creators that are also app developers we are discussing the content creators who are partners in user-generated sites and apps. This is a very clear distinction.
You and I both know most people on the street have zero idea what a tip bot is… and I do agree that if we have a simple system on SAFE people will tip like crazy, but not if app developers don’t support this which is kind of the point of this entire thread mate.
One of us doesn’t seem to be understanding the concept and practical nature of the SAFE network here and I have a feeling it is not me.
Your idea is just crazy.
You seem to think the SAFE network will be some kind of all encompassing machine that controls everything and this is where you are wrong.
Lets just agree to disagree for now maybe and you can buy me a drink when it launches and you see the practical real world application of SAFE.
True but if you apply creative thinking which is the idea behind this brain dump thread.
Maybe, I can’t remember. But like I keep saying, who cares? The idea is the key, it is the first part, how it is put into a practical working method is part two. But the discussion is on the table which is good.
Like I said to someone else, maybe instead of a stick approach we approach the problem with a carrot and give more currency to app devs who enable content developers using their apps to also profit. How? I have no idea.
Thats correct but this is where stage two of the idea comes in. And this is also where whichever way the idea is practically built upon the market will follow SAFE’s lead and take care of the rest, be it a review system or something else.
Don’t get too caught up in anything, other than the basic concept.
This is where we are at now.
Here is another idea.
How about tiered system? Like you would have two sorts of app developers, type a develps apps and type b develops apps for app developers. This second type for example might be making tipping buttons for websites or creating revenue sharing applications. They would get rewarded in different ways by the network?
Lets get the ideas rolling people.
I don’t get it in your opinion but you don’t explain why. Well, explain to me where I’m wrong in your opinion, that would be a better thing to do. And in the same reply maybe you could explain what exactly it is you want to change in the License because it’s completely unclear. Your idea is quite vague so far, it just says: “Well, let’s share revenue”. And you clearly seem to think that people will sign an API License before they create an App???
I really doubt if you understand what an API is.
So to say that the only one of us who get’s SAFE is you is maybe a bit overoptimistic?? Just asking.
I think he did, he’s pointing out that there’s a difference between a website and an App.
To be honest and maybe to sound stupid 
: I really can’t find out what we’re talking about here… Can someone (@goindeep maybe) explain it in a few sentences? I’ve read all posts but it seems to bounce all over the place…
Its not about a license for the 100th time!
Im kind of over it at this point TBH having repeated myself over and over is beginning to wear me down.
It’s threads like these that make me question.
I can only do so much and I only have so much energy.
Lets just leave it be for now.
In your OP you say:
A lot of people have asked what it exactly is what you mean, but you don’t clarify. Not so weird that not all people understand what you really mean with your plan. I was just asking because I don’t really get it.
You propose a good argument and good reasons, but you only gave out one solution which was the license. We don’t understand why and yet, here you are continue to say, it’s not about license.
Okay then… your argument sucks and needs re-written.
@goindeep proposed this:
That’s all fine and dandy. But to do so he proposed:
He didn’t specify what he thought he wanted, so I dragged it out of him:
This is where most of the confusion stems from. IIRC there is no contract that one has to sign agreeing to terms and conditions in order to create an APP on the SAFE Network. He seems to think there is.
What the argument is become is that what he proposed is possible without forcing anyone to do so. (And indeed the the ecosphere will support this)
I for one am a fan of the initial revenue sharing/tipping idea. It’s just that the way he wants to go about doing it is completely wrong.
EDIT: @goindeep I think if you would say “there is no need for a license and we have no way to enforce this”, then we can get past this belabored point and start talking about tipping/revenue sharing.
Aha. Okay. But I think part of the joy of SAFE, if apps are built properly, is that we need to draw a distinction.
My understanding of how this would roll from previous SAFEpress discussions is that you would aim for any ‘app’ only to shepard users content. And so there’s no difference. The content resides with the user (should if the site is SAFEy), whatever the content. And so then that user is getting all GET rewards for this content. There would be no need to mediate. The app developer wouldn’t own any of the content or get inbetween the GET rewards to the creator. Simple.
I have said that about 20 times now. But all you engineer types seem to get caught up in specifics even though this is clearly a brainstorming conversation and discussion.
i think this guy is trolling us