Thoughts on listing Vivaldi in the Windows Store
Having read an article about Microsoft's latest version of Windows 10 that locks itself down to only Store apps, a line of commentary stuck me as interesting:
"... if Google is willing to list Chrome in the Store then it will be available on devices that run Windows 10 S" - from https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/2/15506378/
If that is indeed possible, then what does everyone think here about trying to get Vivaldi listed as a browser?
Seems like it would be a good way to get people on board by offering a feature-rich alternative to chrome, plus given that Windows 10 S seems to be marketed to schools, the suite of productivity offers might seem appealing.
I recently learned about the MSIX package (https://github.com/Microsoft/msix-packaging), which from what I understand would allow Win32 applications to be distributed in the Store, I think without having to be converted to UWP applications (?).
It might be worth considering, if it really would allow all of the same functionality. Even aside from Windows 10 S, it could provide some increased visibility. I see UCBrowser is already available in the store.
Although of course I'll always support distribution via official sites as well.
@Gwen-Dragon. I have packaged Vivaldi releases since ver. 2.11 as msix package. Works very well. Have to sign the package with selfsigned sertificat. I'm using Vivaldi.appinstaller file to update all my computers.
As a start the Vivaldi msix package could de hosted at vivaldi.net
@lonm Vivaldi should avoid becoming dependent on app stores, and other services that Big Tech could just pull away. Remember what happened to Parler?
@eggcorn It's not dependent on app stores, and listing in one would not change that. App stores are a way of distribution that can make it easier for users to find Vivaldi.
@lonm I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad idea, to list Vivaldi in the Windows app store. I'm just saying: There is a downside here! If users rely on app stores to download and update Vivaldi, that will make Vivaldi more dependent on (and more vulnerable to) Big Tech. No way around that.
Vivaldi more dependent on (and more vulnerable to) Big Tech
Vivaldi is already EXTREMELY reliant on big tech. I don't think they care much. I think they will enter the app store if they think it will be good for their profits.
Vivaldi relies on google chromium for 90%+ of their browser's code, google is relied on for the latest updates, to spread marketing on youtube and search, to provide Safe Browsing Services, to provide Privacy Sandbox, to provide Widevine Video, and more. Microsoft is relied on slightly less, but they are still quite dependent on Microsoft. Simply being flagged by the "Windows Defender" could mean a drastic drop in new users. And Microsoft is now providing some of the new chromium features, plus how can we forget that Bing is not only a way that users may discover Vivaldi, but also Vivaldi's highest-paying search engine partner? And of course, Windows users download Vivaldi using Microsoft Edge.
... if they think it will be good for their profits.
I don't like the way you put that. It makes it sound like they're doing something bad by worrying about their profits. Like they're putting their profits above their users, or something.
@code3 "Vivaldi" and "profits" in the same sentence. I don't think I've seen that before.
Seems like it would be a good way to get people on board by offering a feature-rich alternative to chrome
As Amazon Kindle users (I know there are a few of us) we'd like to see the 'mobile' app there too. I'm not sure how it would fit there. There seems to be nothing of a "browser" there when you search for the term. At one time they did (I think have FF) ?? I think but now all I see are file browsers and the like.
More to the point, the more exposure Vivaldi can get, the better as once people find the usefulness of V they'll move to it.
That's my nickel's worth.
@eggcorn I wouldn't say they put profits above users, but maybe they put growing their profits above avoiding big tech.
@code3 I think it's a mistake to boil this down to money.
That the proposal in the thread: It may well be good idea to put Vivaldi in the Windows app store, so that more people can find that start using Vivaldi. As for the other stuff you mentioned:
Chromium code: Vivaldi didn't have much choice. To make a browser, they had to use Chromium code or Firefox code. Making Vivaldi from scratch (without that code) was not a viable option. But the code is open-source and used by most other browsers. That limits Google's ability to shut Vivaldi off from it.
Safe Browsing, Widevine, etc.: Vivaldi would work without that stuff. But it'd be significantly less secure, and some videos won't play in Vivaldi. To not include that stuff would cause too much trouble for Vivaldi users.
People finding Vivaldi via search-engines, installing it via the computer's default browser, etc: There's not much the Vivaldi company can do about that, no matter how much money they're willing to give up.
And search-engine partnerships: Even if Bing were no-longer interested in paying to be the default search-engine, another search-engine would take Bing's place. So, not a lot of dependency there in the first place.
Point is: Having no dependency on big tech is impractical, and not simply because Vivaldi would lose money. Avoiding dependency on big tech is good (we saw what happened to Parler), but not at the cost of sabotaging Vivaldi.
@eggcorn Take just Widevine for an example. Google could stop this service at any point, users would call Vivaldi broken, and switch to Chrome.
Vivaldi can choose to be on the App Store or not be on the app store. But avoiding the store to avoid Big Tech is silly because V already relies quite a bit on big tech to play nice.
I think they should be on the App Store, unless there is a good reason not to.