It seems that people cannot understand when an idea is simply an idea and nothing else. Therefore, the contents of this post have been removed to promote peace within the community and to prevent arguments. I am moving on, and I encourage you to do so as well. Thank you.
-KingInfinity

TI didn't follow up on ways, suggested by both Kerm and the TI-Planet staff, where they'd keep much more control than with a community app store (keep full control of the signing key, to begin with).
Do you seriously think for a second that a community app store would fly from TI's POV ?

PHASM, Cesium and later DoorsCE are being developed just fine without being FlashApps. The TI-68k series has been successful despite FlashApps being unpopular, due to the terrible compiler and development environment... the TI-eZ80 series can be successful without community apps, too.

This is 0% done and will certainly remain so

Where did the first post in this thread go? Can someone please quote and/or restore it? I had some thoughts to add to this idea based on what was said in IRC.

I deleted it due to the unnecessary or negative responses it drew, as the above post says.

That's not how mature discussions work, generally. I'm sure that people's responses (with a few notable exceptions based on past experiences) were honest critiques of your idea. The mature thing to do would be to try to respond to that criticism.

Edit: Thanks to nikky for grabbing a screenshot:

First, I think the idea of a moderated, curated file archive is a good one. In fact, Cemetech's own Archives aim to be just such an archive: we have recently rejected some fake RAM Clear programs, various useless solvers (quadratic solver #9123, anyone?), and so on. However, issues of whether Cemetech and/or I personally should be the holder of the signing key aside, I seriously doubt TI would ever agree to such a thing. Back in the early days of the TI-83 Plus, TI would sign your Apps for you for a fee, and therefore had the ultimate final decision about whether or not an App could be published. I'd imagine that if there were any ultimate authority, they would be it, but in my discussions with them, they've indicated their unwillingness to return even to that model for the TI-84 Plus CE.

Kerm, the post was removed to prevent arguments, not to avoid criticism. I didn't want to argue about the contents of the post, and honestly, I started to agree with the critics. Therefore, I deleted the post because it was not worth A. Rewriting or B. Arguing. I ask that you remove the screenshot, but I guess it's up to your judgement...
Also, some of the criticism was not constructive at all and was composed of people tearing down instead of building up, or suggesting revisions but that's besides the fact.

It doesn't seem like much of a flamewar erupted, and this doesn't seem to be a "holy war" where arguing/discussing is pointless. You brought up an interesting idea and people were discussing why they think it would or would not work (ok, maybe they were only discussing how it would not work in it's current form).



Then why don't you just write a post saying why you agree with the critics, and leave the thread intact for others?

You should have seen the IRC. It wasn't TERRIBLE, but it was enough for me to just stop caring. Also, some of it was extremely rude and blunt.

As I wrote, multiple persons who had more context about the past tried to build up some more realistic ideas, in direct contact with TI EdTech management, and TI didn't take on the suggestions.

This issue has been solved. Sorry for deleting the original post. I took something personally when I shouldn't have and I take full responsibility for that. Other than that I regret nothing...
#blamebhtooefr