The probable source of disruption comes from people one step removed from the top who see an opportunity to shake up the system and turn an activist message into opportunistic gain. This is why we often see waves of "anti-corruption" campaigns, sudden policy shifts, etc. The politicians see a trend forming and jump on to it. When they get in power they walk some of it back, but they can't turn back the clock all the way.
The source of a trend towards GPC comes from a series of "small wins" like the recent breakthroughs in Right to Repair, from IP that has recently expired, and from nationalistic competition("world's free-est country" will always be a title up for grabs).
It only takes one little country that's a "hacker haven" to jump ahead of the rest for a clamor to erupt. The dominant players will conclude that the answer is to strongarm that country into the hegemonic framework; others in weaker positions will see opportunities in jumping on. Then the fight is waged economically, and if the resulting products and services are desirable, concessions are made.
We are reaching a turning point where even the brightest minds struggle to generate major innovations on the locked down web. You can't build "the next Facebook" on the web as it is today because the incumbent powers suffocate you so effectively.
Conversely, the dweb is flush right now with innovation and new ideas, with an ecosystem of builders that are excited to share and compound off of eachother's ideas.
I believe that at maturity, the dweb will run absurd agile circles around the lockdown web.
I don't doubt this suffocation is real, but isn't it really the strong network effects that Facebook benefits from which stops somebody from "building the next FB"?
In the dweb, those APIs can't be shut off. Those hundreds of innovative companies would still be alive and adding value to the world.
Take WhatsApp: the technology behind it is ridiculously simple.
No it is not, when you serve over 100 billion e2e encrspted messages everyday all around the world, and groups and chat, ... and all of it in a way that people think it is instant.
Thats a problem with Signal. It is really really sluggish compared to whatsapp or telegram.
Yes, there's a lot of attention to detail and a lot of edge cases that WA covers better than most others, but there's not a lot of truly complex things. It's mostly doing a lot of simple things well (and some amount of picking the right structures to keep things as simple as possible). Often doing things simply means skipping current computing trends. And of course, sometimes doing things simply doesn't actually meet the needs, and may make changes harder later.
Of course, Signal has much harder to meet privacy goals and a smaller staff and they didn't build on Erlang, so they're playing on hard mode.
That's why it's going to win. You don't need every platform to implement every interesting feature, the open nature of the data allows the innovation to happen much more effortlessly.
People won't install another social media app if there isn't sufficient incoming social credit encouraging them to use it and the need falls into an existing category. Something sufficiently different can gain an “I couldn't have done this with” credit to overcome some stickiness with.
… maybe. Sort of. I think.
(I wonder what this means for e.g. Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, if it's true.)
But Facebook did beat MySpace. That’s what network effects are
Why bother with the suffocation then.
Acquiring WhatsApp was not cheap and required significant effort. Why bother.
Than answer to your question is no, IMO. Network effects may discourage competition from people with defeatist attitudes (who would give up before even trying), but network effects are not exclusive to Facebook. They can happen elsewhere.
One theory why Apple is letting iPhone users stop Facebook from tracking them is that Apple believes that iMessage is or will be competing with WhatsApp. It aligns with the theory that Facebook's move to change the WhatsApp ToS at this time is because usage of so-called "E2E" messaging apps is growing significantly.
TikTok and Zoom aren't exactly the next Facebook (yet), but they both compete effectively against the incumbent powers.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/08/decentral...
I'm still not sure what it is but I kind of get the idea.
Locked down platforms can iterate faster than open platforms.
Eg. Email vs. Slack. Email hasn't change fundamentally in decades but slack is growing and adding useful (to some) features.
Many HN crowd say they don't want/need change, but customer bases tend to disagree.
It’s a bad point from both of y’all tho since you’re ignoring what marketing verticals are. Email and slack are seen as pro tools, not everyday stuff
Slack is puzzling to me, as it’s a terrible product, IMO, which I feel bandwagoned from a few top down decisions by some larger companies to risk their essential internal communications on a third party proprietary app. It makes no sense to me and I would never specify it’s use on any team I lead.
Again, I truly want to be inspired here and will work to suppress my cynicism if you can just tell me why you think dweb will be different from Indie Web, Mastodon, or App.net.
A big problem of torrents (and IPFS, and most p2p technologies) is how to give proper incentive for people to contribute. There are "cheating" clients that don't upload back for example. And there are people that close the torrent as soon as it is downloaded. Well, you can sometimes rely on people's sense of belonging to a community; or you can sometimes shun noncooperating people from the community (as in private trackers).
I think dweb's main contribution is giving the option of monetary compensation for participating in the network. Perhaps such incentive wasn't needed when people were just seeding things they are passionate about, like movies and music, but it may enable more boring stuff to be decentralized as well. Hence, blockchain.
Most current p2p protocols are about sharing data in a decentralized way, but you can also execute algorithms on this data. That's what's being done with blockchain today (technically you wouldn't need a blockchain for this, but we already established we might want a way to give monetary incentive to peers, so, there's that)
This scheme may or may not work. I think it may have adverse effects, like when the web was taken down by advertising and commercial interests. But it also opens a path to a new kind of web.
About ddos: existing protocols have a big problem with scaling; an actual denial of service attack would make things much worse. That's why Lbry (which is a decentralized Youtube of sorts) is mostly accessed through a centralized site, Odysee - funnily enough, Odysee doesn't use any form of decentralization to serve the videos. It could make peers serve themselves using webtorrent or other protocol on top of webrtc, and it might some day just do it, but it doesn't at this time.
There's all sorts of fingers that could be pointed in different directions across different industries of course (some being the same industry now due to consolidation of the stack) but the most fundamental failure of judgement in my opinion was that there was a romantic notion once upon a time that computers would be this great equalizer that could even allow clever enough eggheads to take on the world (literally, not with some fancy high value business idea) while simultaneously bringing real opportunity and equality to the common man ('anyone who can use a computer will be more valuable than a CEO').
The former idea never quite managed to explain why these eggeads wouldn't be beholden to the limitations of the hardware at their disposal (Turns out computing hardware multiplies the effectiveness of the boogey men just as readily as it does the eggheads and the boogeymen do a lot more hiring). The latter notion was abandoned by the same people who dreamed it up in the first place not that they'll admit it (of course they wanted computing to empower the common man, it's surely a coincidence that every step of the way they focused on expanding only an egghead's ability to command computers with wider accessibility being an afterthought motivated primarily by profit incentives)
I think the ugly truth is that general purpose computing was more of a philisophical goal than a realistic one. It seems a lot more likely that from a technological perspective it's just a lot more efficient to have an expansive commons of innovative collaboration available for dueling giants to draw from on an as-needed basis.
Why? Buy an off the shelf processor chip, buy memory chips, buy some interface chips to provide access to peripherals and storage, solder them to a board and you have a general purpose computer that will boot any code you write for it. The Raspberry Pi, Arduino, etc. are examples of this. If you want an absolute guarantee of no third-party code not under your control, use an FPGA to custom implement your processor the way that Bunnie Huang's Precursor project does. FOSS fills the gap for software.
Sure, you might not get the performance you want for the price you want, you might not be able to connect to the sites you want, or run a specific proprietary software package but that has nothing to do with general purpose computing. In no way, shape, or form is general purpose computing endangered nor has it ever been.
Sure in a free market you could do that, be we aren't living in a free market. Both corporations and politicians wants you to use locked in devices where you are easier to monetize and control. And since those are the two powers controlling regulations chances are you will no longer be able to buy those chips legally without an active software engineering license and a business document stating what you will use them for.
It wont happen tomorrow, but what about 20-40 years? Compare todays market with 20 years ago and how much it changed, extrapolate 20 years in the future and it doesn't seem improbable at all.
I suspect those things will become regulated and require either constraints built in or license to be able to purchase them. Then likely aveneues for connection will be required to verify devices are trusted (so, cellular companies, ISPs) and they will do this by associating devices that try to communicate with government issued cryptographic signatures that are built into chips etc.
And yeah you could bypass everything but it will still be illegal. So a bit like you could build your own car but you won't be legally allowed to drive it on the road and you will incur huge liability if you try.
No. The user could still deliberately chooose to run a different back-doored encryption software on the same computer. The definition still holds.
The iPhone went there years ago. The situation on Android is tenuous. OSX and Windows both now both start from a secure boot mechanism. At this point it is still possible for a user to work around these things but this is now "at the pleasure" of the OS maker and not something the user actually controls. Removal of a couple of checkboxes is how far we are from losing user-controlled right to install software on any mainstream consumer supported OS.
So I am arguing that now that operating system manufacturers have forfeited their ability to say they cannot prevent the user from installing software, it is only a matter of time before it becomes legally mandated that they close off this capability, and deliver only software that is delivered from a verified (probably government licensed) channel.
i upgraded my home server few months ago. It was runing archlinux for 13 years. It was up-to-date, not some ancient codebase. Yet, the "new" 2y-old-tech motherboard/processor/memory combo did not even start / recognize the SSDs. Took me a week in debugging, and replacing the motherboard with another one. Exactly One check box in the BIOS/setup, yes, and your gone. The 2nd mb did have it. The 1st did not anymore.
have fun
The government can never effectively ban general purpose computing in an authoritative way because it’s just too easy to build a computer. You can build a computer using a bunch of fpgas connected together. If they ban fpgas, hackers will start using 80s-style 8 bit micros.
That is all to say, the people who care about general purpose computing will never lose it and the people who don’t care won’t even notice.
How much did a general purpose computer cost 30 years ago?
How much did it cost 20 years ago?
How much did it cost 10 years ago?
How much does a Raspberry Pi Zero W cost now?
> To a normal person the mere thought of figuring out how to use a raspberry pi (or increasingly even a windows PC) induces a stress response.
I’d argue that this has always been true—the only difference is that now, if you’re willing to push through that stress, you can get one for dirt cheap. And I’d also argue that the reasons that this is true are completely ignored by the article at hand.
There were no alternatives in the past. Now that locked down alternatives have been invented, general purpose computers will slowly but surely fall out of use
I never claimed they were expensive, not sure what you’re referring to there.
=== No Smartphones
For all the threats of smartphones, I avoid them -- I don't have a smartphone. My phone is an old Bell touch tone desk set connected to essentially a land line.
I saw some threats of smartphones and didn't like the cost to buy, cost of usage, bad keyboard, small screen, and the general inability to write and run my software, old and new.
=== Digital Appliances
For threats of digital appliances, devices, from, say, Amazon, I don't have any. No way do I want some digital appliance listening to everything I say.
=== The Cloud
I don't trust the cloud. I make no direct use of the cloud. So the cloud is not a threat or cost to me. And I don't have to do mud wrestling with their poor or missing documentation on how their services work. What they are offering, no thanks. Not even for free. And whatever they say about reliability, security, or functionality, I don't believe it.
=== Encryption
For threats of encryption, if the situation gets serious, say, for my email, then I will make use of PGP (pretty good privacy). So, I will have encryption under my control that Apple, etc. can't do anything about. And I won't have to worry about back doors.
There was a reason PGP was open source -- to keep a big power, government, company, from getting control over encryption, putting in back doors, etc. I like the idea of being able to control my own encryption.
=== Text and Console Windows
To me, the main data I work with is just text, the standard ASCII character set. And my main user interface is text in console windows. A big reason is that it is easy to automate the use of text in console windows.
So, in particular, I make minimal use of the Microsoft user interface idea of on-screen direct manipulation graphical user interfaces (GUI). I never liked the idea of a GUI -- insults me as a user; is an interface I essentially can't program; gives output tough to process further.
In one sense, important to me, a GUI is nearly always a big step backwards; it has me do something once; but to do it 200 times I have to do it 200 times as I do it once. Instead, I want to automate doing that 200 times. E.g., I had a list of about 300 URLs and wanted to download them all. So I used my text editor KEDIT to develop a REXX script to call the program CURL 300 times and then ran the script in a console window and then processed the 300 downloaded files with KEDIT. No use of GUIs. For such work, usually GUIs are useless.
=== Files
I'm totally in love with Microsoft's NTFS (new technology file system or some such) file system. I would like better documentation on the file and directory (I HATE Apple introducing the word folder) attributes such as system, hidden, archive, etc. and on locking and concurrency.
E.g., for handling those 300 files, do that in a subdirectory -- don't let other files get in the way and can copy, delete, etc. easily.
=== Manipulating the Text
Since I work with text, I need good tools for handling text, and my most important computing tools are the text editor KEDIT, its macro language KEXX, the scripting language REXX, the D. Knuth mathematical word processing TeX (I write TeX but no LaTeX), a spell checker ASPELL that comes with the TeX distribution I use, the .NET languages and object library, for some important work an old Watcom Fortran compiler (with the very nice IBM linear programming package OSL, optimization subroutine library).
So, I want good tools and if necessary write my own and don't want little apps doing things for and/or to me. Really, so far I have no apps at all.
=== Version of Windows?
Since I like text and console windows so much, the stuff Microsoft added to Windows 7 Professional to get to Window 10 Home Edition I don't want. I just like that version of Windows 7. I can think of some improvements I would like a lot, but none of those are in Windows 10.
For what Apple wants me to use, no way, not a chance, never.
=== Good Windows
To me, one of the best things about any of the versions of Windows is that they are still good to great places to run old command line software. E.g., KEDIT goes back to PC/DOS, OS/2, Windows 95, ..., Windows 7, Windows 10.
=== Typing for Developing
I used KEDIT with KEXX and REXX to develop the software for the Web site of my startup, 24,000 .NET programming language statements in 100,000 lines of typing (lots of good comments with some little KEDIT macros to ease using documentation, etc.).
Visual Studio seems to be intended to do what I do with KEDIT -- so far I prefer KEDIT to Visual Studio. E.g., Visual Studio is part of the long standing Microsoft idea of GUIs, and I just reject that as a big step backwards. I had no trouble at all using KEDIT, etc. to develop that software. The problems were, e.g., bad documentation for SQL Server that made getting a connection string a solid week of mud wrestling. Finally someone in Microsoft's SQL Server organization solved the problem.
=== Documentation or Experiments
Part of the Microsoft, Apple GUI approach is no real documentation, e.g., nothing like what was written by Mike Cowlishaw for REXX or by D. Knuth for TeX, and, instead, learn just by experimentation. I don't like that experimentation -- e.g., Windows 10 has some huge number of special keystrokes that do things, and I still have no knowledge of what those keystrokes are or do. I encounter those keystrokes by accident; some windows pop up, and I work to close them ASAP since whatever they are I know I want nothing to do with them. I don't like undocumented tools.
=== No, I Don't Want That
Generally what the Apple, Microsoft people and their app developers have in mind to please me just makes me angry. What they are offering me, I don't want. To me their work just gets in the way of my work; I hate their work and their assumptions about my work.
So, on several points I agree with the OP on "universal computing". If Microsoft will keep console windows and let me run old software, I will be happy. To make me happier, they can do better on documentation and tools for common tasks in system management. E.g., I'd like better means of backup and restore. For more, they can have fewer bugs and security problems. For more, I would like some good documentation for Microsoft's Power Shell. For the rest of the industry, I wish I could get a keyboard as good as IBM shipped with their PC/AT.
I think that reputation stems from both TPM and secure boot being a bit difficult to grok and I would agree about screwing users over if there was no end-user access/cryptographically locked by the vendor but both are fully accessible.
I invite you to read this
https://www.eff.org/wp/trusted-computing-promise-and-risk
or this
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A2065...
I don't think that problem can be attacked by blaming the underlying tech, that quickly heads into the same territory of thought governments use to try and justify weakening encryption because it can be used by bad actors. I think the options (and to be fair all of them are hard) are: competition from vendors that allow full control, regulation from governments forcing vendors to give users full access, or subverting the implementation to regain control.
Also forgot to mention with secure boot you are able to sign with keys you have generated.
All major manufacturers of modern processors are part of the "Trusted" Computing Group. There will be no meaningful competition in that space.
>regulation from governments forcing vendors to give users full access
This would be the best but also the most unlikely scenario. The status quo can only benefit from what will happen. Imagine the government standing up to big corporations to benefit the people. Yeah, I can't either.
>subverting the implementation to regain control
I think this is what will happen from time and time. Every 5 years we will have a brief time when people possessing certain hardware will have full control yet again, only for it to be patched out (like in the case of the Nintendo Switch)
>Also forgot to mention with secure boot you are able to sign with keys you have generated.
Oh sure you can. The question is whether will it make you fail hardware based attestation like in the case of android custom roms. Google effectively killed the custom rom scene by giving app developers a bulletproof way to block them.
I don't see this same scenario unfolding now... The articles about Pluton are basically the same copy pasted drivel... All of them fail to mention the extreme danger this poses to freedom of expression in the online world. Something changed in the last ~15 years.