It feels like a colliding of worlds and a cannibalization that doesn't make sense to me. Like - if the government launched a messaging app competitive with WhatsApp and it drew users away from WhatsApp and it had better encryption ... Would that actually be better for the economy of this country? Something seems off about it to me.
First, you create the tools you need with the money your people give you. Then, you give back the tools you created to the public and/or everyone who needs them.
You keep your data in your own data center, use the tools which squarely fills the needs of your workers and people, and you share its maintenance with the outside users.
It's a win-win-win (country, its workers, people in the world). WWW is developed the same way, Europe's open data repository Zenodo (https://zenodo.org) is built the same way, alongside countless science tools.
We shouldn't be afraid of governments doing cool things. Heck, most if not all supercomputer centers in the US and around the world are government funded, and free for scientists.
Moreover, the project is licensed MIT to enable to be "taken and ran with it" by private sector. From the README.md:
> While Docs is a public driven initiative our licence (sic) choice is an invitation for private sector actors to use, sell and contribute to the project.
Yes! And you'd be surprised by the kind of talent we're able to attract. People want cool stuff to be built by the public. After all its also their money that's being spent. But you need to provide the right environment for their talent not to go waste and thats not easy.
I know. I work with some of them at a national HPC/Supercomputer center.
The environment is super important, too. You’re spot on at that regard.
One should not focus on the economic sphere as the be all and end all. We can just have improvements be distributed to everyone sometimes! We can just do good things through coordinated efforts and entirely sidestep the economy to get the good things.
All the people who were working on Notion now can go get some on the job training to learn to farm.
Why don't we just do this for everything? You can go read a bunch of political and economic philosophy about that.
Every week we read in the news that the EU struggles with entrepreneurship. That our tech industry is languishing. That the EU gets out-competed by the US on software and by China on everything else. Europe should be making industry-leading apps. Europe should produce software startups that make products that get used worldwide. EU subsidized clones of popular American products feels like admitting defeat.
I'm obviously biased because I'm also working on a product in this space. But if Notion developers must become farmers because innovation no longer pays that is a loss to the world in my book.
I've kind of lost hope when it comes to commercial services and proprietary apps. They're sadly all sooner or later enshittified. We need something different, not by promises but by design (FOSS).
> EU subsidized clones of popular American products feels like admitting defeat.
I think it's a fresh and needed take on the financing of our common digital infra.
If you own your data and if you have the option to self-host you can always opt out of updates you don't like.
Databases, compilers/interpreters, web servers, operating systems...but apps? (Other than gnu/bad command line tools of course)
And I’m a Mac user!
If I look at my phone, it's possible that I have more apps installed via F-Droid than through Google Play
why it would need to be state of the art? it needs to be stable and 'good enough'. This isn't rocket science, nor quantum mechanics - this is literally a glorified CRUD app that focuses on documentation.
They are putting their resources into the development of a product that can be universally shared and used. There is no favored party.
Also, I completely disagree with the "ambitious projects". I actually would favor the government let all the risky ventures to private enterprises and focused only on tried-and-true developments and make them universally available to its citizens.
At the very least, it works as a bargaining chip when it comes to negotiating contracts with the private sector.
If you develop an in-house tool, you have very predictable user numbers so you can go on-prem versus cloud for the compute and save ~10x on that side.
You also have the benefit of being second, the other guys already did the hard work of UX research etc. and your in-house team just needs to replicate a slightly complicated CRUD app.
The one significant roadblock I can see is being able to put together the right team for the job. But cost-wise it has to be a no-brainer that in-house is cheaper.
After all, it's licensed under the MIT License, and the readme explicitly states that it can be contributed to, and that in fact they encourage it.
The possibility of data being sifoned back to the US if they use american cloud services has millions of public agents not being able to collaborate online.
Some of them try to provide on premise versions of the software but Microsoft want you so bad to pay for 365 or teams that they are willing to maintain only super old versions.
I spoke with a guy reponsible for 100k public agents who told me his only choice is to host Sharepoint 2011 (in 2025 !)
So maybe Docs is not as innovative as Notion but hey, we need as efficient as we can public servants. And we will do that by providing modern tools they can use online with their colleagues.
+ When we think of Microsoft we think about the Office Suite but in lot of cases they do the authentication with Active Directory. Go luck doing interoperability or SSO accross agencies when all of them rely on closed source code and are locked in by vendors...
We're actually solving with OIDC identity federation called ProConnect.
Well, if a government project can easily push you out, then you're not really a state-of-the-art.
> EU subsidized clones of popular American products feels like admitting defeat.
Governments need to think long-term. And one danger of relying on something like Notion is vendor lock-in. You can't easily migrate your data out of Notion, with all the rich content preserved (edit history, text comments, etc.)
EU can try to mandate a common interoperability standard, but it takes years and the end result always ends up being behind the state of the art.
The government could act like an immortal mega corp if it had the authority to do so. Such as pushing out competition via loss leaders. And as a bonus, with the government, every program can be a loss leader.
The funding potential for this pattern is constrained today, which is why government projects that compete with private industry are generally terrible. But, clearly, the money is there to be captured by this segment out of government funding generally, if the government is allowed to enter business directly.
The solid argument I see against allowing such actions is a slippery slope towards the above. Slippery slope arguments aren’t always correct, of course, but they aren’t always wrong either; they just point out a risk. Depending on one’s risk tolerance, it is wise to avoid slippery slopes when you can’t quantify just how steep it is.
Right now, I can't fix that one small bug in Notion that keeps bothering me. I have to raise an issue and hope that they add the API required to do that. In the case of open source base produced by the government, I can make a small (perhaps paid) add-on with that functionality.
But it works fine for infrastructure where competition is not only rare, but often is counter-productive, like for sewer and water delivery. Can this include software infrastructure? Maybe.
A very specific example: basically all interactive theorem proving tooling is built in public research halls. This has allowed Compcert, a C compiler with “no bugs”[0] to exist.
The Compcert case is interesting because private funding is also involved. Public state research can still pull in private funds! We are not entirely throwing in the towel!
[0] “no bugs” here means “we have defined a spec for C, and this compiler is guaranteed to compile your C code along the spec we defined, so long as your program terminates”. There’s some hand waving around a theorem prover’s own validity but all Compcert bugs have been “we misewrote a chunk of spec” varietals
This would only work if the government replacement would be more efficient than Notion (in the sense that the French government employs less people for a product of the same quality).
How many sales people does this project need? It’s not zero because grants etc but let’s not kid ourselves.
I think this project will never spend as much money as notion on devs. Like ever.
I will grant that there’s a good idea around “well notion was doing operations for everyone at once so people don’t need as many tech/ops people ”. I’m hopeful that hosted variants pop up to help with this. I’m also hopeful that we can figure out how to make stuff easier to host when high availability is not a requirement.
So maybe we end up net more operators, and less sales people and devs. That’s kind of interesting!
The only reason why they might need less developers is because they are a copying an existing product, so less R&D. There is no reason to assume that the teams behind Notion, Outline, Google Docs ... are less effective than the French Government.
Outcompeting only works if a software company is truly unable to pivot or outperform open source tools sponsored by the government.
The same thing can be said by free tools given away by big tech, like vscode. Here, microsoft operates actually quite similar to the government. There is no way a new company can create a competitor to vscode and charge money for it anymore. This pushes people to solve other software problems, rather than doing something else entirely. I don't think we'll be at the limit of economic value we can generate by writing new software just yet, if such a thing even exists.
Let's first start with what I understand to be the premise- that private industry and governments are two worlds (ie your worlds colliding idea). Let's explore this from the other side: Private industry should never compete with the government.
We don't need bottled water- tap is fine, and it competes with government water.
Commercial radio and TV stations should not exist in countries that have a public station.
Doctors and nurses should never work in private clinics where government offers medical services, or supplementary insurance should not exist.
Back to government, though. Government should do what's best for the citizenry. It might make a public bridge to compete with a commercial ferry service. Or it might mean offering cheap Internet to compete with exploitive ISPs.
Proprietary software like this is an effective tax on the citizens, but a commercial one. Governments can fund a public alternative for a small amount of money. Why not?
I'm curious to know why that seems off. If you're a "free market" proponent, you usually are because you want people to have access to "the best", as that's what competition is supposed to bring out.
And if a government manages to come up with a better Whatsapp (whatever that means), and users starts to change, then clearly the alternative is better, as proven by users moving over, so then even someone who wants free markets would believe that this is a good outcome, if I understand things correctly.
But instead it sounds crazy to you, it seems. It would be interesting to hear more about why you feel this is crazy. To me it sounds like a good idea for users, which I guess is what I care more about.
And regarding the economy, my understanding is that there's been a push in the French government (and in Europe to some extent) towards more independent services (the recent behaviour of US big tech are not helping for sure). If the government is going to generate some tool for its internal use, I sure would prefer if they open sourced it at the same time.
Finally for the WhatsApp alternative, if France or Germany or whoever else started an open source WhatsApp competitor with better encryption, I definitely think it would be good for European citizens: one less dependency on Meta. Why wouldn't we want that?
It may compete with private software for a while, but not that much: companies will find a way to add value to existing open source software or create new propositions. Building out the boring and useful foundational stuff collectively will just move the bar on what is exciting and new software, or what are better takes on existing software. Companies will be creatively seeking out ever more complex problems to tackle once the government builds out the basic tooling.
And ideally, that is what private companies should be good at: quick to pivot, creative and innovative problem-solving.
Of course, that requires governments to play nice and enable companies to leverage their tooling too, and - perhaps a bigger problem - take responsibility for competent governance of the most important projects and manage their adoption well.
It wouldn’t make sense to rely on a foreign closed source company if they want to do anything serious with this IMO.
The Internet is a strong and definitive counterpoint to this claim, IMO.
If the government didn’t create the open internet, we would all be living in AOL style walled gardens right now.
Done, but for public workers. https://tchap.beta.gouv.fr
These tools are not yet for citizens, but for workers.
When it comes to software these governments are already shelling out X amount of money (which they don’t with WhatsApp, hence putting it aside). If they can make a comparable product they themselves own with X * 0.5 money it’s a clear win. Even if it’s X * 1.5 money to begin with while they create the software then decreasing over time as the software stabilises it’s still a win.
There’s an additional economic factor as well. For any country that isn’t the US licensing off the shelf software means transferring money directly to the US economy. Creating your own homegrown version keeps that money in your country, paying for employees that will themselves contribute to the economy. Without making the thread overtly political, this is something a lot of countries are thinking about more and more recently.
Take this through to its logical conclusion and you have the government owning farms, making food, making its own steel, building its own cars, etc. with a corresponding loss of revenue-raising activity in the real economy.
In a bubble, there is no revenue raising difference between a government owned economy and a private economy with equal production.
Realistic differences come down to comparative disfunction of management (IMO, best considered in terms of which is worse).
Government services help everyone and raise the floor of the standard of living. Someone is now free to go write and do SOMETHING else and sell that.
By your logic, we should get rid of libraries since more economic activity would happen if everyone had to buy their own books.
They've started complaining, especially since prices have been going up, but while there's rumbling underground, we've yet to see any real movement away from Microsoft.
That may be true of local/state governments, but it isn't true for currency-issuing governments like the US. I'm not as familiar with the EU monetary system as I haven't read as much into it.
If they were privately owned, they would be priced appropriately and we would not have all the problems with traffic congestion.
The economy works best when anyone does what is supposed to: the Government sticks to maintaining order, defending the country, public healthcare, public education. The companies are producing goods and services.
Governments trying to undercut businesses isn't doing any good to the economy. There will be less money, less jobs.