61–70 of 176 posts
Can anyone name one for-profit company that wants to build software on Solid?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pretty clearly not the case. Apple and Facebook are companies, not platforms. The platforms these companies develop are wildly successful and loved by developers. I think you may be too focused on how developers decide a platform that is already successful. In that case, yes, which one is already adopted the most deserves strong consideration. However, when it comes to actually achieving adoption, it’s the pl…
> However, when it comes to actually achieving adoption, it’s the platform that developers flock to that tend to succeed, all else being equal. Perhaps, but I struggle to think of two comparable platforms with similar user adoption and significantly different developer interest, outside of there being different sets of developers that hate/love each (c.f. iOS and Android). I'm definitely not aware of any examples ind…
But I think you do have a point. It's not just developer preference, there are other big factors like feature offered and ease of entry that determine likelihood of success.
The problem with your personal data store is that it will be impossible to stop the large companies like Google/Facebook from simply copying and caching a copy of all the data they need to access. You give them permission to handle your email and calendar information and bingo, they have a copy of your entire set of emails and appointments. If you use multiple services from Google/Facebook then they will end up with…
On the other hand, what would stop the rise of email UX companies that provide a PAID service that links to your email with the explicit promise of never caching it? They wouldn't need to mine it to make money as google does, as they are being paid, even though the per user cost payment could be quite low to support a profitable email UX company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the platform that developers want to support is the one that wins. This is very hard to believe. Developers hate apple, facebook, and countless other platforms that are doing very well. Adoption is the fundamental problem, not what developers want to support. The platform with the most users is what people will develop for.
This is pretty clearly not the case. Apple and Facebook are companies, not platforms. The platforms these companies develop are wildly successful and loved by developers. I think you may be too focused on how developers decide a platform that is already successful. In that case, yes, which one is already adopted the most deserves strong consideration. However, when it comes to actually achieving adoption, it’s the pl…
This is true of most things. Applicants flock to the industry that is hiring the most. It would be nice if the industry hiring the most was the most worthy, but that is doubtful. Consider mining communities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the platform that developers want to support is the one that wins. This is very hard to believe. Developers hate apple, facebook, and countless other platforms that are doing very well. Adoption is the fundamental problem, not what developers want to support. The platform with the most users is what people will develop for.
I think you may be in a bubble. Many developers like apple, and facebook enough to work for them. In fact, its that which keeps both platforms viable in the face of stiff competiton and shallow moats.
And Apple's main draw is the large number of affluent customers. They'll have developers as long as they have those users, whether the developers like it or not. Which is why they can get away with charging 30% to developers when platforms have historically given incentives to developers to develop for their platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept excites me. I want companies to sell software for a dollar value. That's what solid leaves open as the one remaining business model. You can't use my data so you're just selling an app for five bucks or whatever. With the runaway success of microtransactions, I doubt this interests many. You can even see it in gaming. Spend $100 on Assassin's Creed and it still wants you to cough up $10 for exp boosts.
> With the runaway success of microtransactions What are you talking about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Price's Law says no: > 50% of the work is done by the square root of the total number of people who participate in the work. https://dariusforoux.com/prices-law/
Hm. I worked in a team of 4 for quite some time, and it did always feel quite fair, now that you mention it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, what would stop the rise of email UX companies that provide a PAID service that links to your email with the explicit promise of never caching it? They wouldn't need to mine it to make money as google does, as they are being paid, even though the per user cost payment could be quite low to support a profitable email UX company.
How could you prove/trust that they never cache the data? I think the only way is if the "app" actually ran on your PDS (Personal Data Store) instead of somewhere else. Of course that brings other challenges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue from a hosting provider is the platform has to be 100% sandboxes; cpu, heap, network and file system access. Lua is the only runtime that provides this level of control. SQLite can do massive multi tenancy and acceptable performance if used correctly.
Agree it has to be 100% sandboxes. Note that TC39 has a proposal for realms that is moving along. It is meant to allow sandboxing in JS. https://github.com/tc39/proposal-realms