4 ms·

Something that is evolving for certain common types of files (images, for example) is an application-mediated storage, but where apps "share ownership" (or rath

Something that is evolving for certain common types of files (images, for example) is an application-mediated storage, but where apps "share ownership" (or rather, declare awareness) of files rather than owning them exclusively. So e.g. my camera roll, Google Photos, and Facebook comments can all give me a window onto my photos. Those "windows" are currently inconsistent and kind of painful, but I see the germ of an approach there.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
> Those "windows" are currently inconsistent and kind of painful, but I see the germ of an approach there. There is an approach here, but I can't see it as anything other than a hostile takeover. The "shared ownership" of application-mediated storage is not under user control. Depending on the implementation, it's either controlled by the platform and otherwise sandboxed (i.e. you can't get at the data from outside of a participating app), or - more commonly - it's controlled by mutual business agreements between app vendors. In that latter case, you still can't get at the data directly, and the app you're using can suddenly stop being able to access the data, because the vendor that provides access revoked API access to the vendor of your app. For a random example, see e.g. Spotify revoking API access to SongShift for no good reason, and then restoring it later, possibly due to GDPR pressure by a fellow HNer[0]. Regular files are bits on your storage. They stay forever independent. Application-mediated storage is just a window into business partnerships. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371
- squiggleblaz 5y ago
  I don't think your criticism is accurate. The shared Photos folder on my phone is a bit different than the database of photos Google Photos has access too. But don't get me wrong. I want to criticise the shared ownership model. I just think the model the PP intended to mention was different than the one you criticised. The Photos folder is just a folder. Applications that have requested and been granted permission can access it using a user interface of their choice. This is the "shared ownership" location. The Google Photos database is stored on Googles servers. Third party applications do not necessarily have access to it. It is thoroughly owned by Google. The "shared ownership" model somewhat blurs the lines between the two of them. I think this is a considerable part of why this approach is poor: it is considerably more confusing than the old filesystem approach. With the filesystem, you know exactly where the file lives. Most people know how to copy files and send files and can understand putting something onto a shared drive. The shared ownership notion blurs the lines with exclusive app ownership, and the idea that there are files which I can manipulate becomes obscure. It is hard even for experts to distinguish between local files and remote database entries. The distinction between copying a file and using remote tools to share access to the same file (or a copy of the file) becomes frustrating. The way forward needs to be about respecting and empowering the user. The user wants to feel in control of their data - that is why we have the GDPR and other comparable laws. The user doesn't want to subordinate usability to data trust; they want companies to fulfil both, and since there is a hole in the market, they have turned to regulation to help plug it. Unfortunately, companies have not responded in ways that give us grounds to trust them. A new model based on user-controlled resources and programs that can access resources (given to the program by the user) without gratuitously logging in should be the way forward. This doesn't mean a reversion to the old approach. It had its problems. But the future should look more like the past.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

> Those "windows" are currently inconsistent and kind of painful, but I see the germ of an approach there. There is an approach here, but I can't see it as anything other than a hostile takeover. The "shared ownership" of application-mediated storage is not under user control. Depending on the implementation, it's either controlled by the platform and otherwise sandboxed (i.e. you can't get at the data from outside of a participating app), or - more commonly - it's controlled by mutual business agreements between app vendors. In that latter case, you still can't get at the data directly, and the app you're using can suddenly stop being able to access the data, because the vendor that provides access revoked API access to the vendor of your app. For a random example, see e.g. Spotify revoking API access to SongShift for no good reason, and then restoring it later, possibly due to GDPR pressure by a fellow HNer[0]. Regular files are bits on your storage. They stay forever independent. Application-mediated storage is just a window into business partnerships. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371

squiggleblaz 5y ago
I don't think your criticism is accurate. The shared Photos folder on my phone is a bit different than the database of photos Google Photos has access too. But don't get me wrong. I want to criticise the shared ownership model. I just think the model the PP intended to mention was different than the one you criticised. The Photos folder is just a folder. Applications that have requested and been granted permission can access it using a user interface of their choice. This is the "shared ownership" location. The Google Photos database is stored on Googles servers. Third party applications do not necessarily have access to it. It is thoroughly owned by Google. The "shared ownership" model somewhat blurs the lines between the two of them. I think this is a considerable part of why this approach is poor: it is considerably more confusing than the old filesystem approach. With the filesystem, you know exactly where the file lives. Most people know how to copy files and send files and can understand putting something onto a shared drive. The shared ownership notion blurs the lines with exclusive app ownership, and the idea that there are files which I can manipulate becomes obscure. It is hard even for experts to distinguish between local files and remote database entries. The distinction between copying a file and using remote tools to share access to the same file (or a copy of the file) becomes frustrating. The way forward needs to be about respecting and empowering the user. The user wants to feel in control of their data - that is why we have the GDPR and other comparable laws. The user doesn't want to subordinate usability to data trust; they want companies to fulfil both, and since there is a hole in the market, they have turned to regulation to help plug it. Unfortunately, companies have not responded in ways that give us grounds to trust them. A new model based on user-controlled resources and programs that can access resources (given to the program by the user) without gratuitously logging in should be the way forward. This doesn't mean a reversion to the old approach. It had its problems. But the future should look more like the past.