11 ms·

I think this article points to a missing product in the market - integrated cloud services but with the cloud located on a private server in the home. Specifica

I think this article points to a missing product in the market - integrated cloud services but with the cloud located on a private server in the home. Specifically for a company like Apple (who hand waives at being pro-privacy) to enable all iCloud functionality to be hosted on a personal mac. From a high level (and likely ignoring important but probably not insurmountable technical details), the idea would be for everything to look exactly the same to the iPhone user, but for all data and processing to happen on a machine the user controls. No Apple accessible or hosted user data, end-to-end encrypted in transit, etc. One might argue there are products that can fill this niche and certainly many on Hacker News are capable of setting up their own home servers. However, that is not nearly as convenient or realistic for the average person to do. Those setups also don't integrate directly into default services like iMessage, Photos (including both storage and things like photo tagging), etc. Modern desktops and many people's internet connections should be powerful/fast enough to handle this. To the extent user data is used to feed big-data algos/machine learning/etc, this might not be practical. That's why I suggest Apple do it rather than Google (Apple already claiming much of their ML services are handled on-device). One might argue that's essentially something iTunes handled (still could?) but again it's not nearly as integrated as modern iCloud services. And that only works over a local network or direct wired connection. The basic idea is just to move data hosting and processing from third-party servers where users have no direct control over how their data is used or accessed to hardware sitting in their home.

izacus 4y ago
This exists are part of NAS devices. Buy a Synology and you get your iCloud/Google set of services in your home, for 1-time price. With all of the services you mentioned.
- merely-unlikely 4y ago
  That only covers a subset of iCloud functionality though. Remote file storage sure. What about things like like backup the entire device with the ability to restore on a new iPhone, browsing history, app data (first and third-party), passwords, etc. AFAIK solutions aren't nearly as integrated. Which is why it would need Apple's support. Then there are services like email, iMessage, reminders, notes, etc. The latter there may be some service that does it but not in the default apps. The former I don't know of any plug-and-play solutions not cloud hosted. For example, many privacy concerned people use Proton mail but that is cloud hosted and subject to search without the user's knowledge (hopefully provided a valid warrant, but I don't think that takes away from the point). I'd also rather services like find-my-iphone, recent locations, and other map data be handled on a server I control without Apple having any potential access. I'm not saying there are no solutions but I am saying that they involve tradeoffs that a first-party solution could make a lot smoother. I'd gladly pay for a home Apple server that could replace all iCloud functionality without having to change my habits. I suspect I'm not the only one - just look at their recent privacy focused offering that turns off a bunch of features for "at risk" individuals.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    It more sounds like your fault for becoming overly-reliant on services that are only possible by putting your trust in one company. I'm also one of the people who does the whole "home NAS" thing, and I have no problem syncing my passwords, notes, dotfiles and whatnot. This is the hook that Tim Cook has been setting up for years. They wanted you to take a bite out of their services without thinking about how their concentration of power effects you. Now that people are realizing that iCloud/Apple Pay/App Store are all just ploys to add an Apple Tax to other segments of the economy, they're relying on the people addicted to their services to justify it's use. When people talk about the degrading Apple ecosystem, this is what we're referring to. I jumped off that racket years ago. Buy a few WD Reds and set up RAID, then you can self-provision your own cloud resources.
    - merely-unlikely 4y ago
      I don't disagree. Still, the situation remains and I bet Apple could charge another "tax" to remedy it. And to be clear, I'm suggesting a product offering not a regulatory solution.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        Yep. I certainly wouldn't hold your breath for Apple to reverse their stance on services/the cloud though. They make too much money off it to encourage people to self-host. It may well take regulatory action before Apple puts their customers before profit margins again.
blfr 4y ago
I think this article points to a missing product in the market - integrated cloud services but with the cloud located on a private server in the home. That would be very cool but, sadly, 60% of that market is in this comments thread. And we want it to be open source.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  > And we want it to be open source. I don't see how that bit would be a problem. The market size, yes, it's a problem, but it's supposed to be a cloud service, there is no loss on the clients being open source.
  - bsedlm 4y ago
    yes there's a loss, not a monetary/economic loss, but a loss of (potential) power. the fact the loss is "potential" irks me about calling it a 'loss'; it's not quite a loss, but a missed opportunity to leverage more power over.
- merely-unlikely 4y ago
  I suspect the market may actually be of decent size if you consider enterprises, journalists, politicians, and the like. Users who aren't necessarily tech savvy, won't stop using default services/apps without a fight, but who require a level or privacy that is currently somewhat compromised.
  - vkou 4y ago
    Have you seen the unmitigated dumpster fire that is mass-market Wordpress hosting? Now imagine that, but even worse. Users who aren't tech savvy who are trying to run their own mission-critical software on their own hardware: 1. Should expect to pay $200+/month for a support plan. That will buy them one hour of an engineer's time per month. They are going to need that time, because deploying software is hard, keeping software running is hard, and there are no SRE/DevOps economies of scale when every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants to run their own service on their own hardware. 2. Should expect to either deal with all the problems (stability and security) that come with regular auto-updates, or regularly getting pwned (because they aren't auto-updating, and because they are a juicy, high ROI target for bad actors). 3. All this stuff already exists for enterprises, and they aren't complaining in these HN threads, because their needs are being met by cloud providers (As are the needs of politicians. Because they generally don't need security, they need security theatre. As long as they can check the compliance checkbox, they are in the clear.) The people whose needs aren't met are the long-tail small-fry of journalists and hobbyists and their ilk. Who aren't enough of a market, and can't afford the money, and the time, because see points #1 and #2. Like, maybe the NYT can afford to have this set up, and set up well for their people, but they already have dedicated IT teams doing just that!
nemothekid 4y ago
>I think this article points to a missing product in the market - integrated cloud services but with the cloud located on a private server in the home. I don't know, this sounds like a technical solution to what is a political problem. Gmail, today, already scans your email for ads; what if congress decides that they started doing CSAM on your emails? How feasible is it for everyone to host their own email in that situation? This also echoes the controversy with CSAM scanning in iCloud. There is no clear national consensus if the government should be allowed to invade your privacy when it comes to child abuse. Ironically, terrorists seem to have better privacy protections than a pedophile. Personally I don't think CSAM scanning of your private data should exist, much like I think everyone should be afforded E2EE communication even if they might break the law with it. Whether we allow our privacy to be invaded in such a manner is a political/regulatory problem. A "private cloud" doesn't help if congress decides that comcast should also be allowed to MITM your SSL connection to scan every image you donwload.
- justinwp 4y ago
  > Gmail, today, already scans your email for ads; https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603 https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603 > The process of selecting and showing personalized ads in Gmail is fully automated. These ads are shown to you based on your online activity while you're signed into Google. We will not scan or read your Gmail messages to show you ads.
  - sib 4y ago
    Although it's a fair mistake; Google used to do this. Here is an except from my "welcome to Gmail" message, from Google, from June 2004: "You may also have noticed some text ads or related links to the right of this message. They're placed there in the same way that ads are placed alongside Google search results and, through our AdSense program, on content pages across the web. The matching of ads to content in your Gmail messages is performed entirely by computers; never by people. Because the ads and links are matched to information that is of interest to you, we hope you'll find them relevant and useful."
  - hertzrat 4y ago
tempodox 4y ago
I guess the three-letter agencies would be severely disappointed if that happened, at a minimum.
gernb 4y ago
Apple is never going to do this. Their largest growing source of income is "services" (iCloud, etc...) They make a ton of money charging users for those services
verisimi 4y ago
> I think this article points to a missing product in the market - integrated cloud services but with the cloud located on a private server in the home Absolutely. But who's going to sell it to the masses? Most people don't care, as they haven't been told to - no one has sold it to them. And who is going to explain about the erosion of privacy? Would that be Google, the government? Why, when both are beneficiaries of the existing system (ie making money for google, increasing control and monitoring for govts)? This is a market that is studiously ignored as it is in no one's interests! Do you remember when Google piled into rss only to try its best to then kill it? When data is your business, it makes no sense to cut yourself out of the intermediation.
makeitdouble 4y ago
You are right to point at Apple, as they have been and still probably are the blocking piece for this to not become a reality. NAS vendors saw that future and worked toward it. Synology's solution is pretty extensive and could have been a real game changer... if it wasn't for: - being a PITA to handle network shares on the mac - iTunes being the prevalent link to iPods and iPhones for such a long time, even for local file exchange - music files being the sanctuary no third party messes with on iPhones - photo sync being such a PITA as well for anything non Apple for so long (still is?) - iOS backups being iCloud only - even Time Machine backups require more specific adjustments that make it harder for normal people to use outside of the Apple offering. Don't get me wrong Google also screws the market in so many nasty ways, but Smartphone got rebooted by Apple, and they royally fucked it for so many third party applications to cement their own services' profits.
lrvick 4y ago
You are describing Nextcloud. My family and I host virtually all of our data on our own property and while there are off-site backups they encrypted with hardware backed cryptographic keys we are not legally obligated to supply to anyone under any circumstances under US law. This is the only way I am aware of to maintain a life with most modern technical conveniences and still have the protections or the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. If anyone wants to pursue this type of digital sovereignty, I founded an organization called #! that will happily teach anyone interested. https://hashbang.sh https://hashbang.sh or #!:matrix.org
- warkdarrior 4y ago
  I am quite excited about digital sovereignty, but not excited enough to run a script from a website whose only visible content is the text "sh <(curl hahsbang.sh | gpg)". And the 4+ pages of script in the page source are not enticing me to proceed...
  - lrvick 4y ago
    If you read the comments at the top you would also see there is a 1-liner option. Joining the matrix room is also a valid option.
ec109685 4y ago
Can’t you achieve a lot of this if apple merely enables end to end encryption with iCloud? That way, only keys you own can be used to decrypt the data, so it isn’t a big deal that encrypted data is on the cloud.
- merely-unlikely 4y ago
  Yes and that would have satisfied me five years ago. Before Apple rolled over for the FBI and backed off doing exactly that.

izacus 4y ago

This exists are part of NAS devices. Buy a Synology and you get your iCloud/Google set of services in your home, for 1-time price. With all of the services you mentioned.

merely-unlikely 4y ago
That only covers a subset of iCloud functionality though. Remote file storage sure. What about things like like backup the entire device with the ability to restore on a new iPhone, browsing history, app data (first and third-party), passwords, etc. AFAIK solutions aren't nearly as integrated. Which is why it would need Apple's support. Then there are services like email, iMessage, reminders, notes, etc. The latter there may be some service that does it but not in the default apps. The former I don't know of any plug-and-play solutions not cloud hosted. For example, many privacy concerned people use Proton mail but that is cloud hosted and subject to search without the user's knowledge (hopefully provided a valid warrant, but I don't think that takes away from the point). I'd also rather services like find-my-iphone, recent locations, and other map data be handled on a server I control without Apple having any potential access. I'm not saying there are no solutions but I am saying that they involve tradeoffs that a first-party solution could make a lot smoother. I'd gladly pay for a home Apple server that could replace all iCloud functionality without having to change my habits. I suspect I'm not the only one - just look at their recent privacy focused offering that turns off a bunch of features for "at risk" individuals.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  It more sounds like your fault for becoming overly-reliant on services that are only possible by putting your trust in one company. I'm also one of the people who does the whole "home NAS" thing, and I have no problem syncing my passwords, notes, dotfiles and whatnot. This is the hook that Tim Cook has been setting up for years. They wanted you to take a bite out of their services without thinking about how their concentration of power effects you. Now that people are realizing that iCloud/Apple Pay/App Store are all just ploys to add an Apple Tax to other segments of the economy, they're relying on the people addicted to their services to justify it's use. When people talk about the degrading Apple ecosystem, this is what we're referring to. I jumped off that racket years ago. Buy a few WD Reds and set up RAID, then you can self-provision your own cloud resources.
  - merely-unlikely 4y ago
    I don't disagree. Still, the situation remains and I bet Apple could charge another "tax" to remedy it. And to be clear, I'm suggesting a product offering not a regulatory solution.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Yep. I certainly wouldn't hold your breath for Apple to reverse their stance on services/the cloud though. They make too much money off it to encourage people to self-host. It may well take regulatory action before Apple puts their customers before profit margins again.

blfr 4y ago

I think this article points to a missing product in the market - integrated cloud services but with the cloud located on a private server in the home. That would be very cool but, sadly, 60% of that market is in this comments thread. And we want it to be open source.

marcosdumay 4y ago
> And we want it to be open source. I don't see how that bit would be a problem. The market size, yes, it's a problem, but it's supposed to be a cloud service, there is no loss on the clients being open source.
- bsedlm 4y ago
  yes there's a loss, not a monetary/economic loss, but a loss of (potential) power. the fact the loss is "potential" irks me about calling it a 'loss'; it's not quite a loss, but a missed opportunity to leverage more power over.
merely-unlikely 4y ago
I suspect the market may actually be of decent size if you consider enterprises, journalists, politicians, and the like. Users who aren't necessarily tech savvy, won't stop using default services/apps without a fight, but who require a level or privacy that is currently somewhat compromised.
- vkou 4y ago
  Have you seen the unmitigated dumpster fire that is mass-market Wordpress hosting? Now imagine that, but even worse. Users who aren't tech savvy who are trying to run their own mission-critical software on their own hardware: 1. Should expect to pay $200+/month for a support plan. That will buy them one hour of an engineer's time per month. They are going to need that time, because deploying software is hard, keeping software running is hard, and there are no SRE/DevOps economies of scale when every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants to run their own service on their own hardware. 2. Should expect to either deal with all the problems (stability and security) that come with regular auto-updates, or regularly getting pwned (because they aren't auto-updating, and because they are a juicy, high ROI target for bad actors). 3. All this stuff already exists for enterprises, and they aren't complaining in these HN threads, because their needs are being met by cloud providers (As are the needs of politicians. Because they generally don't need security, they need security theatre. As long as they can check the compliance checkbox, they are in the clear.) The people whose needs aren't met are the long-tail small-fry of journalists and hobbyists and their ilk. Who aren't enough of a market, and can't afford the money, and the time, because see points #1 and #2. Like, maybe the NYT can afford to have this set up, and set up well for their people, but they already have dedicated IT teams doing just that!

nemothekid 4y ago

>I think this article points to a missing product in the market - integrated cloud services but with the cloud located on a private server in the home. I don't know, this sounds like a technical solution to what is a political problem. Gmail, today, already scans your email for ads; what if congress decides that they started doing CSAM on your emails? How feasible is it for everyone to host their own email in that situation? This also echoes the controversy with CSAM scanning in iCloud. There is no clear national consensus if the government should be allowed to invade your privacy when it comes to child abuse. Ironically, terrorists seem to have better privacy protections than a pedophile. Personally I don't think CSAM scanning of your private data should exist, much like I think everyone should be afforded E2EE communication even if they might break the law with it. Whether we allow our privacy to be invaded in such a manner is a political/regulatory problem. A "private cloud" doesn't help if congress decides that comcast should also be allowed to MITM your SSL connection to scan every image you donwload.

justinwp 4y ago
> Gmail, today, already scans your email for ads; https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603 https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603 > The process of selecting and showing personalized ads in Gmail is fully automated. These ads are shown to you based on your online activity while you're signed into Google. We will not scan or read your Gmail messages to show you ads.
- sib 4y ago
  Although it's a fair mistake; Google used to do this. Here is an except from my "welcome to Gmail" message, from Google, from June 2004: "You may also have noticed some text ads or related links to the right of this message. They're placed there in the same way that ads are placed alongside Google search results and, through our AdSense program, on content pages across the web. The matching of ads to content in your Gmail messages is performed entirely by computers; never by people. Because the ads and links are matched to information that is of interest to you, we hope you'll find them relevant and useful."
- hertzrat 4y ago

tempodox 4y ago

I guess the three-letter agencies would be severely disappointed if that happened, at a minimum.

gernb 4y ago

Apple is never going to do this. Their largest growing source of income is "services" (iCloud, etc...) They make a ton of money charging users for those services

verisimi 4y ago

> I think this article points to a missing product in the market - integrated cloud services but with the cloud located on a private server in the home Absolutely. But who's going to sell it to the masses? Most people don't care, as they haven't been told to - no one has sold it to them. And who is going to explain about the erosion of privacy? Would that be Google, the government? Why, when both are beneficiaries of the existing system (ie making money for google, increasing control and monitoring for govts)? This is a market that is studiously ignored as it is in no one's interests! Do you remember when Google piled into rss only to try its best to then kill it? When data is your business, it makes no sense to cut yourself out of the intermediation.

makeitdouble 4y ago

You are right to point at Apple, as they have been and still probably are the blocking piece for this to not become a reality. NAS vendors saw that future and worked toward it. Synology's solution is pretty extensive and could have been a real game changer... if it wasn't for: - being a PITA to handle network shares on the mac - iTunes being the prevalent link to iPods and iPhones for such a long time, even for local file exchange - music files being the sanctuary no third party messes with on iPhones - photo sync being such a PITA as well for anything non Apple for so long (still is?) - iOS backups being iCloud only - even Time Machine backups require more specific adjustments that make it harder for normal people to use outside of the Apple offering. Don't get me wrong Google also screws the market in so many nasty ways, but Smartphone got rebooted by Apple, and they royally fucked it for so many third party applications to cement their own services' profits.

lrvick 4y ago

You are describing Nextcloud. My family and I host virtually all of our data on our own property and while there are off-site backups they encrypted with hardware backed cryptographic keys we are not legally obligated to supply to anyone under any circumstances under US law. This is the only way I am aware of to maintain a life with most modern technical conveniences and still have the protections or the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. If anyone wants to pursue this type of digital sovereignty, I founded an organization called #! that will happily teach anyone interested. https://hashbang.sh https://hashbang.sh or #!:matrix.org

warkdarrior 4y ago
I am quite excited about digital sovereignty, but not excited enough to run a script from a website whose only visible content is the text "sh <(curl hahsbang.sh | gpg)". And the 4+ pages of script in the page source are not enticing me to proceed...
- lrvick 4y ago
  If you read the comments at the top you would also see there is a 1-liner option. Joining the matrix room is also a valid option.

ec109685 4y ago

Can’t you achieve a lot of this if apple merely enables end to end encryption with iCloud? That way, only keys you own can be used to decrypt the data, so it isn’t a big deal that encrypted data is on the cloud.

merely-unlikely 4y ago
Yes and that would have satisfied me five years ago. Before Apple rolled over for the FBI and backed off doing exactly that.