4 ms·

Yes, users care about this but like most things you have to segment the market appropriately. I meet more and more people who are wary of putting all their tru

by amirmc 12y ago

Yes, users care about this but like most things you have to segment the market appropriately. I meet more and more people who are wary of putting all their trust/data/etc into only one provider, be that Google, Apple or anyone else. It's not just a privacy thing but a growing awareness of the sheer dependency on that one company. (Aside: I have to say FB is being pretty clever by buying up apps and letting them stay 'independent' - users don't notice that as much and reminds me of FMCG.). We don't need most users in the beginning. Just those that are technically savvy enough to understand the landscape and the way the world is headed. From there we can develop more stuff and eventually get it into a state ready for the masses. For example, I can run my personal website as a unikernel [1], which is not suitable for mom-and-pop but great for anyone currently using any static site generators. As more libraries get released I can build on that an eventually run more of my infrastructure this way (my prototypical examples are mail, contacts and calendars). In terms of the friction for developers, we simply have to make the libraries and tooling fun and easy to use. With well-designed systems it's not necessarily any more friction that what developers have to do now (i.e build their own backend). > "All that said, I'd love to be proven wrong and see an implementation that is killer enough to solve these problems." We're working on it. [1] http://amirchaudhry.com/from-jekyll-to-unikernel-in-fifty-lines/ http://amirchaudhry.com/from-jekyll-to-unikernel-in-fifty-li...

josh2600 12y ago
I thought like this once. Futurists have a tendency to imagine a world of changed human behavior and it's compelling to do so. The reality is that the future rarely arrives as sweeping change, but rather as metaphor and specialization. Whereas you can imagine others adopting new patterns of behavior because you understand the underlying reasons why such behavior is reasonable, the metaphor through which you explain this change is not readily understood. Why, as a User do I want this? If the answer is control and privacy, you might be barking up the wrong tree (time and again we've shown that those are not things consumers want or are willing to pay for). If you want to drive dynamic change in the world, you have to change the underlying structure of complicated systems while steadfastly avoiding changes in user behavior. It turns out this is quite hard. I applaud your efforts but encourage you to avoid the rabbit hole of endless specialization and to improve the marketing metaphor/rhetoric.
- walterbell 12y ago
  Rhetoric from a16z in a thread of 50+ tweets: "Bitcoin, billions of phones, and NSA eavesdropping are among trends that may eventually result in cloud successor: data-local computing" https://twitter.com/balajis/status/487403585445978112 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/487403585445978112
- quadrangle 12y ago
  > time and again we've shown that those are not things consumers want or are willing to pay for CITATION please. I think we have never seen such things. We've not had studies that control for all other factors and then conclude that users don't want control and privacy. I think your claim is flat out wrong. You're taking the fact that most users won't sacrifice by using a lower-quality, obscure thing for privacy and control, and leaping to the baseless conclusion that nobody cares about these things. I think you're completely wrong.
  - josh2600 12y ago
    There have not been any case studies that have empirically demonstrated this to be true. If that is your basis for evaluating my statements then I cannot support my claim in a manner that you would find satisfactory. I would however, anecdotally highlight the progression of social services from places of privacy to places of publicity. One could argue that sites like "The Well" were the original social networks but they did not grow (whether by choice is of course a matter for debate). Over time, each successive social startup defaulted to a more open stance and scaled an order of magnitude in users with each step. The trend suggests that all things being equal, users will say they want privacy but want the features publishing and syndication provides (voting purely with their registrations and advertising value). I agree that privacy has value, but I would argue that the anecdotal evidence suggests that users want less private services (and yes I'm aware that correlation is not causation, but I think this observation is apt). This is not law or dogma but rather a thought and I'm sorry if it was communicated poorly previously.
    - gurkendoktor 12y ago
wutbrodo 12y ago
> I meet more and more people who are wary of putting all their trust/data/etc into only one provider, be that Google, Apple or anyone else. I'd be wary of assuming from this data point that people are willing to be even slightly inconvenienced for it. Just take a look at Facebook: the entire history of the company has been one of disrespecting and subsequently pissing off users, and yet out of the huge amount of people I know who have repeatedly expressed anger at how Facebook treats their users, I know exactly one person who stopped using it or even reduced their usage. I'm not sure whether your assumption that people's concern will translate into even the slightest bit of action is sound.
- amirmc 12y ago
  This is what I meant further up thread when I mentioned segmenting the market. I don't believe everyone will move to a new solution but I do believe that some will. I also believe that the first users will be the technical ones who already understand the trade-offs and that there's a continuum of inconvenience that they'd be willing to endure (I'm lazy, so I won't tolerate much). For example, think of the number of people who maintain their own static websites, either on GitHub or EC2 or elsewhere. All those people could just use Tumblr or Wordpress.com, yet they chose not to.
jmathai 12y ago
I spent the last 3 years under this hypothesis [1][2][3]. In those 3 years I've come to realize that users don't actually care that much. Sure a subset of users care but the majority don't. I think the "personal cloud" that makes sense both architecturally and in the minds of consumers looks very different from what we as developers understand it to be. When we took our software and began prototyping it on hardware devices (like NASes) and showed it to people their eyes lit up. They understood it. Finally. [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jmathai/openphoto-a-photo-service-for-your-s3-or-dropbox-a https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jmathai/openphoto-a-pho... [2] http://blog.trovebox.com/post/36911180540/all-cloud-storage-providers-are-created-equal http://blog.trovebox.com/post/36911180540/all-cloud-storage-... [3] https://github.com/photo https://github.com/photo
- walterbell 12y ago
  Can you put it on the Seagate Wireless Drive? This has a simple value proposition: Apple charges $100 for incremental 16/32/64 GB mobile storage. Users can buy 2TB worth of wifi storage for $200 and replacement firmware+source (http://www.hackseagatesatellite.com/ http://www.hackseagatesatellite.com/) for $35.
  - jmathai 12y ago
    Haven't tried on a Seagate device. We've put it on WD MyCloud and NetGear ReadyNAS devices. I know others have got it installed on Drobos as well. Most of these NAS devices run some version of Linux which makes it trivial to set up our software on them. Some are easier than others though. Beyond that I can't say much regarding what we've been tinkering with internally but it's pretty damn cool :).
  - monksy 12y ago
    I perfer Synology's DiskStation over that. At least with that it'll give me a RAID array to back up my files.
    - jmathai 12y ago
      I know Synology runs Linux so it should be straightforward to set up but we haven't done it yet. This is the first time I've heard of this particular Seagate drive but the notion of having a drive you can connect to over wifi and which also fits in your pocket or bag is really interesting.

by amirmc 12y ago

josh2600 12y ago

I thought like this once. Futurists have a tendency to imagine a world of changed human behavior and it's compelling to do so. The reality is that the future rarely arrives as sweeping change, but rather as metaphor and specialization. Whereas you can imagine others adopting new patterns of behavior because you understand the underlying reasons why such behavior is reasonable, the metaphor through which you explain this change is not readily understood. Why, as a User do I want this? If the answer is control and privacy, you might be barking up the wrong tree (time and again we've shown that those are not things consumers want or are willing to pay for). If you want to drive dynamic change in the world, you have to change the underlying structure of complicated systems while steadfastly avoiding changes in user behavior. It turns out this is quite hard. I applaud your efforts but encourage you to avoid the rabbit hole of endless specialization and to improve the marketing metaphor/rhetoric.

walterbell 12y ago
Rhetoric from a16z in a thread of 50+ tweets: "Bitcoin, billions of phones, and NSA eavesdropping are among trends that may eventually result in cloud successor: data-local computing" https://twitter.com/balajis/status/487403585445978112 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/487403585445978112
quadrangle 12y ago
> time and again we've shown that those are not things consumers want or are willing to pay for CITATION please. I think we have never seen such things. We've not had studies that control for all other factors and then conclude that users don't want control and privacy. I think your claim is flat out wrong. You're taking the fact that most users won't sacrifice by using a lower-quality, obscure thing for privacy and control, and leaping to the baseless conclusion that nobody cares about these things. I think you're completely wrong.
- josh2600 12y ago
  There have not been any case studies that have empirically demonstrated this to be true. If that is your basis for evaluating my statements then I cannot support my claim in a manner that you would find satisfactory. I would however, anecdotally highlight the progression of social services from places of privacy to places of publicity. One could argue that sites like "The Well" were the original social networks but they did not grow (whether by choice is of course a matter for debate). Over time, each successive social startup defaulted to a more open stance and scaled an order of magnitude in users with each step. The trend suggests that all things being equal, users will say they want privacy but want the features publishing and syndication provides (voting purely with their registrations and advertising value). I agree that privacy has value, but I would argue that the anecdotal evidence suggests that users want less private services (and yes I'm aware that correlation is not causation, but I think this observation is apt). This is not law or dogma but rather a thought and I'm sorry if it was communicated poorly previously.
  - gurkendoktor 12y ago

wutbrodo 12y ago

> I meet more and more people who are wary of putting all their trust/data/etc into only one provider, be that Google, Apple or anyone else. I'd be wary of assuming from this data point that people are willing to be even slightly inconvenienced for it. Just take a look at Facebook: the entire history of the company has been one of disrespecting and subsequently pissing off users, and yet out of the huge amount of people I know who have repeatedly expressed anger at how Facebook treats their users, I know exactly one person who stopped using it or even reduced their usage. I'm not sure whether your assumption that people's concern will translate into even the slightest bit of action is sound.

amirmc 12y ago
This is what I meant further up thread when I mentioned segmenting the market. I don't believe everyone will move to a new solution but I do believe that some will. I also believe that the first users will be the technical ones who already understand the trade-offs and that there's a continuum of inconvenience that they'd be willing to endure (I'm lazy, so I won't tolerate much). For example, think of the number of people who maintain their own static websites, either on GitHub or EC2 or elsewhere. All those people could just use Tumblr or Wordpress.com, yet they chose not to.

jmathai 12y ago

I spent the last 3 years under this hypothesis [1][2][3]. In those 3 years I've come to realize that users don't actually care that much. Sure a subset of users care but the majority don't. I think the "personal cloud" that makes sense both architecturally and in the minds of consumers looks very different from what we as developers understand it to be. When we took our software and began prototyping it on hardware devices (like NASes) and showed it to people their eyes lit up. They understood it. Finally. [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jmathai/openphoto-a-photo-service-for-your-s3-or-dropbox-a https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jmathai/openphoto-a-pho... [2] http://blog.trovebox.com/post/36911180540/all-cloud-storage-providers-are-created-equal http://blog.trovebox.com/post/36911180540/all-cloud-storage-... [3] https://github.com/photo https://github.com/photo

walterbell 12y ago
Can you put it on the Seagate Wireless Drive? This has a simple value proposition: Apple charges $100 for incremental 16/32/64 GB mobile storage. Users can buy 2TB worth of wifi storage for $200 and replacement firmware+source (http://www.hackseagatesatellite.com/ http://www.hackseagatesatellite.com/) for $35.
- jmathai 12y ago
  Haven't tried on a Seagate device. We've put it on WD MyCloud and NetGear ReadyNAS devices. I know others have got it installed on Drobos as well. Most of these NAS devices run some version of Linux which makes it trivial to set up our software on them. Some are easier than others though. Beyond that I can't say much regarding what we've been tinkering with internally but it's pretty damn cool :).
- monksy 12y ago
  I perfer Synology's DiskStation over that. At least with that it'll give me a RAID array to back up my files.
  - jmathai 12y ago
    I know Synology runs Linux so it should be straightforward to set up but we haven't done it yet. This is the first time I've heard of this particular Seagate drive but the notion of having a drive you can connect to over wifi and which also fits in your pocket or bag is really interesting.