Nowadays there are people out there, who use computing devices (can we still call Android phones that?), who don't even know what a "file" is. Mind-boggling, or maybe not so much, considering the constant pushes by big tech.
They will become pinky promises, once Microsoft gets ordered to do something by orange man or some three letters. There isn't really anything Microsoft can do about that, unless they decide to move headquarters and lots of employees out of the US. It basically doesn't matter what they have in contracts, as US law or just political power with access to enforce that power trumps (ha) any contracts they can sign.
> There isn't really anything Microsoft can do about that, unless they decide to move headquarters and lots of employees out of the US.
Actually there is, that's what the entire point of the sovereign clouds are. They reside physically in Europe, with legal control by Europeans, and European employees that can't be bossed around by the US. If the US orders Amazon to retrieve data from S3 servers located in a European sovereign cloud, Amazon employees in the US don't have the technical capability to do so, and the European data center employees are legally bound not to.
If those employees were working in a vacuum, then sure, but in reality they are not.
Employees have bosses and those bosses have bosses, and those bosses have bosses in the US. If not direct bosses, then at least people higher up in the context of all of Microsoft, who can pull strings, criticize them, categorize them as unreliable, and make their life hard, or even bring into motion that they are made to give up their position or are let go. Most people don't want a hard life at the job and be bullied. It is likely, that people joining Microsoft don't have the strongest moral compass anyway, so them sticking their neck out for European data protection, and losing what comfy life they have, including probably exceptional ...
Company politics are not to be underestimated. The question becomes who selects and vetoes higher ups in those sovereign clouds.
European governments cannot trust US companies, even when they have inner-EU parts, because influence from the US cannot be rules out.
"Microsoft admits it 'cannot guarantee' data sovereignty:
Under oath in French Senate, exec says it would be compelled – however unlikely – to pass local customer info to US admin"
A not to be easily dismissed factor is privacy and data protection. A company that has 700+ "partners" that they sent who knows what data to from inside their e-mail client is not to be trusted. I don't want my data in the hands of these crooks.
And here I got the impression, that the government's job was to enrich themselves, coasting along on the back of the common goods, letting themselves be bought by lobbies and lining up for supervisory board positions, looking out first and foremost for themselves and their clans.
How much do you want to pay? Who will be paying? Big companies will probably laugh such an effort out of the room, nay, they will not even let you into the room to talk with them.
Have you ever tried to pay a bank to do something for you ?
Trying to get some scale, you're hypothesizing about giving 10 millions to HSBC to make business with your startup, when they're throwing away 500+ millions every year just to cover their money laundering.
But what what I'm asking for is only a small amount of engineering time to add 1 line to their gradle and change 1 line in their app's code. This isn't a deal spanning many engineering years doing on going work and having to measure how effective things are. It's a small change plus the overhead of making a deal and getting through the beurocracy.
I see it akin to the proverbial "not getting out of bed for less than XXXXX". You're getting out of bed every day, for free. But having someone make you do it for a specific reason will be an exponentially harder proposition.
> 1 line in their app
Aren't you asking them to maintain compatibility outside of Play Services and be on available on your platform ? That's a whole project, including their (or their contracting shop's) validating the whole new stack from a security and technical perspective, and a legal and business check on what that actually means to them.
Perhaps we can look at it from a darker perspective: if a random guy came to the bank to ask them support for their parralel phone ecosystem, the bank would at least want to know what they're getting into and what's in it for them. Especially if they're offered 10 millions for allegedly one line of code.
I just made up the figure. Perhaps 10 billion dollars is more enticing. Perhaps you have to purchase the company outright and then dictate they add support. My point is that it's not impossible to get the apps people need to work on an alternate Android OS. It is a matter of funding conpatibility. You can find a niche audience of people to start out with to make a competitive OS for them. And then overtime expand that audience more and more.
>Aren't you asking them to maintain compatibility
Typically the complaints about banks is that they use the Play Integrity library which doesn't trust other operating systems. So the ask is to support the Android API for integrity and to trust the key of the OS provider. This would be done via a new library to make integration easier and more foolproof.
Key clients requesting support for the alternative OS will be a way faster route IMHO. The same way nobody bribed banks to support android, they saw the market share and potential and decided by themselves it was a worth doing. Which is why it came so late.
I understand you're offering a way to get around the chicken and egg problem, I'm saying dealing with the supply part is crazy hard. Somewhat paying users to buy into your ecosystem despite the lack of support could be a better use of money (I'm thinking about Meta subsidizing Occulus until it got some traction, and I assume it's still in the red after so many years)
> the Android API
People loosely explain the lack of technical challenge, but from the institution's POV you're asking them to expand their trust from Google, a US company which will be solely responsible if anything critical happens...to potentially each single phone maker, whoever happens to be selling the device to your clients ?
If Google didn't exist that's what they'd do. But Play Services is a thing. The more I think about the less I see an incentive for any established player to do that move until customers are actively clamoring for it. There's just no upside otherwise.
Where do you think the creators will get this money from? Look at existing ones, they are cash strapped as they are, paying a million to get an app over beyond their budget, let alone 10 million
Investors. Trying to become a new competitor in an established industry often takes a large amount of capital. If you tried to create a business to compete in another industry, you'd also need to find investors or other forms of financing if you are cash strapped.
Investors are not dumb. The current duopoly is entrenched and merely asking for money to create an alternative os won't give you investment. Microsoft and Nokia among others failed big time even though they had plenty of money and competing operating systems. Investors give you money if they think you will be successful and return a multiple of that investment within a reasonable timeframe.
You need to solve the 3 player problem before you even ask for money: getting device manufacturers in even though you have no operating system, no devs and no users, getting devs even though you have no operating system, no devs, no users and no devices, getting users even though you have no device, no operating, no devs and no apps.
You need an MVP that shows promise towards all the above if you seek money.
This is like taxi on demand app business or the takeaway delivery business but with more players and with a higher minimum funds requirement. Plus the fact that unlike taxi apps or takeaway apps, choosing an operating system is a zero sum game so you are competing in the most direct way against well known and well established brands like iOs and Android who are funded by the richest companies on earth. Unlike Uber vs Lyft, where a user can install both and use both, your battlefield only has one victor. And given that other companies with more funding that you will ever see in your lifetime still failed, you have a virtually impossible task of explaining (before they even consider giving you a single cent) how you are going to be able to capture market share with your own solution to the 3 player problem.
Nokia and Microsoft only understood this right at the end: to avoid losing in the mobile os market, you need an ecosystem. Miss any of the elements and it all crumbles. Read Elop's memorable Burning Ship note on the final days of Nokia.
I fully agree with the actually great thing being what not to have to look out for and my first thought when seeing the headline was: "Doesn't the type system handle most of that stuff?"
In other languages I get most of the benefits by sticking to functional programming practices and not mutating stuff all over the place. Rust's type system sort of encodes that, and maybe a little more, by making safe mutation a known non-interfering thing.
Just that state _can_ be outside the container, and in most cases should. It doesn't have to be outside the container. A process running in a container can also write files inside the container, in a location not covered by any mount or volume. The downside or upside of this is, that once you down your container, stuff is basically gone, which is why usually the state does live outside, like you are saying.
Funnily enough an hour in a decade on a good hoster, with a stable service running on it, occasionally updated by version number ... it might even be possible. Maybe not quite, but close, if one tries. While it seems completely impossible with cloudflare, AWS, and whatnot, who are having outages every other week these days.
I always somewhat admire people, who can go through with one thing for that long. My own blogs mostly served as vehicles for learning another programming language or saw short-lived activity and then long inactivity, before I took them down. That said ... maybe I should make another blog, in which I document computer programming stuff and keep the topic vague, so that I can put basically anything there, so that I have enough stuff to write about.
I don't know why, it's just an irrational form of first-principles admiration for me.
This is especially true in the age of LLM's (but the same can be applied to social media forums and the like). Sure, we should "just judge arguments on their merit" but there's something... suspicious. Like, a thought experiment: What if something came to a very reasonable seeming argument in 10 minutes, versus 10 hours? To me, I can't help but feel suspicious that I'm being tricked by some ad-hoc framing that is complete bogus in reality. "Obvious" conclusions can be obviously shaped with extremely hidden premises, things can be "locally logically correct" but horrible from a global view.
Maybe I'm way too cynical of seeing the same arguments over and over, people just stripping out their view of the elephant that they intuited in 5 minutes, then treating it as an authoritative slice, and stubbornly refusing to admit that that constraint, is well, a constraint, and not an "objective" slice. Like, yes, within your axioms and model, sure, but pretending like you found a grand unification in 5 minutes is absurd, and in practice people behave this way online.
(Point being that, okay, even if you don't buy that argument when it comes to LLM's, when it comes to a distributed internet setting, I feel my intuition there holds much stronger, for me at least. Even if everybody was truly an expert, argument JITing is still a problem).
Of course, in practice, when I do decide something is "valuable" enough for me to look at, I take apart the argument logically to the best of my ability, etc. but I've been filtering what to look at a lot more aggressively based on this criteria. And yes it's a bit circular, but I think I've realized that with a lot of really complicated wishy-washy things, well, they're hard for a reason :)
All that to say, is that yeah, the human element is important for me here :D. I find that, when it comes to consumption, if the person is a singular human, it's much harder to come to that issue. They at least have some semblance of consistence, and it's "real/emergent" in a sense. The more you learn about someone, the more they're truly unique. You can't just JIT a reductionist argument in 10 minutes.
Microsoft's reputation couldn't be much lower at this point, that's their trick.
The issue is the uninformed masses being led to use Windows when they buy a computer. They don't even know how much better a system could work, and so they accept whatever is shoved down their throats.
reply