W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > August 2016

Re: How the father of the World Wide Web plans to reclaim it from Facebook and Google

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 15:30:53 +0200
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5cdb9982-1b58-e361-ea04-9047a4088819@gmail.com>
Business models and architectures certainly are hurdles but the (IMO) #1 reason
to why centralized services succeed and decentralized (usually) do not is that the
latter require agreements by gazillions of partners with different agendas
which as shown by for example the middle-east conflict simply doesn't work.

Even for partners with "similar" agendas like banks, the idea of creating
a bank-to-bank payment protocol is probably never going to happen.  Well,
there are som enthusiasts who believe in the PSD2 regulation but the forces
behind PSD2 didn't design an API to go with that, so at least seen from my
watchtower their cute but toothless project will be completely overridden by
Apple, Google, PayPal etc. who all offer a working solution including security.

Anders

On 2016-08-16 15:10, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> The shift has an array of impacts.  One of the simple yet complex opportunities is for start-ups / app-developers.  The remarkable difference of not hosting user-data both enables highly granular access and utility of data people would ordinarily not provide, whilst simultaneously lowering the scaling cost due to the website provider not needing to store/distribute user-data...
>
> If we need to go through the business models, perhaps a business group CG could be established to consider the far broader implications beyond this singular and relatively simple business case example.
>
> What do you think happened to the YouTube founders when they're little box, perhaps running in their bedroom, suddenly got a million users.  Whilst that may not be the specific example - i've seen others in the paper...  Often they need to find alot of resources, or the site gets shut-down due to lack of resources.
>
> that's not really pushing humanity forward in a way that supports our innovators...
>
> the other is of course 'choice of law'.
>
> floppy disks vs. the programs we installed on our pre-pentium systems - well...
>
> It was kinda clear - people kept the floppy in their pockets, briefcases, etc.   The documents were not locked into the app.
>
> anyhow.  i can go on forever.  If a perception exists that there is no economic merit in SoLiD (or LDP related) platform alternatives; then i think establishing a Business CG[1] is something i'd put alot of time into, as a means to establish a market-based solution to something that i fear may become centralised in a manner that we don't like - because we didn't figure out how to cooperate more effectively towards a better future [2].
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/about/#bg
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8EOQNYC-8
>
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 at 22:51 Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote:
>
>     What is the business case for a service provider to adopt Solid?
>
>     Why would Google, Facebook or anyone that build's their business on user data choose to let users take that away?
>
>     Who will offer users a comparable service to these silos that attracts them away but adopts Solid and can still make enough money to survive competing with the biggest tech companies in the world?
>
>     The point is not whether or not the architecture is easy the point is whether it has the potential to make anybody any money because if it doesn't then I think you will have a hard time persuading people to use it, no matter how well it scales.
>
>     On 15 August 2016 at 14:11, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         On 15 August 2016 at 14:08, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Solid isn't finished yet.
>
>
>         Solid is at version 0.6 rather than 1.0.
>
>         But I dont really know what more can be added to it to get it to v1.0.  Im using it on a daily basis and it works fine.  Some people are perfectionists I suppose :)
>
>         In any case its IMHO light years ahead of where the rest of the web is, even if you only take small parts of it and use it.
>
>         You can also argue that solid will never be finished, in the sense that, the web will never be "finished".
>
>         Its definitely something that can be used today.
>
>
>
>             On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, 10:07 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                 On 15 August 2016 at 11:50, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote:
>
>                     From the article: "The question is whether architecture will be enough."
>
>                     The answer is no.
>                     We live in world where few ideas succeed without a strong business case. The architecture is the easy part.
>
>
>                 Architecture is deceptively difficult to get right.  The vast majority if systems start to fall over as they scale.  The web and REST are two architectures that buck that trend and just get stronger as they scale.
>
>                 Solid is the next evolution in that architectural trend, imho, because it simply embraces the points that made the web great, and extends it a little bit, while being 100% backwards compatible.  Right now, it's the only system that I know of, with this property, in fact, nothing else is close.  So this in itself, the ability to scale to billions of users, is a business case.  Quietly facebook adopted the social graph approach to the web, and web architectural principles with their graph protocol, and also an implementation of WebID.
>
>                 I think what's true is that few ideas succeed, because simply, we have a lot of ideas and a lot of competition.  Having a business can help, but the right architecture is the magic sauce to get through those scalability barriers.
>
>                 I personally think Solid is the business opportunity of a lifetime, perhaps even bigger than the first web.  Im certainly investing on that basis.
>
>
>
>                     On 14 August 2016 at 10:49, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                         Hi Anders,
>
>                         I'm using this email to respond to both [1] in creds; in addition to the below, with some lateral considerations.
>
>                         See this video where Mr Gates and Mr Musk are discussing in China AI [2].
>
>                         I haven't fully considered the implications, whilst i've certainly been considering the issue; i have not fully considered it, and as modern systems become subject to government contracts as may be the case with enterprise solutions such as those vended by IBM [3], may significantly lower the cost for government / enterprise, in seeking to achieve very advanced outcomes - yet i'm unsure the full awareness of how these systems work, what potential exists for unintended outcomes when work by web-scientists[4][5] becomes repurposed without their explicit and full consideration of the original designers for any extended use of their works, what the underlying considerations are by those who are concerned [6][7] and how these systems may interact with more advanced HID as i've kinda tried to describe recently to an audience here [8] and has been further discussed otherwise [9] [10].
>
>                         I'm a little concerned about the under-resourcing that seems to plague Manu's / Dave's original vision (that included WebDHT) to the consultative approach that i believed had alot of merit in how it may interact with the works of RWW at the time (alongside WebID) which have al progressed, yet, not seemingly to a solution that i think is 'fit for purpose' in attending to the issues before us.
>
>                         I have considered the need for people to own their own biometric signatures.  I have considered the work by 'mico-project'[11] seems to be a good supporter of these future works, particularly given the manner in which these works support LDP and other related technologies...
>
>                         But the future is still unknown, and what worries me most; is those who know most about A.I. may not be able to speak about it as a citizen or stakeholder in the manner defined by way of a magna carta, such as is the document that hangs on my wall when making such considerations more broadly in relation to my contributory work/s.
>
>                         i understand this herein; contains an array of fragments; yet, am trying to format schema that leads others to the spot in which i'm processing broader ideas around what, where and how; progress may be accelerated and indeed adopted by those capable of pushing it forward.
>
>                         I remember the github.com/Linkeddata <http://github.com/Linkeddata> team (in RWW years) wrote a bunch of things in GO, which is what the IPFS examples showcase, and without providing exhaustive links, i know Vint has been working in the field of inter-planetary systems [13], therein also understanding previous issues relating to JSON-LD support (as noted in [1] or [14] ), which in-turn may also relate to other statements made overtime about my view that some of the works incubated by credentials; but not subject to IG or potential WG support at present - may be better off being developed within the WebID community as an additional constituent of work that may work interoperable with WebID-TLS related systems.
>
>                         Too many Ideas!!!
>
>                         (perhaps some have merit...)
>
>                         Tim.H.
>
>
>                         [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2016Aug/0045.html
>                         [2] https://youtu.be/TRpjhIhpuiU?t=16m26s
>                         [3] http://blog.softlayer.com/tag/watson
>                         [4] http://webscience.org/
>                         [5] https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704
>                         [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8EOQNYC-8
>                         [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_on_Artificial_Intelligence
>                         [8] (perhaps not the best reference, but has a bunch of ideas in it: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RzczQPfygLuowu-WPvaYyKQB0PsSF2COKldj1mjktTs/edit?usp=sharing
>                         [9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTqF3w2yrZI
>                         [10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x_VpAjim6g
>                         [11] http://www.mico-project.eu/technology/
>                         [12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CMxDNuuAiQ
>                         [13] http://www.wired.com/2013/05/vint-cerf-interplanetary-internet/
>                         [14] https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs/issues/36
>
>                         On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 at 14:47 Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                             On 2016-08-11 15:16, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>                             > Really good article, mentions Solid and other technologies.  WebID is mentioned by the author in the comments too ...
>                             >
>                             > http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-web/
>
>                             One of the problems with the Web is that there is no easy way letting a provider know where you come from (=where your Web resources are).  This is one reason why OpenID rather created more centralization.  The same problem is in payments where the credit-card number is used to find your bank through complex centralized registers.
>
>                             Both of these use-cases can be addressed by having URLs + other related data such as keys in something like a digital wallet which you carry around.
>
>                             There is a snag though: Since each use-case needs special logic, keys, attributes etc. it seems hard (probably impossible), coming up with a generic Web-browser solution making such schemes rely on extending the Web-browser through native-mode platform-specific code.
>
>                             Although W3C officials do not even acknowledge the mere existence(!) of such work, the progress on native extensions schemes has actually been pretty good:
>                             https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2016Aug/0005.html
>
>                             This is approach to decentralization is BTW not (anymore) a research project, it is fully testable in close to production-like settings today:
>                             https://test.webpki.org/webpay-merchant
>
>                             The native extensions also support a _decentralized_development_model_for_Web_technology_, something which is clearly missing in world where a single browser vendor has 80% of the mobile browser market!
>
>                             Anders
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 13:31:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 August 2016 13:31:29 UTC