What if Meta’s hidden objective behind the Threads-to-Mastodon initiative is a play on app.net? And, what if threads.net is a measured step towards what could be the greatest pivot in all of tech?
Sigh…
No. We’ll just make a new mastodon/ lemmy-verse without them. Its easy enough. At a certain point the world needs to understand that its these companies, not the format, we’re avoiding.
This has a lot of nonsense. It gives too much credit while vague regarding LLaMA2. It failed to mention a lot of Open Source work Meta has done lately. It was only from a US point of view and not how the EU has been a thorn in Big Tech’s side. Mastodon has 1.6 MAU and many users have multiple accounts. Mastodon is too small for Meta to care about. Those startups Meta squashed were doing innovative things Meta never seen applied before. When it purchased Instagram and WhatsApp there were many millions of active users. Meta as was many Big Tech companies a part of the W3C when AP was being planned and backed out. The Fediverse is about as old as Facebook so Meta has seen this before, Mastodon hasn’t done anything new on this front. Outside of that there are some interesting considerations
Yeah, I think the reason threads is attaching itself to the fediverse is precisely because meta don’t see it as a threat.
It’s an easy way to appear open to the regulators without actually helping any competitors.
I don’t think you need the “what if” parts
The “as a service” business model is interesting. It may be a good funding path for mastodon, lemmy devs etc…
Many hate the “as a service” model, you might need to elaborate on how it will be implemented.
Lots of options here TBH and I haven’t put much thought into it. Providing a service by running and managing software updates, migrations etc…, is one. MongoDB Atlas and Confluent Cloud are good examples of what I had in mind.
Why do people hate the “as a service” model?
Edit: i dont know how many people feel this way, I beleave this and heard (verry biased, right to repair) people say this before.
Probably confusion but also abuse of the buisness model. “As a service” implies the recurrant payment is due to the service costing them resources to keep running. People like Adobe are just rent seeking. Also, the idea of ownership vs renting gets blurry.
Your examples, altho I havent thuroughly looked through them all look to be doing “as a service” correctly
