Probably few, except those actively searching for it. And, especially with decentralisation, the inevitable outcome of being too popular is that it starts to become centralised again, to make things easier.
Besides that, I thought for a moment about Apple's tech. If you and a friend have an iPhone and you're both trying to connect to the same network (and have each other in your contacts, I think), iOS will allow you to automatically share the credentials and connect the other phone too.
I reckon that you'd see a lot of value in that kind of device integration, which is essentially peer-to-peer.
This is what hubzilla can do, along with using the Zot protocol for distributed identity.The main issue really is having an easy wizard-based installation/configuration for new users wanting to host.
If everyone owned a personal cloud box, security procedures would quickly fall off a cliff, those people are now the new botnet.
Maybe leave people alone, stop sticking our fingers in all the places they might stick to money. Let the geeks take care of their little tribe.
Though its not really simple enough for non-technical people to set up.
It's really self-host heaven. I don't pay for Fastmail, Spotify, or video streaming anymore.
[1] https://github.com/linuxserver/docker-airsonic
[2] https://github.com/linuxserver/docker-beets
[3] https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/feature/video_station
Why: You only need one one for a family and most of the time there's already a person in the family who does "PC stuff". And even if there isn't there's always someone who'll learn it if a friend has one.
The rest of this post is not targeted at you but rather on a whole attitude here at HN:
-------------------------------
Anyone who can operate a web browser, has any education in IT and knows enough English to read instructions in the box should be able to set up one.
In fact I think just being able to read the quick start instructions should be enough to install one with basic features.
Setting up websites in the 90ies - early 2000s were a lot harder. Same goes for using older PCs with DOS.
A major problem today seems to be learned helplessnes. In our well meant and to some degree profitable[0] effort to make sure anyone can use anything we have are creating a situation were people are more helpless .
Seriously: if app stores and walled gardens had been introduced first the web and email had been considered to complicated now. I can imagine HN: """You mean my siblings, parents and grandparents are going to install this "e-mail" thing? Even if they were able to configure "smtp" and whatnot they'd forget the "email address" or even how to start it before tomorrow."""
[0:]: if anyone doesn't catch my drift, your brightest customers might not be the ones who pays most ;-)
Edits: a number of them :-)
That's not true at all. Confirmation bias is rough when you're technical; you keep spotting other technical people.
But I'm not totally convinced either: email has been huge despite the configuration needed, also with people who had to take it step by step twice and make notes while doing it. Some figured it out on their own (or more realistically using the step by instructions that came bundled with their first modem). Other had a son or a grandson who'd picked it up at school. Others got it at work.
My grandparents where the youngest group of people I can think of that didn't have access to email somehow.
And my wifes grandparents have/had access to mail and used actual mail clients too, not just Hotmail or Gmail.
In the depths of my soul I would love to re-decentralize the web. I truly believe data centralization will cause people to suffer a lot. decentralized tech needs to solve so many problems before alternatives to centralization become viable. Centralized approaches also improve over time and are a moving target to keep up with.
Which NAT/PAT/port-forwarding issues are you thinking of?
How any other open source is funded (e.g. corporate/individual donations, grants, crowdsourcing, support, ancillary products, etc). I don't believe, at least for an MVP, that much funding is needed compared the scope of some of the successfully funded open source projects that exist.
> Most importantly, why would users care about decentralized vs centralized?
They wouldn't. And ideally, beyond the annoying hoops on initial versions (e.g. discovery/identity), they shouldn't. Your software needs to win on features. A self-hosted, subscribable Reddit clone w/ chat would be a very good start.
The only one I can think of right now would be Font Awesome 5 (via Kickstarter), which already was a very popular product with big name recognition and had a professionally run Kickstarter.
Pretty much ever open source project only survives because developers donate their own time, or companies allow their developers to do so.
And even there, imho Bob (iirc) from the video was right - I hate font awesome 5, and always install either version 4 or "fork awesome" in my projects.
I started a reply stating that one can no longer use <i> elements and must instead include svgs, but then I decided to double check - and found I was wrong all this time... Some minor details have changed, but mostly for the better. Their marketing is a bit annoying too, but that's the price of having a sustainable business model.
I obviously haven't checked version 5 in projects yes, but I guess I should now. So thanks for making me realise my mistake...
So Microsoft moved skype to a centralized service and have been trying to monetize it since.
The problem with decentralized servers isn't technical, something half as fast as your phone could easily handle distributed versions of popular websites. The arm based "wall warts" were plenty fast, and they are several generations old already.
How could decentralized applications/services be sustainable funded? If not advertising, how? If it is advertising, what's the benefit to users?
Most importantly, why would users care about decentralized vs centralized?
It does seem that a modest arm based server that's silent, potentially integrated into a wifi router would hugely reduce the downsides of p2p networks. Free power, cheap bandwidth, and being part of a p2p network they would avoid long startup times for applications. Users on their phones would get instant access to their data while their local node did any proof of work, DHT tracking, earning the reputation necessary to use bandwidth, cpu, and storage from other peers.
I don't see any technical barriers, just that users wouldn't care, and nobody would want to pay for it.