I’ve enjoyed reading this thread… and the variety of answers and understanding of what “simple cloud storage” means. Sure, there’s a ton of data stored on ICP - but that’s dApp data. There are all manner of dApps that store data, including posts on social media networks or photos that are uploaded, or transactions, etc.
If I understand correctly what the original point was was that it’d be great if there was a service (a dApp) built on ICP that offered some form of “upload your files (whatever they are) and we’ll looks after them for you” simple cloud storage - like dropbox. Or maybe with encryption so that’s like a safe cloud storage.
I hear the arguments about the “permaweb” and how it’s not important because the public don’t want that. I don’t think we’re talking about the public. We’re talking about individuals who want an alternative to dropbox or wetransfer.
So how much would people pay for this service if it really is secure and encrypted, but benefits from decentralisation and hence removes the risks of dropbox or wetransfer closing down or getting hacked?
I’m sure it’s possible - but it has to be a viable business for somebody to build it…
A personal cloud storage is something that’s really needed in ICP and it suppose to be the basic feature that should available on ICP for casual user.
The issue with personal storage solutions developed by indie developers is the lack of existence guarantee. For example, take this Rabbithole app, where the developer can suddenly disappear. This is quite scary for users who want to rely on storage apps built by indie developers or startups with limited financial resources.
A solution could be for Dfinity to acquire existing cool storage projects like this and integrate them as basic features in ICP. For instance, on the NNS (Network Nervous System), casual users could easily deploy their own simple storage.
I also noticed that Docutrack was also a good project, but it’s unfortunately dfinity no longer support it. A basic feature app, with continuous support and maintenance, like Oisy Wallet is needed for users would feel more confident using it without worrying about the app could suddenly disappearing.
I’d respectfully disagree on this point. DFINITY provide infrastructure on which others can build dApps - and build businesses. It’s up to the people who build those businesses to take the decisions and actions necessary to either grow their businesses or not.
We’ve had similar discussions in this forum about all sorts of “features” and whether DFINITY should implement them. The answer (sometimes a little late) has been no in the cases of features that are actually products or product-like. We shouldn’t expect an infrastructure provider to make everything for us. They’ve given us a great platform to build on and so we should find some applicable business cases and build them.
I agree with the direction you’re going when you say that this is a problem with indie developers or small startups with no funding. It’s not a case of DFINITY not supporting small developers but mostly the same issue that many many startups have - simply running out of money or not finding a market.
The ability to store files is infrastructure. A secure and encrypted personal storage solution built on that infrastructure is an application - or dApp in Web3 terms - and is something that needs a solid business plan, adequate funding, and a proper organisation behind it. That means that it’s a business that somebody starts and will monetise to help it grow, probably by charging for those services. Web3 doesn’t mean web free.
Hence my question. How much would people pay for such a service if it really was up and running and had a business behind it?
Considering it’s been more than three years since the Genesis event, and no storage project has meaningfully taken off, this could be an early indication that storage projects are risky, and their business viability remains a big question. This storage feature is likely to be unprofitable.
Therefore, only non-profit organizations might be able to make it happen. In real-world analogy, this is like a public infrastructure, which doesn’t provide good ROI for private business but is essential for public, so only the government with no profit in mind, can build it.
Additionally, if this feature ends up having many users, it’s likely that many startups would be interested in developing more advanced and improved versions of it, especially since the code will be open source, allowing new advanced storage projects to easily bootstrap and get started.
The fact that the code would naturally be open source is also not necessarily a given. Does everything that’s build on ICP need to be open source? Is it not possible for somebody to build an actual business with proprietary software on top of ICP?
If the future of Web3 is going to be reliant on open source only projects then I would expect adoption to be a LOT slower than we’d like. There will be a need for some businesses to be able to use the infrastructure for it’s benefits and still operate as private businesses - not just open source or "DAO"s (quotes on purpose )
I find the viewpoint of personal file storage as being public infrastructure interesting and it’s also intriguing to see that we have different points of view or are talking about this from different perspectives. That makes life interesting. Again, I’m not talking about a general feature of ICP. I’m talking about a commercial dApp, built on ICP infrastructure.
But is ICP just a playground for indie developer open source projects or an infrastructure for building larger-scale businesses based on decentralised tech?
Storage for private files, that need to be secured by default, tamper proof (no one can alter the code on the back end side, just the canister controller) will be highly valuable for people that actually need it, normal storage that can be leaked as we’ve seen have other use cases for people who doesn’t worry about it.
Tamper proof data, (data certified) is a hugee value that we are still very early, that’s why people like @RmbRT still can’t see it, same thing happened to every new technology that was creating a new market.
Humans often tend to believe they know everything and are quick to compare current technologies with revolutionary ones, simply because they share some similar functionalities… However, these technologies are often a mess, not suitable for the general public, and instead of simplifying things, they make the work more complicated. This is why most of people struggle to spot opportunities long before the demand for that specific product even exists.
Providing a basic feature as a public infrastructure doesn’t mean it will drown out opportunities for commercial dApps to grow. In fact, it will be the opposite. Advanced dApp features can be developed to be even better than their public open-source versions.
New features, whose business viability is questioned because no one wants to be the first are seen as too risky. This makes it difficult for indie developers or startups to raise capital, creating a vicious cycle. Should we wait for commercial entities to build these features? The problem is, those entities often see it as unfeasible. This situation is holding back the growth and take the ICP ecosystem as a hostage situation.
The only thing that can bridge this gap and provide a positive shock to the ecosystem should be coming from a non-profit organization. Of course, after the gap has been filled, the commercial sector should then be given the chance to continue to take over. The main goal here is for non-profit organization as Dfinity to be allowed to intervene if necessary when the ecosystem isn’t progressing because no private entities are willing to take the risk.
We’re clearly talking at cross-purposes, but that’s ok.
My point is should we keep expecting non-profit foundations to build stuff for us, for free, or recognise the opportunity that the infrastructure they’re building is presenting us and give it a go - set up a business, create a solid business plan and revenue model, and build?
The problem I see with a lot of the thinking in Web3 is that there is a huge amount of expectation that “somebody else” will build something that we can use to make money - whether it’s being “rewarded” for content or engagement or given free tokens or NFTs that we can sell - and that very few people are willing to take the risk and actually build themselves unless they get a grant or free help.
This is what’s holding back progress, not a lack of features.
Still wondering if anybody is going to answer my original question …
)