Recently Andy Yen dumped a whole boatload of suggestions about the future of Proton. Article is machine-translated so some discrepancies may exist.
Regarding Chromium:
But suddenly, it’s mainly a problem of open web standards, don’t you think? This is the discussion we always have with Sir Tim, the W3C and others. To some extent, this battle is long lost, to be completely honest…Yes, I think this battle is already lost.
Everyone assumed we were building a browser because a job posting came up, but that’s not necessarily the case. We do a lot of web-related things at Proton, and there are plenty of reasons why I might want to hire someone who is very fluent in browsers. That doesn’t mean we’re building one.…I don’t say anything at all, because I don’t know what I will build in the future.
I am often asked the question of instant messaging: “Create a chat”, etc. Do I think we will ever do it? We’ll end up doing everything, it’s just a question of schedule and timing…You also have to understand the logic: with Proton Workspace, we want to compete with Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace .
Interesting confirmation of what we all probably already suspected.
They want to be google, they just never bothered with the ‘don’t be evil’ part.
Google is an ad company, using surveillance and tracking to sell more ads, is that what you mean? Or Google started as a search engine, and now they’re an ecosystem? What about Protons business model is evil?
Google is an ecosystem company
Proton is an ecosystem company
Previous customer, no longer my problem.
But do you consider it inherently harmful to have a collection of services with a common login and shared resources like contact list or integrated calendar? It’s always possible to have one provider per service, like signal for messages, a standalone calendar, a standalone video meeting program, etc, but then we expect users to make a lot of informed decisions. There seems to be a demand for ecosystems where people don’t have to connect services to their own stack, is this bad in itself, or can there be both good and bad actors in this area?
Every time someone says ‘bad actor’ I immediately think of Nicolas Cage, I would rather not.
What guarantees Proton will be good?
When Proton bought competitor SimpleLogin, was that good for the average person? How about when they bought competitor Standard Notes?
The people interested in privacy don’t assume something is good until proven otherwise. They assume it is bad until proven good.
I don’t think we can ever trust that someone will stay good forever. But I also don’t want to dismiss someone because they might turn evil in the future. For me I mostly look for the question “how easy/hard would it be to suddenly move to a different provider”. I.e. am I locked in?
Again, you’re coming from the position that Corporation is good until proven bad, a position that I thought everyone was shown, time and time again, is a bad position.
Can you provide an example of a corporation that you can prove is good and will not turn bad in the future?
Let’s turn our attention back to “what about Proton’s business model is evil”, where I told you two evil things Proton did that apparently aligned with its business model: Destroying two competitors.
The only apparent defense you have for these two evils is to say a different thing is not apparently evil (vendor lock-in?) but a lack of evil does not absolve evil . I’d rather focus on that than being dragged down into a pedantic debate about which types of Proton emails really do lock users in (as anyone who has ever signed up for a website with an email address will tell you, it does).
I’m trying to understand your thinking. I don’t see the evil in buying a company to learn what they know. Buying standard notes resulted in proton docs, but standard notes is still there. Simplelogin is still there. I don’t see how they are “destroyed”.