• SidewaysHighways@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Just sitting here waiting on the peeps who know more about stuff to chime in on this, cause it sounds awesome. But I’ve been burned before so I’m hesitant

    • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Seems solid.

      It doesn’t change a ton, but the point was basically them putting their money where their mouth is and saying “now we can’t sell out like everything else.”

      If you liked them before, this is great. It means google or whoever literally can’t buy them out, it’s not about the money. If you were iffy already because they’re not FOSS or whatever other reason, this doesn’t change that, either, for better or worse

      • Land_Strider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        What is this buying out talked about something not escapable if not some legal reorganization is made? It has been being talked about other companies, too, and it sounds like if you have a form of a company, you can’t legally refuse monetary offers from someone to buy your company.

        Is there such a legal mechanism that forces an owner to sell out if an offer is made, or is this more about proofing a company against CEO/shareholder personal sell out decision?

        • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          A company with a public offering basically cannot refuse a large enough buyout because with a public offering comes a financial responsibility to the shareholders. Public stock is a contract saying give me money and I’ll do my best to make you money back, and it’s very legally binding.

          You can avoid this by never going public, but that also means you basically don’t get big investors for expanding what you can offer. A public offering involves losing some of your rights as owner for cash.

          When the legal goal becomes “money above all else”, it is hard to justify NOT selling all the data and violating the trust of your customers for money, customer loyalty has to be monetizable and also worth more.

          Proton has given a majority share to a nonprofit with a legal requirement to uphold the current values, not make money. This means that the remaining ownership can be sold to whoever, the only way anything gets done is if this foundation agrees. It prevents everything associated with a legal financial responsibility to make money, but still allows the business to do business things and make money, which seems to be proton’s founder’s belief, that the software should be sold to be sustainable.

    • sturlabragason@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Seems legit. Going towards a better business model. Don’t know if anything stops them going from non-profit to profit as OpenAI did buy at least their movinf the other way now with intent towards the opposite.

      I’ll keep using their service at least.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Don’t know if anything stops them going from non-profit to profit as OpenAI

        Don’t know about other countries but that’s illegal in the US and not what happened.

        Much like Mozilla and RPi, they have a for-profit and a non-profit arm.

  • nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    In this world of enshittification and organizations becoming more and more aggressive, it’s so nice and refreshing to see proton doing the opposite and moving to a better model :)

    • eveninghere@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I think proton was never going to function as a profit-first business. Too many enshittified rival businesses. Kinda the natural outcome.

        • piracysails@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Mullvad is proven. Not that proton is not, but there were a few controversies about their operations.

          Mullvad is accepting payments with actual private crypto currencies. Mullvad had authorities visit their operations site, demanding data and left empty handed as they did not have anything to offer. The same cannot be said for proton. I personally like that they do not offer free services and that they are advocating for privacy through ads and foss projects like the mullvad browser.

          Proton is only publishing on f-droid, their vpn and recently their pass application. They have yet to provide notification services for de-googled devices after years of community demands. They have opt out telemetry.(except the proton pass through f-droid.) while mullvad does not, correct me if I am wrong on this.

          Since you asked about the VPN, everything mullvad is running is on ram so nothing is saved. (I think this is only for their owned servers though not all of them.)

          That being said, I use the proton suite as there is no other alternative right now and the casual user in me is satisfied. :)

      • yonder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        At my school, mullvad is one of the only VPNs that work since basically every port is blocked except ports 80 and 443 using TCP. Mullvad can use wireguard over TCP on 443, which is very useful.

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Man, I wish I could afford their rates. They’re just a little bit higher than I can justify compared to other options for a given service.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I want them to have the clear objective of making money. That gives they consumer some control as you can just not give them money. That still can be true for non profits but it isn’t as powerful.

        • ResoluteCatnap@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Did we read the same blog announcement?

          Proton AG will still need to be financially feasible. That is not changing. You can still not give them money if youd wish. They just have backed up their mission statement with actions instead of just words.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Because non profits are not universally good. With a company the objective is clear.

        I don’t terribly care for proton or any other “secure and private” email. I think it is mostly snake oil.

          • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Email is insecure by default. These companies play on wishful thinking to make people feel better about using it.

            • drathvedro@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              This. The best you can do is encrypt your messages locally before sending. But then your email service provider still knows where you are, when and to whom you are sending the message to, and how long is it. And so does the recepient’s email provider and anyone in between. Best they can do is to promise not to keep that data. But it’s just that - a promise, which there is no way to verify.