Chameth.com - posts like apple-google-aligned-incentives, why-you-should-be-using-https but not docker-automatic-nginx-proxy, top-sites-dns-providers

How tech companies failed to build the Star Trek computer

2025-07-16T00:00:00Z

A computer core room on the Enterprise-D

In most Star Trek series, the ship or station computer is ever-present in the background, waiting to be called on by the main characters¹. It nearly always does exactly the right thing, and there’s little limit to the functions it can perform. Take this mundane example from DS9:

KIRA: Computer, establish link with the Bajoran Medical Index for the Northwestern District.
COMPUTER: Link established.
KIRA: Access all information on Doctor Surmak Ren.
COMPUTER: There are no records matching that name.
KIRA: Try the Northeastern District, same search.
COMPUTER: Doctor Surmak Ren, currently serving as Chief Administrator of the Ilvian Medical Complex.
KIRA: Computer, open a channel to the Ilvian Medical Complex. Administrator’s office.

The computer is doing some kind of networking to a database only identified by name. It does a search and summarises the lack of results. It then repeats the process with another database, and succinctly announces the results. Finally, it opens a communication channel to a specific room in a facility, based only on its name.

This whole interaction is remarkably boring². Kira doesn’t have to know any URLs or API endpoints, or what protocol she wants to use. She doesn’t have to open a specific app and then login and then try the query again. She just says what she wants and the computer does it.

It seems like this should be one of the most easily obtainable bits of sci-fi wizardry with our current technology. We have multiple massive companies throwing lots of money at digital assistants, LLMs that are improving at an insane rate, but we’re somehow not even close to the usability or usefulness of the Trek computers. What gives?

Boring is, well, boring.

Larry Page once said something that might help explain it:

The Star Trek computer doesn’t seem that interesting. They ask it random questions, it thinks for a while. I think we can do better than that.

This is the same Larry Page that founded Google, whose mission statement is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. Of all people, surely he should find an omnipresent computer that can answer ‘random questions’ interesting?! It seems like it should be the epitome of Google’s mission!

Google’s “better than that” seems to have been to stuff LLMs into every product they can, even when you don’t want them there. Even when they’re worse than the normal content they displace. These things look exciting when they’re part of a scripted demo at Google I/O, but they fall flat and just get in the way when they’re exposed to the reality of day-to-day use.

The Star Trek computer is the opposite: it isn’t snazzy, but it is genuinely useful. That means it’s not an attractive target for the company execs who want marketing opportunities, and it’s not appealing for engineers who need to demonstrate “impact”. But even if Google did try to make the Trek computer, there are other problems…

Assistants need to be free

A significant amount of tech companies’ business models currently revolves around trapping users in walled gardens. They want you using their ecosystem; that way they get more data from you, and you’re more likely to spend more money on their other offerings that work together. There’s barely any incentive to allow any kind of interoperability with other platforms outside carefully contracted integrations.

I remember trying to help a family member move their photos from iCloud to Google Photos. At one point they turned around and said, exasperated, “why is this so hard? Aren’t they both in the cloud?!”. It’s easy to dismiss that as someone who hasn’t quite grasped the fundamental idea that “the cloud” is just someone else’s computers, but that’s not the whole story. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be a quick and easy transfer: both services already allow uploading and downloading, there’s just no incentive for the companies involved to make it so³.

These kinds of misaligned incentives and walled garden business models cause even more problems when it comes to digital assistants. Siri is basically never going to be able to interact with, say, your Google Drive; ~~Bard~~ Gemini is never going to be able to send a message via iMessage. Even when there are appropriately blessed interactions, they’re so clunky. Can you imagine Captain Picard saying “Computer, ask the turbolift skill to take me to deck 5”?

Someone else’s computer

Software issues aside, there’s still a key difference between the Star Trek computers and our current batch of digital assistants: where they run. The Trek computers are all housed within the ship or station they serve; they can connect elsewhere to gather information, but they run entirely independently. If they go wrong, a local engineer can go in and fix things. While some of our assistants may have physical hardware in your home, they don’t work without a vast cloud apparatus behind them. If your Internet connection fails, they become paperweights. If the company running them decide to remove some functionality you depend on, you have no recourse.

That kind of helplessness isn’t limited to assistants, either. There’s a rapidly growing trend of being unable to modify or repair hardware you fully own and control. Part of this is just that they’re becoming more complex: it’s a lot harder to replace a microchip than a gear, but companies are also going out of their way to make it more difficult for users through draconian DRM regimes⁴ and aggressive intellectual property enforcement. If the US Navy can’t repair their own equipment because a corporation says so, what hope do consumers have?

We’re approaching a point where you don’t actually own anything. Software is cloud and subscription based, hardware is unrepairable. Even cars can be remotely updated and have features added or removed. The Federation wouldn’t allow a third party control over their ships⁵, so why are we so happy to put up with it in everything we consume?

A small ray of hope?

The most promising way of tackling all of these problems is through legislation. The EU’s Digital Market Act is an attempt to force ‘gatekeepers’ like Google, Apple and Meta, to allow third-party access to their services. It seems like a pretty reasonable approach, but the tech companies are unsurprisingly resisting it. Apple in particular have gone out of their way to refuse to comply, and when forced to do so have limited the functionality to people in Europe. Still, the DMA is a promising start, and if similar legislation is introduced (and robustly enforced) elsewhere it might start forcing companies to behave a bit better.

There are also smaller companies that actually do the right thing. Framework make laptops that are user-serviceable; Fairphone do the same for mobile phones. Smaller software companies provide useful, open APIs. The average person on the street will probably have never heard of these, unfortunately, but they do still exist. Maybe as the bigger tech companies tighten the screws more, people will turn to alternatives like this? Or maybe we’ll just keep accepting that our computers work for everyone but us?

Unless, of course, the computer is playing the role of the episode’s MacGuffin and has contracted space-computer-COVID or something, then it’s a lot less in-the-background. ↩︎
It’s almost like it only exists to move the plot along. ↩︎
You can generally export your data, thanks to a combination of legislation and efforts like Google’s “Data Liberation Front”, but I’ve never seen an export format that could then just be imported into an equivalent commercial product. ↩︎
Oh, you’ve changed the screen on your iPhone? Better hope it can do the secret handshake with the Apple hardware. ↩︎
I think there might actually have been an episode where that did in fact happen. We’ll just ignore that as a plot contrivance. ↩︎

Apple, Google and aligned incentives

2020-10-17T00:00:00Z

The HTC Dream, the first phone released running Android.

For the past decade I’ve exclusively used Android phones. I got the HTC Dream (aka the T-Mobile G1) shortly after it came out, and dutifully upgraded every 1-2 years. In that timespan I used Android as the basis for my Master’s Thesis, took a job on the Android team at Google, and eventually became a contractor specialising in Android app development. So when I switched to using an iPhone earlier this year a few people were surprised¹.

The good old days

When Android was announced in 2007 – alongside the formation of the Open Handset Alliance – it was positioned as a bastion of openness: it would be built on open standards and the operating system would be open source. At the time iPhones were strongly coupled to iTunes and Apple was exercising strict control over what app developers could do.

When the HTC Dream was released it lived up to expectations. You could write apps for it without shelling out for a Mac! You could get root access, and it was running Linux under the hood! A whole ecosystem of custom firmwares and bootloaders started to appear, thanks to the open source nature of the OS. It shipped with some Google apps, but they were just normal apps that served as examples of what could be done.

After the Dream came a line of Nexus devices. These were Android’s flagship devices, designed to show off what a good Android phone should look like. Both the hardware and software releases tended to feature interesting, useful upgrades. Some of the original open source apps were replaced with closed source, Google proprietary ones, but that was OK - the open source versions lived on in the open source project as examples of what you could do. The devices allowed flashing custom firmware, and the OS source was always released… eventually.

The downfall

The Pixel and Pixel XL

Over time, Android has got less and less free. The Nexus line of phones gave way to the Pixel range, which got rid of the clearly demarcated border where Android ended and Google began. The Android 11 highlights list is dotted with sections that say “On Pixel devices…”, and every single one is a software feature that could be implemented on any device, but Google have decided to keep it proprietary instead of releasing it as part of the open source platform.

At the same time more and more functionality has been added to Google Play Services. This was originally a shared location for Google specific services - in 2012 it merely handled some Google+ functionality and dealing with OAuth for Google accounts. These days it contains a huge swathe of Google services, as well as platform functionality such as push notifications, barcode scanning, geolocation, and so on. Google Play Services isn’t part of the Android Open Source Project, and is only available under license from Google. You can’t really have a device without these functions, so as a manufacturer you have the choice between agreeing to whatever terms Google requires² or spending an awful lot of development time creating an alternative.

While these are fairly abstract arguments about what a free platform should look like, during the same period there has been a marked restriction in how you can actually use Android devices – both as an end-user and as a developer. iOS has always had very stark restrictions on what apps can do in the background; Android started its life allowing pretty much anything, like any good general purpose computing device. This inevitably lead to lots of apps doing lots of things that ranged from stupid to mildly suboptimal, creating a tragedy of the commons amongst apps. The victim was the phone’s battery life, and Google’s solution was a progressive series of restrictions on what apps can do and when. This includes limits on when push notifications are delivered to a device, how frequently apps can wake up, and so forth. Some of these can be bypassed by the end-user, but not all, and the process is fairly cumbersome.

Aligned incentives

From my point of view, Android and iOS are now pretty much in a similar place. They’re not general purpose computers, but app consoles: much like games consoles they consist of hardware and software that the user lacks control over but accepts in order to access the library of apps/games.

Given there’s no clear winner between them in terms of hardware and software, my decision came down to a more holistic question: how aligned are their incentives to my own? Apple is a product company: they make their money by producing shiny things that people want to purchase; Google is an advertising company: they make their money by using my personal information to show me targeted adverts.

For Google, Android was originally a strategic move to ensure that Apple couldn’t dominate the mobile web, and by extension the revenue from ads. As a company, there’s nothing to really push them forward in any particular direction other than one that facilitates advertising. Of course, Google employs tonnes of good people who want to do good things which counterbalances this, but I’d still prefer to deal with a company that has an intrinsic motivation to do things I want them to do, rather than one forced to by regulation, custom, or the good intent of their employees.

So the decision became obvious: if I have no strong opinions about the software and hardware, Apple is the clear winner because their incentives are a lot better aligned to mine.

Image credits

Photo	Creator	Licence	Source
HTC Dream	Akela NDE	CC BY-SA 3.0	Wikimedia
Pixel and Pixel XL	Maurizio Pesce from Milan, Italia	CC BY 2.0	Wikimedia

Or, at least, politely feigned surprise. ↩︎
And Google’s terms were particularly onerous: as well as requiring Chrome and Google Search to be preinstalled, they prevented manufacturers from selling any devices powered by alternative versions of Android - e.g., Samsung wouldn’t be allowed to sell a refrigerator that ran Amazon’s FireOS. The European Union handed Google a $5,000,000,000 fine for this anti-competitive behaviour, which Google are still in the process of contesting. ↩︎

Why you should be using HTTPS

2016-06-17T00:00:00Z

The EFF’s HTTPS Everywhere logo

One of my favourite hobbyhorses recently has been the use of HTTPS, or lack thereof. HTTPS is the thing that makes the little padlock appear in your browser, and has existed for over 20 years. In the past, that little padlock was the exclusive preserve of banks and other ‘high security’ establishments; over time its use has gradually expanded to most (but not all) websites that handle user information, and the time is now right for it to become ubiquitous.

Why use HTTPS?

There are numerous advantages to using HTTPS, both for the users of a website and for the operator:

Privacy

The most obvious advantage is that HTTPS gives your users additional privacy. An insecure (HTTP) request can potentially be read by anyone on the same network, or the network operators, or anyone who happens to operate a network along the path between the user and the server.

Users on shared WiFi networks (such as those in coffee shops, hotels, or offices) are particularly vulnerable to passive sniffing by anyone else on that network. If the network is open (as is frequently the case) then anyone in radio range can see exactly what the user is up to.

Integrity

HTTPS also helps to maintain the integrity of your site. With a plain HTTP request, there’s nothing to stop anyone in between the server and the user from modifying the content of the request or the response. This is a frequent tactic used by annoying WiFi gateways (such as the ones you’d find in a hotel), dubious ISPs who want to serve you extra adverts, or just plain old nefarious attackers.

If you’re trying to convey some kind of information to users (and if you aren’t, why exactly are you running a website again?) it seems beneficial to both you and them if the information arrives as you intended, rather than in a modified form due to someone or something tampering with it.

Security

If your website has any kind of authentication, or session identifiers, it becomes extremely vulnerable to an attacker monitoring the traffic and stealing the credentials. This was starkly demonstrated in 2010 when Firesheep was released. This tool allowed anyone to quickly and automatically hijack social media accounts of anyone on the same network who was using HTTP to access them.

Even if your login pages are served over HTTPS, if you send a single session ID cookie over HTTP (such as a page you decided wasn’t particularly ‘important’) then an attacker can probably spoof the user’s session and gain full access to their account. Again, in the case of open WiFi networks that could be anyone in radio range.

Search engine rankings

Some search engines use HTTPS as a signal in their ranking algorithms. Google announced in 2004 that it was using the presence of HTTPS as a small positive signal, but that it may strengthen that signal over time as more and more websites switch to using a secure transport. It’s not unthinkable that at some point in the future there will be HTTPS-only search engines.

But… But… But…

There are lots of excuses for not implementing HTTPS. Most of them are either misguided or outdated.

It’s too expensive and/or complicated

In the past, getting HTTPS certificates was a pain. A number of free suppliers have existed for a while but the process for getting their certificates wasn’t particularly straight forward, and many imposed arbitrary restrictions on the certificate parameters. Even once you had the certificate, you had to fiddle about with your HTTP server configuration to make it work, remember to manually get a new certificate when the old one expired, and lots of other annoying busywork.

With the arrival of Let’s Encrypt, all that changed. You can retrieve and deploy a free HTTPS certificate with two or three commands. Renewal can be handled completely automatically with a single command executed by cron.

There’s no point; nothing on my site is sensitive

You might not think your content warrants privacy, but can you speak for everyone who accesses it? Even content that seems mundane to you — such as travel advice, or technical writing — could be used to build up a profile of a user. If an attacker is monitoring traffic in a coffee shop and sees a user looking at travel advice and weather forecasts for a foreign country, he could use that information to plan a burglary knowing that the user will be away. Similarly, some content which is perfectly mundane to you may actually be very sensitive in other countries with repressive governments. HTTPS makes it much harder for these people to snoop on traffic.

From another angle, if you’re offering any kind of information, instructions, or especially file downloads, there’s a severe risk to users if the content is modified on its way to them. An evil sysadmin could rewrite your travel advice to suggest visiting the local drug dealer’s hangout, or replace your download with a malware-infested version.

HTTPS is slower, uses more resources, etc

Back in 1995 this might have been a valid argument. Enabling HTTPS on a modern server will make an almost negligible difference to performance. If you also enable HTTP/2 (which most implementations only support over HTTPS), it’s likely to actually use fewer resources, and result in a faster, smoother experience for your users. HTTP/2 was designed to work with HTTPS, and designed with modern requirements and networking techniques in mind.

CloudFlare have an excellent demonstration of the benefits of HTTP/2, and it can show speed improvements of 2-3x in a typical environment. On top of being faster, HTTP/2 uses fewer connections which results in less resource overhead on both the server and the client.

So what are you waiting for?

If you run a website and aren’t using HTTPS, give it a try.