This title is what initially got me my interest in this project. It sounds like an ambitious project to create an operating system that can be used for doing anything. ONE app that does everything!
Now the title is: “tools for thought, freedom and trust.”, which is ambiguous and unclear and frankly a bit boring in my opinion.
I also noticed changes under the PERSONAL SOFTWARE and DIGITAL COOPERATIVE titles:
“Anytype is next-generation software that works like your brain does. It solves everyday problems while respecting your privacy and data rights.”
“Set of tools to build and explore the new internet. From private notes to decentralized communities.”
Again, it’s the same story as the main title. It’s moving away from something that sounds exciting and ambitious to an ambiguous and unclear piece of text that doesn’t really convey anything because it is so general.
There also seems to be a change in the definition of DIGITAL COOPERATIVE
“Anytype is co-owned and co-created by the people who use it. Everyone is welcome to contribute to Anytype and everyone is rewarded.”
“Anytype will be an open organization that is collectively owned by its creators. Everyone will be able to contribute and be rewarded.”
There is a big difference between a “co-owned and co-created” ecosystem and an “organization”. Organizations are not truly decentralized. They are legal entities that have “shareholders”.
An “ecosystem” on the other hand is a collection of independent actors working as ONE. Bitcoin, for example, is an ecosystem. The food industry economy is also an ecosystem. Is anytype aiming to be an ecosystem-based operating system or is it a single organization that will try to be “open”?
What has changed? What is anytypes long-term philosophy? What is the anytype team ultimately trying to achieve/build?
@Garner that is a sharp observation! I’m very curious to hear what the thoughts behind these changes are. Although I do find both the “old” and “new” texts sound interesting to me, but that is of course personal taste. I suspect the word “organization” does not refer to a legal entity like a (public traded) company but to a group of people coming together with a similar mindset. I could be wrong and that’s why I someone from the Anytype team should comment on whether “just” the focus has shifted or shorter they moved away from the original goal of the project.
Personally I actually think the new language is more clear. The old version may have sounded more “ambitious” but was also super ambiguous in my view, and also seemed to have a strong mismatch (again from my perspective) with what Anytype actually is once you see and use it. That’s not to say it can’t or won’t one day become something much bigger, and that long-term vision can be talked about, but there should also be clarity about what Antype is and will be for the nearer-term future (1-3 yrs I suppose). So that’s why I think I prefer the newer wording.
Personally I am guessing this is less a change in overall intention or goals and more of an attempt to clarify or perhaps shift the product time frame that is being focused on.
Do you know how anytype intends to be structured? Will it be like an ecosystem that is independent? Or would it be an organizational structure that has “owners” and “shareholders”? How does it intend to be open for collective contributions? What will the economic incentives be for those who contribute and build anytype when it becomes open source?