1. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
2. It doesn't actually replace a USB drive. Most people I know e-mail files to themselves or host them somewhere online to be able to perform presentations, but they still carry a USB drive in case there are connectivity problems. This does not solve the connectivity issue.
3. It does not seem very "viral" or income-generating. I know this is premature at this point, but without charging users for the service, is it reasonable to expect to make money off of this?
The fundamental dynamic that ruins every technology is (over-)commercialization. No matter what anyone says, it is clear that in this era, advertising has royally screwed up all the incentives on the internet and particularly the web. Whereas in the "online retailer" days, there was transparency about transactions and business models, in the behind-the-scenes ad/attention economy, it's murky and distorted. Effectively all the players are conspiring to generate revenue from people's free time, attention, and coerce them into consumption, while amusing them to death. Big entities in the space have trouble coming up with successful models other than advertising--not because those models are unsuccessful, but because 20+ years of compounded exponential growth has made them so big that it's no longer worth their while and will not help them achieve their yearly growth targets.
Just a case in point. I joined Google in 2010 and left in 2019. In 2010 annual revenue was ~$30 billion. Last year, it was $300 billion. Google has grown at ~20% YoY very consistently since its inception. To meet that for 2024, they'll have to find $60 billion in new revenue. So they need to find two 2010-Google's worth of revenue in just one year. And of course 2010-Google took twelve years to build. It's just bonkers.
I keep seeing Edge mentioned as a worthy alternative, and I just don't get it.
First, all Chromium-based browsers will eventually block uBlock Origin for the sole reason that they can't maintain Manifest v2 on their own, and they all rely on Chrome's Web Store anyway. This won't happen immediately because Manifest v2 will probably stick around for longer because of enterprise users, but the writing is on the wall.
Then there's the fact that Edge is just Microsoft's spyware, being worse in my book than Google's Chrome. And people forget that Microsoft is also an advertising company. Even if that's not their main revenue source, they also hate your ad-blockers.
In the EU, when you open Edge for the first time, they ask you to agree to sharing your personal data with the entire advertising industry, via an IAB dialog. And there's no way to workaround it, you have to answer it (with the rejection being an agreement to “legitimate interest” claims, which are BS). Google's Chrome does not do this, and searching on google.com only asks for sharing of data with Google itself.
Edge also exposes an advertising ID, meant for Bing's Ads, much like what Chrome does for Google. And in true Microsoft spirit, it also has telemetry, which you can't turn off.
Edge doesn't end-to-end encrypt your synchronized data. Compared with Chrome, which at least supports an “encryption passphrase” that does e2e encryption. Don't get me wrong, Chrome is also cursed because with a passphrase, they don't synchronize all your history. And also, they keep turning on that option for sharing your browsing history with Google, for the purpose of improving search. But in terms of what browser is more adversarial towards users, Edge is worse, IMO.
And Edge is hard-coded to use Bing. It's harder to use Edge without Bing or Microsoft's online services, than it is to use Chrome without Google. Personally, I don't want my browser to tie me to certain online services.
Seriously, Edge is just Microsoft's spyware and a piece of crap. Other Chromium alternatives, like Vivaldi or Brave, are better, firstly because they aren't so adversarial. Or if you're on macOS, give Arc a try.
1. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
2. It doesn't actually replace a USB drive. Most people I know e-mail files to themselves or host them somewhere online to be able to perform presentations, but they still carry a USB drive in case there are connectivity problems. This does not solve the connectivity issue.
3. It does not seem very "viral" or income-generating. I know this is premature at this point, but without charging users for the service, is it reasonable to expect to make money off of this?