X : For reasons of lock-in, the future is decentralisation.
Me : Oh, I can tear this apart on the basis of usefulness but let us assume you're right. Do you mean decentralisation of provision or control?
X : Is there a difference?
Me : Oh, I can tear this apart on the basis of usefulness but let us assume you're right. Do you mean decentralisation of provision or control?
X : Is there a difference?
Me : Well, take the Android ecosystem. It is decentralised in terms of provision but ... well, ask Samsung who is in control. The CTS is a powerful controlling force. But then the alternative is a collective prisoner dilemma - see OpenStack.
In general, you have two choices - a decentralised environment (in terms of end points) which is provided and controlled by one player (the "hopefully" benevolent dictatorship model) or a decentralised environment which is provided by many and controlled by one (the Sauron model)
If you want an element of "control" then the one player (especially any certification / testing components) has to be an authority controlled by Governments (e.g. a regulator) or you are surrendering to commercial interests and control often by one party.
It then becomes a matter of interests i.e. whose interests. Those within the market regulating themselves (often by the actions of one party) will tend to work in their own interests (unless they are benevolent) which is often counter to the interests of the wider population.
So, whether it's decentralisation provided by many but controlled by few or decentralisation provided and controlled by few ... this idea that decentralisation gives control is mostly an illusion unless backed up by a Government regulator.
And that is the nub of the matter ... you either trust in benevolent dictator as a commercial entity (over which the majority have no control) or you trust in a benevolent dictator as a Government (in which, hopefully, through democratic means we exercise some control).
