While I understand where the author is coming from, and I get his sentiment(s), I don't think what he proposes is actually possible: his vision relies on faux open tools and protocols and having access to walled gardens. The means of computation for these kinds of things are owned by a tiny minority. Nearly everything is a SaaS or is based, one way or the other, on rent extraction. We're essentially subject to the whims of someone who is letting us do something for as long as we play nice.
>There is a chance, though, that younger developers, and those who weren't around to build back during that last era a generation ago, are going to get inspired by MCP to push for the web to go back towards its natural architecture. It was never meant to be proprietary.
Alas, the reason APIs started closing and being metered is because, after all, there's someone owning and paying for the hardware upon which you are making calls and requests.
As long as there's no way to agree upon how to have a bunch of servers providing computation for anyone and at the same time ensuring their upkeep without the need for a central authority, I don't think such vision is sustainable long term. The current state of the Internet is proof of it.
>There is a chance, though, that younger developers, and those who weren't around to build back during that last era a generation ago, are going to get inspired by MCP to push for the web to go back towards its natural architecture. It was never meant to be proprietary.
Alas, the reason APIs started closing and being metered is because, after all, there's someone owning and paying for the hardware upon which you are making calls and requests.
As long as there's no way to agree upon how to have a bunch of servers providing computation for anyone and at the same time ensuring their upkeep without the need for a central authority, I don't think such vision is sustainable long term. The current state of the Internet is proof of it.