Proton CEO official response:
Hi everyone, this is Andy here (Proton founder/CEO). Just got alerted about the news, and wanted to respond to some of the comments along the lines of “how do we know Proton won’t sell out?”
The truth is, you can’t know for sure, but Proton is structured in a way that provides a strong assurance, and we’ll be sharing more about this some time in the next month. But for all intents and purposes, it really isn’t possible for Proton to be acquired.
Proton is not a product of silicon valley, but a crowdfunded project that was conceived at CERN. Proton doesn’t have VC investors (so no pressure to sell), and Proton is profitable (so no pressure from finances). To this day, it continues to be managed and run by scientists, and nobody goes into science to get rich.
Finally, Proton has scale with 100M+ accounts and 400+ employees. Frankly, if the goal was to sell and make a bunch of money, it could have already been done long ago. Instead, we push onwards.
Our work is brutally difficult, with daunting challenges every step of the way, and only the true believers stay on the path for this long. If money was the goal, we wouldn’t have done any of the things listed on this page (https://proton.me/about/impact) much less given away over $2.7 million to aligned organizations
This year Proton happens to turn 10. We’ll probably never be the cheapest, the most flashy, or maybe not even the fastest. But we will strive to be the most resilient. For as long as there’s this community of users supporting our work, we’re not going anywhere. In fact, the ideas and values we share together, may even win the future of the web. For that reason, we’re eternally grateful for your support as we fight the hard fights.
source: reddit
I mean, I get the idea but Proton isn’t science so one can turn the argument around that the oh so poor scientists started Proton to finally make some money. Obviously not true, but I’d leave that sentiment out of future statements. I do hope though that Proton indeed never sells out, we’ll see if it holds true.
Cryptography and software development is science.
Cryptography maybe, but software development much like actual engineering isn’t “science.”
You’re being very black and white here. Engineering work both uses the scientific method (e.g. test a hypothesis to prove it true) and the literal science (e.g. proven hypotheses) to achieve the structures we have today.
In the same way, the formal study of computer science is through the scientific method, but that often comes as a byproduct of trying something new through software development, and proving, through hypotheses and testing, that the outcome is repeatable. Many computer science white papers have come out of hacky software engineering projects that were then formalized.
You’re saying pure cryptography is science though. Is it only science if you are a tenured professor or research professional, or it gets published in a journal? (Which as I outlined, software dev does all the time). I’m confused
Holy motivated reasoning Batman!
@Telodzrum @EmperorHenry
Uhm … ever heard of Computer Science at universities and such?
Just one quick example:
https://www.eecs.mit.edu/research/computer-science/
Oh, they call it science in the course guide, ya got me! Very clever!
@Telodzrum
Here. I found a suitable profile picture for you.
What the hell are you talking about? Engineering is absolutely science. You need to know a lot about physics and chemistry to be an engineer.
The use of another discipline’s tools doesn’t make you a member of that discipline. Sorry.
Other fields of science wouldn’t be possible without engineers making the tools.
When electrical engineers make circuit boards, they have to know a lot of chemistry and many different forms of math to do that.
So we agree, engineers (much like most any job) are important; however, they aren’t scientists.
Yeah, I read that as “we haven’t been offered enough money to retire to a private island on huge yachts yet, but we’re not closing any doors”