Categoría: Software

Everything about Apple’s DMA compliance workshop

Today, we will follow Apple’s team’s response in the working group regarding compliance with the Digital Markets Act.

I will update this post to summarize the most critical issues regarding iOS changes and my colleagues’ intervention.

Already in the first block (article 6.3 on service selection), it has become clear to all parties that Apple does not comply nor intends to comply with its obligations in the short term.

The uninstallation of Safari as a browser is postponed until the end of the year, and any other selection of Apple’s own services other than the browser until the following year.

Not a single reference to app stores. The choice of browser or any other product is nullified if the source of such applications is not independent. Today, operating an independent store from the Apple Store or even sideloading an application independently without Apple’s intervention and control is impossible.

Why, after the deadline, do we not have an application store selection screen or real app sideloading on iOS?.

The summary of Apple’s position on all the issues raised is the same:

"We have been doing it this way for 16 years (integrating our own services and setting them as default), and we cannot make the transition in such a short time."

Ignoring the deadlines we have given and that we are in a compliance phase.

In the following section, we will delve deeper into this topic.

Having heard their stance, Apple’s summary for this entire segment remains the same. It is tremendously dangerous to allow any competition in distribution, and therefore, we will continue with app notarization, rendering any alternative irrelevant.

All in the name of protecting the user, conveniently overlooking, as usual, that Mac or any other OS allows this without a significant impact on security. Nothing new here.

There are so many inconsistencies that addressing all these questions in one morning is impossible. Some questions from colleagues will remain unanswered.

For some reason, the Apple team mentions that before the Apple Store, users would install applications from CD-ROMs, and this was a problem that only they have solved 🤷‍♂️.

Among jokes, Apple resolves none of the essential issues. This format of grouping questions without any answer will not work :(.

At this point, Apple’s strategy to impose any measures far from the spirit of the DMA (Digital Markets Act) becomes clear:

  • Only they claim the authority to decide what is safe and legitimate. Moreover, they extend this responsibility to every level, whether it’s the operating system, their store, their content policy teams, notarization processes on Apple’s side, etc.
  • Apple applies this exclusive power also to privacy. They are the only ones who respect it and can ensure it’s respected, stripping developers or any competitor of this capability.
  • Finally, they combine these attributions with the threat to regulators of the catastrophe that operating in any other manner would entail, blaming the very law that aims to protect users and developers.

All of this is sprinkled with the complexity of doing anything differently in a system that has operated this way for 16 years.

Interoperability. This is another major issue that the DMA addresses and Apple has not implemented a single effective measure to address it. The intervention of their team has been limited to urging us to look forward to their future versions when they study each potential problem related to interoperability case by case.

We still do not understand what they have been doing all this time and why the established deadlines have been ignored. Not even other proposed changes in charges and fees (CTF) to authors and stores meet the explicit requirements for interoperability mentioned in the law, such as the fact that interoperability must be provided for free.

Web applications follow the same script, considering any support beyond their webkit a titanic effort, believing that web rendering is extremely dangerous if not directly controlled by them, plus the usual threats about user privacy if regulation forces them to compete.

On the other hand, browser developers are pretty upset with each malicious compliance by Apple related to interoperability. These ideas are that they must maintain different applications for Europe and the rest of the world or separate IOS features for phones and tablets to dodge obligations.

They even go further. The fact that we cannot choose other core services or browser engines prevents us from improving the security of our services, assuming that Apple is not the only one that can provide these tools in the best way.

Apple, of course, does not share this view.

They argue that this simply forces them to be something they are not, an open system. Moreover, due to the effort and investment it would require, they do not plan to comply (this is verbatim). So little room is left for agreement other than waiting for Europe’s sanctions regarding interoperability.

After this session, I think this «dialogue» is tremendously unproductive. The chosen format of grouping questions does not help maintain a conversation or respond to Apple’s fallacious arguments. I understand that all of this is a necessary step in terms of evidence of the lack of interest in complying with European law. Still, the dialogue is disheartening at this stage of the process.

Uptodown will be present on Thursday in this same exercise dedicated to Alphabet. Time for Google to be held accountable.

There Will Be No Law or Regulation That Can Do Anything Against Gatekeepers

Colleagues, we are facing two critical weeks defining the next decade of our relationship with technology.

Our goal during this period of implementing the DMA, with your help, is to convey to the commission and regulators what the priority should be amid all the noise caused by the malicious compliance of the Gatekeepers.

We must warn them. Nothing in the law will have any effect if the main problem is not addressed: the pre-installation of gatekeeper stores on every mobile phone sold in Europe.

In everything proposed by Google and Apple, no single line addresses what should be the only concern at this moment for the industry.

The reason is that this simple fact leaves no room for competition and nullifies any other measure of the law. It’s useless to choose a default browser if it’s not available in the pre-installed store; the control of the Gatekeepers remains intact.

Moreover, Uptodown is one of Google Play’s most significant competitors. We deliver over 300 million downloads monthly and have 80,000 developers on board. And yet, we have less than one percent market share.

After a decade of absolute dominance, the truth is that an average user would not be able to name a single alternative to Google Play. This is the damage caused by the pre-installation of stores which, unfortunately, will soon be irreversible.

Google proposes that manufacturers should decide which store to pre-install. Manufacturers that depend on Google – Maps, Gmail, and all sorts of services unrelated to app distribution. Manufacturers that are, for this and other reasons, partners of Google. Manufacturers that have been Google’s tool to manipulate the market for a decade and that have incurred fines of up to 4 billion euros to Google for this reason. The commission must see the humiliation this proposal entails for competitors and regulators.

Google proposes that the user go out to look for an alternative, which they can do. Users abandoned for more than 10 years, unable to navigate the difficulties to even identify those who propose an alternative. No, this has not worked and will not work to correct this anomaly and the total lack of competition. There must be explicit consent, and alternatives must be presented on equal terms. We do not ask for special treatment.

We do not have much time; no law or regulation can do anything once independent stores disappear. These weeks will show what Europe’s response to the challenge will be. Good luck.

Digital Markets Act Status

I am receiving many inquiries from developers, users, and colleagues about the impending European Digital Markets Act.

With two weeks left until the deadline for Gatekeepers to comply with the DMA obligations, here is where we stand.

GOOGLE

We have no information on the requirements to be listed as an alternative service to the store that is pre-installed by Google and manufacturers.

We are unaware of the procedures for users to choose their application store and give consent, such as the selection screen, the way alternatives are presented, descriptions, ordering, and criteria for selecting candidates.

There is no public information, nor have we received any communication from Google about the technical changes necessary to adapt to any other requirement, forcing us to improvise when the time comes.

Uptodown remains excluded from the Google ecosystem and blocked in Google Play despite being a completely legal store operating worldwide for over 20 years.

In short, no matter how much we have tried, nothing has changed regarding our situation, with just a few days left until the end of this period.

APPLE

In this case, there is somewhat more transparency regarding information about alternative stores.

Apple has published the requirements for developing stores on iOS and established some communication channels.

As is well known, these requirements do not make sense within the spirit of the law.

Uptodown’s developer profile has not yet been authorized for no apparent reason.

In any case, Uptodown could not meet the arbitrary credit and payments requested to operate its free application store on iOS.

Uptodown does not have editorial freedom; therefore, the law is ineffective for users, as the proposed solution allows them to control content.

So we can say that the situation is similar to that of Google, in practical terms, and with days left to meet the deadline, it is impossible to compete on iOS or operate any alternative to Apple’s services.

NO, your phone is not a damn toaster

It’s sad to see how giant companies refuse to take any responsibility or care for their own industry. Even if it’s because of how they started, what conditions of freedom and neutrality they found when they were founded, and what future they are proposing to us.

It’s sad to see Apple‘s reaction. Like that of a capricious child who intends to comply, not because he believes in the essence of what is being asked of him, but only to be able to continue abusing without being disturbed.

Relax Apple and Google. The Apple Store and Google Play are great products, the best. Why that fear of competition? They are not going to disappear, they will not be at risk. Trust in your work.

It’s sad the response from Spotify or Epic, focusing the debate on the commissions. Getting outraged when at the same time they send their DMCAs to other independent, legal, and transparent stores, without any reason.

Europe must not be deceived by entering into the price discussion. That’s not what we need. We ask for real neutrality, effective sideloading, freedom for developers to distribute their products under their conditions in direct relation to their users, the right to decide the source of your applications on your own device. Not whether Apple continues to regulate content or approve its own competition, even if it’s at zero cost.

It’s sad the response from a large part of the community. NO, your phone IS NOT a damn toaster. It’s a key element in the value chain for accessing all the information you consume. It’s not even a specific-purpose device like consoles. It does NOT exclusively have platform-dependent applications.

NO, we don’t want your grandparents to use third-party stores or engage in sideloading if they don’t want to. It doesn’t change the status of those who want to remain under the total control of the big companies.

No friends, the solution is not that you build your own device and your own operating system if you want to share your work as a developer under your conditions. If a group of telecom companies had decided 40 years ago that they were building the networks and protocols, that they had the right to charge and control what happened on the internet, Apple and Google would have nothing today.

It’s sad that in this hostile environment, small companies like Uptodown and so many others whose purpose is to offer more tools to organize the complex world of software, may not survive much longer.

Historic Verdict. Google Found Guilty of Monopolistic Practices Against App Stores.

We have been warning about this for a while. Google pays and coerces (through its other products) device manufacturers to use only Google Play, pays developers not to publish or launch their own stores or payment methods, removes third-party stores like Uptodown from its ecosystem (its policies explicitly prohibit app stores or any app that installs APKs), imposes technical obstacles through its operating system (Android 14), abusively uses permissions at multiple levels to hinder the proper use of any alternatives, includes warnings to generate fear, imposes artificial barriers at the user experience level, publishes false information about security through its marketing machinery, indiscriminately blocks those who attempt to compete in products that control 90% of the market (such as admob, monetization and payment systems, searches)… among many other actions that we have been tired of denouncing for years with the sole purpose of limiting competition and stopping innovation in the free distribution of mobile applications. This is just a small sample of everything that has been demonstrated in various processes where information has been declassified (you can check the entries on this site for references). It’s a miracle we are still here.

What has changed? Until now, this was just a tantrum from sites like Uptodown, but today, it is a verdict issued unanimously by a jury in the United States. For us, due to our size and limited resources, it is impossible to initiate a lawsuit of this kind, but Epic – and later, we hope Europe – has dared to ask for explanations.

It is not a final judgment; Google has already stated it will appeal. It will not lead to immediate changes either; they have announced they will resist by all means to allow others to touch their most lucrative business (charging 30% commission on everything that happens on your mobile and controlling what you can consume based on their arbitrary policies). But it is a very important step forward in advancing the right of users to decide, in the freedom of distribution for developers, and in ensuring the necessary interoperability between devices and platforms, for which we have been fighting for years. So that you do not pay several times for the same product, that users are not kidnapped, and that they do not continue proclaiming themselves the sole guardians of information. Today is a historic day for the future of technology.

Here’s the completed verdict form:

epic-v-google-completed-jury-formDownload

The rise of alternative app stores

The world’s first publication on mobile gaming conducts an exhaustive review of Uptodown’s role in the upcoming decade. The earthquake that is going to occur with its epicenter in Europe in the distribution of mobile applications:

https://www.pocketgamer.biz/interview/81711/uptodown-ceo-luis-hernndez-on-the-rise-of-alternative-app-stores/

In the early 2000s, we sought a way to connect app developers with users as directly and easily as possible. Our obsession was sorting out all the information about software and making it available to everyone with just one click.

-2010- At that time, Google and Apple also found value in the distribution of apps, proposing their stores as intermediaries between users and developers. The battle that raged for the next ten years focused on building walls around their gardens.

Without realizing it, we all assumed that it was impossible to publish an update without the permission of the big stores, that we could not agree on conditions and offers directly with our own users, and sell on our own website without assuming consequences.

It was too late when they discovered that the same company that imposed its own hardware, operating system, ads, monetization/payment systems, browser, or search now also wanted to control the content.

It has been challenging to counter Google and Apple’s marketing about the danger of anyone else distributing apps. But our mission remains intact. We develop tools to ensure free access to software and organize information from apps worldwide.

Against this model, Uptodown defended the web as the most valid, accessible, and transparent platform to obtain apps.

Happy that this year our colleagues and friends have helped us fight. No matter what happens at the end of this process, we will have tried.

Gatekeeper strategies to bypass interoperability and FRAND practices

After listening to our colleagues in the app distribution industry for the past few weeks (stores, developers, regulators) and leveraging our 15-year expertise in the Android domain, we have identified three key obstacles preventing mobile devices from becoming a thriving space of opportunities.

These challenges involve effectively regulating and fostering essential interoperability, ensuring adherence to industry standards, and promoting editorial freedom among gatekeepers.

1. Platform Level

Due to their significant influence over developers, Gatekeepers can indirectly hinder effective interoperability.

An example of how gatekeepers operate at this level. Google implements new features in their platforms, such as «Update Ownership» (soon coming to Android 14), promoted as a tool for app stores and developers to block updates from another store or even Google Play. 

Once implemented, Google Play could also use this API to take ownership of updates over apps they install, thus hindering sideloading updates.

Such features mean powerful tools in the hands of stores with an enormous market share and influence over developers, creating new barriers to interoperability with no real user value.

Gatekeeper position:

  • Developers can freely choose their distribution strategy. 
  • We actively propose improvements for third app stores.

Problem:

  • Big platforms have a vast influence over developers to shape the industry to Gatekeeper’s benefit, even without explicit incentives for developers to adopt these technologies.
  • The same features have different adverse effects in completely unbalanced markets. Decisions supposedly made in favor of third-party stores fail to repair imbalances and potentially consolidate the large platforms’ dominant position.

Possible solutions:

  • Gatekeepers cannot deploy features on their platforms, even as a developers’ decision, which may affect the user’s higher right to interoperability.
  • The users’ right to interoperability must be protected and precede the interests of gatekeepers and even developers (influenced by large platforms).

2. App Store Level

Their dominant position enables them to impose technologies and eliminate standards on their stores for the same purpose, indirectly breaking interoperability.

Several technical decisions, even in their Stores, significantly affect interoperability in the whole mobile ecosystem. For instance, Gatekeepers abandoned standards such as APK formats on Google Play in favor of others that depend on their platforms as intermediates. 

Technologies like Dynamic Delivery or «Bundles» file formats do not allow the delivery of complete applications. They are blind to what’s happening behind Gatekeeper’s platform—thus making archiving and distribution by third-party stores and users more difficult.

These types of file manipulation from Gatekeeper’s stores and packaging “on the fly” also affect the use of signatures by developers, which now may be controlled by Gatekeepers and cause significant fragmentation.

Gatekeeper position:

  • We make distribution faster and save some space by optimizing file formats and delivery technology.

Problem:

  • They propose marginal benefits without considering the severe impact of these technologies over interoperability in the long term.
  • Bundles limit the user’s ability to back up their apps and distribute them internally on their devices without the intervention of the Play Store.

Possible solutions:

  • They always have to provide standard formats and transparent delivery (direct download of complete apps) in their stores as an alternative to end users in their platforms. 
  • They have to make a public repository of every content not manipulated by the platform as an alternative to their delivery technologies.
  • The developer, not intermediate stores, should manage the deliverable files. The EU should limit the possibility of repackaging by stores, leaving everything in the hands of the developer. Bundles save space, with the tradeoff that developers give Google the app-signing keys.

3. Content Level

In addition to these technical decisions, Gatekeepers add other content-level decisions to justify avoiding FRAND conditions. 

They refer to the potential content that third-party stores can distribute, which would not allow their presence on their devices or stores. Gatekeepers can easily justify not allowing competitors with massive content based on non-compliance with their arbitrary content policies.

The editorial freedom of other stores must be guaranteed, and the decision to block specific content should not be left in the hands of interested parties (and never at the store/platform level).

Gatekeeper position:

  • We have the right to block or ban entire platforms without limitation on our store if we consider any of their content could be a potential “risk” for users.

Problem:

  • The definition of «risk» is crucial in determining whether certain apps are banned from app stores (in any case, full stores). While certain risks like viruses and data theft are legitimate, banning apps based on political or moral considerations is questionable. Ultimately, users should have the freedom to choose which apps to use, rather than being restricted by the choices of the OS maker.
  • Alternative stores manage a high number of studios and massive content. Even Gatekeepers would not comply with any requirement based on cherry-picking over millions of files and thousands of studios. 
  • This will cause a loss of content diversity.

Possible solutions:

  • Gatekeepers cannot ban stores based on the legal content third-party stores distribute, even if this content does not fit their content policy. 
  • Access to content through alternative app stores not controlled by gatekeepers should be a protected digital right.
  • Exceptional store-level banning must be validated by a third party, possibly an app store consortium.

Download and share our conclusions here.

gatekeeper-strategies-to-bypass-interoperability-and-frand-practicesDownload

HackersWeek Málaga

Ordenando algunas ideas para discutir con los alumnos de la Universidad de Málaga. El tema que proponen es «el mito de emprender», pongamos los pies en la tierra.

  • ¿Sabéis lo que todos los emprendedores técnicos, sea cual sea el éxito que hayan alcanzado o el tiempo que haya pasado, están deseando hacer?. Programar.
  • Algunos consiguen mantener este hábito, otros simplemente están escapando para conseguirlo.
  • La informática es una disciplina tremendamente creativa que os va a permitir realizaros al margen de montar una empresa o conseguir dinero. Si defendemos el acceso libre, la neutralidad de red y de dispositivo, lo mejor lo tenéis garantizado.
  • Defender la tecnología es también defender la posibilidad de innovar sin pedir permiso. Rompe cosas, sáltate algunas normas, desafía lo que te proponen. Ya habrá tiempo de volver a lo correcto con lo que hayas aprendido.
  • El mercado es tu enemigo.
  • Que la tecnología, el software, los juegos, los raros, frikis e informáticos hayamos conquistado el mundo os garantiza muchas más oportunidades. Quien desarrolla su vocación esculpiendo mármol lo tiene complicado, a vosotros os va a ir bien.
  • Sólo una parte pequeña de vosotros necesita emprender, por cada emprendedor se requieren decenas de profesionales con oficio. Yo vivo peor y al final del camino ganaré menos dinero que los ingenieros de mi equipo.
  • Mantener vuestra capacidad para crear es la base de todo, a partir de ahí las pajas mentales sobre el emprendimiento crecen exponencialmente.
  • He conocido a muchos, y salvo excepciones, los mejores emprendedores son aquellos con un perfil técnico. La escuela os da una herramienta útil para toda vuestra vida. Este es el mejor lugar para promover el emprendimiento.
  • Si Meta con todo el talento, recursos e información de la que dispone no ha sabido medir el mercado. ¿Donde coño nos creemos que vamos nosotros?. ¿Será que simplemente estamos jugando a la lotería?.
  • La suerte es tremendamente importante, donde se cruce la oportunidad y vuestra preparación encontraréis el éxito. Estad preparados, en movimiento, es cuestión de tiempo.
  • Estar preparado también significa buscar un propósito. Es difícil parar a quien sabe hacia donde va.
  • Lo apasionante y también terrible de emprender es que cada caso es siempre distinto. No vas a aprender nada de nosotros. ¿Buscas inspiracón?, lee (mucho), haz deporte.

Mañana nos vemos.

Elon es lo mejor que nos ha pasado, un ejemplo de la fragilidad de los guardianes de la información y de nuestra total incapacidad como usuarios

Stable Diffusion Image

Cuando ya nos habían convencido de que lo mejor para gestionar nuestra privacidad, seguridad, identidad online, contenidos o incluso aplicaciones era dejarlo todo en manos de una única compañía que nos trate como a niños. Viene Elon Musk y nos revela la triste realidad, lo frágiles que son los servicios centralizados o en manos de monopolios. Aquellos que se proclaman guardianes de la información, los gatekeepers.

Elon es lo mejor que nos ha pasado en años. Pongamos como ejemplo la reciente e infructuosa migración de usuarios fuera de Twitter. La confusión entre los migrantes es total, la mecha la prende la idea de que estás al albor de unos pocos que deciden por ti. Tras años contruyendo tu audiencia, refinando tus contactos, de forma caprichosa todo esto puede cambiar de manos, cambiar de condiciones o directante desaparecer.

No huimos de Elon, huimos de una forma de entender la tecnología contraria a lo que significa Internet y la informática desde su fundación. Elon me da igual, quiero tener la posibilidad de seguirle, comos al mismísimo Trump o a cualquiera sin ninguna limitación de un tercero. Ese no es el problema, tampoco la moderación o el sesgo político de otras redes.

A esta confusión se suma la desconexión total entre usuarios y tecnología, otro gran logro de estos gatekeepers. El razonamiento que nos proponen; ¿Por qué molestarnos en entender cómo funcionan las cosas?, lo de menos es que sea lo correcto. Desconocemos lo más básico del funcionamiento de estos servicios, sus protocolos, los algoritmos o intereses que hay detrás de ellos. Una combinación perfecta para evitar cualquier disidencia.

El intento de autoorganización es inutil con usuarios que se mueven como pollos sin cabeza.

  • No somos capaces de entender cual es la propuesta de Twitter. «Volvamos a X red social» cuando estas otras no comparten lo más básico, la relación no reciproca entre usuarios y la emisión pública de textos.
  • Sin entender que sustituir Twitter por cualquier otra red centralizada tiene el mismo problema y puede acabar exáctamente igual. Lo relevante es la tecnología sobre la que se contruye, protocolos abiertos, su grado de descentralización, etc. no cual está de moda.
  • Sin entender la importancia de la interoperabilidad para no quedar atrapados de nuevo o permitir la diversidad en todas direcciones.
  • Con una capacidad nula para realizar los procesos más simples como registrarte o elegir servidor dentro de una red federada. Somos discapacitados digitales de facto.
  • Sin interés por informarnos por nuestra cuenta. Elegir un servidor en una red federada solo afecta a la moderación de tu contenido, no es tu club, no es tu grupo ni tiene que reflejar tus intereses. Si fuera técnicamente posible simplemente cada uno sería su propio servidor.
  • Sin entender que más redes, más tiendas de aplicaciones o más sistemas operativos no restan ni significa que deban ser excluyentes. Qué importa que no llegue el año de Linux en el escritorio, que se lo digan a quien disfruta de una SteamDeck. El éxito es que no nos cierren la puerta. Sí, el trabajo de los guardianes como Google, Apple es exclusivamente cerrar la puerta, encerrarte en su jardín, liquidar y ahogar cualquier competencia. Siempre ha sido así, una estregia probada y que repite una y otra vez (ataques deliberados y malintencionados a todo tipo de estándares).

Y así con una larga lista de pecados que nos ha convertido en auténticos inválidos funcionales en la red, el rebaño perfecto de los gatekeepers. Un camino de ignorancia que hemos tomado por comodidad y que no es fácil desandar. Hoy la tecnología no es un capricho, es la economía, es la posibilidad de desarrollarte, es el mayor ascensor social que jamás ha existido, es tu identidad, es la libertad estúpido y la estamos menospreciando asumiendo el discurso interesado de los monopolios.

Optimismo ninguno. La culpa no es de Elon Musk, de los monopolios, de los billonarios ni de los del otro bando. La culpa es nuestra, como individuos, que decidimos seguir pensando que no merece la pena complicarnos, que no tenemos por qué estar informados, que tenerlo todo masticado es un derecho y que justifica quedanos como estamos, al lado de nuestros guardianes, Google y Apple. Suerte ahí fuera.

Side Project Games

Header image generated with Stable Diffusion
Prompt en http://www.luishg.games

Nos pasa a todos. Uptodown se va haciendo más grande, es más complejo por dentro y gente con más talento se incorpora al proyecto. Tú vas tomando otras posiciones y acudes donde más falta hace, también porque con tanta competencia es complicado aportar en aquello que te gustaría hacer.

Ocurre con los compañeros, cada vez más necesitamos montar y dotar de estructura a los equipos de desarrollo. Nos preocupa dar más responsabilidades a un buen programador y desconectarlo de lo que hace bien. Afortunadamente estamos poniendo remedio a esto con el fantástico trabajo de HR de Mª Luz Jofre y la dirección experta de Daniel Rivas.

Por otras razones también pasa en compañías grandes. Hace unos meses hablando con Bernardo Quintero me contaba cómo crecer y optar a otros cargos dentro de Google podría suponer la exigencia de abandonar cada vez más – incluso por completo – sus labores de progamación/desarrollo en VT. Montar un estudio de videojuegos también estaba en sus planes de jubilación, yo le digo «hazlo ya!» :).

La cuestión es que si has programado toda la vida, y es la forma que tienes de expresar tu creatividad, toda esa deriva es una putada si no controlas muy bien seguir «conectado» (a programar, a escribir, a la música o a lo que sea que te mueve). Como creo que hace bien @pepedom que sigue con una pata siempre metida a bajo nivel. Es ahí donde entra el «sideproyectismo».

Un ejercicio que encaja muy bien con cierta personalidad, una suerte de trabajo de hormiga, sin prisas. Un modelo de éxito demostrado por otros compañeros y desarroladores independientes como @locomalito. De saber llevar un «wipeo» tranquilo que no solo es compatible con cualquier otra actividad, si no que colabora y te ayuda a desarrollar ambas de forma sana.

En fin. Todo esto para contaros que pongo en marcha una vía escape en forma de Side Project para volver a programar, montar pequeños productos, experimentar y recuperar un poco de esa la libertad sin que afecte a nuestro trabajo diario.

Para no meter mucho ruido, el foco aquí sigue siendo ayudar en el acceso y distribución de la tecnología, lo tendréis en otro sitio: http://www.luishg.games. Ahí y en mis repositorio de Github iré actualizando algunas ideas y compartiré el viaje de poner en marcha otros productos. Sin más pretensión que inspirar a otros que quieran hacer compatible su trabajo diario con aquello que les realiza.