Tag Archives: ai

October 10, 2025 · 1:06 pm

Reshuffle model applied to the mobile app ecosystem

Create your own magic with Web 7.0 AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License

Based on an October 10, 2025 conversation between Michael Herman and ChatGPT.

I feel the following doesn’t match 100% with what is presented in the book #Reshuffle but there are a few interesting tidbits.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License

🧩 1. Background: What the “Reshuffle” Model Means

In the book Reshuffle, the core concept is that platforms continually reconfigure (“reshuffle”) the value chain — deciding:

  • Where to play (which layers of the ecosystem to own, open, or delegate)
  • How to win (by controlling key interfaces, user access, or data flows)

A reshuffle happens when a player changes the architecture of participation — shifting value, control, and power between ecosystem actors.

📱 2. Applying This to the Mobile App Ecosystem

Let’s consider the mobile ecosystem as layers (simplified):

LayerExamplesCurrent Gatekeepers
HardwareApple, Samsung, QualcommApple, Google
OS / RuntimeiOS, AndroidApple, Google
DistributionApp Store, Play StoreApple, Google
Payment / IdentityApple Pay, Google Pay, Sign in with AppleApple, Google
Apps / ServicesTikTok, Uber, SpotifyIndependent developers
User Relationships / DataAnalytics, Ads, Identity GraphsMeta, Google, Apple increasingly

🔀 3. What a “Reshuffle” Looks Like Here

A reshuffle model describes how control, innovation, or value capture moves between these layers. Here are several current and emerging reshuffles:

A. Reshuffle Downward (Re-integration)

Platform owners pull value back down toward themselves:

  • Apple limits tracking (ATT) → cripples ad networks → reclaims privacy and ad advantage.
  • Google moves privacy features into Android → weakens cross-app data collection.
  • Super apps (WeChat, Grab) integrate multiple mini-apps inside one shell → pull distribution away from OS-level stores.

🧭 Effect: Platforms reclaim data, monetization, and developer dependence.

B. Reshuffle Upward (Decentralization / Open APIs)

Some innovations push value upward to developers and users:

  • Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) bypass app stores.
  • Cross-platform frameworks (Flutter, React Native) reduce dependency on native SDKs.
  • Alternative app stores / sideloading (EU’s DMA) redistribute control.

🧭 Effect: Developers gain autonomy and flexibility, though discovery and monetization remain bottlenecks.

C. Reshuffle Laterally (New Platform Entrants)

New layers emerge, shifting boundaries:

  • AI agents / assistants become new distribution channels (e.g., OpenAI’s ChatGPT apps, Perplexity’s mobile UI).
  • Super app frameworks (e.g., Telegram mini-apps) become meta-platforms inside mobile OSes.
  • Wallet-based ecosystems (identity, crypto, digital goods) create cross-platform continuity.

🧭 Effect: Gatekeepers may lose user touchpoints to “meta-platforms” that sit on top of the OS.

⚙️ 4. A “Reshuffle Model Canvas” for Mobile Apps

ElementDescriptionExample
TriggerWhat changes the distribution of value or control?Regulatory changes (DMA), new tech (AI agents), shifts in user behavior
Anchor LayerWhich layer redefines the interface?OS, identity, or payments
Redistributed ValueWhat moves?Revenue, data, trust, discovery
New GatekeepersWho gains control?AI assistants, mini-app frameworks
Old GatekeepersWho loses control?App stores, SDK-based ad networks
User BenefitWhat improves for users?Choice, interoperability, integrated experience
Developer ImpactWhat improves or worsens?Distribution, economics, discoverability

🧠 5. Example: The “AI Agent Reshuffle”

In 2025 and beyond, an AI-driven reshuffle looks like this:

BeforeAfter
Users search for apps in App StoreUsers ask AI assistants to “book a taxi” or “edit a photo”
Developers fight for app visibilityAI intermediates app selection and invocation
App Store controls discoveryAI layer controls orchestration and recommendation
OS owns distributionAI owns user intent

🧭 Reshuffle Result: AI interfaces become the new “home screen.”
App stores become backend registries. The distribution and discovery value shifts to the AI layer.

🏁 6. Summary

A Reshuffle model for the mobile app ecosystem describes how power and value continually move among:

  • OS and hardware vendors (Apple, Google)
  • Developers and third-party ecosystems
  • New intermediaries (AI agents, super apps)
  • Regulators (mandating openness)

The model emphasizes layer-by-layer realignment — each “reshuffle” altering where innovation, value, and control reside.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

September 30, 2025 · 6:09 pm

DIDComm Messages as the Steel Shipping Containers of Secure, Trusted Digital Communication

Create your own magic with Web 7.0 AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License

Abstract

The steel shipping container transformed global trade by introducing a standardized, secure, and interoperable abstraction for transporting goods. Similarly, Decentralized Identifier Communication (DIDComm) offers a standardized, secure, and interoperable mechanism for transmitting trusted digital information between agents. This paper explores the analogy between DIDComm messages and steel containers, examining their properties, benefits, and limitations, and assessing the potential of DIDComm to catalyze a transformation in digital ecosystems comparable to the shipping container revolution.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License

1. Introduction

The 20th century witnessed a quiet revolution in global trade: the invention and adoption of the steel shipping container. More than faster ships or larger ports, it was standardization in how goods were packaged and transported that unlocked efficiency, scale, and global interoperability.

In the 21st century, digital ecosystems face a parallel challenge. Secure communication across heterogeneous systems remains fragmented by proprietary protocols, siloed trust frameworks, and inconsistent interoperability. Despite advances in transport protocols (HTTP, WebSocket, Bluetooth) and security primitives (TLS, OAuth, JWT), no universal standard exists for trusted, end-to-end, cross-domain messaging.

DIDComm (Decentralized Identifier Communication) aims to fill this gap. It provides a standardized envelope for secure, interoperable communication between agents in decentralized ecosystems. This paper argues that DIDComm can be understood as the steel shipping container of digital communication — a payload-agnostic, transport-agnostic, secure packaging standard that enables trust to move seamlessly across networks and domains.

2. The Shipping Container Revolution

2.1 Before Containers

  • Cargo packaged idiosyncratically: barrels, sacks, crates.
  • Loading/unloading labor-intensive and slow.
  • High rates of pilferage and damage.
  • Inefficiency in intermodal transport (ship → rail → truck required repackaging).

2.2 With Containers

  • ISO standardization: uniform sizes, fittings, and corner posts.
  • Sealed security: tamper-resistant, weatherproof units.
  • Stackability: efficient storage and loading by crane.
  • Interoperability: ships, ports, trucks, and trains adapted to a single form factor.

Impact: Containerization reduced costs by ~90% and increased the speed and scale of global trade [Levinson, The Box, 2006]. The key insight: decouple contents from infrastructure via a universal abstraction.

3. DIDComm: A Digital Container Standard

3.1 What is DIDComm?

DIDComm is a protocol suite for secure, private, and interoperable communication using Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) as endpoints. It defines how messages are packaged, encrypted, authenticated, and routed between agents.

3.2 Core Features

  • Standardized envelope: headers, routing metadata, payload.
  • Cryptographic sealing: encryption (confidentiality), signatures (authenticity), checksums (integrity).
  • Transport agnosticism: works over HTTP, Bluetooth, WebRTC, email, etc.
  • Routing via mediators: messages can traverse multiple relays without breaking end-to-end security.
  • Payload agnosticism: the message may carry verifiable credentials, IoT commands, or arbitrary application data.

3.3 Why It Matters

Just as containers enabled intermodal trade, DIDComm enables intermodal trust exchange. Applications, wallets, devices, and services can interoperate without bespoke integrations.

4. Mapping the Analogy: Containers vs. DIDComm

Container PropertyDIDComm EquivalentImplications
Standardized formEnvelope with defined structure (headers, body, metadata)Guarantees interoperability across agents and vendors
Sealed & secureEncryption + authenticationProtects against unauthorized access and tampering
Intermodal transportTransport-agnostic deliveryWorks across protocols without altering the payload
Routing via logisticsMediators, DID resolution, forwardingEnables flexible message delivery
Opaque contentsEncrypted payloadOnly authorized parties can inspect
Global ecosystem supportAgent networks, wallets, identity hubsEmerging infrastructure could mirror global ports and carriers

5. Benefits of the Container Analogy

  1. Interoperability
    • Any DIDComm-compliant agent can process a message, just as any port can handle a container.
  2. Security and Trust
    • Messages are sealed like containers, with tamper-evident cryptography.
  3. Efficiency
    • Reduces the cost and complexity of building integrations across organizations.
  4. Scalability
    • Supports any type of payload: credentials, IoT signals, governance instructions.
  5. Decentralization
    • No reliance on a central authority; trust derives from cryptographic keys, similar to how container standards are managed by ISO, not controlled by one nation or corporation.

6. Limits of the Analogy

  • Physical persistence vs. digital ephemerality: Containers endure across voyages; messages vanish after delivery.
  • Metadata leakage: Container labels are visible; DIDComm may still expose sender/recipient metadata.
  • Standard stability: Container sizes have been stable for decades; DIDComm may evolve quickly.
  • Global adoption: Containerization achieved near-universal acceptance; DIDComm is still early in adoption.

7. Strategic Implications

7.1 Identity & Credentials

DIDComm provides a secure transport for verifiable credentials, enabling cross-border, cross-domain trust.

7.2 IoT Ecosystems

IoT devices require lightweight, trustable communication. DIDComm offers a containerized way to exchange secure commands.

7.3 Cross-Domain Interoperability

Applications in finance, healthcare, supply chains, and governance can exchange trusted data without bespoke APIs.

7.4 The “Container Moment”

Global trade was reshaped once container standards reached critical mass. DIDComm could catalyze a parallel moment in digital ecosystems if widely adopted.

8. Conclusion

The steel shipping container revolutionized trade by abstracting the packaging and transport of goods into a universal, secure standard. DIDComm has the potential to do the same for digital trust, abstracting communication into a universal, secure, and interoperable form.

If DIDComm achieves broad adoption, it could serve as the logistics backbone of the digital trust economy, enabling decentralized ecosystems to scale with the efficiency and security once brought to global commerce by steel containers.

References

  • Levinson, Marc. The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger. Princeton University Press, 2006.
  • DIF (Decentralized Identity Foundation). “DIDComm Messaging Specification.” https://identity.foundation/didcomm-messaging.
  • Hardman, Daniel. “Introduction to DIDComm.” Hyperledger Aries Working Group, 2021.
  • ISO. “ISO 668: Series 1 freight containers — Classification, dimensions and ratings.”

Based on a discussion between Michael Herman and ChatGPT. September 30, 2025.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,