How do you envisage implementing this, specifically with interoperability between apps (so any app can read, understand, write data of any other app)? This is the essence of Solid LDP, so would you do this in some other way, or is your design different, different goals?
What could be better?
I think one aim of Solid pods as self administered or as a service, or indeed owned by a coop is to protect the servers / services from exploitation, centralisation and take-over. I think a coop is an improvement in some aspects of that, but brings other problems and unknowns.
Both retain servers along with the hassle and risk of servers and services.
Even if a trusted entity can be relied upon as protection against take-over and centralisation (which I think you can argue for a coop), you are left with funding/maintenance, backup and security. All very hard and constantly failing. I think both Solid pods and a coop mitigate these risks to an extent but am not satisfied with the solution because servers are so obviously broken and vulnerable.
Another issue is the business model. I haven’t mentioned that yet, but I think it is also crucial to mitigate centralisation risks. For Solid or coop, apps need to be developed and paid for. So I’m not sure how that would work with a coop. I know there are ideas around this for Solid, but am not sure they would transfer to the coop model unless it was based on Solid (or an equivalent) so I wonder if you have thoughts on that.
I’m not saying there isn’t a role for coops. I think they are a valuable component in democratising technology and business which important goals to me. I’m trying to understand the ways in which they can solve certain issues and where their limits lie. You could just run Solid pods with a coop, but you seem to be advocating an alternative rather than a combination.