This is dumb. Moore's law may be mostly dead, but chips are still progressing at an absurd pace. In 6 years you'll be able to run the o1 model on a raspberry Pi with no internet access.
masterspace
joined 2 years ago
It's typical for tech companies to reorganize because they are losing cash, yes.
SaaS cloud hosted solutions vs on prem solutions? Not necessarily a bad move. You can save money and a lot of overhead and headaches if the software we're talking about has a lot of different potential hosting providers / licensors so that prices are competitive.
Things like choosing who to host your PostgresDb, sure you could do it on prem, but it will likely be cheaper to pick a cloud host. BUT, that's only because Postgres is open source, leaving tons of hosting providers to compete, and it is also still very similar to the rest of SQL dbs, leaving for extremely little lock-in, both amongst DBs and amongst hosts.
Salesforce though, and similar cloud platforms, are the opposite of that. Everything you build on them is completely locked into them. The DBs are salesforces' custom db technology (which sucks), their interfaces are coded in a combination of one of three different Salesforce specific programming languages / frameworks, and it does extremely little out of the box, meaning that as a company when you adopt it, you have to spend a ton of time and money on a salesforce admin / specialist to set everything up for you, likely a bunch of coders to write custom code for you, and at the end of the day, because of its restrictions you'll still produce a piece of crap interface / application that requires weeks of training for any employee to use.
And after all of that, Salesforce willl still charge you somewhere on the order of 10-1000x as much for simple stuff like /GB of db storage, compared to open source competitive DBs.
When platforms have that much lock-in, then they're ripe for exploitation, which is why Salesforce is so insanely profitable. I can pretty much guarantee you that every mid size and larger company that uses Salesforce would have spend far less money overall by hiring a dedicated software development team to build out their own applications and infrastructure using open source (cloud hosted) services.
That's why I specified a "well working" remote desktop app.
IIRC the Apple Vision's RDP is limited to a single remote monitor, at least it certainly was at launch and from googling around it seems like that's still the case which is just absurd.
You have the power to place an infinite amount of windows anywhere in 3D space but Apple only lets you place a single monitor somewhere.
Compare that to the $500 Quest 3 which supports triple monitors OOTB (on Windows or MacOS) and has third party apps that can upgrade that to whatever your headset / PC can handle.
But for either headset to be an actually true, all day, monitor replacement, they need to get a lot smaller and lighter. They're simply too hot and heavy for 8 + hours usage right now.
I always thought the entire point of them releasing this was not to make crazy money, but see how to improve upon what they built by having everyone beta test it for them. They really didn’t have much info on how to make VR successful since none of them are really big. Sure, there’s a market, but they want to know what it will take to get everyone on board not just the enthusiasts. Personally, I think it’s going to take more than just an app to get there.
"Let's ignore the entirety of the existing VR market, where Meta sold more Quest's than Microsoft sold Xboxes, and pretend like Tim Apple continues to personally invent everything. "
No, they don't need those apps, they literally just need one app, a well working remote desktop one.
They will never be a workstation because you will never get the amount of power you can get into your desktop, into your ski goggles. They could however, function as a perfectly good wireless monitor solution for an existing desktop. Strip out some of the processing power, make them smaller, lighter, and more comfortable, like the big screen beyond, and then tailor MacOS and iOS to use them as remote displays that let you put windows anywhere and you have your killer app: monitor replacements.
Look dude, Gabe Newell and Tim Sweeney are capitalists just like anyone else with a big business. They make decisions based on profit, not on doing the most good
Everyone who runs a big business has to understand how capitalism works, that does not mean they have to believe in it as a system, nor does it mean they have to make every decision to maximize profit at every possible step. Especially when the company is privately controlled.
Breaking Terms of Service to get on the Apple store wasn’t a fucking holy war to save gamers from an evil corporation, it was one evil corporation taking a stab at another evil corporation because they wanted a cut of the profits.
It was a shot in a million stab, and it was a stab that if landed, would give every single software developer more money, instead of Apple hoarding it for no reason.
Stop acting like since both sides are corporations, both of their arguments will lead to equally bad outcomes. This is literally just a false equivalency fallacy.
Valve sucks, Epic sucks, they all suck because they’re all capitalists dude. In the end, the money matters, not the gamers, they’re just the source of the money. They only ever do genuinely good things when forced to by outside parties.
Even if I accept your premise that it's impossible that Tim Sweeney is a human being motivated by human emotions and desires, it still does not matter, because Epic's crusade to break up monopolies will mean less money that Apple hoards for no reason, and more money going to the developers actually creating the software you use. It is an objectively better outcome.
There's a reason that EU regulators agree with Epic, and it's not because they're motivated by Epic's profit margins.
which is ironically the most monopolistic and anti-consumer OS right now.
Really? Because
a) Windows is objectively less monopolistic and anti-competitive than iOS and Android
b) and it is pretty much equal to MacOS in this regard.
Them supporting Windows isn't a matter of boosting the most anti-competitive OS, but following the easiest path, which is one of supporting anti-competitive OSes.
And yeah, overall, I would also prefer Epic to better support Linux. I'm hoping that Proton might convince them it's a low enough lift to do but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
They're not banning Mastodon, or the Fediverse, or EU based messaging apps.
i.e. the objection is not that the US government doesn't control it, but that the Chinese government does.