Game Maker is what started it all for me over 20 years ago. Once I picked up the scripting language Python and Lua quickly followed. I think I owe my entire career in software to this program.
Same. I know this is unfair but it made me subconsciously write off the framework. OP, this is purely marketing feedback but try to make the button fast. Love the direction you're taking, good luck!
That's not really unfair. This trend about moving frontend things to be processed in the server is "coincidentally" what the big cloud providers need to keep hitting their quarterly goals.
If you stick with an open source ethos and allow anyone to hack and write software for these things... you're going to find a highly devoted niche of lifetime customers. I am one of them. Great work!
What do you mean? Everyone has access to the gpt-4o model right now through ChatGPT and the API. Sure we don't have voice-to-voice but we have a lot more than what Google has promised.
How do I get access? I just checked my app and the Premium upgrade says it will unlocked GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, so I assume my version is still the old one.
I just checked, there was an iOS app update available and it enabled it. I'd check again if there's a new update (version 1.2024.129). Or you could use the website.
In the App Store there's a new build of the iOS app as of 3 hours about (call it about 11am US Pacific time). It includes the GPT-4o model (at least it shows it for me.)
I feel silly now. I downloaded the app after the announcement (I'm a desktop user) and it looked identical to the one they show in the sarcasm video. When I asked it, I was told it was not the new feature announced yesterday. Still a lot of fun!
Edit - it does list the new model in my app at least
API yes, ChatGPT no (at least not for all users); I've got my own web interface for the API so I can play with the model (for all of $0.045 of API fees), but most people can't be bothered with that and will only get 4o when it rolls out as far as their specific ChatGPT account.
I have a regular ChatGPT Pro account and I have GPT-4o.
The bigger issue is that 4o without the multi-modal, new speech capabilities or desktop app isn't that different to GPT-4. And those things aren't yet launched.
One man's garden of eden is another's hell on earth. I've gone back and forth between big and small. I'm genuinely happy at small companies with tight knit teams (getting abused by csuite for shit pay ofc). At big companies I get extremely depressed in a corporate hell scape mostly surrounded by people that have maintained sanity by dissociating from the job and collecting a paycheck.
I'm trying to start my own business now without going down the consulting route. At the very least I tell myself that the spoils of the hustle go to me. Let's see how this phase goes.
This isn't fair feedback. You have to be more specific about the "lock in". Supabase itself is just managed Postgres and can be self-hosted. The entire point is that everything they offer is open source and easily found elsewhere.
I can imagine they fall short in some aspects from that ideal and I would love to know your experience but even with your first sentence this is just a pretty damning write off.
Disclaimer: I'm NOT a Supabase employee, just a happy user.
If you use Postgres you're "locked" into Postgres: a technology with a laundry list of providers.
If you leave Supabase, you'll lose the fully managed aspect of 99% of the Postgres providers out there, which confirms the pain the parent comment is describing.
this is no different than running, say, Rails on a managed service. You can take the service and you run it somewhere else: each individual service is wrapped into a docker image which should make it easy.
You can use as many or as few of the services as you want - its designed it that way:
> If you use Postgres you're "locked" into Postgres: a technology with a laundry list of providers.
Supabase is just a Postgres platform, and you can use it like that so that you can migrate away to any one of those laundry list. We _also_ provide some tools which are nicely integrated but importantly: they are optional
> doesn't Supabase rely on spinning up additional services to leave,
No, not if you don't use those other services. If you _do_ decide to use another service, then yes, you need to spin it up to leave (or migrate to something else). Hence my comment: this is no different than running, say, Rails on a managed service.
Is having your frontend hook directly into to your database without a backend a standard? I almost exclusively saw it in locked in BaaS platforms over the years (like Firebase)
I've barely even seen PostgREST offered managed: is even one managed Postgres provider with the right combination of PostgREST and go-true to let you move over today?
Edit: I also don't get why this is such a point of contention...
Since when is BaaS not just a trade off between initial velocity and later stage lock-in? The former is not worthless, but like most tools you should understand the tradeoffs involved
I'm guessing a "managed postgREST" would look like a docker container deployed to AWS App Runner or Google Cloud Run with the standard Postgres RDS hocked up to it.
So many microcosms with tech. I'm always reminded here on HN how terrible Office is and why we don't just use Google Docs. I hold this same opinion personally. However I go to other communities (I think the last one I remember was some startup subreddit) and GSuite is being mocked and everyone is recommending Office and Teams as the obvious choice for starting your business.
I assume it's just that we prefer the devil we know than the one we don't.
I don't think that the decision is being driven by bad company A v/s bad company B, and it's implicitly technical.
All of us here probably will know when to jump out of spreadsheets and have some knowledge on how to approach things then, so a simple spreadsheet on Google Docs is fine for us.
The problem outside, is that they are somewhat locked on the spreadsheet and have to stick with it, so more advanced features are welcome even though it comes with the price of the so called evil company according to the other group.
And is Office really better than Google's Spreadsheets? Idk, I don't care about small differences, but they surely annoy hardcore users, plus no one really got fired for buying IBM
Google is definitely the devil I know of those two, still I would not like it if one my main tools were provided by Google. Currently they seem to manage to both lack in innovation AND be unreliable.
I generally don't see people recommending teams, typically business users seem to prefer zoom while the ones who use teams are forced to because it's bundled with other Microsoft products.
Excel on the other hand is still miles better than Sheets for non-trivial use cases and I've seen business users revolt multiple times if you try to force them to use GSuite. To a lesser extent that's also true with Word and to an even lesser extent Outlook.
I haven't yet seen someone threaten to quit if they don't get a Teams license (but I have seen that for Zoom).
The interesting one is PowerPoint which I've noticed a lot of power users are migrating to Figma for. Also 10 years ago people would send nasty grams if they couldn't get Visio licenses but Lucidchart seems to have eaten that marketshare.
>I haven't yet seen someone threaten to quit if they don't get a Teams license (but I have seen that for Zoom).
Uhhh what? I suppose I am a novice video chat user who just uses it to talk to people and share a screen, but I am clearly missing some killer feature. From my perspective, all of the platforms suck for one reason or another. Bad CPU usage, latency, but hey, they have background swapping and fun emojis!
>and GSuite is being mocked and everyone is recommending Office and Teams as the obvious choice for starting your business.
These must be paid shills. While it's actually quite understandable why real people and businesses would want to use and recommend MS Office, no one in their right mind actually thinks Teams is the best video chat tool in the world. Any serious business uses Zoom, Slack, etc.
Not a paid shill, but Until recently Teams had capabilities Slack was laughingly behind :-/
Biggest one for me was that I could
A) start multiple chats with same audience and rename them - so I can have chat with thom dick and Harry on system architecture over a few days and separate conversation with them on performance testing issues. This is trivial in teams. I have to create awkward channels in slack to approximate the functionality.
B) seamlessly start a conversation with two people, then as you troubleshoot and expand, add more people, then jump in a call, then finish a call and keep chatting. Until recently slack would force you to start a new blank conversation when you added people - absolutely useless. Now they've hacked a solution that works up to arbitrary number of ten people and is so clearly a script in the background which still creates a new chat with added person but helpfully copies all conversation over. Then you need to add 11th person and too bad you've hit the magic number.
In operations setting and evolving incidents, teams was just better. And don't get me started on slack "huddles"!
My inlression has always been the opposite - startups used slack because it was cool. Serious businesses used teams because it worked and integrated well.
Now. I've realized lately that when people talk about slack vs teams, they're usually not actuslly talking about slack vs teams. They're actually talking about their companies security and usage policies, as incidentally instantiated through the collaboration tool of choice. I've become aware that my experience with teams is bit everybody's, due to various policies and limitations imposed, and similarly for slack.
But mostly... Not nearly as many people that disagree with average internet forum dweller are paid shills as may be believed :=)
Teams, as much as I may dislike it, seems to have more built-in features than Slack, including a files feature that supports editing MS Office documents in place, and integration with Outlook calendar and email and other Microsoft apps. I also think that Slack didn't have video conferencing until relatively recently?
As with the IBM model, I imagine it's simpler for companies to have a single source and a single support channel. It is possible to use Exchange sign on for non-MS systems and apps however.
> Teams, as much as I may dislike it, seems to have more built-in features than Slack
Isn't that the problem with Teams? Instead focusing on highly usable text chat, the focus is growing the pile of integrations with other mediocre Microsoft products.
(Not that Slack is great; it's been bloated and slow for a long time and has likely been on steep downward trajectory since the buyout by Salesforce.)
Unfortunately my "serious business" of $2B revenue dropped Zoom and Slack like a hot rock when they signed an enterprise Microsoft deal, because Teams is free, and usability, productivity and job satisfaction be damned, and your jobs are moving overseas anyway and nobody dares complain there.
Teams has network effect behind it. Because so many businesses already use Teams, in a B2B-setting you're almost expected to already have Teams as well.
I agree something is wrong with their marketing. I was also initially drawn to Vercel and Netlify but after extended use and not being happy with either I eventually tried Cloudflare and discovered I love it. The pricing and the product is fantastic.
I think it’s because the experience of familiarizing oneself with the platform and getting to a hello world level crud app/basic static site is done a lot better with vercel and netlify than it is with cloudflare. Cloudflares site and docs are not built with the approach of getting an app from 0 to 1 ASAP.
I get the sense that Cloudflare Workers is targeted almost exclusively at existing customers of Cloudflare, who have a “legacy” app proxied through Cloudflare DNS, who use Page Rules and Firewall Rules and the like.
For these customers, Workers are an incremental optimization of an existing app — shifting some work to the edge, or allowing some systems to have a previously-internal backend stripped out, leaving them as e.g. Workers in front of an object-storage bucket. And that’s exactly how Cloudflare advertises them.
It looks like Cloudflare’s outreach advertising, meanwhile, is all about CF Pages and CF Sites. You can find SEOed landing pages for these; whereas Workers is mentioned ~never in external media as a “solution” — even though it totally can be.
Workers started with that use case, but these days we're definitely aiming to be a general-purpose platform for app hosting, especially for new apps. It sounds like we're not getting that message across very well.
Not just the message; the docs, and even the internal structure of the Workers section of the CF dashboard, are also lacking on describing how to approach building a greenfield app using Workers.
I recently tried to build a Worker-based app for a personal project, after a few months of not having touched Workers, having only previously used them at $work for the "decorator of legacy backend" use-case. I knew what capabilities Workers had, and knew exactly what I wanted to do... but getting it up and running was still confusing!
One specific example: trying to figure out how to get a production-quality workflow for maintaining and deploying a worker.
- It's actually hard to notice the "Edit Code" button on a Worker's overview. I flipped through all the other tabs twice before noticing it.
- Then, after getting in there, I remembered how useless the web IDE is for testing, when the domain is fronting a bucket named after a custom domain associated with a Workers Route rather than with the canonical name of the worker. So I wanted to set up the worker to deploy from a Github Action.
- But how do I do that? Can I go into "Integrations" and select "Github Repo"? (No.)
- I figure that the Wrangler CLI will set me up for doing on-push deploy. So I download it. (It doesn't.)
- Also, the CF Workers docs tell me to install the wrangler NPM package and run `npx wrangler init`. But once I do, that command itself tells me that it's deprecated, and that I'm supposed to run `npm create cloudflare\@2.5.0`.
- I read through the Wrangler docs and figure out that it's a "build a local slug from your worktree and push it" kind of deployer, rather than a "build a deploy from a git ref and push it" kind of deployer. So I figure, to enable GitOps deploys, I'll need an action that runs Wrangler itself on Github Actions. I search the Workers docs, and the Wrangler CLI docs (separate site) for this. Neither one mentions this possibility.
- I end up just googling "wrangler github action" and finding https://github.com/cloudflare/wrangler-action. Great! I add it to the new Github repo that Wrangler created, and add the relevant secret.
You know what this could have been instead? A button on the Workers dashboard — or even on a CF marketing landing page! — that 1. SSOs the user into Github; 2. automates the creation of a new repo that gets pre-populated with a Worker skeleton project + this Wrangler workflow already committed to it + the correct relevant secret already bound into the repo; and then 3. drops me into either the Workers IDE (modified to connect to the repo by creating PR branches + committing to them for "drafts", and merging those PRs for "publish"), or alternately, into Github Codespaces with the Workers IDE stuff reimplemented as a VSCode preview plugin. (And same for Gitlab, etc.)
Pricing also.
0.40 USD / month for a globally deployed site @ CF versus 199 USD / month for a static site with limited traffic usage @ the supposedly premium other hosts
This is such a depressing but accurate take on travel.
At least if it's true I can finally enjoy everything without the crowds of selfie sticks.