> We are moving past the “Airbnb for dogs” era and into the “build a better quantum computer” era.
I disagree. Most software still sucks for the average user.
Every app comes with its own nickel-and-dime subscription fee. You want to make a photo collage of your dog? That's $10/mo for PHOTO COLLAGE PRO, thanks.
You want to have a nice team-wide issue tracker / project planner? That's $12/user/mo, and contact our sales team if you need data security.
Using our free tier? No problem, please enjoy as we use our /alternative means/ to monetize you. Feel free to watch this ad while you chew on whatever that means.
..all this to say, there is still very much an opportunity for a software race-to-the-bottom, where people provide equal or better value to users, for equal or less monies. Pick any business, and you can do this too, as long as it is not a market where the leader is operating at a loss for dominance and as long as your execution is good enough.
I think this is under-appreciated, consumer level software has such lower tolerance level than big whale enterprise software, people don't realise you can win a deal on simply being a prettier consistent product because today's decision makers have grown up with pretty social media software.
How do you compete with free? Unless you're running a charity, you have to make money somehow eventually. That's there are no mainstream paid competitors to Facebook says (investors believe) theres not a large intersection of users who care about privacy and customers willing to pay a sustainable fee to run such a service. So we're left with Facebook/similar, or hosting open source clones.
You cannot compete with free, unless their experience is so bad that people are willing to throw money at the problem to have it be better. Most of the time, that isn't the case. 'Facebook that values your privacy' is not a value proposition that most people care to pay money for.
'Photoshop but [cheaper, free-with-ads, without an Adobe subscription]' is an area where people have successfully built businesses, however.
The problem is that we are making life harder and harder for people to do things for free, due to the privatization of everything. With more commons, people are more likely to create high-quality things for free.
Selling to businesses is an easier way to make large profits in general, definitely. A single sale can be worth millions, and you have fewer stakeholders that you have to convince - especially if you already have contacts in those businesses or can get introductions easily.
Selling to consumers means each one will judge and pay only for the value they see from your product; which means everything hinges on your product's value to many individual users, rather than a small group of stakeholders looking for a very specific set of benefits (ones you can often build for as they ask for it!)
One major reason B2C companies charge a subscription fee is because they need to show to investors that the product provides customer lifetime value: not a one-off value-add, and that there is a grow-able user base locked in to the product.
DJI sells a product called Aeroscope which is an antenna platform used by airport towers; it shows them via the frequencies the drones operate on where the drone is, that it is active, all information tied to the serial number including the drone pilot's FAA registration (who the owner of the drone is, the pilot's phone number, their address, etc.) It also this shows them the location of the pilot via the remote control frequency.
This applies even for their sub-$1000 consumer drones, and FAA registration is mandatory for all drones above 250g weight.
That also isn’t using US comms infrastructure, correct?
My understanding is that is all broadcast via the ‘unregulated’ bands between the drone and controller + bits that are mandated to be broadcast by the FAA.
In FPV communities, DJI is considered the closed/proprietary ecosystem that locks you in. Even their product lines are not exactly compatible with each-other.
You can pick up Walksnail-protocol or HDZero-protocol goggles for ~$500 new, and HD 4k drones compatible with them like Caddx Gofilm 20 for $400 - and connect any controller which uses an open-source ELRS protocol.
Granted, all of the hardware is manufactured in China I'm sure - but the software is miles apart.
They take very different approaches even if they have similar goals.
Neither is better I think unless you want to get fanboy tribal. It is to be seen what apps will scale and gain adoption for each, though bluesky having a few mil in funding and normal users definitely puts it in the lead.
Speaking as someone funded in the crypto industry... nostr, IMHO, is dominated by BTC maxis and creating a monoculture around it, which will prevent adoption, b/c a social network isn't going to just be talk about NgU and HODL'ing all day.
For Docker to decide to remove the image from their website? Obviously not.
Docker runs the service and can do whatever they want.
If Apple sends a cease and desist, and Docker decides they'd rather take it down than risk going to court with Apple /to determine if there were damages/ - then they're free to do so.
The other reasonable course of action would be to go to court, where a jury of average citizens could determine whether or not Apple or Docker is in the wrong and decide damages.
Docker wasn't pushed into taking the image down, they *decided* that they'd rather take the image down than have a jury decide who is in the wrong.
that's very important to point out yes! it's not like apple software products are covered by copyright law after all. it's the big bad lawyers that's ruling the day here.
The Firefox and Chrome teams will likely get around to adding it eventually, but it's a real shame that they've both chosen to defer it. Normally Safari is the one lagging behind on web standards but somehow it's ended up being the one to lead the charge here.
the zeekr model is indeed being tested; however it does have a steering wheel (and the article you linked mentions this.)
The steering wheel is required by law in various places, and is also needed because when Waymo's get stuck they send people out in trucks to 'complete the trip', unstuck the car manually, etc.
I really like Waymo, and compared to Uber/Lyft the experience is just strictly higher quality. The ride is smoother, the cars have a consistent quality, the driver is consistent, you get the car to yourself, etc.
However, I have three major complaints.
a. In Phoenix, where Waymo has been operating for nearly 4 years, I can still only visit a third of the city[1] - I can't take a Waymo to my dentist, to the vet, etc. and these are places that are <15 minutes from the city center.
b. Waymo doesn't go on highways, only backstreets, so trips take 2x longer - and takes you through some sketchy alleyways and streets.
c. For some damn reason they refuse to let you connect to the car's speakers using Bluetooth or Airplay. Instead, you need to download the Google app, then use voice input to 'hey Google, play <xyz>' - and argue with the AI to play some music. Then it can't play music from your Apple Music or local files, because they only integrate with Google's music provider and Spotify or whatever. It's terrible and the worst music experience you could have for Apple users.
Hopefully they address some of these with their new platform.
I don't know why, but I find it fascinating that, here's this relatively brand new technology that we're still ironing out a shitload of kinks in, yet options A and B are "complaints".
I dunno, if I step back and look at it through the lens of, say, the year 2000 or even earlier, it's pretty neat that we're even at this stage already.
We can put on different hats, one for consumers and the other for technologists. As technologists the future is looking very exciting. As consumers we are right to judge products relative to the competition.
In the mind of the consumer, all conventional transportation is on the table for discussion, including Uber & Lyft at often lower prices. The customer is not an investor narrowing in on the self driving taxi space.
Of course it's natural for the customer to wonder why Waymo can't go on the highway. Of course it's natural for the customer to feel frustrated at the limitations of service area.
Then it's ignorance on the part of the customer - they're griping that, "This round fruit doesn't taste like this other round fruit," without realizing they're comparing apples and oranges. Just because the customer perceives them to be "the same thing" doesn't mean that they are, nor does it magically make it OK to compare the two.
Edit: And with regard to this specific comment chain, OP almost certainly knows the difference between the two.
The customer is trying to solve a problem. Uber and Lyft are absolutely on the table for discussion.
Also, the limitations discussed above are not inherent to self driving. We have good reason to expect eventual parity or even general superiority to conventional taxis. This is not an apple and orange comparison. If Waymo brings their prices down and can take highway routes, Uber and Lyft will experience serious existential crisis unless they can innovate hard.
If Waymo brings their price down and can take better routes, customers will also wonder why even choose Uber or Lyft, and it won't be due to ignorance that they make this vice versa comparison.
The customer is trying to solve a problem by signing up for something that is, essentially, a beta program and complaining that it's not capable of doing things that a non-beta program with ostensibly different functionality, and different federal/state regulations, is capable of doing.
>Also, the limitations discussed above are not inherent to self driving. We have good reason to expect eventual parity or even general superiority to conventional taxis.
... that's great and all, but "eventual" is doing some heavy lifting there, to the point where I just want to go, "... so?". You then follow it up with a strong "If" statement and talk more about a potential future state. Right now, they are functionally different products even though the customer need they're trying to service is the same. That is an apples/oranges comparison - apples and oranges both provide sustenance and nutrition (read: getting a car-less individual from point A to point B), but the experience of eating them (read: riding Uber vs Waymo) is different from one another.
>The existence of apples does not put oranges into existential crisis.
It's at this point that I'm starting to get the suspicion that you're taking my comments a bit further than I've intended them to be taken. I've made no argument about the long-term existence of Waymo here, just a quick observation about how it's odd to "complain" about brand new technology that is still being ironed out.
>If Waymo brings their price down and can take better routes, customers will also wonder why even choose Uber or Lyft, and it won't be due to ignorance that they make this vice versa comparison.
Again, "if" something happens in the future. I'm talking about current state.
I disagree. Most software still sucks for the average user.
Every app comes with its own nickel-and-dime subscription fee. You want to make a photo collage of your dog? That's $10/mo for PHOTO COLLAGE PRO, thanks.
You want to have a nice team-wide issue tracker / project planner? That's $12/user/mo, and contact our sales team if you need data security.
Using our free tier? No problem, please enjoy as we use our /alternative means/ to monetize you. Feel free to watch this ad while you chew on whatever that means.
..all this to say, there is still very much an opportunity for a software race-to-the-bottom, where people provide equal or better value to users, for equal or less monies. Pick any business, and you can do this too, as long as it is not a market where the leader is operating at a loss for dominance and as long as your execution is good enough.
reply