Are we looking at a future where home computers are replaced by thin clients and all the power lies in subscription services?
‘You don't need storage space, use our cloud subscription’
‘You don’t need processing power, stream your games through our subscription service.’
Game publishers have already publicly floated the idea of not selling their games but charging per hour. Imagine how that impact Call of Duty or GTA.
Physical media could easily be killed off. Does my iPhone need 1TB of storage or will they shrink that and force everything through iCloud?
How long before car ownership is replaced with autonomous vehicle car pools? Grocery stores closed to visitors, all shopping done online and delivered to your door by drone.
I don't know how everyone arrives at that conclusion when the cost of the subscription services is also going up (as evidenced by the very article we're talking about). People who are renting are feeling this immediately, whereas people who bought their computers can wait the price hikes out for a couple years before they really need an upgrade.
Subscriptions have a "boiling frog" phenomenon where a marginal price increase isn't noticable to most people. Our payment rails are so effective many people don't even read their credit card statements, they just have vampires draining their accounts monthly.
Starting with a low subscription price also has the effect of atrophying people's ability to self-serve. The alternative to a subscription is usually capital-intensive - if you want to cancel Netflix you need to have a DVD collection. If you want to cancel your thin client you have to build a PC. Most modern consumers live on a knife edge where $20/month isn't perceptible but $1000 is a major expense.
The classic VC-backed model is to subsidize the subscription until people become complacent, and then increase the price once they're dependent. People who self-host are nutjobs because the cloud alternative is "cheaper and better" until it stops being cheaper.
My bank has an option to send me a notification every time I'm charged for something. I've noticed several bills that were higher than they should have been "due to a technical error". I'm certain some companies rely on people not checking and randomly add "errors".
Notably there's no way (known to me) that you can have direct debits sent as requests that aren't automatically paid. I think that would put consumers on an equal footing with businesses though, which is obviously bad for the economy.
It's normally an option in my experience. I have mine set for charges over $100. I don't want a notification every time I buy gas (I do check my statements every month though).
What is the harm in being notified when you buy gas? It doesn’t hurt anything, and I DO want to be notified if someone else buys gas on my card!
The discussion started as a way to avoid forgetting to cancel subscriptions or to catch subscription price increases; if you are setting your limit to $100, you aren’t going to be seeing charges for almost all your subscriptions.
I have my minimum set to $0, so I see all the charges. Helpful reminder when I see a $8 charge for something I forgot to cancel.
Alert fatigue. Most people, if they get an alert for every single purchase they make, will learn to ignore the alerts as they are useless 99% of the time. Then when an alert comes through that would be useful, they won't see that either.
Anyone who has had the misfortune to work on monitoring systems knows the very fine line you have to walk when choosing what alerts to send. Too few, or too many, and the system becomes useless.
As I said, I have my alert set to $0 and it really hasn’t caused fatigue. For one thing, when it is something i just purchased, the alert is basically just a confirmation that the purchase went through. I close it immediately and move on.
If I get an alert and I didn’t buy anything, it makes me think about it. Often times it just reminds me of a subscription I have, and I take the moment the think if I still need it or not. If I start feeling like I am getting a lot of that kind of alert, I need to reevaluate the number of subscriptions I have.
If I get an alert and I don’t immediately recognize the source (the alert will say the amount and who it is charged to), it certainly makes me pause and try to figure out what it is, and that has not been “alert fatigued” away from me even after 10+ years of these alerts.
Basically, if I get an alert when I didn’t literally JUST make a purchase, it is worth looking into.
I dont think it causes alert fatigue; I am not getting a bunch of false alerts throughout my day, because I shouldn’t be having random charges appear if I am not actively buying something.
> The alternative to a subscription is usually capital-intensive - if you want to cancel Netflix you need to have a DVD collection.
I did Apple Music and Amazon Music. The experience of losing “my” streaming library twice totally turned me off these kinds of services. Instead I do Pandora, and just buy music when I (rarely) find something I totally love and want to listen to on repeat. The inability to build a library in the streaming service that I incorrectly think of as “mine” is a big feature, keeps my mental model aligned with reality.
I do wish these services would have an easier method to import/export playlists and collections. But that would make it easier to leave, so its not going to happen.
> if you want to cancel Netflix you need to have a DVD collection
You don't need a whole DVD collection to cancel Netflix, even ignoring piracy. Go to a cheaper streaming service, pick a free/ad supported one, go grab media from the library, etc. Grab a Blu-Ray from the discount bin at the store once in a while, and your collection will grow.
No, I do own some (actually it was more in the VHS days so tapes) and I just found that I never really watched them again. So I stopped buying movies. I'm the same with books. Once I read it, I've read it. I would rarely read a novel twice. I know what's going to happen, so what's the point? Reference books are different of course.
You're not really thinking this through enough. The exact same logic you used can be applied to music: once you've listened to the album once, you know how it will go, so what's the point of listening again? Presumably you do get something out of listening to music again (since you said you do listen to it more than once), so whatever that "something" is... you can infer that others get similar value out of rereading books/rewatching movies, even if you personally don't.
For myself, the answer is "because the story is still enjoyable even if I know how it will end". And often enough, on a second reading/viewing I will discover nuances to the work I didn't the first time. Some works are so well made that even having enjoyed it 10+ times, I can discover something new about it! So yes, the pleasure of experiencing the story the first time can only be had once. But that is by no means the only pleasure to be had.
> The exact same logic you used can be applied to music: once you've listened to the album once, you know how it will go, so what's the point of listening again?
Most music doesn't have the same kind of narrative and strong plot that stories like novels and movies do, this is a massive difference. And even if it does, it doesn't usually take a half hour or more to do such a change. That's a pretty big difference about the types of art.
I've bought a ton of movies in the past. The vast majority I've sold second hand or thrown away because I just didn't care to watch again and I didn't feel like storing something I'd never use forever.
Same goes for a lot of other media. Some amount of it I'll want to keep but most is practically disposable to me. Even most videogames.
This is something I’ve been seeing for a while. As a teen that kept his 300 dollar paycheck in cash that money would last a very long time. Now I make a good 6 figures and was seeing my accounts spending way more than I should. It wasn’t big purchases it was 50 dollars here 200 hundred there. A subscription here and there. By the end of the month I would wrack 8k in spending.
Going line by line I learned how much I neglected these transactions being the source of my problem. Could I afford it? Yes. But saving and investing is a better vehicle for retirement early than these minor dopamine hits
Sure but modern cloud subscriptions have a lot of service layers you otherwise won't pay for so effectively you may be buying the hardware yearly that's a lot different than renting a media collection that would be assembled over a lifetime for the price of one new item a month.
> Subscriptions have a "boiling frog" phenomenon where a marginal price increase isn't noticable to most people.
This is so apt and well stated. It echos my sentiment, but I hadn't thought to use the boiling frog metaphor. My own organs are definitely feeling a bit toastier lately.
Difference is that if subscription goes up from $10 to $15, that doesn't seem to bad.
But if you want to purchase a new computer, and the price goes from $1000 to $1500, then that's a pretty big deal. (Though in reality, the price of said computer would probably go up even more, minimum double. RAM prices are already up 6-8 fold from summer)
Where I live, a pair of Kingston FURY Beast Black RGB DDR5 6000MHz 32GB (2x16GB) has literally gone up from what is equivalent to $125 this summer, to currently selling for what is equivalent to $850.
I think looking at the same exact product from the same retailer is not really the full story. Personally I would accept looking at the same exact spec ram across retailers in your region.
Maybe its still a lot more for you, but in the US it's not as bad as I see people say.
Realistically people normally buy whatever ram is the cheapest for the specs they want at the time of purchase, so that's the realistic cost increase IMO.
Wouldn't historical data also be inflated by the gold plated Monster branded RAM sticks too though? Making the now to then comparison, well, comparable.
The MRSP for those GPUs is already inflated. There's a reason Nvidia is going to start making more RTX 3060 GPUs. Because people (and system builders) can't afford 40XX and 50XX GPUs.
Difference is subscriptions need to support IT staff, data centers, and profit margins. A computer under your desk at home has none of those support costs and it gets price competition from used parts which subscriptions don't have.
Cloud (storage, compute, whatever) has so far consistently been more expensive than local compute over even short timeframes (storage especially, I can buy a portable 2TB drive for the equivalent of one year of the entry level 2TB dropbox plan). These shortage spikes don't seem likely to change that? Especially since the ones feeling the most pressure to pay these inflated prices are the cloud providers that are causing the demand spike in the first place. Just like with previous demand spikes, as a consumer you have alternatives such as used or waiting it out. And in the meantime you can laugh at all your geforce now buddies who just got slapped with usage restrictions and overage fees.
Subscription is still worth it for most people though. Sure it costs more, but your 2TB plan isn't a single harddrive, it is likely across several harddrives with RAID ensuring that when (not if!) they fail no data is lost, plus remote backups. When something breaks the subscription fixes that for no extra charge.
If you know how to admin a computer and have time for it, then doing it yourself is cheaper. However make sure you are comparing the real costs - not just the 2TB, but the backup system (that is tested to work), and all your time.
That said, subscriptions have all too often failed reasonable privacy standards. This is an important part of the cost that is rarely accounted for.
I’m not even sure it does cost more. I could have a geforcenow subscription for like 8 years before it’s more expensive than building a similar spec gaming rig.
Depends on the service, and timeframes. For geforcenow, you also need to consider the upgrade cycle - how often would you need to upgrade to play a newer game? I'm not sure but probably at least once within that 8 years. Buying a new car, or almost new car, and driving it until it falls apart is a better financial option than leasing. But if you want a new car every year or two, leasing is more affordable - for that scenario. Also it depends on usage. My brother in law probably plays a video game once every other month. At that point, on demand pricing (or borrowing for me) is much better than purchase or consistent subscription. You need to run the numbers.
Depends on how much you play. geforcenow is limited to 100 hours a month, with additional hours sold at a 200% premium. This dramatically changes the economics ( https://www.techpowerup.com/344359/nvidia-puts-100-hour-mont... has a handy chart for this )
I'm not sure what the value of shaming people's hobbies is. 3 hours a day is easy if it's your primary hobby, and likely double/triple that on weekends.
> Sure it costs more, but your 2TB plan isn't a single harddrive, it is likely across several harddrives with RAID ensuring that when (not if!) they fail no data is lost, plus remote backups. When something breaks the subscription fixes that for no extra charge.
Well yes, of course. And for cloud compute you get that same uptime expectation. Which if you need it is wonderful (and for something like data arguably critical for almost everyone). But if we're just talking something like a video game console? Ehhh, not so much. So no, you don't include the backup system cost just because cloud has it. You only include that cost if you want it.
But if you finance the computer (not hard to get 0% financing on consumer electronics), the price goes from $41 a month to $62 a month. It’s the same difference.
The mental model of subscriptions and financing are totally different. If I'm paying a subscription I might cancel next month, and that's a sort of freedom. If I'm financing a piece of hardware I don't want to stop paying, I want that hardware, so that's a commitment.
The difference is that with financing you're stuck with it (and your credit rating drops, at least in the EU here). You're not stuck with a subscription. If your income changes and you can't afford it anymore then you can cancel your subscription.
In the US if you don't have any debt, that is bad for your credit rating. Perversely, the more debt you have, the easier it is to get more credit, at least up to a point.
Oh sure, my original comment’s point was just to allude to the point that costs are going up for all methods of compute, so that fact alone shouldn’t influence your buy versus rent versus finance decision too much.
This idea that there’s a conspiracy to take personal computing away from the masses seems far fetched to me.
Or much longer. The computers I use most on a daily basis are over 10 years old, and still perfectly adequate for what I do. Put a non-bloated OS on them and many older computers are more than powerful enough.
There must be a breaking point. We’ve reached ours last year, when price went up again and my grandfathered plan wasn’t accepted anymore. So I talked to the missus and we cancelled our Netflix.
It had been my account for, what, a decade? A decade of not owning anything because it was affordable and convenient. Then shows started disappearing, prices went up, we could no longer use the account at her place (when we lived separately), etc. And, sadly, I’m done with them.
I think most people will eventually reach a breaking point. My sister also cancelled, which I always assumed would never happen.
> I don't know how everyone arrives at that conclusion when the cost of the subscription services is also going up
Of course they will go up, that's the whole idea. The big providers stock on hardware, front-run the hardware market, starve it for products while causing the prices to rise sharply and at that point their services are cheaper because they are selling you the hardware they bought at low prices, the one they bought in bulk, under cheap long term contracts and, in many cases, kept dark for some time.
Result - at the time of high hardware prices in retail, the cloud prices are lower, the latter increase later to make more profits, and the game can continue with the cloud providers always one step ahead of retail in a game of hoarding and scalping.
Most recently, scalping was big during the GPU shortages caused by crypto-mining. Scalpers would buy GPUs in bulk then sell them back to the starved market for a hefty margin.
Cloud providers buying up hardware at scale is basically the same, the only difference is they sell you back the services provided by the hardware, not the actual gear.
That's one common reason for renting, not the only one.
I've rented trailers and various tools before too, not because I couldn't afford to buy them, but because I knew I wouldn't need them after the fact and wouldn't know what to do with them after.
Is this true? I'm trying to think of a solid example and I'm drawing blanks.
Apartments aren't really comparable to houses. They're relatively small units which are part of a larger building. The better comparison would be to condominiums, but good luck even finding a reasonably priced condo in most parts of the US. I'd guess supply is low because there's a housing shortage and it's more profitable to rent out a unit as an apartment than to sell it as a condo.
It seems to me that most people rent because 1) they only need the thing temporarily or 2) there are no reasonable alternatives for sale.
Exactly, if you can’t afford the high upfront cost that you can stretch out over a longer period of time, you’re stuck paying more over the long term as the subscriptions get more expensive.
Because the World Economic Forum, where our political and corporate leaders meet and groom each other, point-blank advertised "you will own nothing and be happy."
For Christmas I got an alarm clock that basically doesn’t function without a $50/year subscription. For an alarm clock (Hatch.co).
Consumers need to get better at understanding TCO when buying things. Or maybe the government should be slapping those “annual cost” stickers like they do on washing machines to understand how much electricity they use.
I almost fell into this trap when buying a 'smart ring' for my spouse this year. Oura wanted $349 for the silver (!) and a subscription fee on top of that.
RingConn was cheaper, the build quality seems great, and there's no subscription fee. That made the decision a no-brainer.
I’m working on an app as part of my unemployment trajectory. It was going to be a one-time purchase thing, but almost everyone on the business advisory team thinks it’s a bad idea. I’m running out of excuses/arguments as to why I think the app should not be subscription-based, seems like bad business to do so.
An immense amount of abuse is being done to "consumers" because most people don't have a mental model for how expensive subscriptions are and end up counting them as nearly free, because they are not even tomorrow's problem, but next month's problem. Entire industries run on that principle, like the burgeoning buy now pay later space (which promise no interest but I promise you they're not making money on a whole bunch of "0% interest" loans so you do the math). Meanwhile companies love the recurring revenue. It's a perfect storm of corporate greed meeting a consumer blindspot.
Even if they "knew" they may well have not been accounting for it properly. I've been annualizing all my subscription fees for a long time now and dealing with the resulting number, but that's still an unpopular approach. Subscription fees are bleeding more people than ever dry.
Are most people really this naive? I might be "the exception", and have had this discussion with friend _who are accountants no less_ and they all consider the monthly price "cheaper" than when presented as a yearly price.
Should we start a "subscription review day": make a list of all your subscriptions, change them to yearly amounts and ask yourselves "am I getting that much value out of it"?
“I've been annualizing all my subscription fees for a long time now and dealing with the resulting number, but that's still an unpopular approach.”
This is my trick. I simply take the monthly price and multiply am by ten to quickly get a crude imperfect annual cost (adding two more months if I wanted to be exact)
Then I’ll look and go gee is this thing actually worth $150 or whatever the value is and ask “or more” assuming I wouldn’t cancel?
The answer is usually no. I’m slowly teaching this trick to my elementary school daughter.
> Are we looking at a future where home computers are replaced by thin clients and all the power lies in subscription services?
The supply chains for high-end chips are brittle enough that it's a very real possibility we end up with a severe supply crunch such that neither clouds nor individual users can access new chips at anything approaching reasonable prices.
TSMC owns 60% of the foundry market. So if China decides to invade Taiwan, that would likely mean ~60% of CPU and GPU manufacturing capacity permanently destroyed at once. That would be "iPhones are no longer for sale this year, and PCs now cost $5000 if you're lucky enough to get ahold of one" kind of territory.
> TSMC owns 60% of the foundry market. So if China decides to invade Taiwan, that would likely mean ~60% of CPU and GPU manufacturing capacity permanently destroyed at once.
While it would certainly be devastating, do note that TSMC has fabs in places that aren't Taiwan. So their entire production wouldn't immediately go offline, and presumably China would still want to keep selling those products and would have an interest in avoiding destroying those factories.
If China suddenly decides it doesn't want to export electronics, though, then we're all super fucked. After all, what percentage of those TSMC chips flow through China to get mounted onto PCBs or need major supporting components from one of the "Foxconn Cities" in China?
> presumably China would still want to keep selling those products and would have an interest in avoiding destroying those factories
There are rumours from seemingly credible sources that Taiwan has the TSMC factories (at least the ones located in Taiwan) rigged with explosives that they intend to trigger in case of invasion by China (as a disincentive against China invading). So China may well not have any say in the matter.
Presumably at least in part because China's just as dependent on TSMC as everyone else (at least for the time being). So it's a form of Mutally Assured Destruction, kind of like nuclear weapons. If they actually have to be used, then everyone's in for a bad time, but seeing as nobody wants that, it acts as a disincentive.
This makes no sense. China doesn't want Taiwan because of TSMC, it wanted Taiwan long before TSMC was a major player. The only effect of destroying factories would be to make Taiwan poorer, while China would still get what it wanted.
You're right that this isn't why China want's Taiwan. But the point is that it would also make China poorer. In fact, it would be highly likely to cause a global recession of a magnitude that could threaten the Chinese government due to pressure from it's own citizens.
It actually wouldn't. It would hit many US companies that rely on TSMC's latest nodes like Nvidia and Apple. And TSMC also has its Nanjing fab in China. What this would do is strengthen Samsung and make China even more determined to accelerate SMIC or Huawei's efforts to build a TSMC equivalent. Apple would be more impacted than Huawei, because Huawei isn't using TSMC at all. So in practice, this would hurt the US the most, since it relies on Taiwan based fabs for leading edge nodes.
You're arguing about whether it makes sense for China to invade Taiwan. I agree it doesn't right now, but that's not the topic here.
The topic is the claim that Taiwan has explosives around TSMC factories, which is ridiculous. So what exactly is your point?
PS. Rozwiń? Nie o tym jest dyskusja "czy Chiny to zrobią", tylko o tym czy Taiwan zrobił to co powtarzane tutaj bezsensowne plotki mówią. To są dwie zupełnie różne sprawy, mimo że mogą się wydawać tożsame.
If Taiwan is being invaded, the annexation is happening. There's no longer any reason to disincentivize annexation. Destroying the fabs is about denying China a major prize.
Destroying the fabs would hurt the West a lot more than China, which is rapidly playing catch up (while US and EU are not).
The other glaring flaw in this pop-geopolitics narrative is that China already has enormous economic leverage over the West, even without the chip supply chain.
> Destroying the fabs would hurt the West a lot more than China, which is rapidly playing catch up (while US and EU are not)
Is that true? My understanding is that Intel while somewhat behind TSMC, is (along with Samsung) still broadly keeping pace. Whereas SMIC while rapidly improving is still playing catch-up.
I doubt it’s something we could know without it happening.
US has intel and some other options, but it would be a colossal issue and adjustment.
China has its well funded, fast progressing Chinese chiplets, but it would be a colossal issue and adjustment.
All we can tea leaf is this: which party has a better history of making large fast industrial adjustments, and which economy is more reliant on cutting edge chips? I think china wins on both personally, so I would give them the edge, gun to head. But it’s an extremely messy process for either.
Did Hong Kong destroy its financial sector to deny China a "major prize"? If someone were going to invade and occupy your country, would you destroy your huge source of revenue so they couldn't claim it as a "major prize"? And then what? Stay poor?
I feel like people who repeat this view (something they read somewhere) haven't really analyzed it in a social, economic, historical, and geopolitical context. Because if you do, there's zero logic to it, given the consequences for the 23 million people who would still be living on the island afterward.
No one believes it, so it won't strengthen your negotiating position. It's an unconfirmed rumour of unknown origin, and nobody is taking it seriously. And you're missing the historical context, which makes TSMC irrelevant to China's claims.
Those are much better reasons. (Though I don't think the historical context cancels out a risk of losing TSMC. It just means the motivation wouldn't drop as much.)
> presumably China would still want to keep selling those products and would have an interest in avoiding destroying those factories
It has been hinted by people who might know something that Taiwan has rigged their factories to explode if China invades to ensure China can't get a hold of those factories. I'm not sure if it is true, but it wouldn't be hard to do (the hard part is ensuring the explosives don't go off for other reasons)
ASML can also disable much of the equipment remotely, from Europe. So even if the buildings aren't actually bombed (they likely would be though), someone presses a button a few thousand miles away and most of it gets bricked anyway.
I agree, I've often wondered if this is more of a dead man's switch where a signal gets transmitted every X minutes or something and if the system doesn't get a signal in some much-longer-but-not-weeks timeframe everything goes kaput.
Not to mention the number of random individuals, with enough access, who might want to sabotage them in those circumstances. And fuck knows what the Trump administration decides to bomb. And the general fog of war. And how delicate everything is.
It's a one-way journey, unless we can adapt quickly enough to a drastic reduction in the general availability of compute power. IMO, our reliance on bloated tech is an existential risk, and reverting to some reasonable baseline needs addressing as urgently as any other current crisis.
I have been waiting for quite some time for some sort of reckoning with our glut for compute resources, but for years I had optimistically assumed this would be due to physical constraints rather than artificial socioeconomic ones. Now is the most advantageous time to be a retrocomputing enthusiast as the definition of "retrocomputing" may seek to expand to engulf the whole category of home computing.
Destroyed? It's far more likely that China will find a diplomatic solution to prevent sabotage of the foundries. Supply capacity will collapse for the US, but only because it will blanket ban imports of TSMC-made products, i.e. a self-imposed supply shock.
I sometimes wonder if this is the real reason for the AI bubble. Major cloud providers are trying to front-load their computing purchases in case geopolitical trouble makes it impossible to get computers. At cloud scale, that's billions of dollars in new investment. So they kick off a new computing paradigm, hype it up, and now their cost of capital for this new investment is significantly lower because they can sell it as getting a piece of future revenues. Basically just a way to make shareholders pay for geopolitical hedging.
> Game publishers have already publicly floated the idea of not selling their games but charging per hour. Imagine how that impact Call of Duty or GTA.
Don't you worry! R* is already selling one (albeit optional) [1]. it is expected to be there from day 1 in their next title. perhaps this could become closer to reality once the current subscription becomes commonplace.
> Game publishers have already publicly floated the idea of not selling their games but charging per hour. Imagine how that impact Call of Duty or GTA.
MMORPGs have had monthly subscription fees for a long time.
For a lot of games if they charged by the hour would probably see less revenue...people buy tons of games and then barely ever play them.
You assume there's only one type of player. Some players fall into a category I lovingly call Madden Guy. These people will play some other games, but they will play one game *a lot*. Call of Duty, Arc Raiders, Destiny, Battlefield, Fortnite, these are the type of games who attract these kind of players. If a game has 600 purchasable items, a seasonal battlepass-type thing, multiple female rappers skins, and a publisher-financed pro scene, it's probably one of those games.
Those games 100% already have game modes you pay by the hour. They will have special modes you access with currency and you need to keep paying to keep playing. Those modes are usually special, with increased and unique drops.
Ah, but that's the genius of this circuit around the tech cycle. You need a "thick client" to access those subscription services, as running the (web) interface requires shameful amounts of RAM and CPU resources.
I think in the mid-term, many of these AI companies are going to run out of cash.
Users are more and more going to be able to run models locally so it's a race to nowhere (all you need to have a very good model, is to have a Mac with 128 GB of memory, but at 16 GB you already have something usable but not so nice)
Microsoft sells Windows 365 which is essentially cloud VMs with RDP to give to workers instead of employees running things locally.
Cloud gaming continues to grow. Nvidia GeForce Now, Xbox Cloud Gaming, PlayStation Plus, and a number of smaller companies sell remotely rendered gaming services for subscriptions.
Nobody wants to run browsers in the cloud. Too expensive. We really are getting the worst of all worlds with this, where we have to do all the expensive computations and all our subscriptions do is flip a flag in some database somewhere so that we're allowed to run a few milliseconds/month of computation on their servers while we're providing vast CPU resources to the rendering, and if the company is even half clever, WASM execution that actually costs money.
Exceptions for services that actually cost some non-trivial money per consumer, but there's a lot of crap like an alarm clock or your smart watch's subscription for fitness tracking or other completely trivial bullshit charging $10/month out there.
Valve changed its Steam Store's ToS, so officially it means Steam users no longer own the content they purchased in it, they merely bought a subscription to rent it for a while, until the game publisher decides to revoke the online content at any time they choose.
TakeTwo Interactive (2K Games, the makers of popular games series Borderlands) changed its ToS to allow it to spy on and capture anything on the user's machine, including browser behaviors (websites visited, bookmarks saved, etc.), payment information (credit card details, etc.), programs installed & usage, etc.
Gaming industry has moved on to become evil, by default. Most AAA games these days cannot even be played without an internet connection. And most AAA games demand intrusive DRMs, and same games demand the dangerous kernel-level DRMs like Denuvo which cannot be monitored by major antimalware.
That makes more sense though. Since one can't easily take a home with them (it's fixed to the ground), renting a dwelling provides flexibility and liquidity for life changing events.
Many of these people are in essentially double financialized situations, where they have a loan on the mobile home and they pay monthly pad fees to the trailer park.
At least some portion of utilities and tax charges pay for ongoing maintenance and investment to provide expected quality of life. Similar to how rent for a home eventually pays for a new roof or other repairs.
The profit margin component of rent is probably what most are referring to in this discussion, but presumably tax and (government owned) utilities don’t have that.
This context is about a profit that gets distributed to shareholders, which obviously does not benefit the payer. Whatever "profit" a government owned utility earns is presumably, eventually re-invested into the utility eventually benefiting the payer.
You have that option, it's called buying a house and getting a mortgage. You just rent from the bank for 30 years first. But you're not thinking x=30 with any responsibility other than writing a check, I bet. If I had to guess, I'd say you want x<10 and you still don't want to pay for maintenance, or property taxes, or have the value reassessed as soon as you take occupancy, or be forced to stay there if you decide to leave. You want all the benefit with none of the cost or risk. It's fine to want that but let's not pretend "rent should be illegal" is a serious or reasonable policy proposal.
There's a reason why a mortgage with very little down payment is a lot more than comparable rent.
> You have that option, it's called buying a house and getting a mortgage.
A landlord will happily swallow 50% of your income but a bank will start to feel bad about a ~30% debt to income ratio, so no you can't really.
Reminder that a 300k mortgage over 30 years at 5% costs you 600k in the end, so you're fucked either way, at best your kids might benefit from your investment.
Housing got way more expensive since the 2000s, most people are priced out of buying a house, most can't even qualify for a mortgage to afford an average house.
The average Joe, well, median Joe in that case, living alone in say France/Germany/UK can barely qualify for a 200k mortgage over 30 years, and that won't get you much unless you plan on living like a student your whole life
> A landlord will happily swallow 50% of your income but a bank will start to feel bad about a ~30% debt to income ratio, so no you can't really.
It's almost as if the banks know they're very likely to lose money by approving loans people are statistically unlikely to be able to make 360 on-time payments for.
> Reminder that a 300k mortgage over 30 years at 5% costs you 600k in the end
100% true and stated this way makes it sound like it's the evil bankers, but really it's just the way math works.
> most people are priced out of buying a house
I don't think "most" is accurate here, especially if you include areas don't have insane NIMBY restrictions on building like SF and NYC.
This[0] shows there are absolutely places more affordable than others. My one complaint is that if everything gets more expensive the map doesn't really change so it could be better.
And I've heard the rebuttal before about "that's where the jobs are" (false) or "that's where I grew up." I get it, but living in high-demand places is not a constitutional right. Not having your own home in a major downtown metro is not a violation of your rights. If you can't afford to live somewhere, you should move. I'm in the 4th state I've lived in in my life right now. I might be here until I die, I might live in 4 more. Lots of things play into that but a major part of the calculus is whether or not I can afford to live the life I want here.
> It's fine to want that but let's not pretend "rent should be illegal" is a serious or reasonable policy proposal.
So its fine for you that there are people owning 20+ properties speculating on profit for basic human needs? Its literally Nestlé "this is MY water" behavior.
Most people here are pro capitalism. It has flaws but you’re also being blind to its benefits.
If 20 people need homes to live in and can’t afford to build them, suddenly landlords/investors have a place because they built housing inventory where others couldn’t. They won’t do that for free though and why should they.
I remember your username from prior threads, you’re a troll man. Take this crap to Reddit.
Let them profit off commercial real estate, or a million other things that capitalism provides.
The nestle statements about profiting off people’s need for drinking water were universally viewed as disgusting. We shouldn’t always profit off the basic needs of other humans.
This list gets long pretty quick once you start it though. I'm sure you could say the same for healthcare & education. In doing so, according to a cursory google search, you just removed profit from ~40% of GDP. That's going to be felt.
Propose pivoting our entire economy all you want, but do it in a way that doesn't cripple it and provides more than a one sided benefit masquerading as having no downside implications.
> I'm sure you could say the same for healthcare & education
Yes. In fact, every developed country already does.
> you just removed profit from ~40% of GDP
Is the point of society to maximize profit all the time at the expense of other things, or to provide a good life for people and ensure their basic needs are met?
> provides more than a one sided benefit masquerading as having no downside implications
Of course there are downsides.
Rich people will be less rich.
Lower class people won’t be so easy to exploit.
People will be happier and more content, so there will be less crime and less people in prison.
The fact you prioritize profits over people is both illuminating and horrific. What a terrible place you must live in.
Like it or not it is the reality of the United States. It would be a huge shock to the system but I don’t disagree with you entirely that it wouldn’t help close the wealth gap. I just don’t trust our politicians here to implement a change like this without making it worse.
I’m arguing for not just making one single law that X must be profit free as an entire industry without considering anything else. The government here would not provide housing. It would not invest in hospitals. It would not build universities. It would just ban them from being profitable and we’d all suffer because of the lack of supply that results. I think the difference here is I’m thinking if the practical implications of how it would be executed and you’re imagining some hypothetical scenario when it’s executed well. The fact other nations do it isn’t reassuring to me, precisely because we have proven time and time again that we will flat out refuse to look outward for ideas that are effective. We have to put our own stamp on it and mess it up, or just do nothing.
I don't disagree, but I would argue that the same thing can be said from any kind of "investor" who then capture most of the value produced just because it turned out they had the money that others had not (most of the time just because they were born in the right family)
What does this say about tenants though? You expect someone to buy a home that you can’t afford, rent it to you until you can. Meanwhile, maintain it while you rent it, pay the property taxes and insurance as well, basically have a tiny cash flow off my investment-all to just be forced to sell it to you in the end when my only hope of getting ahead on this was some long term appreciation or the build up of equity. Spoiler, equity doesn’t usually build up very fast. Better chance of appreciation building up, but even that is a pretty big risk because you’re trying to time the market.
I was a landlord for a bit and what I’ve found is that tenants that have probably never actually owned a property have no ideas about what it cost to own a property and what the landlord is actually making off your rent. Sure even if you pay a few thousand in rent, it may be the landlord only has a couple hundred of cash flow. Then, one repair on the home can easily wipe out a year or more of that. One bad tenants can wipe out a decade of it.
I recall my worst tenants ever. Weren’t even that bad all things considered but the were dirty people. The house was filthy when they moved out. The walls and floors were coated in a grease like film. I had a no smoking policy in the lease but it was obvious they smoked and used the floor as an ashtray. There was a handful of other things that were just broken. Anyways it was a 4 bedroom house that was 2500 sf. I got a few quotes to paint and fix the list of little stuff. The cheapest quote I got was $15k but there was also a $20k and a $30k quote. I decided not to go after these people for the damages but I told them the long list of repairs and because of the condition and cost of repairing it all I would not return their deposit which was only about $2500. Anyway they completely lost it calling me a slumlord and how there’s no way they could have generated that much damage and reported me to the state and wanted to sue me but I don’t think they found a lawyer to take the case. They thought I was marking up all the repairs costs and scamming them. I just sent them all 3 quotes and told them I chose the lowest and wasn’t asking them to pay the excess (I knew it would just be a bad debt). But they went through every line item and said they knew what it cost to paint a house and it was overpriced. This is where the problem is. They’ve never owned a property, never hired a contractor or handyman so they actually have no idea what these things cost. And in my city, construction is booming and everything housing related does seem expensive but it is what it is. There’s no cheaper way to do it besides DIY. But my labor isn’t free either and I’d charge more for my time than the contractors do so that’s not really a solution either.
> Sure even if you pay a few thousand in rent, it may be the landlord only has a couple hundred of cash flow. Then, one repair on the home can easily wipe out a year or more of that. One bad tenants can wipe out a decade of it.
I love how this conveniently ignores the equity you acquired in this year and almost certainly the appreciation.
I went from renting for a decade plus to buying four years ago and while I have had to make repairs (replace HVAC, which I knew about at purchase, replace electrical main panel), and things can be expensive, there’s definitely a contingent that likes to act like they need more protections as landlords because to listen to them just owning a home means writing a four digit check or credit card transaction every month if not more.
I'm not sure why this is a surprise to you. People take much better care of their own stuff, because any damage is a direct hit to their own pocketbook. Whereas bad tenants can be careless with no real consequences to speak of; the damage they cause is ultimately defrayed via higher renting costs across the board.
> I love how this conveniently ignores the equity you acquired in this year and almost certainly the appreciation.
I love how I addressed both those things in my comment and you chose to ignore it or just didn't read
Appreciation is a gamble that you bought at the low or just plan on holding for a very long time and even then, most economists will tell your real estate should appreciate at the rate of inflation - so not a good investment. Rent can go up but that's a gamble too, or just takes a long time to become significant above your mortgage payment. Everything else goes up with time as well - tax, insurance, maintenance, etc. So it doesn't flow through to the bottom line like you think it does.
Equity is not very material either for the first decade or more. Most landlords have a mortgage to pay on that property and you should look into how an amortization schedule works. Your rent payment is mostly going to interest to the bank, not building equity for the landlord.
The landlord is mostly taking on a huge risk in hopes the stars will align and 1) appreciation will happen 2) equity will be built and 3) it's not all eroded by a high maintenance structure or bad tenants destroying the place. The main reason it is so prevalent in the US is, low interest rates for a long period of time allowed leverage (most landlords would not be if they had to pay cash) and shortage of housing inventory and housing cost more to build that many people can ever afford-aka-forced to rent.
Sure, there's plenty of regulations that could be done to falsely manipulate this market. But, so far, the only reason rentals continue to be developed is because of the investment opportunity. If that went away due to regulation, I for one wouldn't trust our government to solve the problem completely and also fund development, renters can't fund it or they wouldn't be renters, and so prices just go up even more because there is now a severely limited supply of rental housing and no ability for investors to deploy capital towards that problem. Like most things related to regulation, you can't just ban something without thinking the problem through more completely and having a holistic solution. If you do, you just are meddling and will screw it up worse than it already is.
> Most landlords have a mortgage to pay on that property and you should look into how an amortization schedule works. Your rent payment is mostly going to interest to the bank, not building equity for the landlord.
What? No. Explain to me how after putting 10% down, I was able to get out of PMI because I had 20% equity after the first 18 months of my mortgage? After all, at 18 months at 3.5% I've only paid down 2.1% of the principal. That's not how that works. Principal != Equity.
> The landlord is mostly taking on a huge risk in hopes the stars will align and 1) appreciation will happen 2) equity will be built
A "huge risk"? No, it's a pretty safe bet. Positive appreciation on home prices in the US has happened 28 out of the last 30 years.
And again, you build equity with each payment of your mortgage, 0.29% per month even factoring in that negative appreciation in, on average, 2 of the 30 years of your mortgage AND zero positive appreciation. Like I said, between May 2021 and November 2022 I was able to garner 4.8% equity due to appreciation alone (net zero I should have gained 5.2% - 18 months at 0.29%/month).
"Hoping the stars will align"? Come on now. Then why bother, if it's such a crap shoot that you're unlikely to ever make a profit on? Out of the sheer good of your heart? No.
Also, coming back to one of your original points:
> Sure even if you pay a few thousand in rent, it may be the landlord only has a couple hundred of cash flow. Then, one repair on the home can easily wipe out a year or more of that.
> What? No. Explain to me how after putting 10% down, I was able to get out of PMI because I had 20% equity after the first 18 months of my mortgage? After all, at 18 months at 3.5% I've only paid down 2.1% of the principal. That's not how that works. Principal != Equity.
So there was appreciation, that's great but it's difficult to bank it until you sell the property. Investors usually don't qualify for sub 20% down so PMI is never even a factor. This is timing, which I've also explained. If you buy low and appreciation follows that's great, but it can also go the reverse which is a risk for an investor.
> A "huge risk"? No, it's a pretty safe bet. Positive appreciation on home prices in the US has happened 28 out of the last 30 years.
Positive appreciation is great. But it's doesn't always exceed inflation and if it does you have no control of that and are just hoping it does. I already mentioned it's timing the market in terms of appreciation. If you bought a rental in 2007, you likely didn't appreciate for a decade. That's a long time to have your money locked up and be exposed to risk for nothing. The money down, the risk of bad tenants, the risk of the government ban evictions, squatters, just normal risk of owning a maintaining a property (roof, foundation, plumbing, etc), so much more that you're ignoring.
> Then maybe you can't afford to be a landlord?
No, that takes us back to my original point of why landlords need to make a profit. They're not guaranteed a profit, almost no business is, but it needs to be a part of their calculus. That whole point is actually my counterpoint to your comment about how of landlords shouldn't have profit and are leeches and how they should be forced to sell there property to you after you rented it without risk for a few years - just get a mortgage if that's what you want. It's not the landlords fault if you individually can't afford to buy that property. Go live in rural Nevada, it's cheap.
If you’re talking about the corporate landlords, yeah. But the real issue is we’re not creating enough housing of the correct type in the US (like missing middle). Only choices are either McMansions or “luxury” apartments that are made from cardboard.
| Are we looking at a future where home computers are replaced by thin clients and | all the power lies in subscription services?
arguably, we are already there. The majority of people don't use a computer anymore, they use their phone. The phone itself is just an interface to the cloud. If I lost my phone today, and got a new one, the only inconvenience would be the time it takes me to set up the new phone, and the cost of the new phone. I wouldn't lose anything because everything is on the cloud
Its a market signal; we’re going to see a massive boom in investment (mostly from China, but still) in capacity expansion. Eventually the prices will stabilize.
China just needs to produce 3080s/3090 cards (which they are capable of doing given enough investment) and they can supply the gaming market for 95% of its needs
The problem I've seen described by some is that the industry is resistant to expand capacity right now, because a partial pop of the AI bubble is expected aaany time now for months, but it keeps not happening. But if it does happen and they have too much capacity, the whole GPU and RAM industry would not be able to recoup that investment and would collapse.
Western (+allied) firms should 100% be worried but they are in a difficult spot: risk losing out on market share or risk overcapacity. The Chinese have the full might of Federal/State Governments behind them which may allow them to survive overcapacity, not so for the western firms.
People confuse themselves with the bubble-metaphor. If an AI bubble exists and pops (we need not discuss either) the already existing and on-the-way-demand will not just disappear. Millions of todays users will not just decide that they don't want to use claude code or chatgpt anymore.
Instead, an increasing number of people are going to want AI stuff from here on out, forever, because it's proven to be good enough in the eyes of hundreds of millions and that will create continuous hardware demand (at least because of hardware churn, but also because there are a lot of people in the world who currently don't have great access to this technology yet).
I don't know how much optimization will drive down hardware per token, but given that most people would rather wait like 5 seconds instead of 15 minutes for answers to their coding problems, I think it's safe to assume that hardware is going to be in demand for a long time, even if, for whatever wild reason, absolutely nothing happens on top of what has already happened.
The "bubble popping" mostly means that investment will drastically fall, investors will start demanding profit, and costs will soar. This will cause a lot of tools currently built on top of LLMs to become too expensive. Free tools will likely become rare.
There's a significant number of users that will not pay for AI. There's likely also a significant number of users that will not accept higher subscription costs no matter how much they use AI tools today.
When this happens, the market will go back to "normal". Yes, there will still be a higher demand for computer parts than before ChatGPT was released, but the demand will still go down drastically from current levels. So only a moderate increase in production capacity will be needed.
AI is already easily profitable without further optimization. If at any point investors decided that this is the best the models are going to get, because it's not worth further investment then we will run inference on the existing hardware, forever. What will not happen:
- The models going away. There is no future where people will start doing more coding without AI.
- Everyone running all AI on their existing notebook or phone. We have absolutely no indication that the best models are getting smaller and cheaper to run. In fact GPUs are getting bigger.
This might hurt OpenAI, depending on how good the best available open models are at that point, but this will in no way diminish the continued increased demand for hardware.
> When this happens
I think all of this is highly unlikely, and would put a "If". But we will see!
> Millions of todays users will not just decide that they don't want to use claude code or chatgpt anymore
Won’t they? For a great number of people, LLM’s are in the “nice to have” basket. Execs and hucksters foam at the mouth over them, other people find utility but the vast majority are not upending their life in service of them.
I suspect if ChatGPT evaporated tomorrow, the chronically dependent would struggle, most people would shrug and go on with their lives, and any actual use cases would probably spin up a local model and go back to whatever they’re doing.
I’m not denying hardware demand will evaporate, it definitely won’t, but interrupt the cycle and “ehh, good enough” will probably go a very long way for a very large percentage of the userbase.
I am not sure I understand. I agree: If AI were to disappear tomorrow, people would adjust (as they did when AI, or the iPhone or the internet appeared). That's what people do.
But now there is user demand. Who or what would take away AI? What is the scenario?
Lots of companies right now have slapped AI features on their products without extra cost. Some are offering it for free (e.g. search engines). If LLM costs significantly increase, I would expect free AI features to disappear or become extra paid features (already started to happen in some SASS), while any free LLMs become simpler and cheaper.
This is making the scenario more complicated, because now we also have to consider products without product market fit, which is an entirely different issue. I don't know how to think about that.
But that's exactly why this "bubble" is so hard to predict, isn't it? The dot com bubble was simple. All companies were jumping the gun to make websites. Most were not useful, but the Internet was useful so it survived. LLMs are useful, but how much of its current use is actually valuable? If 95% is useful while 5% is memes, we're fine. But if 95% is useless, the industry will collapse hard. Who can tell what is useful when LLM companies sell the service to everyone?
Stabilize at an incredibly high price. Once they realize they can make more money selling high and producing less. I hate to say it, but the savings does not get passed on to the customer.
> You don't need storage space, use our cloud subscription
This is here already. A long time ago, maybe even before covid, I asked a table of iPhone-owning friends who pays Apple a monthly sub for storage, and every hand went up.
I know you mention home computers, but most of my friends don't have one. Their iPhone is their computer.
As sibling says, the question is too vague. I also pay for icloud, but I store all my things locally on my devices. The point is effortless sync and basic backup (protect pictures from phone theft).
I also pay Hetzner for a storage box or whatever it's called, where I regularly send backups of my stuff with restic. One of the sources is a local fat ZFS NAS, which I can access from everywhere via wireguard.
Yet, the only reason I'm contemplating buying a new iPhone is to get larger local storage. I'm also biting my fingers for not having pulled the trigger on a larger SSD for my main machine two months ago.
Every solution has different use cases, and I think no single one is perfect. I get the best value from using a mix.
You're someone who is comfortable in a terminal desktop environment on Linux. What you or I do for storage is irrelevant to the wider consumer market.
Apple's hardware prices mean that millions of people buy the smallest on offer and pay Apple monthly instead. It's a deliberate play for recurring services revenue.
My point is this: would they buy a phone that had virtually-zero free storage and rely solely on iCloud? Probably.
Some of them had 64GB models, in my view they are already doing that!
I don't know, do these small-storage-size models actually have that big a market share compared to the others?
They also sell 1 TB iPhones and I think on the latest generation the minimum storage has been increased. If nobody bought them they wouldn't sell them (see the lack of newer "mini" models).
I always thought that these models with tiny storage and tiny ram (for laptops) where just so that they could hook you with a low "starting from" price.
My point wasn't that "nobody falls into apple's trap", I'm sure plenty do. Rather, unless you're sure your audience is representative of the "wider consumer market", just asking them if they pay for icloud and they say yes, it doesn't prove much.
The smallest one is the cheapest, it's basic economics to assume that it sells the best. I would guess 60%+ buy the smallest, and I don't even need to look at data. You're welcome to disprove me.
The popularity of the storage subscription is basically why Apple is a $4tn company.
I don't know that I buy your basic economics theory. Starter prices are a thing to get people in the door and upsell them later. According to [0], the iphone 17 pro has a larger share than the regular 17, although it's more expensive.
And, again, paying for cloud storage doesn't automatically mean that they do it because their local storage is too small for their needs. Apple pushed iCloud as a solution to safely back up your stuff, and I doubt nobody bought into this angle.
I very much doubt that. I just checked the apple store page for an iphone 17. They try to sell me the larger storage model, they try to sell me apple care, but I don't see anything related to icloud. If I look at the pro, they try to sell me the max.
The difference between a 512 GB and a 256 GB non-pro model is 250 Euros. The 200 GB icloud subscription (which, again, they don't talk about when buying an iphone) costs 2.99 Euros a month. Break even is in seven years. I bet many phones don't actually last that long. If you look at a 2TB plan (which doesn't have an equivalent phone) the break-even is 2 years.
It makes no sense to try to sell the cheaper iPhone in the hope that I'll buy some icloud storage, since they actually leave money on the table. Looking at pro models, the difference between the base 256 + 2TB icloud and 2 TB model has an even longer break-even period!
So, basically, it looks actually cheaper to get a smaller phone + icloud than a bigger one.
> Services are on track to make up a quarter of Apple’s revenue but as much as 50 per cent of its profit, said JPMorgan analyst Samik Chatterjee, reflecting the “stickiness” of products such as recurring payments for iCloud storage.
Your rational take makes sense but the market disagrees. Apple cloud storage is very, very poplar.
I think we're talking past each other. I never argued icloud wasn't popular or people didn't buy it. I disagree with the reason why it's popular and with the fact that apple would push cheaper devices in the hopes of enticing people to buy icloud.
I posit many people use it for syncing / sharing stuff and easy "backup", and not mainly as a way to increase storage for entry-level devices.
You tell me how to automatically sync photos across iOS+mac devices using non-Apple services. I'll wait. (hint: it's a monopoly, you can't use other services). Yeah, I know you can do a manual backup to e.g. Google Photos. It's not the same as seamless bidirectional sync.
Will it actually do it in the background on iOS though? It's been years since I had an iPhone, but basically you had to keep the phone awake to keep the sync moving for any application that wasn't Apple's.
I think GP's point was rather the "optimized storage" schtick of apple devices, where they "unload" whatever you have locally on iCloud and use that as "regular" storage. Syncing, even though it also actually stores, is a fairly different use case. Could you implement that some other way? Sure. But I still think it's fair to point it's a different use case than "regular storage".
> Grocery stores closed to visitors, all shopping done online and delivered to your door
In the UK at least, and I'm sure in a lot of other places, a solid proportion of groceries are now delivered to the door. But, that doesn't mean that supermarkets have closed; if anything, they seem to be busier than ever.
Instead, we have a hybrid market where convenience for the consumer is the ruling factor. The same is going to be true for most of the other situations you mention.
In parts of the US, even low-crime areas, a significant amount of the items at grocery stores are locked up in glass cases. If you want them you have to track down an employee and beg for access (and in some stores they won't let you carry the items to the register). That part of the store might as well be closed to visitors, replaced by vending machines.
Hah. In my Safeway, the ice cream and half the frozen aisles have a lock on every door. I can’t imagine how much inconvenience that causes everybody. The employees openly say it’s ridiculous and you regularly find a queue in each aisle waiting to be individually served by an employee with a key unlocking and re locking each door they want something from.
From a resource allocation perspective, this doesn't feel particularly undesirable, at least in terms of certain assets like vehicles. The current system of ownership is quite wasteful. I own a high end GPU that I use maybe 4 hours a week for gaming.
Not a bad idea, though 'too recent' I think would be the only benchmark - for now, until they get faster at training. OpenAI has thrown away most of their safety team so that shouldn't be a reason anymore to delay model releases "for safety checks".
What would be too obscure or useless, when every new model boasts increasing parameter count (as if having more parameters would make the models better after a certain threshold)?
> From a resource allocation perspective, this doesn't feel particularly undesirable, at least in terms of certain assets like vehicles. The current system of ownership is quite wasteful.
People are by and large not that dumb. If they consistently choose a more expensive alternative, it means the cheaper alternative is missing something that matters.
> I own a high end GPU that I use maybe 4 hours a week for gaming.
Why? Why currently prevents you from being more efficient and streaming your display from the cloud?
I agree. However, I don't see the savings from the reduction of waste primarily going to consumers and everyone at large but being kept and collected by the owning class.
Property prices are a big concern nowadays indeed, especially in high-demand areas. Complete (rich) strangers can come and outbid you.
In the most capitalist places (rich areas without rent control), you can rent a place for years trying to save money to buy in the area and see the rent grow fast enough that you can't buy and even have to leave as a renter.
Capitalism seems to work well for transportable things though, including cars. A house isn't transportable and it also tends to be something quite unique, which makes it incompatible with production in series. Even if you are somehow authorized and able to buy a cheap home, you still have the issue of the terrain, which can be more expensive than the home.
That being said I'm sure that there are people living on cheap (per square meter) terrain and happy about it, but that requires the ability to make the best of it, work on it or find work close to it.
Trust me, losing freedom you most probably consider as basic as air we breathe since your birth will stop such petty worries.
And no system would give you property just because it would be nice, neither did communism (I know since I grew up in it and saw its destruction of everything good first hand - it had to be bought for non-trivial money with good old mortgages, and only regime-aligned people could).
> neither did communism (I know since I grew up in it
Impossible. Communism is a work of science fiction, much like Star Trek which is a more modern adaptation of the same idea. Like Star Trek, the concept is dependent on post-scarcity, which we've never seen, and isn't likely to ever happen. Perhaps you mean you grew up under rule of the Communist Party?
> it had to be bought for non-trivial money with good old mortgages, and only regime-aligned people could
The defining features of communism are no class, no state, and no money. It imagines these will no longer be relevant in a post-scarcity world.
Well maybe but what examples out of real world do you mean?
Nobody is justifying anything here btw, I don't get why people hyperfocus on imperfections and claim whole thing is useless without understanding underlying reasons and thus options for fixes. Or providing long term working & proven alternatives.
> and is not capitalism and communism in opposition.
Hard to say. The prevailing assumption, and basis for the Communist Party (on paper, at least), is that capitalists will try to block reaching a state of post-scarcity — the necessary precondition for communism. This is why they are sometimes considered to be at odds with each other.
They don't have to be. And thus far they don't seem to be. Capitalism, and especially American capitalism, has done far more to getting us closer to post-scarcity than anything else, with US-centric agriculture innovation being the shining example. We're almost there in that particular area.
But we're not there yet and things can quickly turn. It is apparent in that agriculture progress that the capitalists remain deathly afraid of losing control (see the tales of Monsanto, John Deere, etc.), which is exactly the foundation on which the assumption is built.
>American capitalism, has done far more to getting us closer to post-scarcity than anything else, with US-centric agriculture innovation being the shining example
Uh, the American food industry, like nearly every first world food industry, is super state run. We stopped letting capitalism run farms because regular famine was awful.
Have you seen how much we pay per bushel of corn? Our beef is not cheaper because of capitalism. It's cheaper from enormous state subsidies that are designed to ensure we grow shitloads of certain crops regardless of economic or market factors.
But it stopped all the crazy boom-bust cycles of farming that kept ruining farms, harming farmland, and starving Americans.
Even food stamps is largely about giving farmers more state money for growing things that aren't strictly profitable.
> Uh, the American food industry, like nearly every first world food industry, is super state run.
The topic is capitalism. It only speaks to ownership. If you want to talk about who is running the show, you'd need to change the subject to command/market economies. But there is absolutely no reason to change the subject. So, getting us back on track: What agriculture-related capital do you think these first-world states own, exactly? The Canadian government used to own some grain elevators, but even that was sold off to private interests many years ago.
> Have you seen how much we pay per bushel of corn?
How could I not? What a curious question.
> It's cheaper from enormous state subsidies that are designed to ensure we grow shitloads of certain crops regardless of economic or market factors.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Post-scarcity, by very definition, is approached through technical innovation. There is a case to be made that subsidies have helped compel people to develop that technology, I guess, but subsidies and capitalism are in no way at odds with each other anyway. This seems to have absolutely no applicability to the conversation at hand.
I think the standard argument is that capitalism inevitably develops into oligarchy. Even the most basic setup of property rights protected by a legal system, presupposes a central authority of some kind who makes the ultimate decisions. Where there is law, there are courts, executive and legislative functions. More complex structures like joint stock companies introduce their own dynamics but also depend on a central authority to enforce contract law. Everything is downstream of security.
This is not the case, has been corrected a million times by millions of people, and, frankly, if it was about anything else would not be considered appropriate on HN as a comment.
We can do better than play out the same conversations also happening in middle school cafeterias. It helps everyone and could even reinforce your opposing views on the matter. You do your entire ideological position a disservice just doing this old hat!
Billions are already "priced out" of owning property, why do you think you joining them would have any broader impact?
EDIT: I don't know why I'm being downvoted. Billions of human beings have absolutely nothing to their names, and they have no power to change things. Because they own nothing. That's a basic fact of our globalized capitalist economy.
I guess the broader impact is cause the people on here actually do have assets and can donate, vote, call, and influence.
So if the upper middle and lower upper classes are being hollowed out...
Well... what's that leave? Just the super rich, and the rest...
And considering the way the super rich are acting, I suppose they're just fine with that. The morally bankrupt sacks of shit that most of them seem to be, or become...
Can we please not kid ourselves with thoughts about how this being good from certain perspectives, when the development is _clearly_ bad for consumers?
I do agree with the negatives, but at the same time, I do see some upside. I live in a cycling city, and need to rent a car maybe once a year. why then should I bother myself with the annoyances of vehicle ownership?
Let me be clear here: I do not own a car and I live in a city that doesn't require car ownership.
There is a difference between choosing not to own something because it is personally more efficient or reasonable to do so, and being priced out of owning something. I don't own a car because I don't need it, I rent because I cannot afford a home.
Done charitably, I think the mainframe model of shared compute does meet most person's needs where they don't need to care about latency. It would allow us to take advantage of economies of scale. The problem, imo, is that no one has an incentive to do this as a service, so it would turn into rent-seeking.
Sure, a shared model does make sense in many ways. We could share within a family, neighbour cooperatives, and similar scales. With the users co-owning the means of processing.
But the current model is that we all rent from organisations that use their position of power to restrict and dictate what we can do with those machines.
But I do care about latency . . . and I want things to still work when the wifi is dodgy. I already find things like Office 360 deeply frustrating (only use it for work).
You do, but most people don't. So not enough people will complain that it will make any difference. And the people who don't complain will just keep forking out money because they're addicted.
I'm not sure if you're doing this intentionally or not, but it is incredibly funny to see people on HN doing what is effectively manufacturing consent for people to not actually own anything. We've gone from home computing is the future to no one should own a computer because it's wasteful.
I'm not sure where this sentiment even comes from but if the economy only consists of renters and landlords then we don't even have the thinnest veneer of capitalism anymore. We're just Feudalism 2.0.
not quite: its about accumulating capital yes, but also with private ownership (as opposed to collective ownership) and the use of said capital to gain more capital (investment returns put back into more investment)
> renting stuff is more profitable than selling stuff
maybe, maybe not, but it is usually more stable and predictable
Nope, you can have capitalism where the vast majority of the population is legally or economically barred from owning anything. The only private ownership required in capitalism is that of the means of production, which says absolutely nothing about the rest.
phones have 128GB storage and are vastly more powerful than the workstation i did my grad thesis on. Now that electron has exhausted the last major avenue for application bloat, i don't see why thin would mean anything.
Arguably a lot of non-techie personal computing has moved there.
A lot of people are phone+tablet only, no desktop or laptop. As a result they are already living in a thin-ish client with fat server for storage/app/etc from their ecosystem of choice.
Thin in form factor only! Phones and tablets represent the cutting edge of what humanity can mass-manufacture, and prices and difficulties are only going up.
> Are we looking at a future where home computers are replaced by thin clients and all the power lies in subscription services?
Always have been. Ever since the SaaS revolution of the early 2000s high-growth software businesses have been motivated to chase subscription revenue over one-time sales because you get a better multiple.
From an economic perspective The Market would like the average person to spend all their money on rents, and the only option is how you allocate your spending to different rentals. Transportation, housing, food, entertainment (which is most of computing) are just different fiefs to be carved up by industry monopolists.
“The personal computer was designed as a standalone device. There was no Internet around 1981 when the PC was invented. There weren't a lot of local area networks and corporations and schools and government agencies [online] back in 1981. The world has changed — there are networks everywhere; around the world and offices and schools and major governments and institutions. So why not have computer networks that are similar to television networks or telephone networks?
A television network is enormously complicated; it's got satellites and microwave relay stations and cable headends and recording studios, and you have this huge professionally-managed network accessed by a very low cost and simple appliance: the television.
Anyone can learn to use a television. 97% percent of American households have televisions. 94% of American households have telephones. They can have very simple appliance attached to enormously complex professionally-managed network. Why shouldn't the computer network be just the same?”
While businesses hate being a dumb pipe and love vendor lock in, lots of customers choose dependence on big tech. Each retail business that only has a Facebook page to save the cost of hiring a web developer reinforces this dependence.
More likely people will retain their current devices for longer and wait this whole thing out - there's less reason to upgrade than there was a decade ago.
Processing power increases have noticeably plateaued, with e.g. Nvidia GPUs steadily increasing in TDP to make up for there not being enough gains from updated process nodes. The RTX 5080 is rated at 67% higher TDP than the RTX 2080, but you don't see such an increase throughout most of the 2010s, so before the latter was released.
> More likely people will retain their current devices for longer and wait this whole thing out
Wait it out? The rich have realised that they can buy the entire stock of computing power and deprive the common folk of it, renting it to them instead.
In practical terms, they have infinite resources. Definitely enough to long outlast our lifetimes and the next generation and the next. We can’t “wait out” until they run out of money.
Something or someone will eventually fill the void. Chinese are trying to manufacture GPUs, they are very far from what Nvidia can offer, but they'll slowly get there. As for RAM - the new factories are being built and will hopefully become operational in 2028.
They never run out of "their" money either. Can keep borrowing until eye-watering values are breached, making out like bandits and then run to the govt for a bailout when the bubble bursts.
Computers have never been more powerful. There is less and less of a reason to do annual upgrades. I don’t follow this logic at all. The average consumer does not even need a home computer anymore. Sure if you are upgrading you gaming PC or something similar than your going to feel a bit more of a squeeze but even then it’s not a wild increase in price compared to the hours spent using.
Sorry, China is a unitary communist state. Fascism and communism are the opposite. Both have state control but the fascist control is from the corporations.
The reason China has better chips is because they have a form of socialism
Don't be a propagandist regurgitating propagandists ideas, it does nothing for intelligent conversation.
Subscriptions have always been, and will always be, more economical and efficient than ownership.
Unless you're using a resource 100% of the time, that resource is partially wasted. A GPU can be much cheaper for you if others are allowed to use it when you're asleep.
I don't think this will ever work for gaming, as gaming has strict bandwidth and latency requirements. This means you need to colocate gaming datacenters with the people who actually use them, and people in a given timezone usually play at similar times.
LLMs are a completely different beast. The user experiences of using an LLM next door and using an LLM from across the world are basically indistinguishable. This means you can have a single datacenter with really high GPU utilization during the day.
I think NVidia already decided they have all the power when the decided to add 100h limit to their GForce Now service, with that limit getting effective for legacy plans right now. It would be bad if people like they service so much that they avoid buying overpriced hardware :D
> Physical media could easily be killed off. Does my iPhone need 1TB of storage or will they shrink that and force everything through iCloud?
For the mobile space, I think we are ripe for a memory inversion of sorts, where going forward a phone has 1TB or more of ram but very little non-volatile storage. The RAM would need to be fast enough to run inferences locally, whereas the storage is does the bare minimum to boot the device on the rare occasions it requires a reboot. All user-specific artifacts would be stored in the cloud.
This seems a likely future for phones and other wearables going forward.
> Are we looking at a future where home computers are replaced by thin clients
FWIW these kinds of claims have been a cyclical thing constantly throughout my nearly 3 decades long career. We're always on the verge of thin clients replacing desktops, and then we're suddenly not and things calm down for a couple of years before, oops back again!
Every time there's arguments about saving on cost of hardware, etc. but the reality never seems to line up with the dream.
Subscriptions usually add up to the cost of buying in less than an year.
Companies hope on people being none-the-wiser, but live mostly of people that subscribe for short durations or need the internet component of the services. So, no, prices going up will make subscriptions less popular, not more.
This is different from expensive goods pools (rental cars, houses, airplanes, etc) because there's actual competition on those.
> How long before car ownership is replaced with autonomous vehicle car pools?
That is very much a future I look forward to living in. Not requiring to own a car but sharing it efficiently with folks in the neighborhood, would save quite some parking space for unused vehicles in front of homes, and centralize maintenance to the companies operating the vehicle fleet.
Had to spend ~$200/ea on refurbished EXOS for work (14TB) when I got refurbished 14TB ultra stars for $90/ea a year ago. It’s getting ridiculous. The ram I put in my gaming rig I built earlier this year was $100, now it’s $500. I want to say “it can’t stay this high forever” but who knows?
I don't think that laying bricks and operating a crane is on the same level(or universe) of complexity as making and operating high-end semiconductor machines.
Companies are always slow to expand production capacity. It takes time to react to unforeseen shifts in the market - but once it does happen, the scale can be quite huge.
The free market as described is imaginary. Large companies due to their size hold a lot of power, and can use a mix of regulatory capture and monopolies to make better ideas financially infeasible to bring to light.
All the more reason to self host some part of your life at least. If there’s a market, someone will figure out how to service it, but if everyone gives up totally then all we’ll have is massive, cold, immovable corporations holding all our data.
This was always the plan, it's why they keep building datacenters when they know it's a bubble, they just plan to do GeForce NOW on steroids, this time with PCs costing $10k so nobody can afford it.
This assumes everyone’s sitting on a fast fiber connection which is hardly the case. Even metropolitan areas in most cities don’t have universal fiber connection.
Eggs and hard currencies like gold are also going up as denominated in USD.
It’s not so much that the things are increasing in value as much as the part of large scale inflation that the federal government can’t hide by cooking the CPI.
It already has and I’ve seen the worst of it in less than 24 hours.
I signed up for a Windows Cloud PC trial, got settled into the Windows instance, then the next morning Microsoft terminated the trial for zero reason and wiped out everything in that instance.
I think what'll happen here is that these computing price increases will be what finally makes certain ML startups un-economical. That's what will precipitate the AI bubble burst. The whole thing runs on investor capital, so it keeps going until some investors lose their capital. Once the bubble bursts, you're going to get some really cheap GPUs, RAM, and hard drives (as well as cloud computing prices), as many of the more marginal data centers go out of business and liquidate their hardware.
It's going to be a rough couple years for hobbyist computer aficionados though. In the near future I'd try to wait this one out and get a job at an AI startup instead.
> Are we looking at a future where home computers are replaced by thin clients and all the power lies in subscription services?
I've been hearing this since 2010s when Microsoft introduced UEFI iirc and I've heard it for a while. I honestly thought in my teens in the mid to late 2010s that by now I'd have a few Petabyte hard drives. Shame.
I've said it many times, everyone wants AI but nobody wants to foot the real bill for AI. The cost is too high. Once the bubble bursts, whoever is left standing might charge reasonable prices that are profitable, until it becomes more cost effective.
Also check the agenda 2030. The European digital wallet. The cyberscore.
All those elements together makes a digital Europe (and more) where there's no cash anymore, where your website has to be compliant to be working with EU's ID and payments systems.
It's going to be all centralised and about subscriptions, no matter if it's about your electricity bill or your groceries.
Assuming you are a capitalist that is in it to maximize shareholder value then yes, that is the direction you will push the world in. Why sell me a car once if you can charge me a rent forever?
I think a better or at least adjacent question might be: do consumers want to pay full price for an object that isn’t subsidized by services? Do we actually want physical objects?
Even the things that aren’t technically subscription feel like they are. I have a Kenmore fridge I bought in 2020. The extended warranty just ran out and the thing died. I called a tech. $400 to replace a series of motors. I looked into doing it myself and it’s outside of my time or ability. I have a basement beer fridge that is admittedly less efficient but it’s still kicking and it’s from the mid 80s. I realized I’m effectively ON a subscription plan for a fridge. $900-$1,200 for five years.
How much is a smartphone that lasts (do they even) and is NOT subsidized by cloud services? I have a 128gb iPhone and though I barely use any apps I’m constantly maxing my space because I take a lot of photos.
I hate to sound like a graduate student writing a thesis on capitalism but like water flow, it just feels like companies will always default to maximum profits. Didn’t instant pot and tupper ware just go out of business because they made a product everyone needed but only once? There’s no long term profit growth in any model where we’re not sucking off the teet of some company.
Also, even if/when the AI bubble pops (whether it exists is irrelevant to my point), all the companies who have been hoarding the hardware can naturally progress into selling this new "stream everything through a subscription" service, further delaying (possibly forever if it's successful) price normalization.
> Are we looking at a future where home computers are replaced by thin clients and all the power lies in subscription services?
No we don't. In Eastern Block during communism everything was either expensive or unavailable to the point that picking up broken TV on the side of the road and dismantling it for parts was making complete sense and you could actually learn something.
Today it is much easier. You can visit eBay or AliExpress and buy old server crap from 2016 - i.e. Xeon E3 + X99 board + 32GB DDR4 RAM = 150EUR or just buying older laptops, computers from eBay. That's where consumer market is heading.
The fact that hardware is going to be computationally constrained will finally force software developers to stop wasting resources. Having application which is able to run on old Windows 10 with i3 and 4GB of RAM without being sluggish will become competing advantage.
This should be a crime and they should be forced to either keep supporting Win10 (at least security updates) and/or let you install Win11 on older hardware without TPM 2.0 modules (which is a total fucking lie that it's necessary, it's purely for monetary gain so that they can track you with a unique ID for ads).
That does not matter at all. When it comes to computation people will just use what's at hand. Windows 7 are still around, Windows 10 are going to be here for a long time.
New physical media could be killed off, but we already have a ton of old retro physical media, more than a person could ever consume in their lifetime. I wouldn’t worry about it. There are more old games and movies out there than you’ll ever be able to watch or play.
Next stage will be significant broadband/mobile price rises.
This is happening in the UK - 24 month contracts with annual 10-18% rises built in are the norm now
(The regulator worked in cahoots with the companies. A big storm was created during the high-interest rate period inventing/overstating a problem that people can't predict their bills because the rises were based on official inflation figures, which naturally varied. So the companies went: ok sure we can do fixed price rises...(At a nice high rate). This was sold as a 'win' because the rises are now 'predictable')
Plus the cheaper broadband (ADSL) is being phased out and replaced with fibre which for many people is overkill and everyone has to pay the price for that the upgrade whether you need it or not.
Three and Vodafone just merged which will mean price rises in mobile data too due to reduced competition
And as we've seen, once the market has been captured, they will start enshittifying everything to squeeze as much profit as they can and we'll have no alternatives.
It's got another name: inflation. Western economies are crumbling under gigantic public debt, representing 130% of the GDP in many countries and they're doubling down on public spending.
The only way out is either defaulting on the debt (like Greece partially did) or debasing the currency.
Monkeys have been left at the helm since decades and they only know how to do one thing: spending taxpayers dollars and endebtting countries ever more.
This is great news. It means the industry is expanding a lot and we'll be getting better consumer hardware at the end of the day. Innovation has always dropped down from the enterprise space to the consumer, as far back as the first electronic calculators and microcomputers.
Keeping in mind the consumer space will see minimal trickle down from used datacenter electronics in ~3-5 years from this boom.
The GPUs are generally rack-scale integrated units rather than PCIe. The bulk of the GPU RAM is HBM, so not very scavenge-able for consumer GPU mods. Power consumption of the blackwell GPUs in most solutions like the DGX B200 isn't really viable for home use even if you had the space and hookups for a fraction of the original 10ru system. The hard drives and SSDs will be likely be shredded on site and never re-sold as used. RAM will be registered ECC, only suitable for server-class motherboards.
I'm pretty sure that those racks will be usable for something, even if it's not direct-to-consumer. Startup businesses, academic/research use, smaller-scale HPC etc. will all be creating demand for the stuff long after it stops being useful for cutting-edge AI workloads.
That's fallacious: enterprise stuff doesn't always make sense at consumer level and doesn't always "drop down" for that reason. We've yet to see whether that particular stuff makes consumer sense.
- RAM prices rising
- hard drive prices rising
Are we looking at a future where home computers are replaced by thin clients and all the power lies in subscription services?
‘You don't need storage space, use our cloud subscription’
‘You don’t need processing power, stream your games through our subscription service.’
Game publishers have already publicly floated the idea of not selling their games but charging per hour. Imagine how that impact Call of Duty or GTA.
Physical media could easily be killed off. Does my iPhone need 1TB of storage or will they shrink that and force everything through iCloud?
How long before car ownership is replaced with autonomous vehicle car pools? Grocery stores closed to visitors, all shopping done online and delivered to your door by drone.