> open source server code if you are going to cease support
When I was a senior exec at a big public tech company, there was a product we decided to discontinue and we thought would be nice to just open source. Somehow I ended up in charge of managing that process and was shocked at how complex, time-consuming and expensive it was in a multi-billion dollar, publicly-traded corp vs some code my friends and I wrote.
Legal had to verify that there was no licensed library code used and that we had clear, valid copyright to everything there. The project had been written over several years, merged with a project we'd acquired with a startup, some key people weren't around any more, the source control had transitioned across multiple platforms, etc. And even once we nailed all that down sufficiently, we didn't get an "all clear" from legal, we just got a formal legal opinion that any liability was probably under $1M. And then we had to convince an SVP to endorse that assumption of $1M potential liability and make a business case for approval to the CEO.
For a public company, the default assumption for any online game would be "the server side code WILL be open sourced" (under threat of prosecution). That means legal would mandate "No commercially licensed libraries can be used, any open source libraries will have to be vetted to ensure the license is compatible and everything else will need to pass IP and compliance audit." That will certainly have an impact on development time frames and economics.
Of course, it would also create a demand for open-source game server libraries, which would surely appear after a while and make the whole process much easier.
So while I believe you about all those difficulties existing today, it's plausible that they would mostly fade away over time. I think temporary growing pains would be an acceptable price for the significant long-term public benefit.
That’s exactly the benefit of a law - it’s a forcing measure to require businesses to invest in processes to understand open sourcing, and to go forward when otherwise no one would make a business case for approval.
And makes it more expensive. There is the seen benefit and then the unseen cost. Every game released will have to account for the possibility of it, and will create issues for people who really didn't want those issues. After awhile people will forget there are associated issues and costs, but they will still be there.
Every game released whose developers have chosen to complicate its design with a client-server architecture. It's not like this is going to hurt the little three-man teams making games on shoe-string budgets. Yeah, it's going to make big budget games a little more expensive, just like how cars with seatbelts are a little more expensive to build, and like how it's a little more expensive to do proper waste management instead of dumping sludge into a river.
What? This a mandate in law that requires a company to do work in order to comply. Studios will spin out LLCs for a game so that if it fails it doesn't end up as a liability. Unintended consequence: more dead games.
It's impossible for the law to cause more games to die, because already the default fate of online games is for them to die. If, with the law, a studio chooses to use an LLC to create the game to conditionally release sources once it shuts down, that was a game that without the law would have died anyway because the studio wouldn't have chosen of its own volition to release sources.
If a studio on it's last legs is required to service a failing product instead of working on a new one the studio will simply close and not comply. That's what tends to happen with forced regulations like this.
And it's what would have happened anyway without the law. How is this difficult to understand? It's not like it's only a few games that shut down without recourse for the players. Ross Scott already did the research on this. Something like 95% of all online games that shut down do so without providing any way for the players to continue playing in some way or without issuing refunds.
Or it could make it a lot cheaper, if the server were developed entirely on open-source infrastructure from the start. Hopefully the actual game logic would be developed entirely in-house, making it easier to audit before releasing.
The final phase of Symbian OS was becoming the open-source Symbian Foundation. This required the existing codebase, hundreds of thousands of files, to be categorised properly (mostly homegrown, some acquired, some licensed) and where necessary restructured so that each directory only had one kind. Painful, exacting, tedious archaeology which all-but-froze development for weeks. Like a long-deferred merge, the cost to pay for belatedly resolving a mess of licenses is daunting.
Huh? The point is that game developers would never be able to use commercial libraries again. Thus making all development significantly more expensive.
I doubt it's possible for legislation to mandate meaningful compliance regarding something as dynamic and rapidly evolving as online games. Despite good intentions, such legislation often results in unintended consequences including distorting the market, creating perverse incentives or even making the problem worse.
Serious problems are already apparent. Games offered “solely for the duration of [a] subscription." aren't regulated, which will greatly accelerate the death of perpetual licensing. A world where no games are available for outright purchase and offline use would be disastrous for players and historical preservation.
It would be better if they'd focus on narrower problems where they can make a positive difference. For example, mandating a freely distributable end-of-life patch to remove online activation from DRMed games. Creating a patch and uploading it once to the Internet Archive isn't a big enough burden to make companies modify their biz model or deploy armies of lawyers and MBAs to circumvent. When it comes to rapidly evolving technology, the best regulations are clearly defined, narrowly scoped and cheaper to comply with than avoid or game.
You know what? I'm tired of unintended consequences fear mongering. You know what else had a tons of unintended consequences? Mandating seat belts. This is the industry kicking and crying because they don't want to be told that they can't abuse the consumer blatantly. Joke Bloke would still be able to release their game without wondering if this kind of law exists because the law will never apply to them. These kind of laws are targeting a massive abuse by big companies with a bag of money to figure it out.
I think a deeper dive into Job's evolution during the 12 years at Next is an excellent idea. However, I found statements like this concerning: "Apple version one was failure in many ways." In context, 'Apple version one' means Apple 1977 to 1985 (when Jobs left). But the Apple II product line was a huge success for more than a decade. That's a big thing to miss in an article claiming to correct historical misperceptions.
It also says "the Macintosh itself was not a commercial success" which is another strange claim. While the Mac wasn't the unit sales leader compared to [all PC brands combined], from 1984 to 1994 it beat PCs on revenue, margin and mind share.
I'm not a car guy, so I used to think such ear-damaging decibels were necessary for performance but have since learned it's not required even for ultra-high performance road cars that can go >200 mph. While a 12 cylinder Lamborghini Aventador is louder than a Hyundai, when both are idling at a stop light, it's actually barely louder from 100 feet away. And yet people with real supercars almost never modify them to be louder than stock.
My wife is a serious car girl and drives her beloved McLaren well enough to be in the top five on amateur days at Sonoma Raceway. She's taught me that different supercars each have their own signature sound and to her it'd be sacrilegious to mess with such iconic perfection. :-)
She's in a club of other supercar owners that puts on a huge charity car show where members bring over $100M of exotics - and none of those cars are nearly as loud as the sonic assault from one of the hopped up $10k rust buckets that occasionally pulls up next to my wife at a stop light and makes our ears bleed revving their engine. They always want to race "the cute girl in the McLaren" but she never takes the bait. When I asked why, she just scoffed that they're all bark and no bite. Plus she has no idea if the driver is race-trained, if their rust-bucket is even safe to be near at high-speeds or if they have insurance. Her favorite line about engine noise is from when she was picking up her car at the McLaren factory in England. While track-testing it with one of the race engineers, he joked "as engineers, we see excess noise as embarrassing because it's wasted horsepower we failed to transfer to the axle."
This is a weird take. Has anyone here been to Miami or LA?
I’ve known a lot of people with supercars. Quite a few want the attention. If they didn’t - they would drive a different car. Very few are getting them for performance reasons. If they just wanted a performance car then they’d probably just get an open wheel.
When I first moved to LA, I remember thinking that it was so strange for all these people to have these really high end cars with like 700 HP in them, all to sit in traffic all day long. Like, why bother?
Then I sat in LA traffic all day long in early September in 100+ heat, and I looked over and saw some old bitty in a very nice Bentley. Not a drop of sweat on her, couldn't hear a horn honking if she tried, music was probably perfect quality, seat was probably massaging her the whole ride home.
That's when I finally got it. It's not the engine that mattered to her.
People into ultra-luxury car brands have a saying something like "The person who pulls up to a five star hotel in a Rolls Royce has a huge suite but the person who pulls up in a Bentley owns the hotel." :-)
Through the supercar club my wife belongs to we've now met dozens of supercar owners and from that sample I'd say it's roughly a Pareto split. For about 20% the status signaling and attention is the major feature while the other ~80% own the car for the driving performance and enjoy the look aesthetically but would prefer if it looked like a minivan to everyone else. There's also a practical consideration because a few people drive like idiots around supercars. I've been with my wife on the highway and had cars race up and start weaving dangerously in the lane next to us because the driver was shooting video of our car.
The ~20% focused on status do sort of cluster around a type. The signaling extends to clothes, jewelry, etc being overtly blingy. As a group they're more likely to do things like peel out at stop lights and drive faster than the flow of traffic. The car they own also tends to be at the bottom of the supercar range, something like a Huracan, which is technically a Lamborghini but internally based on an Audi R8. It's a nice car but my wife says (privately to me)... "Dude, just get the Audi version. Same car. Less money and the service is better."
In general, my sense is the majority of the club are passionate car enthusiasts who feel the 'status' guys (it's always guys) give supercar owners a bad rep and just roll their eyes at the attention-seeking behavior. One time when a car meet was ending, we were talking with a knowledgeable older gentleman from England. We discovered he'd been a super-licensed race driver in F3 a couple decades ago and as he was explaining the finer points of wheel-loading in low-speed corners to my wife, one of 'those guys' in a Huracan loudly peeled out of the parking lot. As the smoke was clearing, the gentleman glanced over and sniffed "The machine was engineered to accelerate without losing traction but one does need to possess a modicum of skill." :-)
You’re also in a particular club. I’ve met a lot of supercar owners just in the wild and at my work. A lot of them are into it for the status. Some can be passionate but very few will ever drive them that hard.
My 80/20 was a broad simplification of a more nuanced landscape but I do think there's a real split, so I'll try to add one-click greater detail. While most people make any major purchase for multiple reasons, for the ~20% the status signaling seems to be the single most important factor. And it's not limited to their car choice. They're pretty aggressive in outwardly signaling status to everyone, including random strangers they don't know.
For the other ~80%, the primary motivation varies but it's not status (though that can be a secondary contributor for some). I'd estimate roughly half are car enthusiasts, split between those focused on driving performance and collectors who tend to own several supercars, sometimes rare limited editions. For those folks, projecting status can't be primary because at the race track everyone has a very expensive car and collectors can only drive one supercar at a time - so why bother with the hassle of garaging a collection no one ever sees?
I'm not sure exactly how to describe the other half but they aren't mainly car enthusiasts. I'd describe it more as being quality enthusiasts who appreciate having things which they personally feel are of uniquely high quality. Those things are usually expensive but they don't trust price as a reliable indication of 'unique quality' and they don't bother 'projecting' anything to others because they don't seem to care what others think.
For them It's about specific traits they find uniquely valuable - and it's not always things other people recognize as valuable. One McLaren owner give me a detailed exposition on how its unique one-piece carbon fiber monocoque delivers best-in-class torsional rigidity enabling incredibly precise tracking on low-speed corners. He said he enjoys it immensely as "an engineering object" yet he's never driven it over 85 mph and wouldn't know how to change the oil. Then he educated me about how his shirt was also an example of unusual quality, performance micro-materials and clever design. I asked him where I could get one and learned it's $20 at Costco. So, pretty clearly not focused on status projection. A lot of these folks are kind of 'stealth supercar owners'. A couple years after my wife got her McLaren, her sister visited from out of state and was shocked to be picked up in a McLaren at the airport. My wife had never mentioned it because she said her sister "isn't a car person." But the ~20% apparently manage to do more than enough signaling for the rest of us. I'm sure everyone they've ever met knows what car they have. :-)
The only thing I can really think of is a turbo Anti Lag System that you can get in top-end consumer cars like Mercedes AMGs. It’s that popping you hear when coming off the throttle, you’ll also hear it in rally cars. The funny thing is, the same popping can happen with any car if the timing is off so you sometimes get kids driving around with misfiring engines cause it “sounds cool” even though their car might not even have a turbo fan! It’s one of those things that if they were actually passionate about these machines they’d know they look like idiots, but they’re not so they do.
The popping sounds from a turbo car is from the wastegate (whistling sound for a blow off value) when the system is releasing pressure from the turbo that was built up. It prevents over compression that would damage the engine.
I found this claim by Altman to be very puzzling. He's not a researcher nor does he have any experience as the direct manager of research groups.
Satya Nadella's very public employment offer to Altman was obviously coordinated as one part of Altman and MSFT's strategy to force OpenAI's board to back down - and everyone knew this at the time. It was carefully timed to happen within hours of the vast majority of OpenAI's key personnel threatening to resign. The clear threat being that Microsoft would essentially rebuild OpenAI inside Microsoft with Altman recruiting the newly resigned employees, leaving OAI as a shell with products and patents but no key people.
This would certainly have nerfed the expected ~$150B valuation of the imminent OAI private placement, which was the only near-term path to liquidity for OAI's "paper multi-millionaire" employees. Over the prior 24 hours, Altman and Brockman had turned Altman's house into their 'war room' and had been working the phones non-stop convincing key employees that Altman remaining CEO and Microsoft's ongoing partnership were both essential to preserving the private placement. That's why so many key employees signed the resignation threat letter (and pressured other employees to sign).
And the MSFT threat couldn't be discounted as just bluster because MSFT was uniquely positioned due to having already secured long-term, non-exclusive access to OAI's products and IP. All they lacked was the people. While the OpenAI board was probably correct that removing Altman was part of their duty to preserve the non-profit's charter, they realized it too late and totally bungled the execution. For example, they should never have fired Altman but instead changed his role (which would have restricted his ability to coordinate with MSFT), appointed a credible new CEO the same day, and ensured that CEO was prepared to brief employees that the private placement was still on track without Altman.
If Musk's lawyers let Altman portray such obvious gun-to-the-head, hardball as him planning to "just take a research job at Microsoft", they're shockingly incompetent.
Yeah, I agree but given the state of YouTube and the fact GN has an actual office, lab and employees, I also understand why they have no choice but to the play the game at least a bit. YouTube has repeatedly cut the rev rates to the point that even fairly large channels are still under pressure if they have meaningful recurring expenses.
Basically, I just skip the rage bait and watch the good stuff. I also love that GN still publishes print articles, which has essentially zero upside for them.
It's funny because I when realized it was signed by Elon I immediately wished it had been signed by Gwynne instead (although I'm sure she reviewed it anyway). I just knew being signed by Elon would push responses to being (even) more about Elon and divided along partisan political lines.
Which, at this point, has already been beaten to death and is just... tiresome. While discussing the broad concept of space-based compute in general (outside of SpaceX, Elon, etc) can still actually be interesting.
I was initially very skeptical about the viability of space-based data centers but after a couple hours reading papers, studies and summary technical assessments I realized there are a range of credible expert viewpoints from, "pretty unlikely" to "it could actually work". There at least appear to be plausible, though unproven, solutions to the most obvious drive-by objections I had off the top of my non-expert head.
Of course, there are still a lot of unknowns, any of which could prove fatal to the concept but I'm no longer comfortable just dismissing it as "obviously ridiculous."
I think what often gets confused is people saying it isn't viable with "it is not physically possible".
It is physically possible, but it won't have positive ROI so it is not viable.
If you have a paper/post doing the calculations for positive ROI, I'd be all ears. It can even have the optimistic Elon assumptions about price of mass to orbit.
I don’t think people are confused between the two. What’s happening is that drive by objections have no real way to assess viability. That calculation you ask for has line items in it that greatly depend on engineering optimizations that, unless you work in the field, are hard to estimate accurately.
I don't think you really need those calculations to know that it is always going to be less viable than a traditional data centre. It's like the idea about putting data centres under water.
I'm sure you can do it and you can come up with estimates over how much it will cost... but it's always going to cost more than not putting your data centre underwater.
On those line items make the most optimistic assumption. E.g. use Elons Starship cost to orbit. Assume useful GPU lifetime of 6+ years. Assume max physical possible radiators etc.
Putting a datacentre in space may be feasible but the scale that he's suggesting is really unbelievable.
And if he's actually capable of producing solar panels in the quantity that he's talking about in the time frame that he's talking about -- why doesn't he just put them on earth to solve our growing climate change problems and fuel shortages?
Well, yeah but that's just Elon being Elon. At this point I think even the most pro-Elon folks freely admit "The first rule of Elon is: 'Ignore everything he says about timeframes and scale.'"
Yeah you would need 10-20 American football fields worth of radiators for a single data-center... so yes, it "can" work, but it's completely inefficient and unrealistic.
The plan is to launch a constellation of smaller AI sats not a monolithic large data center. The calculations I have seen actually have a smaller radiator area than solar panels. Scott Manley’s has a video on this where he goes into some numbers.
Scott Manley's video uses 20kw as a reference number which isn't even half of the power usage of a modern GB200 rack. I.e. not even close to the power usage of an actual datacenter. In fact, not even 1% of the power usage of a datacenter...
Also, how is a constellation of satellites any easier in this case? They all need extremely large radiators, they all need maintenance, they all need high bandwidth communication.
If you calculate the actual cooling requirements for megawatts of server, you end up with needing many, many football fields of cooling.
It's nonsensical. Sure you can make the numbers sort of work for a single server, but a single server on earth costs MUCH MUCH less to launch, maintain, etc. So why bother doing it in space? We just end up with loads of unusable space servers as they gradually breakdown and cannot be repaired.
In fact, not even 1% of the power usage of a datacenter...
Right, but SpaceX has already filed plans with the FCC to launch a million of them, which is to say, 10K of your datacenter units. Tying back to the article, this plan is definitely going to require Starship and airline-like operations.
Yeah. I don't have any doubts that this is something that can be done. But doing it cheaply enough to be worth while is the difficult bit. Elon does have reputation for delivering impressive things, but not for finishing them on the deadlines he sets.
Ok, how many Starship launches have there been so far? Ok, 11 tests, of which only one has sent a dummy payload. Of the 11 tests, you can say that the latest one was closest to a final (sort of) working version. So we're still very early in the Starship launch program.
Let's do the math on "millions of datacenters" worth of launches.
In fact, let's try and do it for a single 50k GPU datacenter:
50,000 GPUs at GB200 density = 695 NVL72 racks at 1360 kg (1.36 tonnes) each, so the racks are roughly 950 tonnes.
GPUS = 950 tons
85MW of power needed for the GPUs. Latest solar power panels give roughly 120-150 watts per kg. Let's be generous and say 150 W/kg. So 85 MW / 150 W/kg = 570 tonnes of solar arrays
Power = 570 tons
Thermal management (radiators). Real space radiators are around 12 kg/m² for a heavy deployable radiator and its support structure, though ISS radiators are 8 kg per square meter, or 2.75 kg/m² if we only consider the exposed panels. (Using 8 kg/m² for an estimate). 200,000 m² × 8 kg/m² = 1,600 tonnes of radiators
Plus working fluid (ammonia or similar), pumps, manifolds, redundant loops: 150 tonnes.
Radiators Total: 1750 tons.
Structure, Propulsion, Comms, Avionics, Attitude Control Systems, plus Margin. Hard to estimate but conservatively several hundred tons extra. (Actual spacecraft programs always add roughly 20-30% mass margin).
Extras: 750 tons. (being very conservative).
Total = 950+570+1750+750 = 4020 tons.
And note, this is for a single 50k GPU datacenter with all the numbers being skewed to most optimistic.
That would be 40 (!!!) Starship launches. So far we've had 11 launches total with none being successful (100% successful I mean). Each of those launches currently costs 90M dollars. And note, we are assuming a fully working 100 ton payload for Starship of which none of the launches so far have been close to at all.
So our full datacenter to space would cost 3.6B dollars (at current SpaceX prices)... (just to launch it, not to actually buy the equipment). And realistically would cost far more than that...
Note, this is for (by today's standards) a small datacenter with only 50k GPUs and I haven't included any testing, R&D costs, costs of "maintenance", station keeping, replacements, etc etc.
Let alone the question of huge amounts more satellites in orbit, risks of space junk, Kessler syndrome, etc etc.
You’re way overestimating the size of the radiators needed. Then you overestimate their mass, because the ISS has huge heavy radiators that operate at <30°C. A rack of computers can run at much higher temperatures and therefore need much smaller, lighter radiators. The radiators would be smaller and lighter than the solar panels.
I have a lot of miscellaneous quibbles with your assumptions and numbers, but even if you grant many of them, 40 launches is not many for Starship's planned cadence. HLS is going to require 10-16 Starship launches just to get it fueled enough for one landing, and they have to be close enough together to minimize boil-off.
Dude, you realize that right now there are 100+s of data centers in construction around the world often in the 500MW to 1PW range? I.e. there are many, many datacenters (100s) in construction, right now, with 100s of MW up to multiple PW?
Scott's analysis is out by several orders of magnitude!
Everyone knows its "theoretically" possible to have a single server or a single rack in space.
The big and most obvious glaring miss is, how would it be economically viable and operationally viable to have datacenters in space which compete with datacenters on the ground.
We are experts are creating economically profitable (very profitable) datacenters on the ground, which work really well for inference and training, which are cooled really well, can be maintained easily, etc. The idea that we are going to have 100s of MW clusters or 1PW clusters in space, and they are going to be competitive economically, and we are going to be able to maintain them, and they are going to actually WORK (i.e. how will the networking be competitive with datacenters on earth), is frankly laughable.
Nobody said one rack. Your entire rant is misguided. He analyzed what it would take to put one rack on one starlink like package in order to build a constellation.
If you spot Datacenters In Space as making sense, why does SpaceX acquiring XAi make sense to do it?
Why not have SpaceX build datacenter satellites and lease them to XAi et al, or XAi design and manufacture satellite datacenters and pay SpaceX to launch them? Heck, why not start a third company which focuses exclusively on datacenters in space, buying services from one company and selling them to another, so they can concentrate on this rather specialized skillset without distraction?
How does SpaceX acquiring XAi help anything but Elon Musk's personal portfolio?
> why does SpaceX acquiring XAi make sense to do it?
I never said it did. My post didn't even mention SpaceX, Elon or XAI. I just shared that my initial drive-by opinion on space-based compute, as a general concept (regardless which company does it, when or how), was reflexively dismissive but after a tiny bit of research, it's now risen to the lofty epistemic level of "not completely ridiculous." And I discovered it's a much more interesting and complex question than I assumed, involving highly uncertain estimates of rapidly evolving technology, physics and economics.
For me the question starts more akin to "could a Dyson sphere ever be viable for human civilization in this solar system" than "should grandma invest her life savings in SpaceX this afternoon." But it seems some can't reason about the potential future viability of space-based compute independent of current politics, personalities, culture war or whether AI is a bubble inflated by circular deals. To be clear, I do think AI valuations are wildly over-inflated and propped up by financial engineering bordering on fraud likely to trigger a huge economic crash. But it can be simultaneously true that there will be hugely profitable AI businesses in 2035 and it's possible space-based compute might be viable for some company in 2040.
As for Elon, ever since I met him a couple times closer to the Paypal days, I've felt he's an eccentric, impulsive nut but that he's also a savvy, technically-minded entrepreneur with a sharp eye for opportunity who's compelled by obsessive, visionary zeal. And everything he's done since has been consistent with that assessment, from the successes of Tesla and SpaceX to his bizarre, self-destructive detours into politics, social media and AI. I don't understand why so many can't deal with the reality that a person can be deeply flawed and wildly irrational in some ways while simultaneously being highly effective and immensely valuable in other ways. Steve Jobs was a brilliant visionary entrepreneur yet also an asshole in his personal life who believed some crazy shit so deeply it contributed to his early death.
I've wondered the same thing because lately I've noticed a bunch of consumer companies forcing cloud-required models where it's not necessary and many/most users have no need for whatever features cloud connectivity may provide. Yet the companies keep insisting on it even when there's significant user blow back and bad brand PR. When they even bother to comment on "why", the answers never make much sense.
When it's companies based in the U.S. or EU, like Chamberlain / LiftMaster garage door openers, it's pretty obvious they plan to monetize some cloud services subscription for upgraded features beyond the free basic tier as well as probably selling consumer data.
However, the China-based companies like Bambu Lab (and many others) are more puzzling because meaningful ongoing subscription revenue seems unlikely. Especially in the case of lower-end consumer tech peripherals where the companies usually invest as little as possible in their websites, ongoing feature updates or direct end-user support. Which makes no sense if they really aspire to build long-term subscription revenue. Here's my theory: the Chinese government is quietly compelling them to require cloud connections to China-based data centers as a long-term strategy.
I'm not even saying the companies are some direct arm of the Chinese government or planting nefarious firmware. I think that's too likely to be caught if done at mass scale and it's not even necessary. As long as the cloud servers are in Chinese data centers, the Chinese government can get consumer IP addresses and usage data just from passive packet sniffing and if things turn icy with some foreign countries, they can cause a lot of turmoil simply by selectively blocking packets at the firewall to brick millions of consumer devices.
I know it maybe sounds paranoid and, to be clear, I'm not claiming Bambu Labs specifically is doing this. I actually came up with this theory before I ever heard of Bambu Labs because I have a lot of inexpensive Chinese home automation devices and was surprised by their bizarre insistence on forcing cloud connectivity despite there being no apparent business model incentive and these smaller-scale Shenzen hardware companies showing zero enthusiasm for making a real business out of cloud services. Their cloud implementations are almost invariably the bare minimum possible and seem woefully underfunded. After all, for a low-margin hardware peripheral, every dollar spent running a no-revenue cloud after the sale is pure overhead in a business that live or dies by pennies. It's almost like requiring a cloud connection is an export tax the company is paying just to be left alone to sell their hardware overseas.
For home automation gear, cloud-connectivity is a non-starter in my book. In some cases, it's literally built into our walls, so I only buy devices which will work on a local-only subnet or on which I can install open source firmware like Tasmota or ESPHome.
This. No conspiracy tin foil hat bs, just money. Everything got cloud because investor story time, just like everything has AI now, in every talk I have with either my boss, potential partners and clients its: “where is the AI”? (Source: i am in China). There are a couple of other things that other can maybe highlight, like how every one is blocking Chinese IP’s and vice versa, maybe something on the legislative side also? Not sure. Something something malice/incompetence
When I was a senior exec at a big public tech company, there was a product we decided to discontinue and we thought would be nice to just open source. Somehow I ended up in charge of managing that process and was shocked at how complex, time-consuming and expensive it was in a multi-billion dollar, publicly-traded corp vs some code my friends and I wrote.
Legal had to verify that there was no licensed library code used and that we had clear, valid copyright to everything there. The project had been written over several years, merged with a project we'd acquired with a startup, some key people weren't around any more, the source control had transitioned across multiple platforms, etc. And even once we nailed all that down sufficiently, we didn't get an "all clear" from legal, we just got a formal legal opinion that any liability was probably under $1M. And then we had to convince an SVP to endorse that assumption of $1M potential liability and make a business case for approval to the CEO.
For a public company, the default assumption for any online game would be "the server side code WILL be open sourced" (under threat of prosecution). That means legal would mandate "No commercially licensed libraries can be used, any open source libraries will have to be vetted to ensure the license is compatible and everything else will need to pass IP and compliance audit." That will certainly have an impact on development time frames and economics.
reply