upvote

points

by khurs5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby gallerdude5 hours ago|
next
[-]
Android has market share, but Apple makes all of the money! I find it really funny when people attribute Apple’s success to “oh, the only reason they succeed is design and marketing.” Yeah, I mean factually speaking design and marketing actually do matter a lot!

Us developer types like to pretend like specs are the only thing that matters? If you could have a 10x more powerful model you could only access running locally through your terminal, versus a weaker model through a clean web interface, normies will pick the web ui every single time. Product experience is simply everything, as much as we like to pretend like nitty technical decisions are the most important thing.

reply
upvoteby afavour5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Android has market share, but Apple makes all of the money!

So? The benefit of open source is that you don’t have to worry about making a ton of money. You just need to be viable.

Apple: premium product a minority is willing to pay for

Android: standard product the majority use

I’m sure there will continue to be iPhone equivalents in the AI world, premium bespoke models. But the vast majority of people will be happy with a cheaper offering.

reply
upvoteby gallerdude4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The original comment was “open models are what kill OpenAI and Anthropic”, which to me is as silly as saying “Android is what killed Apple”
reply
upvoteby afavour4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Well I think a critical difference is that, unlike Apple, OpenAI and Anthropic have taken on so much VC funding that a 20-something % market share is not going to be enough for them. So open models could kill them, not because of the techonology but because of the way they're financed.
reply
upvoteby pessimizer4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> If you could have a 10x more powerful model you could only access running locally through your terminal, versus a weaker model through a clean web interface, normies will pick the web ui every single time.

More like if you could have a 1.25x more powerful model that you could only access through some weird surveillance megacorps aggressive monetization scheme, or choose from 100 others running open models and accessible through 100 different interfaces pandering to every taste.

Normies will choose the megacorp every time, because that was the one in the tv commercial, and within six months will have left for one of the others in a rage.

The only corporate hope is that the government steps in to ban their competition.

reply
upvoteby inigyou5 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
There were many smartphones before both iOS and Android.
reply
upvoteby Cyberdog4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
While that may be technically true for a strict definition of “smartphone,” there’s no denying the iPhone redefined the concept in a way that its competitors were forced to copy to have any hope of keeping up. Nobody hears the word “smartphone” and thinks of a Blueberry or Treo anymore.
reply
upvoteby inigyou3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
What exactly did the iPhone do better?
reply
upvoteby khurs2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Perfected multi-touch touchscreen

Before that we had touchscreen but they sucked.

---

    2002: FingerWorks makes advances in multi-touch technology
    2005: Apple acquires FingerWorks and its patents
    2007: iPhone launches
reply
upvoteby Cyberdog3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That's a subjective question, so I'll give a subjective answer. The browser, for better or worse, was a lot less dumbed down for mobile than competitors, the stylus-less touch interface reduced UI friction and the odds that you'd lose a critical (if inexpensive) component, and the slew of contemporary iPod users could easily migrate their libraries over.
reply