Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Ads and Bad Advice (Score 5, Insightful) 82

nobody wants to read an "article" that has more ads than content when researching a topic

This. This right here is the answer.

Google search originally was creepy-accurate because it was built on the work that was done elsewhere. While other search engines looked at frequency of search terms and other easy-to-game metrics, Google did it based on links, meaning more linked-to pages got preferred rankings. That worked for a very long time, until that too got automated and SEO slop took over search indices. Google itself began to have more and more ads creep into search results, and reward clearly-seo-slop over the sort of sites people actually wanted to find. Sites got so plastered in ads and tracking scripts that they became utterly unusable without an ad blocker, even for people who WANTED to support the sites...then there were the cookie banners, then there were the modal overlays...and if you had a labor-of-love website that legitimately had useful, human-created or curated content that was useful and functional...you were buried on page six of the search results because you were competing against the SEO slop and backlink farms.

and then ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini/Perplexity came around and were able to sift through all the crap to give everyone the paragraph they were actually looking for in the first place.

You dug your own grave, Axios...when your website takes a minute to load its moving video ads, people tolerate it in the absence of an alternative. Gemini is terrible for 101 other reasons...but if it puts the slop sites out of business, I'll accept the tradeoff.

Comment Re:Likely-erroneous assumptions (Score 3, Interesting) 130

But it's also very possible that they're going to miss the boat. Not completely, of course, but somewhat like Microsoft missed the boat on the Internet.

So...Microsoft certainly didn't get the massive market share AOL had in the 90's, and they weren't too successful at getting the "walled garden" they were probably hoping for around that time...but they did just fine. Azure isn't *quite* AWS, but they're doing better than Google in IaaS revenue, and they spent most of the 00's and 2010's running the business world with desktop Windows and Windows Server - alongside Linux and not at super massive scale, granted, but they did just fine.

Where I think Apple's opportunity comes in is to replay the iPod playbook. There were a bunch of MP3 players before the iPod, and most of them had trouble once Napster fell. Apple ran the 2000's on the iPod not just because of the hardware, but because of iTunes and the iTunes Music Store, making it possible to use both existing MP3 libraries and to create new ones, easily, legally, and virus-free.

I think that playbook can work here as well. I've got two computers with GPUs, one an RTX3060 and one an AMD 9060XT. Not flagships by any means, but enough to run local models well-enough. My Macbook issued to me by work has an M5 CPU, and it generates tokens within 20% as quickly as those cards, on battery. If Apple can conjure up some sort of AI App Store that serves up AI models and purpose-built apps for them, that run on Apple hardware with no subscription tied to them, and make the process smooth, seamless, and generally-useful, Apple can probably stand on OpenAI's shoulders and make a local AI laptop that's worth owning...and if they can do that, they can profit at the endpoint level without having to invest billions at the datacenter level like OpenAI and Anthropic are doing.

The Vision Pro, I think, would work well if they sold it as a business tool - diagram overlays, status windows, that sort of thing...but fashion accessories that obscure the face are VERY difficult to make work; people wear contact lenses because they prefer those to face-obscuring glasses that correct their vision. As a video game console or a work utility that's put on for a function and then turned off, there's a niche, but it's not going to be the sort of thing people just walk around wearing.

Comment Re:Optical Limitations (Score 1) 60

I'm honestly perplexed why everyone is missing the glaringly obvious reason for the death of optical media

1) storage density.
2) storage bandwidth.

Nobody wants to wait 20+ minutes to load a single level in a game. Developers are making games larger and larger, well beyond the capacity of a BluRay disk. Optical density has not kept up with increasing storage demands.

So, in MY perfect world, we'd be going back to cartridges, where the 'cartridge' is basically a 256GB NVMe drive, so the game cartridge could theoretically be patched on-media, load times would be far lower, and there wouldn't be nearly as much dependency on massive storage on the console itself.

The reason why it will never happen this way, is because NVMe drives, even at Sony-levels of purchase, would be a significant portion of the game itself. If Sony got 256GB drives at $30 a pop wholesale (about half of what a quick look showed a drive for at retail), and they simply forwarded the cost onto the consumer, ignoring markup *and* all the retooling required to write games to NVMe media at scale, pretty much every game would be $100 or more, just because of the media...and if Sony can get away with selling games for $100 a pop, then you KNOW that Microsoft is going to trip over themselves to do the same.

Perhaps GameStop could find a new role, in that they could sell blank Sony-blessed cartridges, and then sell a case with a license key, that allows Gamestop to write the game, at its current patch level (it'd take 5-10 minutes to write in-store), to the blank cartridge, maybe include a box with a manual and some cover art if they're feeling fancy, and the cost of the media is externalized onto the customer without the game itself costing more...but it'd have to be a system like that for such media to work.

The reason why optical media is still the one everyone points to is that it's the compromise that works - users have immutable copies of the game, and the discs cost about a dime each - a trivial amount for Sony to absorb. Even if we bring it up to $5 for the case, the amortized cost of the duplication equipment, and the transportation fee...it's still cheaper than Sony will ever get flash media on a per-unit basis.

Ultimately, the reason people want discs is not because people LIKE optical media specifically, but because a whole lot of us have had download-only or stream-only media become unusable due to some licensing drama that our subscription fees were supposed to pay for. Optical media is the compromise, not the technologically elegant solution.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have to ask how much it is, you can't afford it.

Working...