Streaming markets have really felt like price fixing scenarios over the past few years. I can't think of any exceptions that haven't been regularly and aggressively raising their prices like every 6 months at this point as if they are all coordinating.
Why the hell can't we have streaming businesses that reach some equilibrium threshold for how much content they want to produce, the quality of said content, and then focus on optimizing production and tech to both reduce prices and increase profits over time accompanied with scaling subscriber growth.
Is this a loaded question? People are getting hooked by high(ish) quality shows for relatively low prices. Once hooked you need to make them binge content (algorithm). Once hooked you can sell the ** for higher price.
70 is crazy! I was thinking years ago that surely by this point headsets would be standardizing on a baseline of like 140+. Progress has really stagnated and over the past few years new headsets never seem to just be universally better than whatever they are replacing. It always seems to be pull one lever to improve one aspect while regressing somewhere else.
I really wish VR had followed an iPhone like trajectory over the past decade where we got a new Quest/etc every year and it got consistently better across the board every iteration.
It has progressed. The tech is just expensive and heavy and... all sorts of tradeoffs. Meta had a prototype (Boba) with a 180 horizontal and 120 vertical FoV
But it of course is large and heavy like the quest pro and expensive most likely. Things that when you market to consumers don't pan out.
So they are optimizing on the other dimension (weight) which of course trades of many other dimensions.
Pancake optics are really cool, very clear and lightweight without some of the light distortions you get from traditional optics. They are worth the tradeoff. But they don't work out beyond 100-ish degrees. I think the Steam Frame is really pushing the maximum the industry seems to be able to get out of them.
More niche manufacturers like Pimax have accomplished much higher FOVs but people keep returning them because they're expensive, heavy and uncomfortable (I think they're popular among people who lie down in cockpit rigs).
...with stray light coming in from all sides because glasses don't cover your face completely. So the best place to use them will probably be a completely darkened room?
Unless like Vision Pro there's a surroundings control that lets you go from total visibility outside the image to complete darkness — within the FOV — in any environment.
Edit: Since the FOV is only 70 degrees, that leaves 110 degrees outside the image, divided between the edges of the glasses and the rest of the room. So for sure in daylight outside light would destroy the theater effect.
I think you missed the posters point. I just checked prices on a store nearby and for the cheap Vodka you can buy a handle which is ~40 drinks for $12. So basically no matter how extreme for $20 you can buy more alcohol than pretty much any human could consume in a day.
I wish there was more transparency on the plus plans usage limits showing actual token usage and prices per model that eats away at remaining usage.
Does anyone know how exactly these price differences for example between sol6 and sol5.6 translate to codex percentages? In theory it seems like for "high" on both it should result in ~3x more usage. If that is actually the case it would be huge! But all we see is % left and % changes while using and we really have no idea when or how those numbers are being calculated or when they change. So there is a 50% price reduction on API but who knows how the hell that translates to whatever price calculation is used on codex.
Seriously. This was my first thought too, the audacity to implement a system like this and the deterioration of a society that seems to give any fucks about privacy where this will be a minor news story that gets some buzz then disappears fairly quickly... I don't know what the fuck has happened. At the very least something like this should result in devastating class action lawsuits towards LG.
Is anyone else just exhausted by the pace of all this. The models change constantly and relentlessly and so does the pricing, basically weekly at this point between all the labs.
It feels nearly impossible to have any rigorous approach when choosing a particular model and price point for a task and more like blindly picking one. The time period needed to actually get familiar with various models to a degree you can intuitively choose appropriate ones for a task is moot when it will likely be superseded faster than the needed time.
I guess if companies are footing the bills most employees just opt for whatever the most expensive model they can get away with. Even then choosing between the various leading models is the same kind of frustrating task. Every release every company has the same random collection of graphs and charts claiming the best performance on X, Y, and Z.
You really don’t need to watch it that closely. If the model you’re using today is working well, just stick with it.
If one day you open up Claude Code and it’s Opus 5.1 now instead of Opus 5, no big deal. It probably will work about the same as it did before. Maybe a little better.
Or if you’re on Codex and some new cool Claude model comes out, no worries. There will probably be a similar new model for Codex within a few weeks. Maybe even within a few days.
One suggestion is to make a list or make a skill to have your agent keep a list of things you do not feel work well with today's models. And then, when new models come out, periodically, revisit items on that list to see if you get better results.
You can. The point of having your agent keep track of it is that it will likely notice things you won't, and it can automate cataloging it with relevant metadata (prompts, environment, examples, etc.) that make it trivial to automate rerunning those tests when new models launch.
> The models change constantly and relentlessly and so does the pricing, basically weekly at this point between all the labs.
A dev in my team saw a new model and changed one application to use said model (essentially changing the contents of a url). One week later I received an escalation from the CTO of the company that our pace of weekly usage was in the millions of dollars (rather than low hundred thousands). Turns out that the new model was 5x more expensive but no one noticed.
Okay, well, that seems like a natural problem. I could understand if he went from one of the Gemini Flashes to the next (when they rebranded Flash to Flash Lite and came up with a new much more expensive Flash). Now that would be a mess.
I could see how this might feel frustrating to someone who doesn't enjoy experimenting with new things all the time.
In practice, you can get away without keeping up with everything all the time. For personal use, pick a provider and get on their ~$20/month plan. Learn their high/medium/low model hierarchy. Start with their highest or second-highest model (GPT-5.6, Opus, etc) and observe your quota usage. If you're doing a lot of manual code review and analysis, the $20/month plan goes very far even on the highest models. If you're trying to vibecode everything as fast as possible it's a different story.
If you keep running into quota limits, experiment with the next model down for easier tasks or adjusting the effort level. If the results are good enough, you've found your fit. If they're not, you might need the next plan up.
For API/business use, you have to be checking your token spend as you go to calibrate to how much each task costs and where you fall in your budget. There are a lot of different tools that make this easy to visualize.
For data tasks, you should have an eval with a golden dataset that you can run against new models for a nominal amount of token expenditure. It should be as simple as pointing the eval script at a new API or model and checking the score versus price.
Another suggestion to get the most bang for your buck: use the best model you have access to with max reasoning for planning, implement with a smaller model/lower reasoning, then review with the big model. Repeat as needed.
Input tokens are much cheaper than output tokens. Not only because of baseline price—caching makes a huge difference too. There are many ways to take advantage of this asymmetry to get similar quality for a fraction of the cost!
"Within a year" is a bit of an exaggeration but it's true that the pace of PC tech during the 90s was much, much faster than it is now. CPU power was doubling every two years, and today we're at roughly eight years. Add onto that the rise of video cards in the late 90s.
It was both. 90% of people never needed nor purchased a bleeding-edge computer. The mid-tier was "good enough" and far closer to affordable for most people; though, that bar also moved upward every year.
If you bought a mid-tier computer that was good enough for what you needed, then you probably didn't shop/compare for the next few years and didn't notice. But if you shelled out $7-10k for a top-of-the-line system and paid attention to progress, you'd easily see that become the mid-tier $1000 option within two years or less. This is how it was in the 90's PC boom, at least. Likely the same for the decades before, not sure how it went in the 2000's.
if you shelled out $7-10k for a top-of-the-line system and paid attention to progress, you'd easily see that become the mid-tier $1000 option within two years or less
This is not how I remember that period at all. Do you have any examples?
My first PC 386 was in todays money easily $5000+ (basic 2d GPU + screen)... A lot of hardware in our family was handed down to my folks, because you lost so much on selling, that it was better to keep using them as they had less demands.
386 to 486 to the first Pentium (with the bug!)... You did not upgrade in place, it was often a new system. Sure, you maybe kept your screen, keyboard etc but ... The only upgrade we had on the same MB, was a coprocessor upgrade. Remember those? Each new generation of CPU was a new motherboard. Upgrading CPUs in the same MB really became a thing only later on.
GPUs had a shelf life of barely a year. Its been 35 year but i remember TNT to TNT2 having like 9 month in between. Moving from 2D to 3D involved a constant cost as GPUs evolved fast and the latest games required latest hardware.
We have not talked about the ISA, AGP, and PCI fun ... The “bus wars”.
DOS to Windows 3.1 (and OS/2 somewhere in between) to 95 ... with software being pushing hardware, just like games did.
This is why people are spoiled with cheap PC hardware where its cheap, and easily lasts 4+ years. Even with the bad memory price and more expensive GPUs, your can stil buy a $1500 system that will last you years (with maybe some lower game settings later on ... or the catalog of 10.000s games that will easily run on a mid tier GPU).
PC hardware has become boring but extreme stable. You can run GPUs for year, switch MBs without issues while keeping large amounts of old hardware. That was NOT the 80s and 90s that i remember.
Really depended when you bought them .. 386 is like the point where people really started to buy PCs. My 386 was more to the end period, so the jump to 486 was very short. Do not forget there was a ton of 386's and 486s released also. I remember the SX, DX, ... the coprocessor that you plugged into the socket and then the CPU into it.
The problem is that your too focused on the CPU only. There was GPU improvements (2d) then 3D, the constant improvements in sound cards. Printers ...
There was very strong depreciation in that time. I think that the poster before with his $10.000 > 1000 is somewhat exaggerating but like i said, my $5000 range system was not worth reselling. So did several other systems we acquired at the time, it simply became hand-me downs (for family who needed a PC for Lotus or WP but not a "advanced" PC).
Maybe my memory is off, but hardware in that time was way more expensive, then it is today. While todays hardware lasts WAY longer. The wife is still on a 8250u/8GB laptop, from like 8 years or so, and i can not pry it out of her hands. Needed a new battery lol ...
There really is rarely pressure to upgrade these days. That is not how i remember the 90's... Where upgrades tended to have much bigger impacts. Especially as gamers. But even on side equipment like CD players, CDRs and later DVDs.
Todays PCs is like ... raytracing, no interest. 4k? 1440p is perfectly fine. CPUs? Over powerful for most folks. The only new thing is AI and that is a totally different issue.
tbh this is how i remembered that time as well. If you look at recommended system requirements for something like Max Payne (in 2001) vs Unreal Tournament 2003, everything had basically doubled
I had a 600MHz/64MB/9GB laptop that came with Windows mistake edition. I managed to survive first year of uni on it by switching to Vector Linux, which was really fast compared to Windows. (Of course, it had issues playing sound from more than one source, this was oss days).
Then one day the hard drive appeared to die. I eventually realised the issue was located around the 1.5gb mark, so I recreated my Linux partitions after 2gb and it worked fine for the rest of the year.
They overclocked well though, I think you could run the 300Mhz chips at >400Mhz.
I also believe you could get motherboards that supported 2 Celeron chips. I have no idea how effective/useful it was, but it was certainly a cheap/interesting way to get multiple CPU's.
The new releases and breakthroughs do the opposite for me - I feel energised by them. I felt like nothing truly that interesting had happened in tech for quite some time, now it's like the space race (except there is no one moon to reach).
I appreciate boring tech as much as the next well worn engineer and I'm not saying this is all positive but it's so sure as hell thrilling and you don't have to be an astronaut to immediately benefit (or suffer I guess) from it.
Hey, I'm on the team at LiteLLM that's building the auto-router and our goal right now is to abstract that decision making away from the end user. The biggest thing we're trying to figure out right now is how do we do that without frustrating the end user - as a developer myself I would hate for my agent to be dumbed down below the threshold needed to complete a task.
In theory though, there is a minimum viable model for any given task, and we think that is a problem that the big labs will avoid because they profit from charging more per task. We're trying heuristic and LLM-based approaches but it's still a work in progress, so if this is something you'd be interested in trying would highly recommend trying ours out -- any and all feedback at this point is extremely valuable to us.
It is exhausting to keep up with model releases yes, much like it was for a while during the Cambrian explosion of FE frameworks, eventually tech seems to work out to consolidation.
But more so it seems there is Fear of missing out (FOMO) in our behaviours. The reality is, if whatever model you are using are good for your purpose, well, keep on it.
Yeah I'm a bit exhausted at this point. I just finished benchmarking GPT 5.6 Sol and Fable 5.0 like two days ago. My data became obsolete literally one day after.
Apple's execution on AI is the worst of anything I can think of they have worked on in the past 20 years. It's embarrassing they announced this with a vague "coming this fall" when they basically have completely lost credibility in their ability to ship AI features considering it was initially announced YEARS ago.
I think a lot of it is the old "perfect is the enemy of good" with Apple trying multiple times now to announce this big basket of all these AI features supposedly coming all at once instead of just regularly shipping new useful AI integrations every month. There was so much easy useful shit that was immediately apparent as soon at OpenAI dropped that first big voice mode years ago coupled with basic app integrations. Particularly in the context of the AI labs that are operating in that lane almost too much where it seems a new model or mode comes out every two weeks.
I just checked amazon and I paid $350 in Nov 24' for 96GB (2x48GB) 6800MT DDR5 which at the time felt quite expensive and a bit of a splurge but I figured I had my DDR4 kit for almost a decade so probably similar lifespan for DDR5. That same listing is currently $1300!!!
When RAM prices are increasing like a crypto currency we have a real societal problem.
I don't want to live in a society where RAM inflation is higher and food inflation. Future generations will ask me where were you when Computer prices were rising, internet bandwidth was rationed and people had to wait overnight to continue vibe coding because vendors blocked further API calls for many hours at a time.
> people had to wait overnight to continue vibe coding because vendors blocked further API calls for many hours at a time
Tangential but this is funny. Back in the early 90s, I did a lot of BASIC programming in the family computer, this was before we had Internet. I could spend hours.and hours in front of the computer doing stuff.
Fast forward to around 2010 I remember a distinct feeling one time the internet went off at home. Sitting in front of the computer and feeling that it was "useless" because it wasn't connected to the net.
We are getting to that point in coding apparently: 5-10 years ago, everyone programmed just by typing commands, looking at S.O. and thinking. Now, if we open our "IDE" and it doesn't have access to The Brain, we are left just standing there looking in awe at the machine.
dunno, I have electricity problems (especially on winters when Russia strikes the hardest on infra) but I usually have this time as a downtime for lightweight C coding in Termux and retro gaming, all on Galaxy Note 8 (Android 9!!) + power bank.
I guess it feels less like a problem when you have that problem regularly and are forced to adapt. and I guess I'll just HAVE to switch to Pixel 10 when Pixel 11 comes out - the integrated Linux terminal right there is awesome. or maybe just get a MacBook like most around me did
I keep going back to Sublime Text when everything in VS Code becomes too much. Last time I looked at Sublime, I was like “Damn, the last update was from 2024? Must be dead.” Until I realized the lack of updates was because it was fully functional for what they wanted as is without connecting to the internet at all.
It isn't just a psychological feeling though. We've (unnecessarily) offloaded everything to the net, so there's a very real element of uselessness that kicks in when there's no connection.
E.g. back when you were coding BASIC, you probably had magazines and either ended up copying a lot of code by hand, or if you were lucky the mag came with a floppy disk. Now no such magazines exist. Manpages were all local, now it's readthedocs online. Fat local-friendly standard libraries in almost all languages have been modularised and package managers for the most part expect to install stuff by fetching it from the net.
So unless you have heavily prepared for the cyberapocalypse or sth, there really is not much you can do on your machine when the internet goes down.
On the other hand, however, when you can prepare in advance, it's great to shut off the net for a while. I do my most productive coding during flights, for example.
Yeah, I also feel that this negative aspect of "AI" adoption is not much discussed overall - massive centralization and dependency on a remote service woth something as important as computer programming.
From the point of view of AI companies, the benefit of very high hardware prices is that there will no competition from local models any time soon.
There might be an overdue era of computing where being a little mindful of resource consumption might go a long way, now that Moore's law has been killed by economics, but I wonder how that'll play out with vibe coding that vomits out thousands of lines of inefficient code.
I honestly wouldn't mind living in a society where growth and excess is no longer viable.
They were a fairly common occurrence in the late 90s. I worked at an OEM at the time and we would stockpile it during gluts for that reason, then make a killing ~6-9 months later.
don't think it's a societal problem; it's just a direct result of capitalism. and while capitalism causes all sorts of huge problems, it might also be the best of the options we've got
Recently I had the realization that a lot of people see economy as something completely decoupled from society. Capitalism is both completely unrelated with people and the result of people's innate desires. The UBS discussions are a funny one for me. Capitalism is supposedly the best way to manage limited resources, but we would still need it in a supposed utopia where recourses are in abundance. I confess that I don't have the knowledge to understand the reasons for that.
> I confess that I don't have the knowledge to understand the reasons for that.
You want the technical, mathematical, reason for that? The short version is that for society as a whole, prices are information. How many fields should be filled with grain plants? How many with flowers? How many factories should make cars? Phones? Tv furniture? How much fuel goes to heating? How much to transporting old people to the hospital and back?
I hope that can explain, if "society" gets that information more than a tiny bit wrong ... very bad things will happen. VERY bad things. People will die, lots of them, and quickly, if you get it wrong.
I hope it also makes it clear that for society as a whole, money isn't a "real" limit. Rather it's a tool that makes the actual limits clear. If we make 50% more bread, how do we make that not affect how many heart surgeries can be done?
Capitalism has many advantages, the strongest of which, in my opinion, is that it simply imposes a cost on lying. You can lie about production, about prices, but it'll cost you. It is resilient against the bane of so many other systems: it is extremely resilient against people trying to sabotage it, because everyone has an incentive to undo or bypass sabotage. In other systems like communism or slavery the people doing work have an extreme incentive to lie, and the only break on that is violence against workers. But the state fundamentally has no idea if you're lying or not, so that violence will be mostly random. It can't be directed against the people actually causing problems in society.
Thanks for taking the time to answer, I really appreciate that. About the pricing, isn't that the same as managing scarce resources? In a supposed AGI utopia, why would society still need it? To be clear, I get your point. I'm not against capitalism, I just don't get why it would be needed when resources are unconstrained
The difference is those have largely all been steadily increasing every year for decades. Tech and entertainment (streamers etc) have been one of the few bright spots you could point to as something that would usually improve yearly.
At this point there is hardly anything left and I think it leads to some pretty dark scenarios when we have a society where we have somehow decided: fuck it, almost everything gets worse for almost all of you every single year.
Why the hell can't we have streaming businesses that reach some equilibrium threshold for how much content they want to produce, the quality of said content, and then focus on optimizing production and tech to both reduce prices and increase profits over time accompanied with scaling subscriber growth.
reply