151–160 of 342 posts
For those, like me who don't know what Mighty is: apparently a web browser that is faster. If that is the selling point, I can see why he quit working on it.
That was the selling point.
At $30/month, this sounded like something that could only be worthwhile for businesses (though I'm at a loss to imagine what size/industry of company would want this). Did Might have any corporate clients, and if so, how did they navigate the security/privacy compliance issues?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that’s good why exactly?
Because each tweet is (possibly) worthy of separate discussion. you have Tweet 1: thesis. t2: supporting evidence A. t3: supporting evidence B. Say you agree with the thesis but think evidence A is weak or otherwise want to discuss it, you don't pollute the discussion on the thesis or supporting evidence B.
According to the final tweet in that thread [0] it seems like they are pivoting to a sort of AI generated art based social media platform. I’m curious why they think this has the potential to be a “mass market changing” business since the social media world seems pretty over saturated already [0] https://twitter.com/suhail/status/1591831193598963713
The social aspect was just added as an extra feature
It's more like a Photoshop + canva type project
Looking at tweets like [1] it seems like their original bet was that server single core performance would dramatically outpace client single core performance. Honestly even if that had happened I still don't think their product would have made sense. The hosting cost and bandwidth/latency requirements would still have killed it. The death of this product is a good sign for computing overall. The more of computing tha…
The product, "compute pixels on powerful machine -> render on thin client", makes much more sense if you don't try to monetize by being a cloud landlord, but you let the users own that powerful machine, make money through hardware, and help them with the software, make money through support, no subscriptions, no rent-seeking. Think at the level of a family: 2 parents, 2 children which means: 4 smartphones, 2÷3 laptop…
Just thinking of the literal mountains of ewaste gives me goosebumps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the heavy lifting of figma happens on your local computer. The delta between doing that in a browser in a native app is only shrinking over time.
I think the delta you're talking about is already gone. Figma is generally considered more performant with its WASM rendering approach than its desktop counterparts. But I don't think the let's say "other deltas" that are now keeping other high-powered apps from becoming web apps are moving at all. You can check my other comments in this thread for more details, but a specific point I'm making with the original comme…
Once that is true, you want as many people to collaborate as possible and the browser is the perfect delivery model. Plus you ensure a consistent version across all clients.
Mighty was like compute arbitrage. The bet was that you could buy compute at cloud prices, resell it to end users, and since this is cheaper than buying consumer compute in the form of workstations, laptops, & tablets, you can pocket the difference. I can't think of a bigger slice of consumer compute than browser workload; so if the scheme doesn't work there, it won't work for anything. My conclusion is that compute…
The product itself was basically identical to Mighty. However, because it was marketed as a Security tool, they got customers from 9 of the 10 largest world banks, several government agencies, and so forth who bought licenses for every employee due to the security advantages that having an ephemeral server in the cloud provides. The companies enjoyed that there was also a performance benefit and they could skimp on physical workstations as a secondary benefit. But the product was selling licenses by the pallet load because of the security aspect, the performance was just a bonus.
Like I said, the product was effectively identical to what Mighty was doing. I think it was even younger than Mighty and was vastly more successful due to its market positioning.
Looking at tweets like [1] it seems like their original bet was that server single core performance would dramatically outpace client single core performance. Honestly even if that had happened I still don't think their product would have made sense. The hosting cost and bandwidth/latency requirements would still have killed it. The death of this product is a good sign for computing overall. The more of computing tha…
My primary feeling is that I think technical people drastically overestimate the pain that most "normal" people experience when it comes to browser performance. I see it all the time on HN, e.g. people bitching about the amount of RAM Electron apps take and the like. Who cares? The average user certainly doesn't. If anything, 98% of the time when I experience browser performance issues it's network-latency related, o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then yeah there was no point paying $20-$30 a month for a remote browser instance. Sorry what? There are people that even considered this?
I’ve talked to a couple of very loyal Mighty users. If you think about the number of hours a knowledge worker spends in the browser every month, it works out to a pretty small price per hour. It’s similar to people in jobs that require them to live out of their inbox paying (a comparable amount) for Superhuman.