How in the world would you have thought that? Genuinely curious. It was obviously DOA and waaaayyy outside G'scompetence.
1. Google had recently exploited their home page to push chrome browser successfully altering the browser market. They pushed anyone visiting Google to chrome with a popup on the home page. The same opportunity was there for G+, but with updates from friends. 2. Everyone already had a Google account and many millennials were using Google Talk at the time. It appeared Google could undermine the network effects. 3. The…
I'm with you on this. I've been an early paid Antigravity IDE user. Their recent silent rug pull on quotas, where without any warning you get rate-limited for 5 days in the middle of code refactoring, enrages users, not simply making them unsatisfied with the product. It actually makes you hate the evil company.
Interesting that you consider the most cutting edge technology in the category to be "the easiest layups".
I think they've been gaming benchmarks. I use Claude every day. I cannot get Gemini to do anything useful, at all. Every time I've tried to use it, it has just failed to do what was required.
Three subthreads up you have someone saying gemini did what claude couldn't for them on some 14 year old legacy code issue. Seems you can't really use peoples prior success with their problem as an estimate of what your success will be like with your problem and a tool.
Google+ had an exclusive club appeal at launch because it wasn't instantly globally accessible, but slowly opened up instead. It became clear they where desperate about user numbers when thay forced the merge of Youtube accounts. Or something like that.
Facebook was the same way when it started.
It was a little different. Facebook was eventually (after harvard only) wide open for college email holders so it wasn't some exclusive club that kept people you want to be in their out. It kept your parents out though and your lame younger sibling. You could immediately use it with your friends. No invite nonsense like with g+.
It Is more likely that people are cashing out very liquid assets (tech stocks) to pay back their loans in Yen as interest rates are rising over there. Tech stocks with all the hype are second only to crypto in terms of how easy and fast are to sell (hence BTC dropped and now tech stocks IMHO). Btw, I was too young to fully remember, but wasn't the year before the dot com crash also full of IPOs?
Apparently the last two times the Super Bowl Ads were dominated by Tech companies was 2000 for dotCom and 2022 for Crypto.
FWIW, BTC is currently still triple what it was at that time. Crypto as a whole of course isn't. So really this seems like a "time to stick to the big boys".
How is Anthropic, OpenAI and xAi going to compete against the likes of Google that can spend $200 billion a year? It’s an impossible war and all these investors are throwing their money into a bottomless insatiable pit of money. Until the funding stops for one reason or another and then everyone loses all their money at once like a star that collapses into a black hole singularity in a femtosecond.
Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though? All those giants have their own business that are established and profitable. It’s the new kids in the block that will make the difference. You know those lists on twitter about how many companies US has in top 10 and are presented as a win? Those are actually lists of capital concentrations blocking innovation. It looks like US is winning but…
Kind of funny you say it is capital concentration that blocks innovation then praise anthropic, when we are in a thread about them concentrating capital. And not only have these companies concentrated capital, and mindshare in the mass media, they have concentrated talent.
You have to wonder how often they hire talent just to keep them out of the market for other upstart companies to potentially use, like with no actual objective just to keep them off market. With half trillion valuation there's plenty of money for that, and given how few people actually know the really deep stuff competently, it would be so stupid of them not to be doing that right now.
How is this not a red flag? It’s a series G and they are still begging for money to burn. When do they convert their balance sheet to profit? Is it after a series AAF when they are worth more than Apple or nvidia?
Pay attention to the outflow of tech investment in the stock market. That money is going to move into OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs. The valuations will be as big you are thinking because the market believes these companies will represent an entire basket of startups.
It Is more likely that people are cashing out very liquid assets (tech stocks) to pay back their loans in Yen as interest rates are rising over there. Tech stocks with all the hype are second only to crypto in terms of how easy and fast are to sell (hence BTC dropped and now tech stocks IMHO). Btw, I was too young to fully remember, but wasn't the year before the dot com crash also full of IPOs?
> Btw, I was too young to fully remember, but wasn't the year before the dot com crash also full of IPOs?
SpaceX makes 16B in revenue per year, with 7B in ebitda (which doesn't account for the cost of rockets)... so assume what, 3B in free cash flow per year? And that's being generous. That's about what Google creates in free cash every 2 weeks.
SpaceX can also raise their prices for government launches to pretty much anything and still get business, because they are essentially a monopoly.
Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though? All those giants have their own business that are established and profitable. It’s the new kids in the block that will make the difference. You know those lists on twitter about how many companies US has in top 10 and are presented as a win? Those are actually lists of capital concentrations blocking innovation. It looks like US is winning but…
Sometimes I worry about the incentives for innovation in the US. Step 1, find something to innovate on, sell the promise of it to investors. Step 2, build a prototype or worst case, build it for real and start generating income from your truly innovate and unique product. Step 3, get acquired by a large company and then shut down because your product competed with theirs. End result, general public possibly benefited…
This is what I struggled with after grad school. You have so many decent ideas. So many people you know in the domain also with their own good ideas. Everyone looking for their next gig. It could all be so easy to get a couple people together and start building. But, alas, money, that must come from people who expect more money back before long, which severely limits the scope of ideas that will get investor funding. No moonshots, no sci fi future, just same old looking for low hanging arbitrage or rent seeking opportunities. Kinda sad when you realize that is pretty much all private tech investment because funding is driven by investors ultimately, and not scientists like what you see on grant review panels for basic research. Money must make more money, which again limits severely what money can do.
Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though? All those giants have their own business that are established and profitable. It’s the new kids in the block that will make the difference. You know those lists on twitter about how many companies US has in top 10 and are presented as a win? Those are actually lists of capital concentrations blocking innovation. It looks like US is winning but…
Kind of funny you say it is capital concentration that blocks innovation then praise anthropic, when we are in a thread about them concentrating capital. And not only have these companies concentrated capital, and mindshare in the mass media, they have concentrated talent. You have to wonder how often they hire talent just to keep them out of the market for other upstart companies to potentially use, like with no act…
No need to be pedantic about it, obviously you need capital concentration to do stuff. The difference is what this stuff is, in Apple and Google's case its even more from the same but for Anthropic its this new thing.
The gist is, world beating(in profit and market cap terms) tech giants who made their money with innovation are now just the roadblocks to innovation. If succeeds, Anthropic will eventually be like that but until then Anthropic is the innovator. The contemporary US is able to concentrate wealth but not able to turn it into innovation or life quality improvements as efficiently as EU or China, since they are getting better outcomes with less. So it is a systematic issue.