Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I decided to stop working on Mighty

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 342 posts

Re: I decided to stop working on Mighty

#81

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

obblekk wrote: post #57

Props to Suhail for building in the open (takes a lot of rejection tolerance) and being so honest about the path. That said, I work with lawyers as customers and I suspect there was an adjacent market in data privacy that a hosted browser would have had PM fit for. A lot of industries have strict legal requirements on controlling employee access to data (think healthcare, legal, compliance). In these cases, SaaS beco…

> The standard solution is to limit the webapp to be accessible on VPN, and limit VPN to be accessible on MDM controlled devices, and limit MDM to be accessible on company owned devices.

Didn't the "BeyondCorp" zero trust model pretty much kill that, or at least show there was a better way to restricting access to secure apps than a VPN?

Re: I decided to stop working on Mighty

#83

Post by iLoveOncall »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #7

In May 2021 Paul Graham wrote Crazy New Ideas [1], in which he explained that envy is the only reason people criticize ideas by "reasonable domain experts". This was widely understood at the time to refer to critics of Mighty[2][3]. [1]: http://paulgraham.com/newideas.html [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27062713 [3]: https://www.echevarria.io/blog/the-mighty-pushback-isnt-all-...

I can't imagine how full of themselves one must be to think that because they're a subject matter expert they cannot have bad ideas.

Re: I decided to stop working on Mighty

#85

Post by oops »

baxtr wrote: post #61
talhof8 wrote: post #39

I don't think it's M1 that killed it. Probably high server costs and being a vitamin and not a painkiller killed it. Also, people are not too happy about giving away their browser history data to server-side powered browsers. That being said, it's still sad to see startups fail. Hopefully they'll have better luck with their new direction. Fingers crossed!

I love the vitamin vs painkiller discussion. The basic premise is: don’t build a vitamin, build a painkiller because it’s solves a real problem and people will be willing to pay for it. First of all the analogy fails in the real world. The vitamin market is huge. People pay lots of money to buy vitamins. Second, the transition is not clear. It’s hard to draw a line line and say now this vitamin turned into a painkill…

I like the analogy. I never heard it before now, but I instantly understood what I think it meant: build something that is harder to live without. I have nothing to back this up but I’d think most people think of a vitamin as easier to live without than a painkiller.

> For example: was Facebook a painkiller? Hardly.

I don’t know. People without pain do take painkillers. And they can have a really hard time stopping. In that sense, I would argue that Facebook is a lot like a painkiller for a lot of people!

Re: I decided to stop working on Mighty

#86

Post by morelisp »

paulgb wrote: post #75
yrgulation wrote: post #55

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.

This is an argument for a more broadly-accessible interface to e.g. Selenium, not for "the same browser, but somewhere else."

Re: I decided to stop working on Mighty

#87

Post by no_time »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #67
modeless wrote: post #41

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…

>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.

It is our job to care so non IT people don't have to.

Re: I decided to stop working on Mighty

#89

Post by rightbyte »

lukevp wrote: post #37
ivoryloom wrote: post #2

I was skeptical about Mighty but seeing gaming platforms moving to streaming, PG endorsing this as the future, I thought I was just not getting it. Maybe I should trust myself more.

Stadia failed too… but was that just google pulling the plug, or the whole concept that doesn’t make sense? Personally I’ve tried stadia and ps now, and they both have noticeable artifacting, lower resolution, and input latency, on a 1 gig symmetrical fiber connection. The only streaming that’s remotely acceptable as a gamer is steam in-home streaming over a hardwired connection.

You probably need some post-rendering to speed things up. And send the data as entity state changes. Like hot and sexy X11 done since I was born.

The render, compress, send over IP, decompress pipeline will just always feel laggy and slow.

Re: I decided to stop working on Mighty

#90

Post by andrewvc »

aslilac wrote: post #59
modeless wrote: post #41

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…

yes! this is the same reason I’m glad Stadia died. “cool demo” does not equal “practical business”, and local compute will always be superior to cloud compute.

What? Stadia worked great (I say this as a user). What didn’t work was the business model, the lack of games, and the lack of trust in google to invest to fix those other things.

It worked flawlessly for me for years over Wi-Fi. GeForce now which I currently use is rockier due to being more bandwidth sensitive and not as controller friendly since you’re really using a PC, not a console as stadia was.

Post reply on HN