This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Nobody wants to invest 2 months paycheck into hardware that the developer is going to drop support for in 6 months.
Hardware is too expensive for the average Joe to buy and those of us who can afford it are tired of being burned by companies that provide subpar service then drop support for the thing. Cool, bleeding edge tech means little if there is little use for it or if nobody can afford it.
On the nose.
I used to love the bleeding edge, then my father (retired engineer) enlightened me on why important (electro-mechanical stuff) runs on older, slower, (but insanely reliable) engineering.
It's that insanely reliable part. Kind of a hare vs the tortoise kind of thing. It's more important to be able to predict when the tortoise arrives, than to be unpredictable like the hare, even if the hare finishes first 90% of the time. That last ten percent could be a massive cost.
Look at the ECU in a car - over the 40 years I've been working on cars (and my brothers and friends), we've seen exactly ONE ECU failure, and we think that was caused by an external event (a voltage spike).
I've bought a few "new tech" solutions only to have the company disappear within a couple years. For example, software for replicating a Windows install that could then install on any computer, retaining all the config and software. It was intelligent enough to update drivers as needed. They were around for 2 years, and the license has to validate against their servers. Bastards. Lol. (I'm guessing Microsoft acquired them to keep people from using it).
I'm guessing Microsoft acquired them to keep people from using it
And that's also why it was designed to need their servers to authenticate against: because they could charge Microsoft more if their product could be switched off remotely. They likely built the product with the aim of getting bought up. Who wants to run a company for 40 years when you can just skim a few million off of Microsoft and retire?
Lol, probably true.
They know how valuable the tech was. I still have the software and all the licensing info. Part of me feels like doing a Wireshark to see what it's trying to do. I should've done that while they were around, to see the traffic.
then my father (retired engineer) enlightened me on why important (electro-mechanical stuff) runs on older, slower, (but insanely reliable) engineering.
I am in the controls and automation sector. Your dad is half right.
You have to look at the whole system to determine reliability. Oh sure what you have now is going to last a long time but no one knows how to repair it when it dies. Plus all the components are no longer available so now a repair job is going to involve lots of work. I can't count the number of times I have had to bail out a plant because the one guy who knew how it worked retired. Very expensive.
Why do you need reliability? No really ask yourself this. Or better yet how much do you need. The answer is not going to be "as much as possible". Are you going to do this process this way for 30 years? No? Ok why did you pay 4x as much for a machine that can last 50? There is almost no chance whatever process you are doing is going to be the same forever. There will be improvements and your competition will take advantage of them.
What the heck does reliability even mean? Take a classic FET output vs a relay output.
Relays: easy to repair, can handle almost any voltage you throw at them, sensitive to vibrations causing false state changes, rated for a 10k cycles.
FETs: can't repair, can handle limited voltage ranges, ignore vibrations, rated for a million cycles.
Now tell me, given these facts, which one will result in less downtime over say ten years? I am asking here because I don't have enough information. Again you need to look at the whole system to determine which way you want to go. I have seen machines act up seemly randomly because a relay was flipping from vibrations and I have seen ones fuse contacts causing a machine to rip itself apart. I have also seen FETs die from a tiny surge.
Maybe you don't want a repairable system. I know this might be startlingly fact but it might benefit you to not have any ability to mess with your machine. Lots of amps and high voltage in these you going to have your guys open it up and mess around? Now you have the liability now your OEM can get pissed at you and not want to help because you messed with the design. You also compromised the UL label. The OEM can make a solid argument that if there is a workers comp suit that you altered it and hence it is on you. That's part of the reason why security screws are finding their way into factory equipment. Makes it that much harder to get inside.
I also question the mentality of customers who insist on individually long lasting parts when they haven't even established that they are. Sure NEMA contactors vs IEC ones look tougher but do you have data to back up that they are infact longer lasting? In real world conditions.
To put it bluntly: people get old and are afraid of change. They have half remembered wisdom about something that may have been true at one point but isn't anymore. The result is crap design. Fuses that don't protect anything, transformers that don't prevent surges, heafty parts that are a waste of material, line reactors when there is an internal one in the Soft starter/VFD, multiple voltage domains when 2 would have been sufficient, indicating lights that are dim, hardcoded non-safety interlocks when we have software, branch circuit protection when it isn't needed, expensive hard to replace push-to-test lights instead of a simple switch and software, thick wire crammed into limit switches that is almost impossible to repair, ancient PLCs no longer under support, serial comms that can't be troubleshooted, external power that defeats lock-out-tagout, roller switches that have to be made in a machine shop...
Oh sure your system will work but it radiants excessive heat, parts costs multiple times what they should to replace, large portions of the design do nothing but add heat and increase the chance of failure, it pulls a lot of energy, it can't be upgraded or even half the time incorporated into a line, it is more dangerous to work with, and you look like a fucking moron as people in the future learn not to buy a camel (horse built by committee) from you.
Don't go into controls/automation if you have any passion for good design. If you want to know what about a quarter of my customers are like imagine someone insisting that you apply the noose of a hangman to your forehead to fix a headache and women who show ankles carry smallpox.
The kicker is that the devices are usually locked down so even if you have the motivation to get your hands dirty, you can't. The device dies as soon as support dies.
You know what I want to look at devices prices and their typical lifespan and see what their monthly cost is once adjusted for inflation. I’m curious how device prices have evolved…
Edit: I asked ChatGPT (so not verified info) and yes it gave me a md compatible table lol
| Device | Release Price | Lifespan | Monthly Cost of Ownership | Release Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nokia 3310 (Adjusted) | $67.15 | 8 years | Approximately $0.70 | 2000 |
| 5th Gen iPod (iPod Video) | $299 | 6 years | Approximately $4.15 | 2005 |
| iPod Touch (7th Gen) | $199 | 6 years | Approximately $2.76 | 2019 |
| MacBook Air (M1 chip) | $999 | 5 years | Approximately $16.65 | 2020 |
| Google Pixel 5 (Base) | $699 | 4 years | Approximately $14.56 | 2020 |
| iPhone 13 (Base Model) | $699 | 4 years | Approximately $14.56 | 2021 |
| Samsung Galaxy S21 (Base) | $799 | 4 years | Approximately $16.65 | 2021 |
| iPhone 13 Pro (Base Model) | $999 | 4 years | Approximately $20.81 | 2021 |
| Apple Vision Pro | $3,499 | 4 years | Approximately $72.90 | 2024 |
Edit2 added iPod and iPhone 13 Pro and more coming as I think of it. Feel free to suggest things in the comments.
Edit3 added android phones.
While this is true, I feel like this tank misses a few things.
People replace things too often imho. But to go with this theme, I used to do so as well… swapped my iPhone 3GS for a 4s and then the 6. I’d build a new desktop every 18-24 months near the late 90’s and 2000’s. Things were improving so fast in those times, it was worth it… but then things have stagnated. I don’t see a good reason to get a new iPhone, and while I love the M2, it’ll easily tide me over for 10 yrs. My wife still uses her Lenovo laptop from 2011. Cost is only part of the equation. Sure I don’t want to drop the coin, but also there’s really no big changes worth it to me.
I do miss my Nokia 3110 though. Stability and battery life were awesome. Those were simpler days.
I think you want to use hourly cost, or maybe some other measure of the utility of something. I can own a rock, and it may be a magnificent rock that will last centuries, but it isn't going to give me much benefit.
Same with an old cell phone. I may be able to use it for 8 years, but I'm not going to use it for navigation, taking pictures, video chatting with family/friends, replacing my laptop when I'm out, etc.
Your table is a good start, but it's missing some really important information
Please what info is it missing? I added the iPods for that reason.
Basically, I don't think think monthly cost of ownership is a good metric for value.
I probably used an old cell phone maybe 3 hours a week. I use my smartphone at least 3 hours a day communicating with people, reading news, studying, games for kids, work, etc. I don't think monthly cost of ownership reflects the value that those devices bring me. Your table needs a different column that measures the value more appropriately. Perhaps ownership cost per hour of usage?
You have another issue in that smartphones replace cameras, radios/Walkmen, maps, and even laptops In many cases. An iphone doesn't just replace an old Nokia, it replaces all those other items as well.
I don't think you need more rows, you need different columns.
Put another way: I'm not going to believe in a new product more than the vendor does, because that's stupid. And we've had it demonstrated time and time again that the vendors don't believe in their products.
The entire article is just an ad for a blog that doesn't exist yet... The irony is unbearable.
Crazy how many up votes this article has. It’s like everyone is just agreeing with the headline without even bothering to check.
Hahaha, damn, thanks for saving me the click and read.
No? It's a cover page for an hour long podcast episode. Not that that's much better, as I am certainly not going to set aside time for that, but it's not "just an ad for a blog that doesn't exist yet".
People love to say things like this but it's kinda ridiculous, pretty much every new tech is hugely successful. Those battery advances that no one really believes in? You've probably got one of them in your hand now, you're probably physically closer to someone using chatGPT than you are to someone reading a book - if not you almost certainly met more people today who have used gpt more recently than they've read from a book. Vr adoption continues to grow, automation solutions are getting installed all over the place at a rapid rate, electric cars are gaining market share, whole countries are using desalination for their water supply, everyone that's said anything about Osiris rex has been excited about the move towards space based industry.
The bulk of the population is loving the endless tech upgrades and eager for more, yeah not everything is good and most people are adult enough to realise that.
(No I did not read the article, someone said it was shit and I don't doubt them)
vr adoption continues to grow
It’s only gonna be 10 more years, I promise.
Complex tech takes time to develop, who'd have guessed!
I'm sorry homie but VR is going nowhere. No one outside of a small, niche community even cares about it anymore.
I think VR is doing OK
According to Steam has more number users than either Mac or Linux
And just Quest 2 alone has 20 millions unit sold, same number as XBOX Series X/S that released on the same year
I don't think the situation is that bad
Ha ok, we'll see how that prediction pans out.
Yes the expensive and complex products available today limit the audience which in turn lowers the attractiveness of the market to creators which further inhibits uptake, the exact same thing is clearly visible in the home computer adoption curve and many similar developments.
First adopters create an ecosystem of markets which results in a growing diversity of established use cases - many ideas fail but some prove to be very efficient and effective as part of a workflow which over going becomes the standard way of doing things.
As there are more things for which vr becomes established it transitions from being something major creators don't really bother with to something that they make a show of supporting - especially as the general ecosystem has become established so things like which menu style to use or how to orientate views have become easy choices. This changes vr from being niche special use to a fairly general tool that a lot of people are used to using.
At that point we'll see a lot of cheap consumer devices which results in a lot more development on the market, especially as natural language input through LLMs make control interfaces easier and similar generative ai make creating vr environments easier.
Vr is going to be something that most people are used to using somewhat regularly, I don't think it'll replace screens but there's a lot of things that we currently do on a screen that will just make more sense in vr
Just like hydrogen cars, in ten years it's going to be big. (10 years later) in ten years everyone is going to be using it. (10 years later) etc...
Of course new tech is used in industry but consumer products are a different story. And it's complex. People like spending money on stuff, it makes them feel better, so when the world gets depressing they buy things. Also, a side effect of not being able to afford a home is that people have more disposable income to spend on toys. Why save money if you will never save enough? So yes, people buy new products but do they really buy them because they are exited about new tech? I doubt it. You can easily run a 10 year old laptop and (if you're lucky and it's not broken) 5 year old phone today and you wouldn't be missing anything. No one really asked for AI, 5G and AR.
lol, there was no article, that was the irony. Just like the promises of big tech for the past 5 years, and all we're seeing is endless stupid fads and gargantuan wastes of resources.
Ok but can we talk about that cookies popup? Yikes
I mean, isn't that the better way of doing it? One popup, exains everything, gives you the option to opt out in that popup instead of going through settings and shit.
I think it's intentionally wordy and the opt-out is "on" by default. I am usually instinctively just trying to hit the "off" button as quickly as possible and hitting save so I can get rid of the window, without actually reading anything. I almost certainly would have accidentally opted in to third party tracking.
I fully admit I might just be dumb though.
It could be less wordy, it isn't perfect. I have definitely run into ones that require going through multiple layers of settings though, so this just seems a lot less bullshit than that.
Looking at the image again, default to not sharing while calling that 'on' and being slightly awkward is definitely not an accident and is probably designed to trick people paying no attention at all.
I took a look at the website provided and holy shit there are a lot of downstream providers. And when i click on the link for the first site I immediately get a pop-up warning from ublock.
We went from, "here's some cool tech we built, you should buy it because it's awesome and we'll make some money" to "how do we screw every last cent out of our customers whilst providing the bare minimum?"
While sterling all their data
We're broke you assholes! We can't give you money for gadgets with money we don't have!
What future? They were selling us a Warhammer dystopia rather than glorious halo or something cool. Useless tech clowns
Good, open the market for true innovation.
That's not what's happening.
Now it's just 'open the market for VCs to suck the good out of everything they can'
I was talking to my daughter yesterday about H. G. Wells and the one film he wrote the screenplay for, the 1936 film Things to Come.
In the film, a great world war starts in 1940 with an air attack on Britain (surprisingly prescient, but the rest isn't). The war lasts until 1970 until Britain is completely destroyed and petty dictators rule tiny patches of land in the wastes. But men of science return to Britain and rebuild it as a scientific utopia.
Wells was a scientific technocrat. He thought that scientists should be in charge of things because there was nothing technology could do that wouldn't eventually lift humanity up and bring about a paradise on Earth...
So why did he also write The Time Machine, where everything falls apart and humanity splits into two species, both unintelligent? Because he was also a socialist and he saw what capitalism and the class system was doing to the world (The War of the Worlds was also about this, a critique of Western colonialism).
So over 100 years ago, H. G. Wells was telling us that we were on a path to either scientific utopia or destruction due to our embracing old modes of thinking.
What would he have made of capitalists using technology to end civilization?
The only future they have been selling the whole time is like ghost in the shell or psycho pass but somehow worse and with more and worse crime and depression and no suspenseful drama or epic action scenes.
A 1 hour conversation? Anybody got a Too Long Didnt Listen?
Good, they're just scamming at this point.
Somewhere along the line they went from creating goods and services that people could use to improve their lives, to dreaming up some dystopian futuristic bullshit, then using their control over technology, governments, and media to make that dream a reality.
This is literally already what “bleeding edge” meant and means.
