> Why would companies sell you the golden goose when they can instead sell you an egg every day?
Because someone else can sell the goose and take your market.
Apple is best aligned to be the disruptor. But I wouldn’t underestimate the Chinese government dumping top-tier open-source models on the internet to take our tech companies down a notch or ten.
Sure, the company that launched iTunes and killed physical media, then released a phone where you can't install apps ("the web is the apps") will be the disruptor to bring back local computing to users...
By that logic none of us should be paying monthly subscriptions for anything because obviously someone would disrupt that pricing model and take business away from all the tech companies who are charging it? Especially since personal computers and mobile devices get more and more powerful and capable with every passing year. Yet subscriptions also get more prevalent every year.
If Apple does finally come up with a fully on-device AI model that is actually useful, what makes you think they won't gate it behind a $20/mo subscription like they do for everything else?
> By that logic none of us should be paying monthly subscriptions for anything because obviously someone would disrupt that pricing model and take business away from all the tech companies who are charging it?
Non sequitur.
If a market is being ripped off by subscription, there is opportunity in selling the asset. Vice versa: if the asset sellers are ripping off the market, there is opportunity to turn it into a subscription. Business models tend to oscillate between these two for a variety of reasons. Nothing there suggets one mode is infinitely yielding.
> If Apple does finally come up with a fully on-device AI model that is actually useful, what makes you think they won't gate it behind a $20/mo subscription like they do for everything else?
If they can, someone else can, too. They can make plenty of money selling it straight.
It's also that same Apple that fights tooth and nail every single attempt to let people have the goose or even the promise of a goose. E.g. by saying that it's entitled to a cut even if a transaction didn't happen through Apple.
It's a lot more complicated than that. They need to be able to take the island very quickly with a decapitation strike, while also keeping TSMC from being sabotaged or destroyed, then they need to be able to weather a long western economic embargo until they can "break the siege" with demand for what they control along with minor good faith concessions.
It's very risky play, and if it doesn't work it leaves China in a much worse place than before, so ideally you don't make the play unless you're already facing some big downside, sort of as a "hail Mary" move. At this point I'm sure they're assuming Trump is glad handing them while preparing for military action, they might even view invasion of Taiwan as defensive if they think military action could be imminent anyhow.
You could say the same thing about Computers when they were mostly mainframe. I am sure someone will figure out how to make it commoditized just like personal computers and internet.
And notably, those phones and tablets are intentionally hobbled by the device owners (Apple, Google) who do everything they can to ensure they can't be treated like personal computing devices. Short of regulatory intervention, I don't see this trend changing anytime soon. We're going full on in the direction of more locked down now that Google is tightening the screws on Android.
They didn't create them, but PC startups like Apple and Commodore only made inroads into the home -- a relatively narrow market compared to business. It took IBM to legitimize PCs as business tools.
> I look forward to the "personal computing" period, with small models distributed everywhere...
Like the web, which worked out great?
Our Internet is largely centralized platforms. Built on technology controlled by trillion dollar titans.
Google somehow got the lion share of browser usage and is now dictating the direction of web tech, including the removal of adblock. The URL bar defaults to Google search, where the top results are paid ads.
Your typical everyday person uses their default, locked down iPhone or Android to consume Google or Apple platform products. They then communicate with their friends over Meta platforms, Reddit, or Discord.
The decentralized web could never outrun money. It's difficult to out-engineer hundreds of thousands of the most talented, most highly paid engineers that are working to create these silos.
Ok, so Brave Browser exists - if you download, you will see 0 ads on the internet, I've never really seen ads on the internet - even in the before brave times.
Fr tho, no ads - I'm not making money off them, I've got no invite code for you, I'm a human - I just don't get it. I've probably told 500 people about Brave, I don't know any that ever tried it.
I don't ever know what to say. You're not wrong, as long as you never try to do something else.
> Why would companies sell you the golden goose when they can instead sell you an egg every day?
Because someone else can sell the goose and take your market.
Apple is best aligned to be the disruptor. But I wouldn’t underestimate the Chinese government dumping top-tier open-source models on the internet to take our tech companies down a notch or ten.
Sure, the company that launched iTunes and killed physical media, then released a phone where you can't install apps ("the web is the apps") will be the disruptor to bring back local computing to users...
By that logic none of us should be paying monthly subscriptions for anything because obviously someone would disrupt that pricing model and take business away from all the tech companies who are charging it? Especially since personal computers and mobile devices get more and more powerful and capable with every passing year. Yet subscriptions also get more prevalent every year.
If Apple does finally come up with a fully on-device AI model that is actually useful, what makes you think they won't gate it behind a $20/mo subscription like they do for everything else?
> By that logic none of us should be paying monthly subscriptions for anything because obviously someone would disrupt that pricing model and take business away from all the tech companies who are charging it?
Non sequitur.
If a market is being ripped off by subscription, there is opportunity in selling the asset. Vice versa: if the asset sellers are ripping off the market, there is opportunity to turn it into a subscription. Business models tend to oscillate between these two for a variety of reasons. Nothing there suggets one mode is infinitely yielding.
> If Apple does finally come up with a fully on-device AI model that is actually useful, what makes you think they won't gate it behind a $20/mo subscription like they do for everything else?
If they can, someone else can, too. They can make plenty of money selling it straight.
1 reply →
Because they need to displace open AI users, or open AI will steer their trajectory towards Apple at some point.
What on-device app does Apple charge a subscription for?
> Apple is best aligned to be the disruptor.
It's this disruptor Apple in the room with us now?
Apple's second biggest money source is services. You know, subscriptions. And that source keeps growing: https://sixcolors.com/post/2025/10/charts-apple-caps-off-bes...
It's also that same Apple that fights tooth and nail every single attempt to let people have the goose or even the promise of a goose. E.g. by saying that it's entitled to a cut even if a transaction didn't happen through Apple.
Unfortunately, most people just want eggs, not the burden of actually owning the goose.
Putting a few boots in Taiwan would also make for a profitable short. Profitable to the tune of several trillion dollars. Xi must be getting tempted.
It's a lot more complicated than that. They need to be able to take the island very quickly with a decapitation strike, while also keeping TSMC from being sabotaged or destroyed, then they need to be able to weather a long western economic embargo until they can "break the siege" with demand for what they control along with minor good faith concessions.
It's very risky play, and if it doesn't work it leaves China in a much worse place than before, so ideally you don't make the play unless you're already facing some big downside, sort of as a "hail Mary" move. At this point I'm sure they're assuming Trump is glad handing them while preparing for military action, they might even view invasion of Taiwan as defensive if they think military action could be imminent anyhow.
6 replies →
You could say the same thing about Computers when they were mostly mainframe. I am sure someone will figure out how to make it commoditized just like personal computers and internet.
An interesting remark: in the 1950s-1970s, mainframes were typically rented rather than sold.
It looks to me like the personal computer area is over. Everything is in the cloud and accessed through terminals like phones and tablets.
And notably, those phones and tablets are intentionally hobbled by the device owners (Apple, Google) who do everything they can to ensure they can't be treated like personal computing devices. Short of regulatory intervention, I don't see this trend changing anytime soon. We're going full on in the direction of more locked down now that Google is tightening the screws on Android.
Because someone else will sell it to you if they dont.
Because companies are not some monolith, all doing identical things forever. If someone sees a new angle to make money, they'll start doing it.
Data General and Unisys did not create PCs - small disrupters did that. These startups were happy to sell eggs.
They didn't create them, but PC startups like Apple and Commodore only made inroads into the home -- a relatively narrow market compared to business. It took IBM to legitimize PCs as business tools.
Well if there's at least one competitor selling golden geese to consumers the rest have to adapt.
Assuming consumers even bother to set up a coop in their living room...
Your margin is my opportunity. The more expensive centralized models get the easier it is for distributed models to compete.
Exactly! It's a rent-seeking model.
> I look forward to the "personal computing" period, with small models distributed everywhere...
Like the web, which worked out great?
Our Internet is largely centralized platforms. Built on technology controlled by trillion dollar titans.
Google somehow got the lion share of browser usage and is now dictating the direction of web tech, including the removal of adblock. The URL bar defaults to Google search, where the top results are paid ads.
Your typical everyday person uses their default, locked down iPhone or Android to consume Google or Apple platform products. They then communicate with their friends over Meta platforms, Reddit, or Discord.
The decentralized web could never outrun money. It's difficult to out-engineer hundreds of thousands of the most talented, most highly paid engineers that are working to create these silos.
Ok, so Brave Browser exists - if you download, you will see 0 ads on the internet, I've never really seen ads on the internet - even in the before brave times.
Fr tho, no ads - I'm not making money off them, I've got no invite code for you, I'm a human - I just don't get it. I've probably told 500 people about Brave, I don't know any that ever tried it.
I don't ever know what to say. You're not wrong, as long as you never try to do something else.
3 replies →
I agree man, it's depressing.
When the consumer decides to discover my site and fund federated and P2P infrastructure, they can have a seat at the table.
Selling fertile geese was a winning and proven business biz model for a very long time.
Selling eggs is better how?