this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
129 points (100.0% liked)

Hardware

759 readers
505 users here now

All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.

Rules (Click to Expand):

  1. Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about

  2. Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.

  3. No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.

  4. Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.

  5. Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).

  6. If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.

Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:

Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Alphane_Moon
CSFFlame
129
Smartphone buyers meh on AI, care much more about battery life - 9to5Mac (9to5mac.com)
submitted 1 month ago by Alphane_Moon to c/hardware
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

But companies like microsoft? Is their plan to keep plowing tens of billions of dollars into “AI” in hopes of eventually discovering/creating the “next IT revolution”?

Microsoft has roughly a market cap of 3.2 trillion dollar, so while tens of billions certainly isn't cheap, it also isn't going all in. I think one has to approach it from a betting perspective. Burning a few billion dollar is certainly not great, but also doesn't fundamentally hurt the company. Missing out on a major trend on the other hand is something even large companies can't afford. So it is at least as much about risk management as it is about returns.

Even Zuck eventually stopped burning billions on his metaverse fetish

He hasn't given up on it though, just maybe scaled back a bit. And honestly in theory i can see the appeal of what he is trying to do. Seems like he is trying to stay ahead and eventually become the default platform for ar/vr devices, similar to microsoft with windows and google with android. So while the costs are huge (and i still don't quite understand where all that money goes), the reward could be worth it in retrospective, if he succeeds.

[–] Alphane_Moon 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Market cap is one thing. It's not like they have $3.2 trillion in cash. I understand that they don't want to potentially miss out, but they have to expect a return and have at least modicum accountability on such initiatives. Moreso that Microsoft management doesn't have a dual layer share structure like Zuck that essentially enables them to not be responsible to shareholders.

Have you read about some of the internal discussions on metaverse in FB? They didn't want to use their own products for meetings because it was a hassle and it was easier to just do a video/audio conference call.

They've spent over $46 billion on metaverse initiatives - can you point to any promising products or viable use cases that have come out of this initiative? Surely there has to be something, I understand it takes time, but after 3 years and $46 billion, I don't think it's unreasonable to have something to show.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Market cap is one thing. It’s not like they have $3.2 trillion in cash. I understand that they don’t want to potentially miss out, but they have to expect a return and have at least modicum accountability on such initiatives. Moreso that Microsoft management doesn’t have a dual layer share structure like Zuck that essentially enables them to not be responsible to shareholders.

True, i guess we could also look at other numbers instead of market cap. here are their most recent results: In the last quarter alone they had 22 billion net income. If this article for example is correct with their $13.75 billion that microsoft invested, then we are talking less than 2 months of profit.

However i am not sure if that is the right metric either. If i remember correctly they didn't use cash to pay for their stake either, but instead gave openAI compute credits to train their model on Microsofts cloud. At least for some of it.

In any case as the article above also mentions the whole ownership structure is pretty complicated, but unless the AI bubble bursts and openAI's valuation drops, their investment so far has grown on paper.

Have you read about some of the internal discussions on metaverse in FB? They didn’t want to use their own products for meetings because it was a hassle and it was easier to just do a video/audio conference call.

They’ve spent over $46 billion on metaverse initiatives - can you point to any promising products or viable use cases that have come out of this initiative? Surely there has to be something, I understand it takes time, but after 3 years and $46 billion, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have something to show.

Yeah, i've read some articles on the topic. Their quest headsets are pretty solid and the Orion glasses they recently showcased seem like a step in the right direction. But i do share your criticism that it is hard to see where all that money went. Which i also tried to convey above by qualifying my opinion with "in theory i can see the appeal " and " (and i still don’t quite understand where all that money goes)"