this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
416 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

85921 readers
5291 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Slashme@lemmy.world 167 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

It's a weird business where everyone is offering an environmentally unsupportable service at below cost, hoping to outlive the competition.

Market share of a negative profit market.

[–] d00ery@lemmy.world 65 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It worked for netflix and the steaming services. Now terrestrial (cable) is dead and adsupported streaming tiers have returned lol.

[–] FrankFrankson@lemmy.world 51 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It's how every tech company that "disrupts" a market or indistry works. Uber started of burning shit tons of cash operating at a loss till it replaced enough Taxi services then jacked up the prices.

The problem with AI is that they cannot increase the prices enough to be profitable. The AI companies are waiting for future hardware tech that will be energy efficient enough to make AI profitable before they run out of capital to burn.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 weeks ago

The problem with AI is that they cannot increase the prices enough to be profitable.

I saw something about the SpaceX IPO that said for it to be justified at that price, everyone on earth with some sort of money (they defined it as earning at least $14,000/year) had to become an xAI consumer and spend $28,000/year. Seems reasonable /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tommelot@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I was thinking about that, but it did make governments move to digital programming (eg BBC, NPO), which they likely wouldn't have done if it wasn't for Netflix. I think it also improved the internet speeds here in NL significantly.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@piefed.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

That's not correct - the BBC announced iPlayer in 2003, tested 2004 onwards and finally launched in 2007 after being delayed by lobbying. The iPlayer was held back from full launch due to concerns from commercial competitors - in particular broadband providers lobbied against the iPlayer service because they feared the "pressure" it would put on the broadband infrastructure.

Netflix launched their streaming service in 2007.

Netflix did not originate the idea of streaming (nor did the BBC to be clear), much like Apple didn't originate the smart phone. Netfiix did however do it better than it's competitors, particularly the incumbents in the commercial sector.

[–] Tommelot@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I remember iPlayer in 2007: it was a mess, using DRM and P2P, requiring a full download before watching it. I wouldn't call that a streaming service at all. Shows had to be watched within a week of broadcasting.

I welcome feedback but starting a comment with 'thats not correct' and then blatantly being incorrect is just some ol' bullshit.

I never mentioned that either of the companies originated the idea of streaming. I only posited that Netflix pushed governments (in this case the Dutch and UK) to move to digital programming.

[–] d00ery@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

Painful memories of drm do come haunting back, but I do wonder if any streaming service was much better at the time?

[–] worhui@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They did a better job by offering an unsustainable variety of programming from all the studios in one place at the same time. All of the competitors at the time only offered financially viable services.

I believe in ai now because I looked at the Netflix balance sheet and thought. “There is NO WAY they could become profitable they are spending wayyy to much money and have way to much debt. It’s financially impossible to get out of this hole”

I understand how it worked and how it could not have. There are a lot of ways this could fail on AI but there are some real ways forward. AI has a similar application reach as the internet. It’s world changing.

I see why meta and google are going in hard. They lived though the rise and fall of blockbuster. They saw Sony release 3 different steaming services before after and during Netflix. This is the disruption for the current generation of tech and their revenue model.

Someone is going to ‘Win’ AI and a lot of others will loose.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

One company may win, but we all will lose for sure. Specially investors, the math doesn't add up even if revenue breaks even.

It will be even more funny if these companies are declared financially bankrupt and the profitable parts are sold separately and the non profitable will stay with share holders.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 25 points 2 weeks ago

Market share of a negative profit market.

Yes. That was my reaction, too.

If I start giving away autographed headhsots, have I then also cornered an emerging market? lol.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago

Wait until the winner shows up and proceeds to absolutely wreck everything with fees and subscriptions jammed into everything remaining that didn't need AI.

Look up commoditizing the compliment.

[–] abbadon420@sh.itjust.works 52 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

So, people are falling for Anthropic's marketing scheme?

[–] blackbeans@lemmy.zip 32 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Personally, I find myself using the Chinese alternatives more and more as they are just way cheaper.

[–] abbadon420@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The good thing is that a deepseek can be run locally relatively well with consumer hardware. I trust chinese companies as much as i trust american companies with my data and my prompts.

[–] Vlyn@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

You have 170+ GB VRAM at home? (:

I mainly use DeepSeek v4 Flash now, it's the cheapest around and the quality is high enough for coding. At work we're throwing tons of money at Claude, but even there I usually stick to Sonnet (as Opus is burning money).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mesamunefire@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Theres a lot of good models free online that are open source/Chinese and the only cost is a bit of slowness on my rig. No token limit or whatever. Totally agree.

Its about as good as commercial products now...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 10 points 2 weeks ago

The company taking most of chatGPT's market share is actually Gemini, which I think is cheating because it's basically just padding the numbers with random google searches.

[–] elvith@feddit.org 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Can't be Europeans as they're locked out from the new models LOL

[–] paranoia@feddit.dk 28 points 2 weeks ago

As is everyone?

[–] Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

I switched to opencode and deepseek

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 20 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago (8 children)

That depends; it will most likely cause some pretty serious issues outside the AI space. When that bubble finally pops, it'll probably make the dot-com bust look like a bathtub fart. Knock-on effects over non AI industries, and a lot of little bitch CEO's that put all their money/companies money in AI will now be out a whole lot of cash and go on (more) firing sprees.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Me. I care.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] realitista@lemmus.org 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

AI is becoming a commodity. Companies with such high burn rates will have a hard time staying alive.

[–] inari@piefed.zip 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Especially with open weights models available from cloud AI providers.

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah the open weight models are getting good enough that a lot of people can just host their own for most tasks.

[–] Tommelot@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

On what hardware? I have a 1yo laptop running Linux and it's slow AF on open source llms. Might be to do with video card drivers, but I'd be happy to hear suggestions on which machine to put next to my raspberry pi for a local LLM.

[–] Womble@piefed.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

You don't really want to be running them on a laptop. You either need a big dedicate graphics card (with 16 GB of RAM preferably) or a unified RAM/VRAM machine like a mac mini or a strix halo.

Local model running is definitely more doable now that it was a year ago but its not yet at the level of throw it on anything and it'll work fine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nbsp@programming.dev 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Joelk111@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is my first time actually navigating to one of these websites. God damn it's so much more dystopian than I even imagined.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Hehe my experience was distopian alright, the page won't load

[–] red_tomato@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

For those who didn’t read past the headline: OpenAI is still growing, but competition is growing faster.

[–] GMac@feddit.org 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I wish headlines would start to qualify market share. They had over 50% of the active usera/subscribers/acticity or something like that. The addressable market on the other hand isna lot more people and they probably never got anywhere close to 50% of that.

[–] rangber@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago

The free market strikes again.

[–] mecen@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)
[–] placebo@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (10 children)

I don't know what models power Lumo, but Mistral is so far behind the competition it's not even funny.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›