AnandTech Farewell(anandtech.com)
anandtech.com
AnandTech Farewell
https://www.anandtech.com/show/21542/end-of-the-road-an-anandtech-farewell
616 comments
A sad day. My buddy and I were the original developers of anandtech when it went live running on cold fusion and oracle as the backend. I started a hosting company and hosted anadtrch for a few years. Lots of memories there.
I remember religiously checking the hot deals forum then for insane dot com boom pricing choices (and errors). Fun times. A bunch of us moved to IRC but then Fatwallet sort of ruined things w their volume of users.
It was super ahead of it's time with all the crazy functionality and connection.. flowed together really smoothly.
I think there's a need for this kind of thing still, if you have a passion for it you should consider reimagining what kind of content could be needed in 2024.
YC seems to like the kind of esoteric knowledge you probably have.
I think there's a need for this kind of thing still, if you have a passion for it you should consider reimagining what kind of content could be needed in 2024.
YC seems to like the kind of esoteric knowledge you probably have.
I retired from tech after 40 years this spring. Im now a farmer in the middle of nowhere.
The big thing i see missing from long ago times is a real sense of community and an all in one site ( article , forums etc). They try and some are decent but there just isnt the connection and i dont think that will ever return. I think reddit and the like sucked all that away from sites and the audience is much much broader so i feel they lose some of that “likemidedness” i dunno im just old and cant really relate to the younger “techies” of today.
The big thing i see missing from long ago times is a real sense of community and an all in one site ( article , forums etc). They try and some are decent but there just isnt the connection and i dont think that will ever return. I think reddit and the like sucked all that away from sites and the audience is much much broader so i feel they lose some of that “likemidedness” i dunno im just old and cant really relate to the younger “techies” of today.
Long ago times there was a sense of community, but also of loneliness/isolation at the same time. There was also much more accessibility/approachability, there was less to understand and it was easier to understand because we were spoonfed in bits as things were invented/developed and the reasons behind them. Trying to get my son tech skills I had a challenge, where do I even start? It's all just uninteresting dogma you just need to memorize now but for us it was 'this spec/software developed from this and ah ok I see the reasons why'.
Since 40 years ago there have been what, 400 million people years of development work done? That is harder to digest, harder to approach, harder to feel you are a part of something unique and exciting or of a small community.
Since 40 years ago there have been what, 400 million people years of development work done? That is harder to digest, harder to approach, harder to feel you are a part of something unique and exciting or of a small community.
I don't care what anybody says, ColdFusion was a beautiful mess and fun to write.
Do you know Lucee?
https://www.lucee.org/
https://www.lucee.org/
I agree. I did really well in my career with it
Wow! Out of curiosity, which year was it?
Yea we worked on his old site before anadtech. Sheesh so much fun at CES with the gang in lv. Was fun times. My buddy started fusetalk by writing anadtech forums from scratch. It all moved to .net after a couple years and that when i left. Jason stayed on for years
you forgot to answer the question though :)
Oops. Early 96 if i remember correctly. Its been a while :)
I would guess somewhere around 1997 when Anand started the site.
Anandtech is how I learned what Ubuntu is. I must have been about 10 years old, and the concept of any OS besides Windows or MacOS was completely foreign to me. Within a few weeks, I had dug an old laptop out of my dad's bin of "stuff work wasn't using anymore" and I managed to put Ubuntu on it. I think it was an HP. I don't remember the exact specs but I do remember that the GPU was failing, there were weird video glitches all the time, and the battery held a charge for about 15 minutes.
That was my first experience with Linux. That broken-ass computer was what I used when I learned Arduino. I'm now a firmware engineer, writing this comment on my work laptop, which is running Ubuntu.
That was my first experience with Linux. That broken-ass computer was what I used when I learned Arduino. I'm now a firmware engineer, writing this comment on my work laptop, which is running Ubuntu.
Makes me feel old. I was at uni when Ubuntu came out. But my story was similar to yours in the mid 90s and I got hold of a walnut creek cd with Slackware from some PC mag, a couple floppy disks and discarded hardware and I was off to the races
There was something about discovering tech through dedicated tech sites back then that felt exciting.
Now, any time I find something new it always has a polished marketed feel to it and has none of the secretive clandestine undiscovered power that old tech had.
I guess I am getting old
There was something about discovering tech through dedicated tech sites back then that felt exciting.
Now, any time I find something new it always has a polished marketed feel to it and has none of the secretive clandestine undiscovered power that old tech had.
I guess I am getting old
I got hooked with Yggdrasil on CD-RROM. The 20+ 3.5” floppies was too bulky for me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yggdrasil_Linux/GNU/X
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yggdrasil_Linux/GNU/X
Slackware!!! Dang, I had forgotten that name. That was the first distro I installed as well. Xeyes and stuff. Oh, dear...
The guy got sick with a mystery illness didn't he? This was about 20 years ago. He blogged about the saga of having doctors try to figure out what was wrong with him, and I think was self-administering various treatments. Must look up how he's doing.
He seems to have made a significantly good recovery.
After installing it from 24 floppy disks, and getting it wrong the first few times I can't forget Slackware. I was scarred for life.
> Now, any time I find something new it always has a polished marketed feel to it and has none of the secretive clandestine undiscovered power that old tech had.
If you're getting old, then I must be too, because I know your pain. I don't remember the last time I saw new tech(1) that felt like a real novelty to me.
Now that I've been fully in "career mode" for a few years, I have the budget to engage in my hobbies with greater depth than ever before, and that's amazing. Yet, I've found myself going deeper and deeper into the "retro." Old computers, old cameras, old music formats, etc. It's easier to find novelty there.
(1): this is limited to tech. There's great new music that isn't too hard to come by if you can manage to train Spotify's algorithm to give it to you.
If you're getting old, then I must be too, because I know your pain. I don't remember the last time I saw new tech(1) that felt like a real novelty to me.
Now that I've been fully in "career mode" for a few years, I have the budget to engage in my hobbies with greater depth than ever before, and that's amazing. Yet, I've found myself going deeper and deeper into the "retro." Old computers, old cameras, old music formats, etc. It's easier to find novelty there.
(1): this is limited to tech. There's great new music that isn't too hard to come by if you can manage to train Spotify's algorithm to give it to you.
Yeah dang my first linux install was at about the same age but it was Red Hat (not RHEL or Fedora). I remember most of my time was spent trying to get my network drivers working properly.
Still the GPU barely works
There's an excellent podcast called Acquired with a 3-part episode covering the birth and evolution of NVIDIA, highly recommended.
That is not MY Fault.
PR welcome
Very sad, but Anandtech has been on a downslope since Anand left. Once that happened it seemed like they almost instantly went from publishing many times a week to only occasionally pushing out content, usually quite delayed. The quality was still very good though and I always tried to find an Anandtech review of whatever it was I was looking for. Did the publishers just cheap out and stop paying for enough articles? Or did people lose motivation when they found themselves working for a faceless corp instead of Anand?
I don't blame the site for this, though. Anand got out at about the same time as marketing overtook technological improvement in product development (for the most part). I remember the very early days (I lived just a couple miles from Anand in the Raleigh area) where he was doing super in-depth assessments at the board & chip level, through the rapidly changing evolution of motherboards, CPUs & GPUs in the early 2000s ... but as everything basically became mostly commoditized and user experience differences have reduced even for home-built PCs (and the number of people still home-building PCs, period!), there just hasn't been a compelling reason to continue this depth of analysis or writing for the past decade or so.
> marketing overtook technological improvement in product development
I would say another key change is things just becoming less modular over time.
Like, the chipset used to be a major factor in choosing your motherboard, but it just doesn't matter anymore. Third-party chipsets are no longer a thing, and there's little difference between first-party chipsets anymore because every CPU has a full integrated northbridge now.
And honestly, today's PCs are powerful enough that there's no point in even bothering to make optimal choices. You could pick mediocre parts for all your stuff and still end up with a beast. It's not like the P4 or Athlon XP days where you'd feel it if you picked a bleh motherboard or something.
I would say another key change is things just becoming less modular over time.
Like, the chipset used to be a major factor in choosing your motherboard, but it just doesn't matter anymore. Third-party chipsets are no longer a thing, and there's little difference between first-party chipsets anymore because every CPU has a full integrated northbridge now.
And honestly, today's PCs are powerful enough that there's no point in even bothering to make optimal choices. You could pick mediocre parts for all your stuff and still end up with a beast. It's not like the P4 or Athlon XP days where you'd feel it if you picked a bleh motherboard or something.
True, while in the 90s/00s I used carefully built computers eventually I turned to laptops. Running a (powerful) 400+ Watts box that isn't mobile is very nice to have but won't really work for me anymore.
I must admit I therefore was only vaguely aware of the site. (During "my time" Tom's Hardware was quite a thing but probably they cater mostly to overclockers and gamers)
Would be nice to see a renaissance of DIY computing though. MacBooks do become a little bit boring :) On the other hand I do run a small homelab by now
I must admit I therefore was only vaguely aware of the site. (During "my time" Tom's Hardware was quite a thing but probably they cater mostly to overclockers and gamers)
Would be nice to see a renaissance of DIY computing though. MacBooks do become a little bit boring :) On the other hand I do run a small homelab by now
> usually quite delayed.
I used to be a regular reader of AnandTech since the early 2000s and the delays are what drove me off the site. Specifically when the Nvidia GTX 1080 launched on May 27, 2016. The AnandTech review came out 2 months later on July 20, 2016. [1] I had no problem waiting a whole week, but after that it was getting ridiculous. They just didn't serve their readers.
After I found replacement reviewers, mostly on YouTube, for my in depth reviews, I never went back to regularly visiting AnandTech. Their time had already passed in 2016 as far as I'm concerned. Not only were they delayed, but their reviews weren't even the most in depth any more.
--
[1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-...
I used to be a regular reader of AnandTech since the early 2000s and the delays are what drove me off the site. Specifically when the Nvidia GTX 1080 launched on May 27, 2016. The AnandTech review came out 2 months later on July 20, 2016. [1] I had no problem waiting a whole week, but after that it was getting ridiculous. They just didn't serve their readers.
After I found replacement reviewers, mostly on YouTube, for my in depth reviews, I never went back to regularly visiting AnandTech. Their time had already passed in 2016 as far as I'm concerned. Not only were they delayed, but their reviews weren't even the most in depth any more.
--
[1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-...
Agree, but when Ian left a few years ago is when I ultimately stopped visiting all together.
Maybe unavoidable, but the level of ads covering the website also made it borderline unreadable...
Maybe unavoidable, but the level of ads covering the website also made it borderline unreadable...
What ads? Seriously, though, when Anand and Ian left was about the time the content started losing quality, the ads started increasing, and I removed the site from my adblocker's whitelist.
Around the year 2000 (don't remember exactly) there were 3 sites I checked daily: Anandtech, Tom's Hardware and XBit Labs. Since Anand and Thomas sold their sites the quality dropped enough that in the past few years I rarely opened any of these sites (except Xbitlabs that does not exist for a long time). In some way, Anand and Thomas were the souls that left the bodies.
Yeah, I also noted that. In 2014 Anandtech was acquired by the same company that ran Tomshardware, the two sites were among the most popular in their segment. I never shook off the feeling that after the acquisition it was left to die.
A testament to the quality of Anandtech is that in 2011 I started a job at Micron on their SSD team and the first thing they said was to go read some articles on anandtech about how SSDs work. They covered slc vs mlc, trim, etc in better detail and in a more approachable way than anything else.
I've leaned on Anandtech ever since as a go-to source for understand technical innovation in hardware. Thanks for making everything that much easier to understand.
I've leaned on Anandtech ever since as a go-to source for understand technical innovation in hardware. Thanks for making everything that much easier to understand.
I learnt about intel processors on Anandtech. Everything from how the L1, L2 & L3 caches work during the time of Nehalem, Haswell, Ivybridge, Sandy bridge... the ticks and the tocks. 3D Nand, flash storage and a whole bunch of other things explained there.
Someone needs to convince newmaxx to start a SSD review site.
Yes I remember reading one of those SSD articles about mlcs and it was so well written, quality knowledge captured on the internet. I hope someone starts up another anandtech like website
Extremely sad. There basically is nothing like Anandtech; the depth, the ability to explain, the lack of sensationalism, and the integrity in benchmarking (I still vividly remember when they noticed an issue with HPET in Windows affecting their benchmarks, and promptly pulled all of them offline until they could reassess). Chips and Cheese is great but only covers a certain segment of it.
In the end, I would assume it just boiled down to lack of money. There were people among us who would gladly pay for this kind of coverage, but Anandtech said at some point they had considered it and couldn't find a good model. (As an aside, I pay for LWN, and I would pay for something that covered similar areas to Phoronix but actually was good.)
In the end, I would assume it just boiled down to lack of money. There were people among us who would gladly pay for this kind of coverage, but Anandtech said at some point they had considered it and couldn't find a good model. (As an aside, I pay for LWN, and I would pay for something that covered similar areas to Phoronix but actually was good.)
From TFA:
> If anything, the need has increased as social media and changing advertising landscapes have made shallow, sensationalistic reporting all the more lucrative.
And your comment:
> There were people among us who would gladly pay for this kind of coverage
It's Friday so I'm going to be optimistic. I'd like to think (maybe fantasise) that we've passed the low point of ad-fuelled, sensational, information-light, polarised, vacuous content. There are some promising shoots, from paid newsletters (e.g. stratechery plus [0]) to search (e.g. Kagi [1]). There are early signs that Browsers are coming back as a topic with Chrome's inexorable slide into increasingly obfuscated ways to slurp data [2] and the (very) early promise of e.g. ladybird [3] as the first genuinely new, ground-up browser for years.
It's never going to be mainstream. As someone once wrote here, the economy is a machine that incessantly drives cost down. Orthodoxy says you can't get cheaper than free - but that presumes measuring cost solely in monetary terms. Widen the definition of "cost" though and what we have now is definitely not free: we pay with loss of privacy, social disfunction and mental health degradation among others.
Challenging the commercial behemoths who benefit from the "free internet" myth is a massive task. Perhaps unassailable. If there's an upside, it's that the long tail - where quality, paid for content and services might thrive - is simultaneously meaningful enough to support a small but thriving industry, and small enough to be uninteresting to the 1000lb gorillas.
That may be fantasy per above. But I'd rather cling to something hopeful.
[0] https://stratechery.com/stratechery-plus/
[1] https://kagi.com/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41391412
[3] https://ladybird.org/
--
EDIT: fixed grammar.
> If anything, the need has increased as social media and changing advertising landscapes have made shallow, sensationalistic reporting all the more lucrative.
And your comment:
> There were people among us who would gladly pay for this kind of coverage
It's Friday so I'm going to be optimistic. I'd like to think (maybe fantasise) that we've passed the low point of ad-fuelled, sensational, information-light, polarised, vacuous content. There are some promising shoots, from paid newsletters (e.g. stratechery plus [0]) to search (e.g. Kagi [1]). There are early signs that Browsers are coming back as a topic with Chrome's inexorable slide into increasingly obfuscated ways to slurp data [2] and the (very) early promise of e.g. ladybird [3] as the first genuinely new, ground-up browser for years.
It's never going to be mainstream. As someone once wrote here, the economy is a machine that incessantly drives cost down. Orthodoxy says you can't get cheaper than free - but that presumes measuring cost solely in monetary terms. Widen the definition of "cost" though and what we have now is definitely not free: we pay with loss of privacy, social disfunction and mental health degradation among others.
Challenging the commercial behemoths who benefit from the "free internet" myth is a massive task. Perhaps unassailable. If there's an upside, it's that the long tail - where quality, paid for content and services might thrive - is simultaneously meaningful enough to support a small but thriving industry, and small enough to be uninteresting to the 1000lb gorillas.
That may be fantasy per above. But I'd rather cling to something hopeful.
[0] https://stratechery.com/stratechery-plus/
[1] https://kagi.com/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41391412
[3] https://ladybird.org/
--
EDIT: fixed grammar.
> we've passed the low point of ad-fuelled, sensational, information-light, polarised, vacuous content
I'm a bit more pessimistic I guess. Netflix at one point felt like the end of piracy, because it was becoming the portal to all great video content. Then everyone wanted a slice of the pie and started their own platform. Now, Netflix is starting to fill up with 'sensational, information-light, polarised, vacuous content' and they really seem to want to become ad-fuelled.
I also dislike that I have to choose between giving up all my privacy to a ton of ad providers or needing 100 different subscriptions to get some good content.
I kinda hope that Mozilla (or someone else) finds a way to become the Spotify/Netflix of the web. A place where I can pay a single fee that then gets distributed between the platforms and sites I visit. But I kinda know that that will never happen, since it gives too much power to that one platform.
For a while I thought that blockchain/crypto might be a good way to fix this. But nobody seems to be building blockchain stuff to do the right thing, they only do it to rip people off.
I'm a bit more pessimistic I guess. Netflix at one point felt like the end of piracy, because it was becoming the portal to all great video content. Then everyone wanted a slice of the pie and started their own platform. Now, Netflix is starting to fill up with 'sensational, information-light, polarised, vacuous content' and they really seem to want to become ad-fuelled.
I also dislike that I have to choose between giving up all my privacy to a ton of ad providers or needing 100 different subscriptions to get some good content.
I kinda hope that Mozilla (or someone else) finds a way to become the Spotify/Netflix of the web. A place where I can pay a single fee that then gets distributed between the platforms and sites I visit. But I kinda know that that will never happen, since it gives too much power to that one platform.
For a while I thought that blockchain/crypto might be a good way to fix this. But nobody seems to be building blockchain stuff to do the right thing, they only do it to rip people off.
> needing 100 different subscriptions to get some good content.
Mind this is sort of how it used to work.
Outside of broadcast TV and radio, you either subscribed to everything (newspapers, magazines, newsletters) or you bought them ad hoc one by one at the newsstand.
A problem with modern subscriptions is that they auto renew, and thus can be hard to cancel, and they tend to be quite expensive (everyone wants a “mere” $10/month).
Mind this is sort of how it used to work.
Outside of broadcast TV and radio, you either subscribed to everything (newspapers, magazines, newsletters) or you bought them ad hoc one by one at the newsstand.
A problem with modern subscriptions is that they auto renew, and thus can be hard to cancel, and they tend to be quite expensive (everyone wants a “mere” $10/month).
>...or you bought them ad hoc one by one at the newsstand...
100% This is what is missing. I don't want to subscribe to the New York Times for £90 per year because I only want to read about 5 to 10 NYT articles a year. Why can't I pay £1.50 for 15 articles? That would be about the same as buying a physical copy of a paper from a newsagent; if I buy a physical copy I probably read about that many articles from it before it gets recycled. Instead I either don't read the article I've found to or I try to find it on the internet archive which is really irritating. I would like to read articles in a range of papers; say 3-4 UK broadsheets, occasionally some international papers like the NYT, Le Monde and a couple of trade papers. If I subscribed to 4 UK broadsheet newspapers I would already be paying >£400/year in newspaper subscriptions. Who does this? I can't understand why newspapers can't see that no-one wants to be spending that sort of money and why they can't come up with a better solution. If the problem is card fees on micro transactions why don't they club together and create some kind of patreon type thing that agglomerates transactions together?
100% This is what is missing. I don't want to subscribe to the New York Times for £90 per year because I only want to read about 5 to 10 NYT articles a year. Why can't I pay £1.50 for 15 articles? That would be about the same as buying a physical copy of a paper from a newsagent; if I buy a physical copy I probably read about that many articles from it before it gets recycled. Instead I either don't read the article I've found to or I try to find it on the internet archive which is really irritating. I would like to read articles in a range of papers; say 3-4 UK broadsheets, occasionally some international papers like the NYT, Le Monde and a couple of trade papers. If I subscribed to 4 UK broadsheet newspapers I would already be paying >£400/year in newspaper subscriptions. Who does this? I can't understand why newspapers can't see that no-one wants to be spending that sort of money and why they can't come up with a better solution. If the problem is card fees on micro transactions why don't they club together and create some kind of patreon type thing that agglomerates transactions together?
I used to buy magazines in the 90s that cost upwards of $6-8 a magazine each, that's $18 in today's dollars.
You want access to multiple large reporting agencies work but want to pay less than a fraction of the non-adjusted 1990s prices. Your better solution has zero way to work financially. Imagine saying 'why do I have to pay for a whole buffet, I only pick from 5-10 of the buffet dishes that I pick and choose as I walk down the line, I don't take something from all of them. I should pay like fifty cents.'
You want access to multiple large reporting agencies work but want to pay less than a fraction of the non-adjusted 1990s prices. Your better solution has zero way to work financially. Imagine saying 'why do I have to pay for a whole buffet, I only pick from 5-10 of the buffet dishes that I pick and choose as I walk down the line, I don't take something from all of them. I should pay like fifty cents.'
Exactly!
The economics of journalism are constantly misunderstood here. People want thoughtful, insightful, investigative stories of the non-obvious (or so they say) but also do not want to pay for the dead ends that a reporter has to find to get there.
Journalism is more like hard-tech research than SaaS. You don't necessarily know what you're getting into when you start reporting, and getting something of value can take an incredibly long time. The actual writing of an article or shooting of a video is the last part of a long process.
Unlike hard-tech, the result often has a very short shelf-life. It's not going to continuously earn payouts for the reporters/news outlet for more than a couple of weeks (at best) after publication.
The economics of journalism are constantly misunderstood here. People want thoughtful, insightful, investigative stories of the non-obvious (or so they say) but also do not want to pay for the dead ends that a reporter has to find to get there.
Journalism is more like hard-tech research than SaaS. You don't necessarily know what you're getting into when you start reporting, and getting something of value can take an incredibly long time. The actual writing of an article or shooting of a video is the last part of a long process.
Unlike hard-tech, the result often has a very short shelf-life. It's not going to continuously earn payouts for the reporters/news outlet for more than a couple of weeks (at best) after publication.
Or that one article you wrote for motherboard about undersea cables in (2010) occasionnaly makes it to the top of hacker news…
Also, we did use to pay for the dead ends by just buying a paper with some ads in it. You haven’t explained why this model doesn’t work anymore? The newspapers have reintroduced the ‘you read it you pay for it’ with paywalls but they’ve overshot, now it’s like you go into the newsagent on the corner and they are shouting ‘you read it, you buy a years worth of that newspaper’ when you see one headline that interests you.
Which sites/newspapers are you talking about? Many have metered paywalls, where you get a few articles for free before the paywall hits.
Beyond that, others (Blendle, post.news, etc) have tried micropayments and they don't work -- people don't actually want them.
Beyond that, others (Blendle, post.news, etc) have tried micropayments and they don't work -- people don't actually want them.
I’ve never heard of Blendle or post.news. I want a source of news that’s a known quantity and has been around for a while. I know where I stand with The Guardian[0] or The Financial Times or The Telegraph or Le Monde or the New York Times. None of these have tried micropayments to my knowledge.
[0]I know it’s not paywall currently but I don’t know how long they will go on like that.
[0]I know it’s not paywall currently but I don’t know how long they will go on like that.
"Dutch startup Blendle's early success in Europe has already attracted 550,000 users, the majority millennials, to read and pay for individual articles from publications like The Economist, The New York Times, and The Washington Post."
https://www.businessinsider.com/blendle-to-launch-in-the-us-...
https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/11/post-the-latest-twitter-al...
https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/11/post-the-latest-twitter-al...
I looked up blendle and it seems to be a subscription service not a micro payment service. For the UK it only has The Guardian and The Independent. The first a reliable paper with opinion columns that lean left. The second a bit more tabloid. I can already read the guardian for free. I can’t tell if I can access US or EU newspapers or what they are. Post.news doesn’t seem to exist. Neither seems to be doing what I described which is the equivalent of being able to buy a digital equivalent of a one-off purchase from a news stand. I don’t think a service like this can work without some big names.
Last year the NYT cost $2.50 at the newsstand. GP wants to pay ~$1.50 for 15 individual articles. There are more than 15 articles in a single edition of the NYT, so that sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Hell, bump it up to $2.50/yr for those 15 articles/yr, same price as a single physical edition. GP would probably still be ok with that, and that doesn't seem unreasonable.
I'm not sure what magazines you were buying in the 90s for $6-$8 each, but they were certainly on the high end and not representative of your average newspaper, which were on the order of 35-50¢ at the time. Full-color glossy mags cost a lot more to produce than a newspaper, so I'm sure that's part of it.
Hell, bump it up to $2.50/yr for those 15 articles/yr, same price as a single physical edition. GP would probably still be ok with that, and that doesn't seem unreasonable.
I'm not sure what magazines you were buying in the 90s for $6-$8 each, but they were certainly on the high end and not representative of your average newspaper, which were on the order of 35-50¢ at the time. Full-color glossy mags cost a lot more to produce than a newspaper, so I'm sure that's part of it.
Much like with books, the 10-15 best sellers a publisher has fund the thousands of duds. Newspapers are as cheap as they are because the filler content gets subsidized by the good stuff. And it is rare that a publisher will know what is good before it is released.
Newspapers are as cheap as they are because they are still filled with ads. Not that i mind it, ads on paper are 1000x more tolerable than the blinking, spying popovers one get online.
> And it is rare that a publisher will know what is good before it is released.
Ok, then. How about 2.5 dollars for the x articles of this day/week?
It's the micro-payment conundrum again. I happen to have a friend who is deep into payment tech, and he told me that publishers would love to sell single digital issues for a small, small fee, but customers are not buying.
This seems to cover most stuff where the transaction value in question is low, e.g. newspapers, single songs, and so on. The UX seems to be inadequate. I'm not privy how my buddy's company is trying to address this, but I guess it is hard to beat a news stand where I drop a few coins and get a newspaper and chewing gum.
This seems to cover most stuff where the transaction value in question is low, e.g. newspapers, single songs, and so on. The UX seems to be inadequate. I'm not privy how my buddy's company is trying to address this, but I guess it is hard to beat a news stand where I drop a few coins and get a newspaper and chewing gum.
I’m talking about a general newspaper like if I go to the newsagent now and buy a broadsheet newspaper like the FT or The Guardian or The Telegraph it costs something between £1.50 and £2.50 ($2-3USD) which gives me access to about 100 articles of which I might read max 10-15 of a weekend. So I think charging the same price for the same number of articles read should work no? If that transaction used to work with physical paper why do you think it doesn’t work with digital? Obviously for more specialist articles you would charge more and it would be better for those publications because they would be able to reach a wider audience because I’m not going to subscribe to Farmers Weekly to read that one article about tractor hacking but I might buy a one time access.
Aren't newspapers all in a terrible financial state?
Mostly requiring subsidy by billionaires wanting to popularise their weird political views?
Mostly requiring subsidy by billionaires wanting to popularise their weird political views?
Isn’t that exactly why having the option to buy a set number of articles would be better? If you get weirded out by your newspaper of choice you can try some other ones without subscribing for a year. Or even better regularly dip into newspapers from all sides of the political spectrum to get a balanced view on a topic.
I used to buy all those gaming and elctronics magazines as a kid. But as a group of a dozen, we paid each a part of it, and it was timeshared.
Now try that with e-zines that are full of DRM
Now try that with e-zines that are full of DRM
All the ones I get are just PDF's... but the the trouble is I have already read all the content on the internet from other web sites a few months ago :(.
I gather you are outside the US, so my solution likely doesn't apply. For those in the US, check your local library's digital offerings. Mine offers 3 day access to the NYTimes web site for free. There is a bit of a friction as I must first log into my library account and click a link. Then I have to log into my NYTimes account if I'm not already. Bam! Full access to everything for 72 hours. It can be endlessly renewed if that's your thing. I tend to use it about once a month.
I gather you are outside the US, so my solution likely doesn't apply. For those in the US, check your local library's digital offerings.
Libraries in some larger cities will let you have a guest/out-of-town library card for a fee, which is often far less than the cost of subscribing to the digital content the library offers.
Libraries in some larger cities will let you have a guest/out-of-town library card for a fee, which is often far less than the cost of subscribing to the digital content the library offers.
> I can't understand why newspapers can't see that no-one wants to be spending that sort of money
NYT adds 210,000 digital subscribers in Q1.
"The company said it had about 10.5 million subscribers overall for its print and digital products at the end of the first quarter, up roughly 8 percent from a year earlier. About 640,000 of those were print subscribers, down about 10 percent from the same period last year. "
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/business/media/new-york-t...
NYT adds 210,000 digital subscribers in Q1.
"The company said it had about 10.5 million subscribers overall for its print and digital products at the end of the first quarter, up roughly 8 percent from a year earlier. About 640,000 of those were print subscribers, down about 10 percent from the same period last year. "
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/business/media/new-york-t...
I don't subscribe to the NYT, but I do have a WaPo subscription. I'm considering canceling it. Most of what I read I can get syndicated elsewhere, or the same information presented with similar quality, elsewhere, for free.
(Plus I'm tired of further lining Bezos' pockets, and I very much disagree with some of the current editorial staff.)
I get that real, actually-solid journalism is not cheap to make. But I'm not sure what the solution is when good-enough articles can be had for far cheaper, or free. The good stuff really is a joy to read, but I'm not convinced $120/yr (looks like it's twice that for the NYT?) is worth the price of admission.
Certainly a lot of people do buy and keep these subscriptions, and subscriber counts do seem to be growing (which is genuinely great), but I would wager that far, far, far fewer people today have a newspaper subscription than in the mid-90s. But maybe that's changing; maybe people hate all the sensational, clickbaity, in-your-face ad-supported garbage floating around for free.
I would only hope that as online publications grow their subscriber base, instead of getting greedy, they actually lower their prices, since their marginal per-subscriber cost is near-zero. Given that NYT home delivery prices in 1995 were ~$350/yr, (~$700 in today's dollars), it seems a little absurd that they're charging 35% of that (for digital) when their cost of distribution is a fraction of a percent what it used to be. Presumably the reason behind that is because their subscriber base is much smaller than it used to be?
(Plus I'm tired of further lining Bezos' pockets, and I very much disagree with some of the current editorial staff.)
I get that real, actually-solid journalism is not cheap to make. But I'm not sure what the solution is when good-enough articles can be had for far cheaper, or free. The good stuff really is a joy to read, but I'm not convinced $120/yr (looks like it's twice that for the NYT?) is worth the price of admission.
Certainly a lot of people do buy and keep these subscriptions, and subscriber counts do seem to be growing (which is genuinely great), but I would wager that far, far, far fewer people today have a newspaper subscription than in the mid-90s. But maybe that's changing; maybe people hate all the sensational, clickbaity, in-your-face ad-supported garbage floating around for free.
I would only hope that as online publications grow their subscriber base, instead of getting greedy, they actually lower their prices, since their marginal per-subscriber cost is near-zero. Given that NYT home delivery prices in 1995 were ~$350/yr, (~$700 in today's dollars), it seems a little absurd that they're charging 35% of that (for digital) when their cost of distribution is a fraction of a percent what it used to be. Presumably the reason behind that is because their subscriber base is much smaller than it used to be?
Because the product isn't the newsprint, it's what's written on it.
By your own math, a subscription is 65% cheaper than it once was -- but the reporting is still expensive. Try outfitting a team to go into a war zone, or maintain bureaus, etc.
The problem is that the "good enough" free articles are usually just rewrites of the ones from the people who did the reporting.
By your own math, a subscription is 65% cheaper than it once was -- but the reporting is still expensive. Try outfitting a team to go into a war zone, or maintain bureaus, etc.
The problem is that the "good enough" free articles are usually just rewrites of the ones from the people who did the reporting.
> The problem is that the "good enough" free articles are usually just rewrites of the ones from the people who did the reporting.
> Plus I'm tired of further lining Bezos' pockets
In a country of ~300 million people and with billions of people speaking English or having English as a second language that doesn’t sound like that many? If I bought the paper edition of the NYT most days for $2 that would be ~$600/yr in which case the online subscription would be good value and they would probably keep those subscribers as they are already demonstrating that they are dedicated repeat customers. If they also added the option to add 15 article reads to your account every now and then for $2 they would create a digital equivalent for the kind of person who buys a paper now and then.
I'd also like to subscribe to some rate-limited plan for newspapers, magazines, and newsletters. I can usually find some workaround but it's too much hassle to do that for all the sites I'd like to read (and where I would be willing to give some limited amount of money).
After being away from it for a couple of years, I checked out Apple News+ again, and it's added a lot of newspapers and magazines in the time I was away.
The newspapers are almost all American, with a smattering of Canadian, but there seems to be a ton of British and Australian magazines.
It might be worth checking out to see if what's on offer matches your interests.
Unfortunately, unlike Apple Music, it doesn't have a web client. https://www.apple.com/apple-news/
The newspapers are almost all American, with a smattering of Canadian, but there seems to be a ton of British and Australian magazines.
It might be worth checking out to see if what's on offer matches your interests.
Unfortunately, unlike Apple Music, it doesn't have a web client. https://www.apple.com/apple-news/
Internet Archive is irritating. Just archive.is it and 9/10 times it's already archived. Especially with articles here on HN. And if it's not archived it will be archived on the spot.
Post News tried this and failed. Not sure why.
Because there's a difference between what people say they want and what they actually want.
Micropayments do not work. They've been tried over and over, but generally speaking, they aren't helpful. Users don't really use them, and they don't actually help the publisher/author long term.
FWIW I've been working on a startup with a different vision, but trying to make news profitable: https://blog.forth.news/a-business-model-for-21st-century-ne...
Micropayments do not work. They've been tried over and over, but generally speaking, they aren't helpful. Users don't really use them, and they don't actually help the publisher/author long term.
FWIW I've been working on a startup with a different vision, but trying to make news profitable: https://blog.forth.news/a-business-model-for-21st-century-ne...
It can't be conscious site by site. It has to be a toggle or setting that's a browser standard, backed by your IAP platform of choice, and pages check then drop the paywall and don't show ads. Call it IWP, In-Web Purchase, total up fractional costs until it makes sense to charge them, then charge them, on the same user/device IAP platform rails.
Most importantly, the cost has to be no more than the site would get for serving that visitor ads.
This is where the break is. On a per content or per month basis, sites want to charge individuals orders of magnitude more than they charge advertisers. No avid reader (those most likely to be happy to pay!) can afford the same footprint of reading that content is happy to give them through ads. And so, content is writing for ads, not readers.
It's self defeating.
. . .
PS. I bookmarked https://www.forth.news/topstories ... it's not how I find / read content, I need much higher density (somewhere between https://upstract.com/ and https://www.techmeme.com/) and if I want a personal feed, there's feedly and its kin, but what I personally do is something like this socially curated discovery except generated by a process something like Yahoo Pipes that scavenges an array of tentacles into the newsosphere. But I see what you're doing there.
This kind of experimentation is awesome. Will come back and see how hard it is to "make it my own". Thanks for sharing your position essay!
Most importantly, the cost has to be no more than the site would get for serving that visitor ads.
This is where the break is. On a per content or per month basis, sites want to charge individuals orders of magnitude more than they charge advertisers. No avid reader (those most likely to be happy to pay!) can afford the same footprint of reading that content is happy to give them through ads. And so, content is writing for ads, not readers.
It's self defeating.
. . .
PS. I bookmarked https://www.forth.news/topstories ... it's not how I find / read content, I need much higher density (somewhere between https://upstract.com/ and https://www.techmeme.com/) and if I want a personal feed, there's feedly and its kin, but what I personally do is something like this socially curated discovery except generated by a process something like Yahoo Pipes that scavenges an array of tentacles into the newsosphere. But I see what you're doing there.
This kind of experimentation is awesome. Will come back and see how hard it is to "make it my own". Thanks for sharing your position essay!
If it isn't conscious site by site, you're not volunteering your payment data to the site: you're giving it to a middle man.
Then, the middle man who sets this up goes all Apple and says they rule the customer experience, they bring all the value, and they're entitled to eat 30% of everything because reasons.
Then, they either become a huge monopoly, like Apple, for as long as they can keep consumers and producers captive, or for some reason (regulation, actual competition) some other huge business gets into it and balkanizes it (like Netflix, which was a “good” middleman for consumers, until 10 other 800lb gorillas got in there, and now it's worse than à la carte cable).
Then, the middle man who sets this up goes all Apple and says they rule the customer experience, they bring all the value, and they're entitled to eat 30% of everything because reasons.
Then, they either become a huge monopoly, like Apple, for as long as they can keep consumers and producers captive, or for some reason (regulation, actual competition) some other huge business gets into it and balkanizes it (like Netflix, which was a “good” middleman for consumers, until 10 other 800lb gorillas got in there, and now it's worse than à la carte cable).
No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all.
I'm saying all this is built into your platform of choice, both IAP frameworks available on your platform of choice, and browsers available through that platform's distribution of choice, therefore let publishers register with the platforms (or post keys and coordinates in DNS, or whatever), and the platforms distribute that to the publishers.
Google shouldn't even care if they lose a percentage of ad revenue if they get the same percentage of direct subscription. Meanwhile, Apple gets the benefit of pennies per traffic (not a cash flow they are in today) without the tarnish of being for the advertisers instead of the users and creators.
Brave (with BAT) and others have toyed with such models, but they're from the wrong vantage, and the marketplace needs too many legs of the stool built to bootstrap. Leveraging legs that are already there could make this plausible.
I'm saying all this is built into your platform of choice, both IAP frameworks available on your platform of choice, and browsers available through that platform's distribution of choice, therefore let publishers register with the platforms (or post keys and coordinates in DNS, or whatever), and the platforms distribute that to the publishers.
Google shouldn't even care if they lose a percentage of ad revenue if they get the same percentage of direct subscription. Meanwhile, Apple gets the benefit of pennies per traffic (not a cash flow they are in today) without the tarnish of being for the advertisers instead of the users and creators.
Brave (with BAT) and others have toyed with such models, but they're from the wrong vantage, and the marketplace needs too many legs of the stool built to bootstrap. Leveraging legs that are already there could make this plausible.
Thank you for trying it out -- "top stories" is a generic feed; I'd encourage you to sign up for a free account and follow authors and topics you're interested in.
That said, this point --
> Most importantly, the cost has to be no more than the site would get for serving that visitor ads.
is the disconnect. The ads aren't providing enough revenue to be self-sufficient. Hence the paywalls.
That said, this point --
> Most importantly, the cost has to be no more than the site would get for serving that visitor ads.
is the disconnect. The ads aren't providing enough revenue to be self-sufficient. Hence the paywalls.
I hear you, however, firms that took ad sales back in house instead of auction, and went back to pairing ads with content instead of profiling each visitor, found they increased both ad revenue and user satisfaction. They were able to cover costs again. Separately, many who took time to build, say, substacks, found they could cover costs if audience and content were a match.
Most folks never look up from the adwords grind to consider that the whole existing ecosystem is misguided, and something from before might be better.
Excessive rent extraction, and content that targets ad revenue instead of sustained interest, seem to be where most sustainability gets lost. An auction engine at the heart of both these broken models accelerates the enrichment of the rent extractors and the decline of sustainability.
Most folks never look up from the adwords grind to consider that the whole existing ecosystem is misguided, and something from before might be better.
Excessive rent extraction, and content that targets ad revenue instead of sustained interest, seem to be where most sustainability gets lost. An auction engine at the heart of both these broken models accelerates the enrichment of the rent extractors and the decline of sustainability.
There was also Blendle which I thought was a great idea, but it flopped: https://www.pugpig.com/2023/08/18/why-micropayment-champion-...
> or needing 100 different subscriptions to get some good content
Cable still exists. People wanted the ability to sub to whatever they wanted (often leaving out sports for example). That's happened and now people want it all in one place. It turns out what people want is everything in one place for free, which is leading Netflix to have an ad-tier. Though, re-bundling is going to take some time as consolidation happens.
Cable still exists. People wanted the ability to sub to whatever they wanted (often leaving out sports for example). That's happened and now people want it all in one place. It turns out what people want is everything in one place for free, which is leading Netflix to have an ad-tier. Though, re-bundling is going to take some time as consolidation happens.
Actually for most part I don't want to subscribe.
And I don't want free ad sponsored.
I just want to pay a reasonable (I'll get back to this) price for the things I actually want.
Netflix was OK with me (and I think a number of others) despite being a subscription service not because it was a subscription.
It was OK because it was
- the only option
- reasonably priced
- and had "everything" one wanted
So what is reasonable?
I'd assume that with all the cost savings given the digitalization of the delivery at least it shouldn't be more expensive than renting a physical dvd, although I'd accept if they adjusted a little for inflation.
And I don't want free ad sponsored.
I just want to pay a reasonable (I'll get back to this) price for the things I actually want.
Netflix was OK with me (and I think a number of others) despite being a subscription service not because it was a subscription.
It was OK because it was
- the only option
- reasonably priced
- and had "everything" one wanted
So what is reasonable?
I'd assume that with all the cost savings given the digitalization of the delivery at least it shouldn't be more expensive than renting a physical dvd, although I'd accept if they adjusted a little for inflation.
So use the Apple TV store (formerly iTunes Store). There you can buy nearly anything from any studio, and you pay per episode or per season. Whether the costs are reasonable or not is in the eye of the beholder but I don't feel ripped off by it.
>buy
Nothing is for sale at the Apple TV "Store". You pay for a license to stream a piece of content, that lasts until Apple or the content owner decides to revoke it.
Nothing is for sale at the Apple TV "Store". You pay for a license to stream a piece of content, that lasts until Apple or the content owner decides to revoke it.
Has any Apple TV purchase been revoked?
Not sure…
I have a bundle of Downton Abbey that is no longer for sale on iTunes and I can play it, but (for a while, they may have fixed it) at the end of an episode you had to navigate to the next episode by selecting the show and scrolling horizontally through every single episode. Technically possible but very irritating.
(Funny thing: I was watching the show when the switch happened… I watched two or three with the obvious play next episode in series behavior and then it suddenly stopped working… apple support finally told me it seems like it was related to it being taken off in favor of a bundle with the film included.)
I have a bundle of Downton Abbey that is no longer for sale on iTunes and I can play it, but (for a while, they may have fixed it) at the end of an episode you had to navigate to the next episode by selecting the show and scrolling horizontally through every single episode. Technically possible but very irritating.
(Funny thing: I was watching the show when the switch happened… I watched two or three with the obvious play next episode in series behavior and then it suddenly stopped working… apple support finally told me it seems like it was related to it being taken off in favor of a bundle with the film included.)
Meh. Videotape wears out. Video discs break. Books yellow and age and rot. No content you have ever bought lasts forever.
> Books yellow and age and rot. No content you have ever bought lasts forever.
Many libraries all over the world have books which have lasted for centuries, far longer than a single person's lifetime. The books I bought as a child can last longer than my own body. That's close enough to "lasting forever" for most practical purposes.
Many libraries all over the world have books which have lasted for centuries, far longer than a single person's lifetime. The books I bought as a child can last longer than my own body. That's close enough to "lasting forever" for most practical purposes.
Centuries-old books have had special care to preserve them.
If you want your personal books to last most of your lifetime, then there needs to be a modicum of care taken, which isn't always possible, especially while you're in transit and moving from one place and into another. How many books have been lost that way?
The whole point was someone lamenting digital license may not last forever (though Apple's has, so far) and I'm just reminding everyone that physical media doesn't last forever either.
If you want your personal books to last most of your lifetime, then there needs to be a modicum of care taken, which isn't always possible, especially while you're in transit and moving from one place and into another. How many books have been lost that way?
The whole point was someone lamenting digital license may not last forever (though Apple's has, so far) and I'm just reminding everyone that physical media doesn't last forever either.
Part of the concern is "I can keep it longer if I take care of it or if I keep track of it properly", eg if it gets lost or ruined its due to some lack of care by the end user, vs "I only get to keep it until some third party decides I don't get to have it any more".
Then buy physical copies of everything. Oh sure, you lose a huge convenience factor, but at least no third party has control over it.
They can but many do not in practice. Lots of the trade paperbacks I bought in the 1970s and 80s fall apart now if I actually read them.
Interesting. I have paperback books that my grandmother owned in the 40's that are a little fragile, but still easy to read without damaging. Perhaps they were a more expensive production process than yours.
My father-in-law (RIP) used to be a paper engineer and he had a huge collection of paper at home. He used to make his own paper for fun and I had the pleasure to assist him on a few batches. Interesting, if time-consuming hobby.
Anyhow, comparing different paper types you can see, feel, and smell the differences in quality. It starts with good raw materials, recycled low-quality paper will never make high-quality paper. That's because for high-quality paper you want long cellulose fiber in the paper. The longer the fiber the hardier the paper. The less acidic the paper, the better. You add chalk to make paper less acidic. The best paper has very long cellulose fiber and is virtually acid-free. If your paper turns yellow and "brittle" over time it is because of acid.
Now, the paper-surface is treated to create different effects (e.g. glossy, water-resistance). IIRC, that is called "coating". Coats may introduce acid again. Note that untreated paper is rather smooth and yellow-white-ish. To get this recycled, natural, rough look that is en vogue at the moment, you actually have to treat the paper to look like this. From an environmental point of view you would be better of with a smooth white paper. For longevity you want to coat your paper with an acid-free solution.
It is a little bit ironic, but engineering improvements in paper manufacturing allowed us to produce paper with lesser and less raw materials and worse pH values (e.g. industrial mills need far less water for a ton of paper than a century ago). This cheaper paper replaced the cheap paper from before, therefore degrading the paper quality, making modern cheap books less hardy than old cheap books. Cheap paper from 1930 will last a century or longer, cheap paper from 1970 will last maybe 50-60 years under normal storage conditions, ie. in an open bookshelf.
Now, that's only the paper. The printing ink and the binding also play a role in longevity. First, ink adds acid to the process, which is always bad, but depending on the ink type (dye or pigment, fountain pen enthusiasts will know this) the ink itself will fade faster or slower. Ancient inks are all of the pigment variety (or maybe at least those we know of). They have very long staying power. Modern inks are mostly dye and as a rule of thumb add more acid and fade faster. Bindings have little impact on readability, but are of course vital to the survival of the book as a book. A glue binding will degas over time. It becomes hard and breaks in a few decades. When single pages break out of the book you see the cheapest of the cheap bindings. Exposure to heat will accelerate this process, so if you like your glued books, keep them out of the sun.
High-quality books are saddle-stitched and work differently. First of, you do not stitch individual pages but fascicles, a bundle of paper, each paper holding four pages, which are then again stitched together in bigger bundles and finally into the book cover. This requires some forethought in the layout of the book and is very, very expensive. I own an archival hardcover print of _Also sprach Zarathustra_ from 2002, which was sold for about 300 EUR at the time. It was gifted to me for some accomplishment then. That's a book truly in its own league. I own a few other archival hardcover prints, but none this good. But I digress. I wanted to say that with good paper, coating, ink, and proper storage those books have virtually no end of life.
Sorry for the long post, brought up a lot of memories.
Anyhow, comparing different paper types you can see, feel, and smell the differences in quality. It starts with good raw materials, recycled low-quality paper will never make high-quality paper. That's because for high-quality paper you want long cellulose fiber in the paper. The longer the fiber the hardier the paper. The less acidic the paper, the better. You add chalk to make paper less acidic. The best paper has very long cellulose fiber and is virtually acid-free. If your paper turns yellow and "brittle" over time it is because of acid.
Now, the paper-surface is treated to create different effects (e.g. glossy, water-resistance). IIRC, that is called "coating". Coats may introduce acid again. Note that untreated paper is rather smooth and yellow-white-ish. To get this recycled, natural, rough look that is en vogue at the moment, you actually have to treat the paper to look like this. From an environmental point of view you would be better of with a smooth white paper. For longevity you want to coat your paper with an acid-free solution.
It is a little bit ironic, but engineering improvements in paper manufacturing allowed us to produce paper with lesser and less raw materials and worse pH values (e.g. industrial mills need far less water for a ton of paper than a century ago). This cheaper paper replaced the cheap paper from before, therefore degrading the paper quality, making modern cheap books less hardy than old cheap books. Cheap paper from 1930 will last a century or longer, cheap paper from 1970 will last maybe 50-60 years under normal storage conditions, ie. in an open bookshelf.
Now, that's only the paper. The printing ink and the binding also play a role in longevity. First, ink adds acid to the process, which is always bad, but depending on the ink type (dye or pigment, fountain pen enthusiasts will know this) the ink itself will fade faster or slower. Ancient inks are all of the pigment variety (or maybe at least those we know of). They have very long staying power. Modern inks are mostly dye and as a rule of thumb add more acid and fade faster. Bindings have little impact on readability, but are of course vital to the survival of the book as a book. A glue binding will degas over time. It becomes hard and breaks in a few decades. When single pages break out of the book you see the cheapest of the cheap bindings. Exposure to heat will accelerate this process, so if you like your glued books, keep them out of the sun.
High-quality books are saddle-stitched and work differently. First of, you do not stitch individual pages but fascicles, a bundle of paper, each paper holding four pages, which are then again stitched together in bigger bundles and finally into the book cover. This requires some forethought in the layout of the book and is very, very expensive. I own an archival hardcover print of _Also sprach Zarathustra_ from 2002, which was sold for about 300 EUR at the time. It was gifted to me for some accomplishment then. That's a book truly in its own league. I own a few other archival hardcover prints, but none this good. But I digress. I wanted to say that with good paper, coating, ink, and proper storage those books have virtually no end of life.
Sorry for the long post, brought up a lot of memories.
physical media, you can make copies of.
That is my current solution.
Still there is a number of things I cannot buy or rent.
Still there is a number of things I cannot buy or rent.
> I'd assume that with all the cost savings given the digitalization of the delivery at least it shouldn't be more expensive than renting a physical dvd
I'm confused. A typical streaming service has hundreds or thousands of what would typically be a physical DVD. So how much should they charge?
Also, the vast majority of the cost for most content is in the creation of the content.
I'm confused. A typical streaming service has hundreds or thousands of what would typically be a physical DVD. So how much should they charge?
Also, the vast majority of the cost for most content is in the creation of the content.
The tl;dr is that we've demanded things with such enormous production costs that were basically almost entirely subsidized on a socialized model, where the big appeal of the big ones subsidized the costs of the less successful ones, in a way that would make them not reliably financially viable in isolation.
But the content that is so specific it only appeals to 1-10% of people is both the most memorable and also often the content that is basically guaranteed to not hit for 90% of people. So your math on who's going to pay to consume it changes drastically when the ceiling is so much lower, especially when the effective price required is so much higher that it's going to drive even more people away.
So it's a much larger risk pool to hope you'll make your money back with the error bars so much narrower, and businesses being businesses, they go for the bland thing with a lower risk pool 99% of the time, and then wonder why their returns keep shrinking.
But the content that is so specific it only appeals to 1-10% of people is both the most memorable and also often the content that is basically guaranteed to not hit for 90% of people. So your math on who's going to pay to consume it changes drastically when the ceiling is so much lower, especially when the effective price required is so much higher that it's going to drive even more people away.
So it's a much larger risk pool to hope you'll make your money back with the error bars so much narrower, and businesses being businesses, they go for the bland thing with a lower risk pool 99% of the time, and then wonder why their returns keep shrinking.
> It turns out what people want is everything in one place for free
I'd say this is provably false based on the popularity of streaming services, specifically the rise of Netflix's streaming service. That is the opposite of free.
Netflix is not offering ad tiers due to a lack of subscribers; they are doing it because there were a handful of quarters where revenue stagnated. This does not mean it was a bad business model; it means they want perpetual growth to satisfy shareholders. Same old story.
The reasons cable was and is bad and was destined to be replaced:
- No ability to unbundle (as you said)
- Messy time-shifting (DVRs, PPV, all that nonsense)
- Complicated and limited setup (proprietary hardware; extra fees for multiple devices; no ability to view on a computer or mobile device)
- Tons of fun trying to cancel
Cable has two real advantages:
- Fast channel switching
- Garbage exclusivity contracts
Streaming doesn't solve exclusivity but it certainly doesn't make it worse. In fact, making it easier to subscribe and cancel makes it significantly better.
I'd say this is provably false based on the popularity of streaming services, specifically the rise of Netflix's streaming service. That is the opposite of free.
Netflix is not offering ad tiers due to a lack of subscribers; they are doing it because there were a handful of quarters where revenue stagnated. This does not mean it was a bad business model; it means they want perpetual growth to satisfy shareholders. Same old story.
The reasons cable was and is bad and was destined to be replaced:
- No ability to unbundle (as you said)
- Messy time-shifting (DVRs, PPV, all that nonsense)
- Complicated and limited setup (proprietary hardware; extra fees for multiple devices; no ability to view on a computer or mobile device)
- Tons of fun trying to cancel
Cable has two real advantages:
- Fast channel switching
- Garbage exclusivity contracts
Streaming doesn't solve exclusivity but it certainly doesn't make it worse. In fact, making it easier to subscribe and cancel makes it significantly better.
> I'd say this is provably false based on the popularity of streaming services, specifically the rise of Netflix's streaming service.
When Netflix came out it was effectively free at $10. People want billions worth of content for $10/month. We all do, but that's not sustainable.
When Netflix came out it was effectively free at $10. People want billions worth of content for $10/month. We all do, but that's not sustainable.
Don't worry by the way, cable boxes, Netflix, and televisions will give away your privacy even if you pay
You don't get past the ads, but over-the-air TV still exists and is technologically impossible to track you individually.
Also, if you're connecting your TV to the internet, that's a "you" problem.
Also, if you're connecting your TV to the internet, that's a "you" problem.
For a while. Over here we expect to lose one of our three commercial TV stations in the next few years, because the market (ie. ad spending) has been moving online. Regional broadcast stations are already shutting down, because it is not worth the cost of maintaining the transmitters when people can get the same stream online.
It turns out what people want is everything in one place for free
No, it doesn't "turn out" that way at all. But if the pirates provide better service for free than the proprietors offer at any price, that can hardly be seen as my problem as a consumer.
For a few brief, shining years, it looked like the media and entertainment industries were starting to understand that. Turned out not to be the case, though.
No, it doesn't "turn out" that way at all. But if the pirates provide better service for free than the proprietors offer at any price, that can hardly be seen as my problem as a consumer.
For a few brief, shining years, it looked like the media and entertainment industries were starting to understand that. Turned out not to be the case, though.
Spotify! I used to pirate music because I couldn’t afford it otherwise, then suddenly Spotify made it so reasonable it’s genuinely worth not pirating
As for subscribing to Netflix Disney+ Hulu Prime Apple TV HBO peacock nebula discovery+ paramount+ crunchyroll YouTube premium/TV.... I may still download some stuff
As for subscribing to Netflix Disney+ Hulu Prime Apple TV HBO peacock nebula discovery+ paramount+ crunchyroll YouTube premium/TV.... I may still download some stuff
Cable is laced with advertising and is linear, whereas much of the world has moved on to on demand. Further, what folks always wanted back in the days before streaming was the ability not to pay for genres they didn't want. Netflix had a reasonable low price for a while so it was worth it even if you only really watched one or two genres they had, and ignored the rest of the content. But with higher prices, it is ever more difficult to justify. Disney used to offer Disney, Hulu, and ESPN separately or as a bundle, so if you didn't watch sports, you could just get Disney and Hulu. Or if you just wanted Disney, you could get that. But they have raised prices and increasingly pushed bundling.
I for one would be perfectly willing to have an option where I could get Westerns for 2 or 3 bucks a month, Action/super heros for 2 or 3 bucks, SciFi for 2 or 3 bucks, Romance/RomCom for a buck. Kids/cartoons for a buck or two etc. And then choose what I want to subscribe to each month. But if you are going to charge me 20 bucks a month, you had better have 20 bucks a month worth of content that I actually want to watch. (and no ads). Oh, and stop making good shows with cliff hanger endings and then canceling them!
I for one would be perfectly willing to have an option where I could get Westerns for 2 or 3 bucks a month, Action/super heros for 2 or 3 bucks, SciFi for 2 or 3 bucks, Romance/RomCom for a buck. Kids/cartoons for a buck or two etc. And then choose what I want to subscribe to each month. But if you are going to charge me 20 bucks a month, you had better have 20 bucks a month worth of content that I actually want to watch. (and no ads). Oh, and stop making good shows with cliff hanger endings and then canceling them!
> Cable is laced with advertising and is linear, whereas much of the world has moved on to on demand
As a counter, there is a trend of linear streaming channels increasing in popularity. Lots of people just want to put something on for a bit of time rather than doom scrolling on-demand to find something to put on. There have been times where I've spent the majority of the time I was willing to kill watching something searching for something to watch. Curated channels with content that your interested in is very compelling.
> I for one would be perfectly willing to have an option where
These are definitely out there. I worked on the backed in for something that did this very thing. There was a channel for nothing but old western TV shows. Another channel that was nothing but animal related content. Another that was basically a Hallmark channel with similar content. I never did see what their pricing was though
As a counter, there is a trend of linear streaming channels increasing in popularity. Lots of people just want to put something on for a bit of time rather than doom scrolling on-demand to find something to put on. There have been times where I've spent the majority of the time I was willing to kill watching something searching for something to watch. Curated channels with content that your interested in is very compelling.
> I for one would be perfectly willing to have an option where
These are definitely out there. I worked on the backed in for something that did this very thing. There was a channel for nothing but old western TV shows. Another channel that was nothing but animal related content. Another that was basically a Hallmark channel with similar content. I never did see what their pricing was though
Beyond the providers still offering linear TV (and the new ones being built in a new "trend" sometimes referred to as FAST TV [1]) You can see some of the linear background channel desires/trends in Twitch streaming numbers, too, and in some of the popularity of some Twitch streaming channels (such as MST3K's 24/7 MST3K channel). Also this is part of why several big "comfort events" on Twitch such as 24/7 streaming of Bob Ross or Mr. Roger's Neighborhood blew up virally.
[1] https://www.mni.com/blog/popular-streaming-services-what-is-...
[1] https://www.mni.com/blog/popular-streaming-services-what-is-...
[deleted]
> Netflix at one point felt like the end of piracy, because it was becoming the portal to all great video content. Then everyone wanted a slice of the pie and started their own platform.
In other words, we got competition. If Netflix remained the sole streaming platform of significance it would be lumped in with the monopoly talk that clouds Google, Amazon, Apple and the other trillion dollar corporations.
If anything this is a good thing, competition happened before Netflix could dominate completely.
In other words, we got competition. If Netflix remained the sole streaming platform of significance it would be lumped in with the monopoly talk that clouds Google, Amazon, Apple and the other trillion dollar corporations.
If anything this is a good thing, competition happened before Netflix could dominate completely.
> In other words, we got competition. If Netflix remained the sole streaming platform of significance it would be lumped in with the monopoly talk that clouds Google, Amazon, Apple and the other trillion dollar corporations.
This "competition" increased prices, which is not the desired result from competition. The problem is that copyright holders have too much power over their content, especially older content. If copyright holders were required to license content to anyone who wished to publish or redistribute it after, say, 10 years of initial publishing, that would be a form of competition that would decrease prices.
This "competition" increased prices, which is not the desired result from competition. The problem is that copyright holders have too much power over their content, especially older content. If copyright holders were required to license content to anyone who wished to publish or redistribute it after, say, 10 years of initial publishing, that would be a form of competition that would decrease prices.
> This "competition" increased prices
That would have happened anyway.
The only reason early Netflix was so cheap was because they negotiated streaming access to large swathes of content, because the rights holders thought licensing for streaming was worthless and leased them for a pittance.
That sweetheart deal was never going to last past Netflix's original gen contract expirations.
That would have happened anyway.
The only reason early Netflix was so cheap was because they negotiated streaming access to large swathes of content, because the rights holders thought licensing for streaming was worthless and leased them for a pittance.
That sweetheart deal was never going to last past Netflix's original gen contract expirations.
Right. This "competition" isn't, because most of it is run by the same folks that determine whether or not Netflix exists as an ongoing concern.
It's a HUGE fuckin shame that American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. was decided the way it was. Otherwise, Netflix could get out of the stranglehold that the movie studios surely have it in by buying DVDs and either mailing them or streaming their contents to subscribers. [0]
[0] The implication here is that the movie studios are threatening to refuse to renew streaming licenses for their movies if Netflix goes back to mailing DVDs at scale. If Netflix could format-shift those DVDs in real time with a one-customer-per-DVD setup, not only would Netflix have some leverage, they wouldn't be beholden to arbitrary and capricious licensing agreements at all.
It's a HUGE fuckin shame that American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. was decided the way it was. Otherwise, Netflix could get out of the stranglehold that the movie studios surely have it in by buying DVDs and either mailing them or streaming their contents to subscribers. [0]
[0] The implication here is that the movie studios are threatening to refuse to renew streaming licenses for their movies if Netflix goes back to mailing DVDs at scale. If Netflix could format-shift those DVDs in real time with a one-customer-per-DVD setup, not only would Netflix have some leverage, they wouldn't be beholden to arbitrary and capricious licensing agreements at all.
Maybe not with the existing rules. I expect regions with more consumer friendly legislature might stop exclusive licensing deals (Game of Thrones exclusively on) and vertical integration (of course Disney content is exclusive to the Disney channel). Streaming has been around long enough and successful enough that you can consider it infrastructure and legislate it as such. Especially in countries where any 'lost revenue' was going to be lost overseas in any case.
Some competition, in the wrong place.
Exclusive licencing is the problem, giving a 'monopoly' of sorts on streaming particular content. If everything was available everywhere, they just paid pay per view royalties say, then we'd have proper competition on pricing models & the quality of service provided.
Exclusive licencing is the problem, giving a 'monopoly' of sorts on streaming particular content. If everything was available everywhere, they just paid pay per view royalties say, then we'd have proper competition on pricing models & the quality of service provided.
Steam has locked up the gaming market on PCs and so far it has been all upside. The decline of Netflix and the proliferation of generally worse alternatives has not been a boon for anyone but rent-seekers. This theory of competition is not holding up here.
I think Steam is an anomaly, not the rule for monopolies. Steam is privately owned with long term stable leadership. They are generating a crazy amount of money and are able to be content with that.
If steam went public and had the usual revolving door of MBA CEOs keen to "maximize efficiencies", you can bet that Steam would turn just as malign as the adtech industry.
If steam went public and had the usual revolving door of MBA CEOs keen to "maximize efficiencies", you can bet that Steam would turn just as malign as the adtech industry.
I concur on all points, though I think there's something else than public ownership at fault per se. Publicly traded corporations were once considered an innovation and improvement over private ownership. Something went awry over the years, and private equity is presently giving a bad name to private ownership too.
Steam is not owned by private equity.
A private company is not a corporate raider.
A private company is not a corporate raider.
Private equity is a type of private ownership, even if it doesn't apply to Steam. In the broader context of business dysfunction, public-vs-private ownership is not telling the full story. Corporate raiding is also just part of the picture; MBA-driven corporate mismanagement, ZIRP and LIRP, principal-agent mismatch, short-term profit maximalism, and a number of other issues are involved too.
Indeed, I agree.
A private founder-owner-CEO combination (like Steam) might be the least vulnerable organization to many of those ills, short of a cooperative (not sure it counts as private ownership).
A private founder-owner-CEO combination (like Steam) might be the least vulnerable organization to many of those ills, short of a cooperative (not sure it counts as private ownership).
The barrier to entry to compete with steam is a newspaper ad, a CD-R writer (or usb stick) an envelope and a stamp. There are a million ways to deliver software. You can setup a website as a front to an S3 bucket and then just pay per download of the file. You have epic, origin gog, greenman gaming etc they all exist, but people choose to buy their games on steam, and publishers choose to sell their games there despite the 30% cut. I wouldn't call it "locking up", they just provide a Better Service to customers.
The last game I bought that wasn't on steam was probably Kerbal Space Program, in ~2014, and later converted my key to Steam when the option presented itself.
*Epic offers 0% cut for the first year to most indie games
The last game I bought that wasn't on steam was probably Kerbal Space Program, in ~2014, and later converted my key to Steam when the option presented itself.
*Epic offers 0% cut for the first year to most indie games
> Steam has locked up the gaming market on PCs and so far it has been all upside.
GoG exists too, and just like what happened with streaming services, gaming companies have pushed out their own shitty platforms full of DRM and spying. Steam is still #1 though.
GoG exists too, and just like what happened with streaming services, gaming companies have pushed out their own shitty platforms full of DRM and spying. Steam is still #1 though.
> If Netflix remained the sole streaming platform of significance it would be lumped in with the monopoly talk....
Spotify, Google, Amazon, Apple, Tidal all manage to have almost comprehensive music catalogs for me to stream. It's rare that I find something on one platform that isn't on another (Some artist exceptions exist, and are rare).
Pick 10 random films off the AFI top 100 list and tell me how to stream them. How many services do I need to watch them "for free".
Consumers want a single point of access to content. If I want to listen to a song I go to my music platform, if I want to watch content I go to the web to find out who has it... That friction is what consumers dont want or need.
Spotify, Google, Amazon, Apple, Tidal all manage to have almost comprehensive music catalogs for me to stream. It's rare that I find something on one platform that isn't on another (Some artist exceptions exist, and are rare).
Pick 10 random films off the AFI top 100 list and tell me how to stream them. How many services do I need to watch them "for free".
Consumers want a single point of access to content. If I want to listen to a song I go to my music platform, if I want to watch content I go to the web to find out who has it... That friction is what consumers dont want or need.
That's because music costs barely anything to create vs tv/movies and the digitally distributed track is basically just advertising for the music creators merch, sponsorship deals, live gigs where they make their real money.
You can tell that's the case because practically every piece of music created has been put on youtube while nobody puts tv/movies on youtube for free.
So your spotify equivalent for tv/movies is going to cost $100+ a month, perhaps more because tv/movies are that much more expensive to make and that's what you were paying for cable back in the day.
But people think everything could cost $20 at most, so that's why we're going to have 10 or so streaming services and frankly that's way better than the old cable days.
You can tell that's the case because practically every piece of music created has been put on youtube while nobody puts tv/movies on youtube for free.
So your spotify equivalent for tv/movies is going to cost $100+ a month, perhaps more because tv/movies are that much more expensive to make and that's what you were paying for cable back in the day.
But people think everything could cost $20 at most, so that's why we're going to have 10 or so streaming services and frankly that's way better than the old cable days.
CD's used to cost 20 bucks, artists used to make money on their sales.
Now they don't.
There are movies that "don't make money" because of shady accounting practices.
And I paid 100 bucks for cable for the same reason that you pay 100 bucks for internet now, lack of competition.
> while nobody puts tv/movies on youtube for free
There are plenty of people creating content on YouTube for what YouTube is willing to give them... and that isn't much. They have a working model because they keep creating content, not trying to squeeze every drop from the juice (over and over).
You might want to go back and look at the Paramount Decree. We would not be here if it was extended to streaming rather than allowed to expire.
Now they don't.
There are movies that "don't make money" because of shady accounting practices.
And I paid 100 bucks for cable for the same reason that you pay 100 bucks for internet now, lack of competition.
> while nobody puts tv/movies on youtube for free
There are plenty of people creating content on YouTube for what YouTube is willing to give them... and that isn't much. They have a working model because they keep creating content, not trying to squeeze every drop from the juice (over and over).
You might want to go back and look at the Paramount Decree. We would not be here if it was extended to streaming rather than allowed to expire.
No, that's because music licensing has been collected together into one or two monopolistic licensing schemes in every country. Most countries do it via a government agency, the US does it with BMI and ASCAP. It's actually kind of surprising the US hasn't broken up BMI & ASCAP with anti-trust, but they've got special dispensation just like the NFL.
Legislatures could bring in a compulsory licensing scheme for movies similar to BMI and ASCAP.
Legislatures could bring in a compulsory licensing scheme for movies similar to BMI and ASCAP.
> music costs barely anything to create
Almost all criticisms of monopolies comes from the abuse they enable. On an abstract level, a monopoly is the best option, because it removes so much extra cost, and has the ultimate scaling factor. Like early Netflix with it's seemingly infinite catalog.
In practice, of course, monopolies under capitalism exist specifically to exploit it, making things far worse for customers in the long run.
Steam is, to me, the closest we have to a benevolent monopoly. A monopoly that exists purely because it offers the best product.
In practice, of course, monopolies under capitalism exist specifically to exploit it, making things far worse for customers in the long run.
Steam is, to me, the closest we have to a benevolent monopoly. A monopoly that exists purely because it offers the best product.
Yes well the definition of "monopoly" seems to vary a bit on HN, often it means "large company I don't like".
I've heard people on this site argue that Apple has a monopoly on smartphones because they don't like Android and so their only choice is iPhone and since Apple controls iPhone 100% it's therefore a monopoly.
I've heard people on this site argue that Apple has a monopoly on smartphones because they don't like Android and so their only choice is iPhone and since Apple controls iPhone 100% it's therefore a monopoly.
I suspect people make that argument because they are unaware of the word duopoly. Functionally, a duopoly isn't much different from a monopoly. The market would be far better off if there were 4 or more players.
In the context of smartphones, the vertical integrations don't help with the "monopoly" perception, either. Once you've decided to get an iPhone hardware device, your only choice is to use the Apple app store, and if you want something out of the Apple app store, your only choice is to get an iPhone. Android phones are a little more lenient in that there are at least multiple app stores, but you still have the tight coupling between the hardware and the OS despite smartphones fundamentally being ARM devices with touchscreens.
Were smartphones more like PCs, you could buy an iPhone and put Android on it, then use any of the iOS, Google Play, or Amazon stores to install apps. Or, perhaps you'd prefer to buy a Samsung Galaxy S24 and put iOS on it, and install apps from any of the many app stores just the same.
I'd be at least as irritated with the PC market if I had to buy a Dell PC to access Steam and it only allowed installing from Steam, an HP PC was linked 1:1 with the Epic store, Alienware PCs were linked 1:1 with the Origin store, etc. and building your own machine was no longer possible, though at least you'd still have more options than with phones.
In the context of smartphones, the vertical integrations don't help with the "monopoly" perception, either. Once you've decided to get an iPhone hardware device, your only choice is to use the Apple app store, and if you want something out of the Apple app store, your only choice is to get an iPhone. Android phones are a little more lenient in that there are at least multiple app stores, but you still have the tight coupling between the hardware and the OS despite smartphones fundamentally being ARM devices with touchscreens.
Were smartphones more like PCs, you could buy an iPhone and put Android on it, then use any of the iOS, Google Play, or Amazon stores to install apps. Or, perhaps you'd prefer to buy a Samsung Galaxy S24 and put iOS on it, and install apps from any of the many app stores just the same.
I'd be at least as irritated with the PC market if I had to buy a Dell PC to access Steam and it only allowed installing from Steam, an HP PC was linked 1:1 with the Epic store, Alienware PCs were linked 1:1 with the Origin store, etc. and building your own machine was no longer possible, though at least you'd still have more options than with phones.
> Were smartphones more like PCs, you could buy an iPhone and put Android on it, then use any of the iOS, Google Play, or Amazon stores to install apps.
It's never been like that. What you wrote is fundamentally the same idea as: "If consumer computers more like consumer computers, you could buy a MacBook Pro and run RedHat Linux on it, then run any of the macOS applications or Linux applications that exist in the world."
While the mobile computing ecosystem and details are quite different, it's mostly same cocktail of things: Commercial hardware that is either open or closed, a [maybe commercial] OS, and applications that execute under version X of the OS and version Y of a runtime.
It's never been like that. What you wrote is fundamentally the same idea as: "If consumer computers more like consumer computers, you could buy a MacBook Pro and run RedHat Linux on it, then run any of the macOS applications or Linux applications that exist in the world."
While the mobile computing ecosystem and details are quite different, it's mostly same cocktail of things: Commercial hardware that is either open or closed, a [maybe commercial] OS, and applications that execute under version X of the OS and version Y of a runtime.
[deleted]
> In other words, we got competition.
No, we got fragmentation. If we had competition I could pay netflix to watch the same content that I could otherwise watch on hulu if I made the choice to pay hulu instead.
Since everyone has their own exclusive content paywalled off behind their own services, we're stuck with lot of tiny monopolies.
That's why prices are skyrocketing, and we have a bunch of examples of shitty/infuriating interfaces that get in the way of users and prevent them from what they want, instead of a battle between streaming services to offer the best/most features users want at the lowest prices.
No, we got fragmentation. If we had competition I could pay netflix to watch the same content that I could otherwise watch on hulu if I made the choice to pay hulu instead.
Since everyone has their own exclusive content paywalled off behind their own services, we're stuck with lot of tiny monopolies.
That's why prices are skyrocketing, and we have a bunch of examples of shitty/infuriating interfaces that get in the way of users and prevent them from what they want, instead of a battle between streaming services to offer the best/most features users want at the lowest prices.
"> we've passed the low point of ad-fuelled, sensational, information-light, polarised, vacuous content"
I am also a bit pessimistic about this, but rather think the danger comes from LLMs making even more convincing clickbait and "facts". Cheap, easy to consume, if there are enough clicks, there is enough ad money.
Something real was misrepresented, so there was a lot of outcry? Awesome, lots of clicks. Lots of money. We can later apoligize, that the LLM summarizing made a misstake there.
As long as ads dominate where the money comes from for newspapers, not much will change.
I am also a bit pessimistic about this, but rather think the danger comes from LLMs making even more convincing clickbait and "facts". Cheap, easy to consume, if there are enough clicks, there is enough ad money.
Something real was misrepresented, so there was a lot of outcry? Awesome, lots of clicks. Lots of money. We can later apoligize, that the LLM summarizing made a misstake there.
As long as ads dominate where the money comes from for newspapers, not much will change.
I think another alternative here, is the existence of broad spectrum “summary as a service” is that “content for content’s sake” and blog spam and SEO become less relevant.
Maybe not, but I hope so.
Maybe not, but I hope so.
Oh there will be for sure lots of nergy wasted, on producing long text out of nothing - and on the other side using lots of energy to make LLM summarize that garbage again.
But yes, I also hope some good will come out of it and intent to stay in the good areas.
But yes, I also hope some good will come out of it and intent to stay in the good areas.
Brave is building something that sounds like it might be right up your alley, but adoption of their payment system has been rather low, and I doubt Mozilla has enough street cred to be more successful after the last ten years of their mismanagement and the market share hovering just above 0%.
If Mozilla's market share is an impediment to the adoption, then have I got some bad news for you about Brave....
(I say this as a happy user of Brave on Android)
(I say this as a happy user of Brave on Android)
> I also dislike that I have to choose between giving up all my privacy to a ton of ad providers or needing 100 different subscriptions to get some good content.
> I kinda hope that Mozilla (or someone else) finds a way to become the Spotify/Netflix of the web. A place where I can pay a single fee that then gets distributed between the platforms and sites I visit. But I kinda know that that will never happen, since it gives too much power to that one platform.
You mean you want... the cable TV bundle again? Literally the thing that the article rails against, because cable TV inherently produces "sensationalism, link baiting, and the path to shallow 10-o'clock-news reporting."
Amazing.
> I kinda hope that Mozilla (or someone else) finds a way to become the Spotify/Netflix of the web. A place where I can pay a single fee that then gets distributed between the platforms and sites I visit. But I kinda know that that will never happen, since it gives too much power to that one platform.
You mean you want... the cable TV bundle again? Literally the thing that the article rails against, because cable TV inherently produces "sensationalism, link baiting, and the path to shallow 10-o'clock-news reporting."
Amazing.
> the cable TV bundle again?
No, that's why I didn't write that. Spotify allows nearly everyone to put their music on the platform. Just this week I listened to some music with <1000 plays that I found in a random video somewhere. I choose what I want to listen to and a part of the fee I pay gets transferred to the creator. I don't need to buy 100 different subscriptions to labels and musicians, it's centralized.
(Yes, I know Spotify isn't perfect and that there are valid criticisms of the platform. I'm not using it as an example of a perfect end goal, I'm using it as an example of the only thing right now that gets somewhat in the neighborhood. And in the industry there are multiple platforms who distribute mostly the same content with only some 'exclusive' releases. Which is what I'd like to see for the web.)
No, that's why I didn't write that. Spotify allows nearly everyone to put their music on the platform. Just this week I listened to some music with <1000 plays that I found in a random video somewhere. I choose what I want to listen to and a part of the fee I pay gets transferred to the creator. I don't need to buy 100 different subscriptions to labels and musicians, it's centralized.
(Yes, I know Spotify isn't perfect and that there are valid criticisms of the platform. I'm not using it as an example of a perfect end goal, I'm using it as an example of the only thing right now that gets somewhat in the neighborhood. And in the industry there are multiple platforms who distribute mostly the same content with only some 'exclusive' releases. Which is what I'd like to see for the web.)
Is that really how Spotify works? What if you listened only to that one creator, would all of the artists' portion of your subscription go to that creator? I was under the impression that with Spotify everybody's subscription goes into a big pool of money which is then distributed between all of the artists based on total plays. So actually as a listener of niche music, I am mostly paying for exactly the mainstream artists whose music I am not listening to and who don't need my support anyway. This is why I prefer to use Bandcamp, where I know there is a direct relationship between what I buy and who gets the money for that.
> Yes, I know Spotify isn't perfect and that there are valid criticisms of the platform.
I wrote that paragraph for a reason.
> So actually as a listener of niche music, I am mostly paying for exactly the mainstream artists whose music I am not listening to
That mostly depends on how much you listen. If you listen more than average, your niche band will actually get more than they would've otherwise. At least if I have my brain math correct.
I wrote that paragraph for a reason.
> So actually as a listener of niche music, I am mostly paying for exactly the mainstream artists whose music I am not listening to
That mostly depends on how much you listen. If you listen more than average, your niche band will actually get more than they would've otherwise. At least if I have my brain math correct.
I would LOVE a streaming bundle that included all the content for a discount if and only if it remained ad free.
The big draw for me for streaming is not price, it is removal of ads.
The big draw for me for streaming is not price, it is removal of ads.
It was totally predictable that many of the same people who hated on the cable bundle also hate on a fragmented streaming landscape even though they probably pay significantly less than they did for cable TV unless they also pay for live TV anyway. (And they'd also hate on an all-inclusive integrated streaming service for the hundreds of dollars a month it would cost.)
> though they probably pay significantly less than they did for cable TV
Might be a bit of a cultural difference though. I'm in the Netherlands. TV was never as expensive over here as in the US. We also got spoiled, I guess, because the hits from the US were also on TV over here but the smaller shows weren't, so we'd get the biggest shows from Fox, CBS and Comedy Central on the same channel in some cases. And from what I remember this was <$20 a month.
Might be a bit of a cultural difference though. I'm in the Netherlands. TV was never as expensive over here as in the US. We also got spoiled, I guess, because the hits from the US were also on TV over here but the smaller shows weren't, so we'd get the biggest shows from Fox, CBS and Comedy Central on the same channel in some cases. And from what I remember this was <$20 a month.
I paid about $100/month for cable TV in the US and that wasn't with a bunch of premium content. (Maybe just HBO.) That was Comcast so I assume that was pretty typical. And then any streaming channels, movie rentals (which were mostly not on standard cable), etc. were on top of that.
And when I canceled cable TV I decided to just go cold turkey and do without the occasional sporting event on live TV. So depending upon how you count I'm probably paying less than $50/month for all my video entertainment these days.
And when I canceled cable TV I decided to just go cold turkey and do without the occasional sporting event on live TV. So depending upon how you count I'm probably paying less than $50/month for all my video entertainment these days.
> Might be a bit of a cultural difference though.
It is more of content owner trying to get what they can from different part of the world. There are places in third world where HBO would be $1 / month , same thing in US is like 15-20 dollars. Buyers/local networks can always say this is price local market can pay else they will pirate.
It is more of content owner trying to get what they can from different part of the world. There are places in third world where HBO would be $1 / month , same thing in US is like 15-20 dollars. Buyers/local networks can always say this is price local market can pay else they will pirate.
I think we're past a low point of ad-fueled low-value content. Better alternatives will arise, grow, and become ubiquitous - but then they too will grow more expensive, become corrupted, and be circumvented in turn.
Media, art, and info distribution are never static targets, and even if a stable equilibrium exists and can be reached that does not mean that society will not oscillate around it.
Media, art, and info distribution are never static targets, and even if a stable equilibrium exists and can be reached that does not mean that society will not oscillate around it.
> because it was becoming the portal to all great video content.
Only if your preference of content happens to match what NetFlix offers, which is not the case for many/most people.
Only if your preference of content happens to match what NetFlix offers, which is not the case for many/most people.
> Netflix at one point felt like the end of piracy
I think you have it the wrong way round. Piracy is the solution to Netflix (the bloated, enshittified 'content provider') just like piracy has been the solution to all the centralised media platform monopolies that came before it, that Netflix first disrupted and then joined.
As an individual it's meritorious to pay creators and pay creative collectives (e.g. studios). But it's never meritorious to pay media platforms that act as middle men. They are in the business of ripping off both the creators and their audience ('consumers' in modern parlance). You're only a sucker if you buy into their self-serving moralising narratives. The right and moral thing is to parasite them to death, by piracy. (Or boycott them; also a valid choice.)
I think you have it the wrong way round. Piracy is the solution to Netflix (the bloated, enshittified 'content provider') just like piracy has been the solution to all the centralised media platform monopolies that came before it, that Netflix first disrupted and then joined.
As an individual it's meritorious to pay creators and pay creative collectives (e.g. studios). But it's never meritorious to pay media platforms that act as middle men. They are in the business of ripping off both the creators and their audience ('consumers' in modern parlance). You're only a sucker if you buy into their self-serving moralising narratives. The right and moral thing is to parasite them to death, by piracy. (Or boycott them; also a valid choice.)
Nope. They had it exactly right. Notice the past tense. You're just adding more context to what they said. I was able to skip out on usenet for quite a while during the Netflix golden years because Netflix made consuming content much easier than pirating at the time. But it's back to where things were before and we've got better tools for "alternate sources" of such content.
Our economic model encourages this kind of race to the bottom enshitification of everything. Unfortunately there are no high-tech solutions to this problem. The technology we need to improve is our political/economic system.
Perhaps with wealthy country populations projected to fall dramatically we will finally be forced to find a way other than "growth" to value human endeavour. That would be the most likely path to a solution, I fear it will be rather painful.
Perhaps with wealthy country populations projected to fall dramatically we will finally be forced to find a way other than "growth" to value human endeavour. That would be the most likely path to a solution, I fear it will be rather painful.
Our economic model (is supposed to) boil down to producing our goods and services using the least amount of resources. Sure, that yields planned obsolescence and enshittification, but also cheap multi-GHz laptops and widespread Internet availability.
I never believed that internet advertising was worth what it supposedly is. Stuff like this seems to confirm it for me: https://www.adexchanger.com/on-tv-and-video/googles-second-w...
I think internet advertising is massively overvalued, the initial bubble happened when the click fraud detection tools were nonexistent, and because Google hasn't been changed, everyone assumes their valuation is right and correct.
I think internet advertising is massively overvalued, the initial bubble happened when the click fraud detection tools were nonexistent, and because Google hasn't been changed, everyone assumes their valuation is right and correct.
internet advertising as a means to sell garbage is overvalued, but it enables a system of pervasive surveillance that allows governments and companies to exploit your data offline too. As long as the tracking continued, the buying and selling of the most intimate details of your life would still be a massive and growing industry even if no one ever put an ad on a webpage again. Advertising is also effective at manipulating public perception/opinion though so it's not going anywhere either way.
People would pay for far more if charged a nominal markup over what their readership is considered worth when subsidized by ads.
But no, when subscribing, they're expected to pay 10x or 100x or 1000x their ad-impression worth.
Subscription aggregation (a Hulu of things to read, like the firm Apple purchased* and made into Apple News+) is one answer.
Another would be a IWP (In-Web Purchase) browser standard like DNT except its an "I'm willing to buy the ad slots on this page at the median CPM" token, coupled to something like the mythical micro-transactions settlement schemes of yore that would now actually be possible on top of systems handling IAP.
* Next Issue aka Texture. I was a subscriber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_(app)
But no, when subscribing, they're expected to pay 10x or 100x or 1000x their ad-impression worth.
Subscription aggregation (a Hulu of things to read, like the firm Apple purchased* and made into Apple News+) is one answer.
Another would be a IWP (In-Web Purchase) browser standard like DNT except its an "I'm willing to buy the ad slots on this page at the median CPM" token, coupled to something like the mythical micro-transactions settlement schemes of yore that would now actually be possible on top of systems handling IAP.
* Next Issue aka Texture. I was a subscriber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_(app)
Is it that different once all the additional costs are taken into account? Payment processing / refunds / customer service etc etc that you need when you're taking payments, vs just pasting some Javascript on a page and giving Google your bank account details?
I kind of like the OutsideOnline model where I pay for the apps (trailforks gaiagps) but also get access to decent content. Though I guess that is close to the old cable TV bundle model that sucked.
I pay for Kagi, NextDNS, Youtube to keep ads at bay. If there was a bundled content network beyond just Youtube infomercials posing as content it would be even more appealing.
I pay for Kagi, NextDNS, Youtube to keep ads at bay. If there was a bundled content network beyond just Youtube infomercials posing as content it would be even more appealing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I've wondered if things might get bad enough to enable a fork of the web. It could happen 2 ways:
1) A truly user focused browser is created, the fabled "user agent". The ad-focused web doesn't support that browser, but websites that care about users do support it. Thus, people who want more than ad-drivel use the niche browser and have access to a web full of weird and non-profit-focused content.
2) Possibly a fork of the underlying technologies. Maybe the browser mentioned uses incompatible technologies or protocols. Maybe this new web is based on something other than HTML and JavaScript.
Probably not. It's a wild idea. It's probably too hard to do better than the existing technologies, and the effort required for such a fork seems ever less likely in this time of dissipating focus and hobbies.
1) A truly user focused browser is created, the fabled "user agent". The ad-focused web doesn't support that browser, but websites that care about users do support it. Thus, people who want more than ad-drivel use the niche browser and have access to a web full of weird and non-profit-focused content.
2) Possibly a fork of the underlying technologies. Maybe the browser mentioned uses incompatible technologies or protocols. Maybe this new web is based on something other than HTML and JavaScript.
Probably not. It's a wild idea. It's probably too hard to do better than the existing technologies, and the effort required for such a fork seems ever less likely in this time of dissipating focus and hobbies.
It already exists, it's called Geminispace: https://geminiprotocol.net/
Gemini is still client/server, so it encourages the same problems of scale that HTTP has where you can't afford to run a server unless you have a source of income. IE. it would get infested by adtech the same as HTTP if it got popular enough. IMO the only way to get something that wouldn't suffer the same fate would be to make it a peer-to-peer application where everyone using the client application was also hosting a server.
> Thus, people who want more than ad-drivel use the niche browser and have access to a web full of weird and non-profit-focused content.
This is a technical solution to a non-technical problem. If you want to only access esoteric websites, you can do that today. If you want to block ads and tracking, you can do that today. If you want to only visit websites that don't require ad support, you can do that today.
What you need is a way to pay people for content so they don't need to have ads. Can you solve that problem?
This is a technical solution to a non-technical problem. If you want to only access esoteric websites, you can do that today. If you want to block ads and tracking, you can do that today. If you want to only visit websites that don't require ad support, you can do that today.
What you need is a way to pay people for content so they don't need to have ads. Can you solve that problem?
Peer-to-peer web where people don't need to pay for servers but donate some disk space and network bandwidth to participate. The content generated by passionate people that only wants their content to be out there, not make money out of it. A p2p geocities if you will.
Can't we do this now? We will already have websites that are funded this way.
web3 is that. Pay for content / services you use through micro transactions.
If by web3 you mean crypto currencies then I ask you nicely to stop using web3 for that.
Web3 is things like json-ld and the like and it is tragic that scammers have been able to abuse the term for so long.
Web3 is things like json-ld and the like and it is tragic that scammers have been able to abuse the term for so long.
I'm really not a fan of crypto claiming the "Web 3.0" title, but the Semantic Web had its chance for many years, and at this point I don't think it gets to hold on to it anymore either.
I’m not familiar with json-ld, other than a quick skim of a Google search that I just did. What is so revolutionary about it (and other technologies in the space, such as…?) that it represents a whole new revision of the web paradigm, comparable from the shift from static pages in web1 to interactive sites in web2?
It is not revolutionary. It is evolutionary just like web2.0 was. That is kind of the point.
But together with other, similar technologies it extends the current with metadata etc web just like web2 extended the existing web with things like ajax interactions, drag and drop and folksonomies ("tags") and other forms of user generated content.
The (IMO) fake crypto peddler "web3" is (again IMO) "revolutionary" unlike web2 and the real web3: it is a complete break from many of the things that made the web great. I'd even hesitate to describe much of it as web at all.
But together with other, similar technologies it extends the current with metadata etc web just like web2 extended the existing web with things like ajax interactions, drag and drop and folksonomies ("tags") and other forms of user generated content.
The (IMO) fake crypto peddler "web3" is (again IMO) "revolutionary" unlike web2 and the real web3: it is a complete break from many of the things that made the web great. I'd even hesitate to describe much of it as web at all.
Arbitrary server-chosen microtransactions make things worse in many ways even if the payment process is simple, fast, and free.
Wow, lots of luddites here for what's supposed to be a tech community.
Get your head out of your asses guys. There's nothing inherently bad about blockchain or decentralization.
Get your head out of your asses guys. There's nothing inherently bad about blockchain or decentralization.
"web3" is nothing but another crypto-scam.
Please stop.
++++++ to Kagi.
>There were people among us who would gladly pay for this kind of coverage
While strictly true, it almost certainly would only be a tiny fraction. Probably not far off from the small fraction that would visit their site without ad-blocking.
I know people don't like hearing it, but the "I never want to see an advertisement again...and I don't have to" mentality that exists, especially within anandtechs tech minded demographic, does have material downsides.
I'm not saying you shouldn't block ads, but I know 99% of you reading this have never whitelisted a single domain.
Now crucify me for pulling a skeleton out of the closet.
While strictly true, it almost certainly would only be a tiny fraction. Probably not far off from the small fraction that would visit their site without ad-blocking.
I know people don't like hearing it, but the "I never want to see an advertisement again...and I don't have to" mentality that exists, especially within anandtechs tech minded demographic, does have material downsides.
I'm not saying you shouldn't block ads, but I know 99% of you reading this have never whitelisted a single domain.
Now crucify me for pulling a skeleton out of the closet.
If a site offers a reasonable priced alternative to ads I'll opt for that. I've donated at other times when that option is available.
Otherwise I don't want to be tracked profusely. Ethics is sorely missing in online advertising.
Otherwise I don't want to be tracked profusely. Ethics is sorely missing in online advertising.
The best (and only) implementation of this I’ve seen is https://all3dp.com/
If you visit with an ad blocker, they say “please disable your blocker or subscribe for $3/year. Hit the subscribe button and you can Apple Pay and be reading a 100% ethically as free article in seconds.
Obviously transaction costs totally suck at prices that low, but one transaction a year helps I’m sure.
If you visit with an ad blocker, they say “please disable your blocker or subscribe for $3/year. Hit the subscribe button and you can Apple Pay and be reading a 100% ethically as free article in seconds.
Obviously transaction costs totally suck at prices that low, but one transaction a year helps I’m sure.
That model sounds great. Low friction and impulse-buy pricing.
There are lots of sites (AnandTech being a prime example) I don't visit often enough to justify the usual monthly subscription cost.
Per-article pricing with no registration would be ideal (yet another cryptocurrency use case that never materialized) but as you say, transaction fees make that a non starter.
There are lots of sites (AnandTech being a prime example) I don't visit often enough to justify the usual monthly subscription cost.
Per-article pricing with no registration would be ideal (yet another cryptocurrency use case that never materialized) but as you say, transaction fees make that a non starter.
I have the next issue of always deleting cookies when the browser closes, meaning I'd get this dialog every time I visited the site. Whitelisting a site in Firefox is relatively annoying and throw in multiple devices, that dialog will always be there.
I don't really have a better idea besides automated micropayments, which nobody has managed yet, crypto doesn't count,, so I guess we'll have to live with the current situation?
I don't really have a better idea besides automated micropayments, which nobody has managed yet, crypto doesn't count,, so I guess we'll have to live with the current situation?
This comment (not from you personally, Asad, but the idea of it) is the very core of the reason why I have such an axe to grind on this topic.
One brings this ugly topic up, that ads keep sites running, and are showered by comments of people saying exactly what you said. Those comments get praise and lots of upvotes. Everyone pats themselves on the back.
But when you are on the other side of the equation, the one dependent on ad views and/or subscriptions, the numbers unequivocally show that people are totally full of shit. That they are just virtue signalling to receive praise and to push the skeleton back in the closet.
Again, not calling you out personally, I believe you do support creators. But I have done this song and dance many many times, and it always goes the same way.
One brings this ugly topic up, that ads keep sites running, and are showered by comments of people saying exactly what you said. Those comments get praise and lots of upvotes. Everyone pats themselves on the back.
But when you are on the other side of the equation, the one dependent on ad views and/or subscriptions, the numbers unequivocally show that people are totally full of shit. That they are just virtue signalling to receive praise and to push the skeleton back in the closet.
Again, not calling you out personally, I believe you do support creators. But I have done this song and dance many many times, and it always goes the same way.
Also, back in the day, some of us had a fair number of magazine subscriptions. But, really, at peak it was a small percentage of the number of websites I look at at least now and then. Consumption has generally changed and most of us are skittish about subscriptions generally even if we have a few.
The whole mode of taking in trade news has changed. 20 years ago when i bought a Maximum PC i read it cover-to-cover. Can't imagine doing that now with anything other than a book or a movie. Instead i'm reading the one or three most eye-catching articles that twenty different publications put out. Our much-beloved RSS (and old-school email newsletters) were the start of the slide here i think.
I still have a few subscriptions, especially if they send it out on a dead tree, but with the nature of the internet it's hazardous to not use an ad blocker. I've come to appreciate when publications run reminders that they are, in fact, also people who need to eat, and i try to make up for what i take from the trough by buying swag or sending a check if they take donations. But i get that there's not an enviable business plan on the other side of that equation. It's an ongoing evolution.
I still have a few subscriptions, especially if they send it out on a dead tree, but with the nature of the internet it's hazardous to not use an ad blocker. I've come to appreciate when publications run reminders that they are, in fact, also people who need to eat, and i try to make up for what i take from the trough by buying swag or sending a check if they take donations. But i get that there's not an enviable business plan on the other side of that equation. It's an ongoing evolution.
> Our much-beloved RSS (and old-school email newsletters) were the start of the slide here i think.
I'd place the shift happening earlier with early web portals. People made (or were coerced by their ISP) web portals their home page. The model of portals was show people headlines with direct links to the articles.
Hyperlinks are fundamental to the web so it's not like portals were doing something bad. It is just a model that's difficult to monetize for the destination site. More difficult than a traditional magazine or newspaper since the site only gets paid per actual impression vs paid per square inch from potential impressions estimated by circulation.
RSS readers were more about the democratization of portals since a site feed let the end user build their own "portal" from their collection of feeds. In terms of traffic patterns an RSS user was pretty similar to a web portal user, just a visitor that dropped in on some deep link and didn't necessarily hit any additional pages.
I'd place the shift happening earlier with early web portals. People made (or were coerced by their ISP) web portals their home page. The model of portals was show people headlines with direct links to the articles.
Hyperlinks are fundamental to the web so it's not like portals were doing something bad. It is just a model that's difficult to monetize for the destination site. More difficult than a traditional magazine or newspaper since the site only gets paid per actual impression vs paid per square inch from potential impressions estimated by circulation.
RSS readers were more about the democratization of portals since a site feed let the end user build their own "portal" from their collection of feeds. In terms of traffic patterns an RSS user was pretty similar to a web portal user, just a visitor that dropped in on some deep link and didn't necessarily hit any additional pages.
It's not your customers' fault that your business model is not viable, and guilting people into turning off AdBlock is manipulative and detrimental to overall human productivity.
Asking people to watch ads is simply a bad trade off, in the same way that burning trash to save on fuel is bad -- to save 1$ in fuel costs, environmental damage in the thousands is caused. To make 1$ from ads, many multiples of damage in lost productivity and bad product proliferation are caused.
Ad based businesses are as bad as door to door life insurance scammers, multi level scammers, etc.
In short, find a job that doesn't require damaging other people.
/Forgot to mention, watching ads without buying the advertised product simply decreases ad yield over time and therefore it even wastes productivity for 0 return in the long run./
Ad based businesses are as bad as door to door life insurance scammers, multi level scammers, etc.
In short, find a job that doesn't require damaging other people.
/Forgot to mention, watching ads without buying the advertised product simply decreases ad yield over time and therefore it even wastes productivity for 0 return in the long run./
The virtue signaling part of online tech discourse is probably my biggest dissatisfaction with it these days. I hope you're using Kagi because Google is unethical oh and using Matrix because Discord is evil oh but you're using Gemini because the web is all cursed and sorry you're using Signal for your private communications right? Twitter is evil now Mastodon right? Hope you aren't using Reddit but Lemmy. "Enshittification!!"
Meanwhile the numbers show where the users actually are. I pay for YouTube, Telegram, and Nebula, self host Matrix, use and run Bluesky infrastructure, and a few other things but I'm the first to admit I'm in the minority. Not only that but it's time consuming! Meanwhile in tech discourse everyone is using Kagi for everything and "it's a breath of fresh air" or whatever.
Meanwhile the numbers show where the users actually are. I pay for YouTube, Telegram, and Nebula, self host Matrix, use and run Bluesky infrastructure, and a few other things but I'm the first to admit I'm in the minority. Not only that but it's time consuming! Meanwhile in tech discourse everyone is using Kagi for everything and "it's a breath of fresh air" or whatever.
That's why the saying "actions speak louder than words" exists...
In any marketing research it is well-known that what people say they would pay for and what they actually pay for are two different things. Hence also the mantra about MVPs and going to market as soon as possible.
But specifically on AnandTech and "written journalism", I think they are right about the "written" part. These days the topic and hardware reviews are all over Youtube.
In any marketing research it is well-known that what people say they would pay for and what they actually pay for are two different things. Hence also the mantra about MVPs and going to market as soon as possible.
But specifically on AnandTech and "written journalism", I think they are right about the "written" part. These days the topic and hardware reviews are all over Youtube.
A huge part of this is because there is often no other option to pay, and when there is there's a ton of friction involved. We know how much little frictions add up when people are trying to buy a product. They have to have even more impact on someone who wants to donate. I definitely spend more on my Apple devices due to easy Apple wallet integrations. I'm not going to pretend like I'll go out and start donating to all of these websites. But if the anti-popup blocker modal had something as easy as an Apple Pay button, I'd definitely consume more of that style of content if the fees were reasonable.
I'm not sure what skeletons you think are being pulled out of the closet. I do the same as the OP, if there is an option to pay I do that, but I will always ad block. I feel for you if you can't make money without ads, but I'd rather see the world burn than be ad driven.
I pay for many many subscriptions for content I like. Also, I don't see any "virtue signalling" anywhere. I don't want ads because they are hostile and not in my best interest. They significantly lower the quality of my life. It's as simple as that.
I pay for many many subscriptions for content I like. Also, I don't see any "virtue signalling" anywhere. I don't want ads because they are hostile and not in my best interest. They significantly lower the quality of my life. It's as simple as that.
You cannot see the virtue signalling unless you see the traffic metrics and revenue sheets.
Everyone says they pay to support, very few people actually do.
Just look at how it is a matter of course to post an archive.is link anytime a pay walled article is posted. It's so pervasive and wide spread that people don't even think about it.
Everyone says they pay to support, very few people actually do.
Just look at how it is a matter of course to post an archive.is link anytime a pay walled article is posted. It's so pervasive and wide spread that people don't even think about it.
> the numbers unequivocally show that people are totally full of shit
What numbers?
Where can I pay to replace ads with something that isn't orders of magnitude more expensive? Basically any single-site subscription I've seen fails that test. If you're citing that kind of subscription, then that evidence doesn't work here.
What numbers?
Where can I pay to replace ads with something that isn't orders of magnitude more expensive? Basically any single-site subscription I've seen fails that test. If you're citing that kind of subscription, then that evidence doesn't work here.
The only one I've found that passes my test (no ads if you subscribe, and equally important, all the tracking crap is also gone), is ArsTechnica. I check the stories several times a week, so I'm happy to subscribe under those terms.
For every thing else I use adblockers.
For every thing else I use adblockers.
zooq_ai(1)
The article states fairly clearly that they've lost to clickbait (and, I would guess, increasingly, to AI-slop). I.e. it was advertising that defeated them, not the ad blockers.
The fundamentally corrupt business model has grown big enough to reach its own tail and has been happily chomping on it for a while. Now it's getting to the juicy parts.
The fundamentally corrupt business model has grown big enough to reach its own tail and has been happily chomping on it for a while. Now it's getting to the juicy parts.
It's because click-bait is what attracts people who don't have the mind for using ad-blockers. It also attracts advertisers that offer more diverse (and often more malicious but profitable) ads.
I don't use an adblocker because I'm not entitled to the content. If seeing the ads makes the site not worth it I just don't go to that site, these sites won't learn until people stop using them. I've had a lot of people ask me how and honestly the web isn't that bad of you just don't spend all your time on crappy sites.
I'll often ask people with ad blockers what sites they pay for and depressingly often they say they don't pay for any. Coming as no surprise to anyone that has worked with customers before, what people say they'll pay for and what they actually will pay for are very different.
I'll often ask people with ad blockers what sites they pay for and depressingly often they say they don't pay for any. Coming as no surprise to anyone that has worked with customers before, what people say they'll pay for and what they actually will pay for are very different.
I don't use an adblocker out of entitlement. I use an adblocker because I don't want to be tracked, I don't want to be surveilled, I don't want my information hoarded/sold/leaked, I don't want to be influenced by legions of marketers looking to hijack my monkey brain, I don't want to be scammed by paid ads masquerading as organic content, and I don't want to expose myself to yet another vector for malware.
From a user perspective, ads are all downside, no upside. I pay for my content and I use an adblocker, and that's the only way to survive on the internet these days, because the ruthless pursuit of profit by short-sighted surveillance capitalists has ruined advertising as anything approaching an ethical business model.
From a user perspective, ads are all downside, no upside. I pay for my content and I use an adblocker, and that's the only way to survive on the internet these days, because the ruthless pursuit of profit by short-sighted surveillance capitalists has ruined advertising as anything approaching an ethical business model.
I mean yeah if you pay and want to use it to also block trackers then go for broke, I've never heard of anyone having a problem with that.
Problem with that approach is that an adblocker is actual critical anti malware software.
I pay for the things I care the most about, but your comment is making the assumption that other people can focus on a small number of high quality sites like you do, and that seems unrealistic with today’s web. I can’t afford enough money to pay to get rid of ads from my life, and I don’t want to limit my browsing to a tiny number of sites and never find anything new.
I don’t feel entitled to any content either. However, ad-driven sites are offering the content for free. I think framing this as not “entitled” to the content is misleading and assumes the point of view of the advertiser rather than the consumer. We know they’d like it if we saw and considered their ads, but we are under no obligation, legal, ethical, or otherwise, to read/watch/listen to ads, none whatsoever. And the content is being offered to you and served regardless of your reception of the ads. They are actually trying to tell you that you are entitled to the content. Content makers want to get paid, but many of them would prefer you consume their content and ignore the ads than not consumer their content.
Unfortunately there is no business model alternative to ads that will keep the web and the economy going. If everyone charged money and stopped servings ads all at once, the web would collapse. Ads aren’t going away, and these sites still won’t learn what you want them to even if we stop using them.
I don’t feel entitled to any content either. However, ad-driven sites are offering the content for free. I think framing this as not “entitled” to the content is misleading and assumes the point of view of the advertiser rather than the consumer. We know they’d like it if we saw and considered their ads, but we are under no obligation, legal, ethical, or otherwise, to read/watch/listen to ads, none whatsoever. And the content is being offered to you and served regardless of your reception of the ads. They are actually trying to tell you that you are entitled to the content. Content makers want to get paid, but many of them would prefer you consume their content and ignore the ads than not consumer their content.
Unfortunately there is no business model alternative to ads that will keep the web and the economy going. If everyone charged money and stopped servings ads all at once, the web would collapse. Ads aren’t going away, and these sites still won’t learn what you want them to even if we stop using them.
> I'm not saying you shouldn't block ads, but I know 99% of you reading this have never whitelisted a single domain
And I never will. Sites should offer a pay option, not require that their users submit their data to intrusive tracking all over the web. If no one is willing to pay for their stuff, well I'm sorry that they are so bad at creating good content.
And I never will. Sites should offer a pay option, not require that their users submit their data to intrusive tracking all over the web. If no one is willing to pay for their stuff, well I'm sorry that they are so bad at creating good content.
I particularly felt Anandtech was a particularly bad example of an advertising supported site because, more than any other site, when I was browsing it in my iPad I would try to click on a link and it seemed almost every time the layout would shift and KA-CHING I’d click on an ad accidentally.
Maybe it is just paranoia, they never asked permission to access the accelerometer, but it happened so consistently I wondered if they had something that would detect the motion that comes before a click and shifted the layout deliberately.
Maybe it is just paranoia, they never asked permission to access the accelerometer, but it happened so consistently I wondered if they had something that would detect the motion that comes before a click and shifted the layout deliberately.
I mean, HN keeps saying commercialism has destroyed the web and anyone who creates content for it should do it for free as a hobby or not at all. So I guess someone here with enough free time and enthusiasm is bound to do just that.
HN user offers to pay $1.99/year for many carefully done review. Amazed that no one want to take deal.
I kept thinking that Anandtech could have survived if they had not been part of a corporate ownership. Because they were owned by a media conglomerate, the pressure is on to behave more like other media business under the same ownership. They could have diversified in terms of revenue if they were independent.
Chips and Cheese is Anandtech's spiritual successor and I think its patron model is probably better overall.
https://chipsandcheese.com/
David Kanter doesn't write articles very much these days, but Real World Tech has always had top-shelf stuff and it's one of the few places where all the comments are worth reading too.
https://www.realworldtech.com/
https://chipsandcheese.com/
David Kanter doesn't write articles very much these days, but Real World Tech has always had top-shelf stuff and it's one of the few places where all the comments are worth reading too.
https://www.realworldtech.com/
but how do you explain AnandTech lasting so so long if the business model didn't work?
I remember reading AnandTech >20 years ago. I think it failed now because they slowed down on releasing content. Over the last 2 years they've hardly published anything. They didn't even cover the latest iPhones (and when they did, it was months after release when no one cared anymore).
I remember reading AnandTech >20 years ago. I think it failed now because they slowed down on releasing content. Over the last 2 years they've hardly published anything. They didn't even cover the latest iPhones (and when they did, it was months after release when no one cared anymore).
I feel like something is very wrong when a publication the quality of AnandTech can't figure out a viable business model.
I blame this on Future PLC. Not only their Ad model is worst of all the tech site, the tech layout and software for the site and posting articles were bad and I remember Ian complained about it multiple times. They could have at least focus on their core competency which is in-depth articles and explanations.
Instead we now live in the world of rumours site like WCCftech, and Apple dominance in Tech circle since the iPhone means a lot of new ( relatively speaking ) tech readers are reading Macrumors and 9to5Mac as their tech new sources. Reporting things that those reporter dont understand and keep making fake rumours that makes absolutely no sense.
Instead we now live in the world of rumours site like WCCftech, and Apple dominance in Tech circle since the iPhone means a lot of new ( relatively speaking ) tech readers are reading Macrumors and 9to5Mac as their tech new sources. Reporting things that those reporter dont understand and keep making fake rumours that makes absolutely no sense.
Very true. As much as we try to hope organizations might reinvent themselves or disrupt themselves for the future before something else does, they just provide a good service.
I can't wonder if AnandTech had a substack angle it might have provided an option?
Good, useful writing that teaches you how to look at, understand, use, or do something is invaluable. Creating beginners is everything in this world so they can progress.
I can't wonder if AnandTech had a substack angle it might have provided an option?
Good, useful writing that teaches you how to look at, understand, use, or do something is invaluable. Creating beginners is everything in this world so they can progress.
[deleted]
They should start a Substack
[deleted]
Same. Paying for LWN but I get a bit annoyed when there's the lone Phoronix-tier clickbait about diversity amongst all the high quality kernel reports.
Phoronix could get a lot better if it stopped clickbaiting (which attracts the most feebleminded parts of the peanuts nogrammer gallery in the comments) and labelled -> aggregated its benchmarks according to SIMD support/enablement, threading and type (CPU, GPGPU, 3D, etc...). And investigated strange issues in results instead of drowning readers in data.
Basically, we need something in-between Phoronix and ChipsAndCheese for benchmarks.
Also reading Igor's Lab and GamerNexus when I want some data about hardware, but it's Windows focused, sadly.
Phoronix could get a lot better if it stopped clickbaiting (which attracts the most feebleminded parts of the peanuts nogrammer gallery in the comments) and labelled -> aggregated its benchmarks according to SIMD support/enablement, threading and type (CPU, GPGPU, 3D, etc...). And investigated strange issues in results instead of drowning readers in data.
Basically, we need something in-between Phoronix and ChipsAndCheese for benchmarks.
Also reading Igor's Lab and GamerNexus when I want some data about hardware, but it's Windows focused, sadly.
> And investigated strange issues in results instead of drowning readers in data.
The basic problem of Phoronix is that it doesn't have the capacity nor competence to do this. Journalism is expensive and takes time, and Phoronix is a single person. If they were to actually go in and investigate every strange issue they had in their benchmarks (assuming they even notice them!), or add reasonable commentary beyond the seemingly autogenerated “in benchmark X, device Y seems go be ahead”, they would have to cut the number of articles and benchmarks drastically. Kind of like Anandtech, really; one of my main gripes with it is that there just wasn't _enough_ of it per unit of time.
The basic problem of Phoronix is that it doesn't have the capacity nor competence to do this. Journalism is expensive and takes time, and Phoronix is a single person. If they were to actually go in and investigate every strange issue they had in their benchmarks (assuming they even notice them!), or add reasonable commentary beyond the seemingly autogenerated “in benchmark X, device Y seems go be ahead”, they would have to cut the number of articles and benchmarks drastically. Kind of like Anandtech, really; one of my main gripes with it is that there just wasn't _enough_ of it per unit of time.
At this point I suspect if Phoronix suddenly takes a turn and stops being clickbait blogspam, it would be alienating its core audience... People that love to read ragebait and argue aimlessly in the comments.
> Phoronix could get a lot better if it stopped clickbaiting
I've been reading Phoronix for years and I don't recall seeing clickbait. Most of the time the titles are just quotes from the sourced article he links to.
Even skimming https://www.phoronix.com/news I see no clickbait?
Was it something they did in the past? Or is the clickbait specific to benchmarks, which I have no ability to interpret?
I've been reading Phoronix for years and I don't recall seeing clickbait. Most of the time the titles are just quotes from the sourced article he links to.
Even skimming https://www.phoronix.com/news I see no clickbait?
Was it something they did in the past? Or is the clickbait specific to benchmarks, which I have no ability to interpret?
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linus-Torvalds-Bcachefs-Regret... clearly fabricating a juicy title by intentionally misinterpreting one of Linus' sentences. Just for the aforementioned peanut gallery watching two egos colliding like they would watch WWE.
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Ubuntu-Split-X.Org-Session reporting about a pretty pointless change just to get that sweet Wayland/X11 drama driven flaming.
Clickbaiting may have been the wrong word, there's not much of that, more "feeding drama to an audience he knows well" than anything. The comment section is almost Wccftech tier, these days.
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Ubuntu-Split-X.Org-Session reporting about a pretty pointless change just to get that sweet Wayland/X11 drama driven flaming.
Clickbaiting may have been the wrong word, there's not much of that, more "feeding drama to an audience he knows well" than anything. The comment section is almost Wccftech tier, these days.
Diversity as a topic and problem space has became undeniably important though.
Of course it's not an easy topic, does not really lend itself to the usual reporting methodology of LWN. I wholeheartedly agree that many times it is completely counterproductive to post/host content that tries and fails to engage with diversity, because - as you pointed out - even the mention of it gives that ugly sour taste when browsing a site.
Yet the topic won't really lose its salience as long as the problems themselves are either "solved" or something crowds them out.
I trust that the LWN editors are aware of this, and are not doing it for the clicks. So I think it's completely fair (more so necessary for progress) to critique bad takes on diversity, but I think it just leads to frustration to try to "wish it away".
Of course it's not an easy topic, does not really lend itself to the usual reporting methodology of LWN. I wholeheartedly agree that many times it is completely counterproductive to post/host content that tries and fails to engage with diversity, because - as you pointed out - even the mention of it gives that ugly sour taste when browsing a site.
Yet the topic won't really lose its salience as long as the problems themselves are either "solved" or something crowds them out.
I trust that the LWN editors are aware of this, and are not doing it for the clicks. So I think it's completely fair (more so necessary for progress) to critique bad takes on diversity, but I think it just leads to frustration to try to "wish it away".
Diversity of opinion and experience is extremely important. Not diversity of your bedroom preferences or any other superficial characteristics that have no relation to technical qualities. Saying otherwise is racist and *ist by definition.
Comments on those articles always go down the shitter. I petitioned the editors to disable commenting on them, and you can do the same -- politely and humbly, of course.
The contact information is on the website, whoever wants to, will find it easily.
Comments on those articles always go down the shitter. I petitioned the editors to disable commenting on them, and you can do the same -- politely and humbly, of course.
The contact information is on the website, whoever wants to, will find it easily.
If a place somehow ends up only employing people wearing brown shirts, isn't that a bit odd?
Anantech was the high watermark in tech journalism and the only place I'd go to look at in-depth (sometimes beyond belief) reviews of Apple hardware test results not found anywhere else on the web. Page after page after page of detailed tests and results.
Hard to imagine that type of content being lucrative from a display-ad point of view if they used traditional ad networks, but the effort was absolutely appreciated and respected by readers.
A sad day but considering how the online ad market has tried to force publishers to focus on video content an understandable one for printed-word journalists. It's awful.
Hard to imagine that type of content being lucrative from a display-ad point of view if they used traditional ad networks, but the effort was absolutely appreciated and respected by readers.
A sad day but considering how the online ad market has tried to force publishers to focus on video content an understandable one for printed-word journalists. It's awful.
This is true, and I second your sadness. They always had those 1/2/3 pages more than competitors about architecture details at the start of every review.
But apparently right now it pays more to do a cheap video review on YouTube with fake benchmarks, you get the hundred thousands video views, sell the hardware and call it a day.
But apparently right now it pays more to do a cheap video review on YouTube with fake benchmarks, you get the hundred thousands video views, sell the hardware and call it a day.
Reviews for components are better in written form than video form, yet you can see by the number of YouTube views what people are using. I guess it doesn't help that it feels like there hasn't been an increase in performance to price ratio for GPU's in the longest time.
I can't stand watching videos on something I need information for <right now>. Maybe I'm just terrible at video scrubbing, but give me a long form write up and I can scroll or ctrl+f my way to what I'm looking for very quickly.
I suppose they can't force inject 5-15 second ads though, so maybe folks like us brought this on ourselves.
I suppose they can't force inject 5-15 second ads though, so maybe folks like us brought this on ourselves.
Videos absolutely suck for transmitting information, compared to text. I estimate that I can read an article about 10x faster than an equivalent video, they aren't even in the same ballpark. It boggles my mind that so many people prefer videos, given how much slower they are. It's enough to make me cynically wonder if people these days are illiterate or something.
The only thing I’ll say in defense of videos (which I generally don’t like at all) is that when somebody makes a video, it does sort of force them to do the steps. I’ll definitely take a well-written set of instructions over a well-written video usually. But a crappy video might accidentally be better than a crappy set of instructions because the steps that the author didn’t think to include will at least be shown by default if they do it in one take with minimal editing.
>in one take with minimal editing
In my experience this is far more rare than a well written, comprehensive set of instructions.
Even the tiniest youtube channel with 3 digit subscriber numbers recorded on the owners phone will edit out the "boring" bits. At least for any task that takes more than 2-3 minutes. If the task is short enough then yeah, they will often leave in the whole thing.
In my experience this is far more rare than a well written, comprehensive set of instructions.
Even the tiniest youtube channel with 3 digit subscriber numbers recorded on the owners phone will edit out the "boring" bits. At least for any task that takes more than 2-3 minutes. If the task is short enough then yeah, they will often leave in the whole thing.
> I estimate that I can read an article about 10x faster than an equivalent video
Especially due to all the filler b/s that every YT video has these days, be it over sharing their back story, Like and Subscribe! (And ding that bell!), sponsored ad reads, here’s my ten other videos you need to watch, etc etc.
Especially due to all the filler b/s that every YT video has these days, be it over sharing their back story, Like and Subscribe! (And ding that bell!), sponsored ad reads, here’s my ten other videos you need to watch, etc etc.
More important than that is text lends itself to searching for possibly obscure phrases to narrow down the possible candidates before even having to "consume" any information whereas with video that is challenging and very inefficient (time and energy-wise).
Usually it is already very obscure, being presented with a video link in an debate at all. No thank you very much.
Where I like a video, is for example of a teardown of a device. HowTo videos of practical skills. Watching a professional use his tools.
But even then, I often prefer text with good pictures.
Where I like a video, is for example of a teardown of a device. HowTo videos of practical skills. Watching a professional use his tools.
But even then, I often prefer text with good pictures.
Videos can be great where it's the kind of topic where you'd watch the whole video.
Videos are terrible when you need a small amount of information that's embedded in a much longer video.
The second scenario is much more common for me than the first.
Videos are terrible when you need a small amount of information that's embedded in a much longer video.
The second scenario is much more common for me than the first.
I suspect it's because they can't focus on text - their devices have 2000 notifications distracting them. Video is more easily engaging, they're less likely to switch away.
I daresay thee average user would be a lot better off if they disabled all but a very small handful of notifications.
The average user likely does not know, that even the option exists.
It's getting better. Apple's summarizing multiple notifications coming in 18.1 (you can try this in the beta today) and only highlighting "important" notifications by default. I haven't seen any evidence of them abusing this, either.
>Videos absolutely suck for transmitting information, compared to text.
It depends on the information. For DIY information for example i find it much better to see someone show how to lay brick or frame a wall than to read how it is done.
It depends on the information. For DIY information for example i find it much better to see someone show how to lay brick or frame a wall than to read how it is done.
I'd say that for mechanical topics (construction, car repair, etc.) a video can be very useful. But please, provide a written transcript, since that's at least searchable.
That's fair. Video games are another thing which lend themselves pretty well to video content.
Depends on what you need.
I was once able to fix my toilet watching an Indonesian video. I understood approximately zero, but I could still follow that guy's hands.
It is a different story with programming or other abstract/text-based tasks, but when it comes to anything done with hands, I like a video better.
3blue1brown videos on maths are beautiful as well. I wish I had them when I was 18.
I was once able to fix my toilet watching an Indonesian video. I understood approximately zero, but I could still follow that guy's hands.
It is a different story with programming or other abstract/text-based tasks, but when it comes to anything done with hands, I like a video better.
3blue1brown videos on maths are beautiful as well. I wish I had them when I was 18.
Discoverability is better for content creators on video platforms then text.
If I wrote an article, what are even my options to share it?
Video you, have YouTube, insti, tiktok etc to get discovered on and people can even find it.
If I wrote an article, what are even my options to share it?
Video you, have YouTube, insti, tiktok etc to get discovered on and people can even find it.
The issue is there is a huge monetizing platform for video, which has minted multimillionaires.
There is no equivalent for that for text, even though Substack is trying.
There is no equivalent for that for text, even though Substack is trying.
Google has been trialing AI overviews of youtube videos, essentially it opens a gemini chat where gemini has been prompt-stuffed with the whole video.
A 12 minute "Here is my favorite method for unclogging a drain" video becomes a three sentence reply from gemini telling you what it is.
I don't know how google is gonna get this past creators if they fully role it out, as it is a massive shameless backstab, but at the same time it is wonderful for viewers who don't want to trudge through filler video after clickbait headlines.
A 12 minute "Here is my favorite method for unclogging a drain" video becomes a three sentence reply from gemini telling you what it is.
I don't know how google is gonna get this past creators if they fully role it out, as it is a massive shameless backstab, but at the same time it is wonderful for viewers who don't want to trudge through filler video after clickbait headlines.
Wow, it is a backstab! They force creators to make longer videos or they won’t get monitized and then do this. Creators get paid by the watch minutes.
They've been doing that for a while though e.g. a specific (say) 31s segment of a video will come in the search results rather than just a link to a popular video
Text -> video -> text
It's come full circle, just that the wheel now consumes orders of magnitude more power to churn the final text.
It's come full circle, just that the wheel now consumes orders of magnitude more power to churn the final text.
I'm always surprised at how many non-tech people don't know about their browser's ability to search in the page. I've been on multiple calls at work with researchers who have been in the field for more than a decade and they'll read the entire page instead of hitting ctrl-f.
I didn't realize how bad this has gotten until I was looking for a GPU undervolting guide
What could be a couple of paragraphs is stretched into a 5-10 minute video; most of which is explaining what it is, and not how to do it
What could be a couple of paragraphs is stretched into a 5-10 minute video; most of which is explaining what it is, and not how to do it
> terrible at video scrubbing
It is partly the form, video, but more so the access method, the network. All networked video sucks at skimming through because the file isn't cached and takes a few milliseconds to several seconds to load the part you jumped to. The interface also doesn't help because usually they lack controls for skipping forwards and backwards and long jumps forwards and backwards.
It is partly the form, video, but more so the access method, the network. All networked video sucks at skimming through because the file isn't cached and takes a few milliseconds to several seconds to load the part you jumped to. The interface also doesn't help because usually they lack controls for skipping forwards and backwards and long jumps forwards and backwards.
yt-dlp audio only, and stuff that into whisper: video to text in ~30 seconds.
> I can't stand watching videos on something I need information for <right now>. Maybe I'm just terrible at video scrubbing
Do not worry: in a very short while we'll all have AI tools, running locally, that can summarize videos in textual forms in a split second.
Prompt: "Summarize this vid in five paragraphs. List specs."
It already exists. In a short while we'll all have this at home.
P.S: prompt: "Remove every single ad and submarine content too".
Do not worry: in a very short while we'll all have AI tools, running locally, that can summarize videos in textual forms in a split second.
Prompt: "Summarize this vid in five paragraphs. List specs."
It already exists. In a short while we'll all have this at home.
P.S: prompt: "Remove every single ad and submarine content too".
Replacing "downloading 2kb of text on a device with minimal technical specs" with "buying a top-end computer to download hundreds of megabytes of video & shove it into an LLM to mangle and hallucinate the message down into 2kb of text".
Thank god for progress. What would we do without it.
Thank god for progress. What would we do without it.
Of course, that assumes the AI won't just hallucinate and give you false information. Which is a major problem with current LLMs.
I'm waiting for it to become more convenient, but no joke this is what I've been doing. When I find interesting videos about software development, I'll often use Whisper to create a transcript and then upload it to Claude to summarise, then I can ask it questions about the content as well as explore related topics and ask it for further reading.
Oh, but they can put blinky video ads all over the page so no matter where you look there are things to distract you.
yeah yeah adblock pihole yes I know.
yeah yeah adblock pihole yes I know.
There must be a market for video information converted to text. It would be completely illegal, of course.
The irony of serving a video, consumed by a robot, to serve a human text, rather than serving the text in the first place.
Well, there's a source if not a market - LLMs.
https://www.proofnews.org/apple-nvidia-anthropic-used-thousa...
https://www.proofnews.org/apple-nvidia-anthropic-used-thousa...
Sound like some sort of ADHD symptom where any video longer that a few seconds is perceived as too long, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't even remotely sound like such a thing.
Not really. Video just doesn't lend itself well to searchability (is that a word?). YouTube's "table of contents" feature helps, but only when the video's creator actually uses it. Even if they do provide a ToC, it still doesn't help much if you're trying to find a particular sentence, or brief mention of a particular detail. Perhaps we also need videos with an index, in addition to tables of contents.
Right, but as I see it, there are multiple kinds of videos. Some are made specifically to be a vehicle for ads. You know what I mean, those 10+ minute long videos on simple tricks, where a short clip would suffice. They also usually lack any markers or chapters which makes skipping through them infuriating. I understand the rage here, I hate those with a passion, too.
But some long videos are excellent, well-made and informative.
Perhaps when the OP needs the info right now he may be more stressed and less in control of himself?
But some long videos are excellent, well-made and informative.
Perhaps when the OP needs the info right now he may be more stressed and less in control of himself?
I never understand the obsession with video. It's the first thing my kids reach for when searching for information about something and it's always painfully slow and inefficient.
Does 5 minutes of side by side videos of GPUs playing a game at 120fps, encoded as a 60fps video, really help anyone?
Does 5 minutes of side by side videos of GPUs playing a game at 120fps, encoded as a 60fps video, really help anyone?
I think it's a generational thing. It seems like short-form videos are the only thing majority of people are willing to consume.
I've noticed more success with classifieds that have a video vs ones with a thorough description. I've always made efforts to include all relevant information in a post, and it recently dawned on me (while answering a dumb question) that a lot of people just don't read anymore.
I've noticed more success with classifieds that have a video vs ones with a thorough description. I've always made efforts to include all relevant information in a post, and it recently dawned on me (while answering a dumb question) that a lot of people just don't read anymore.
I think that shift can be explained not as any outright consumer preference, but rather as a form of platform/advertiser preference. It's hard for a standalone website to compete with a platform in the best of cases, and better yet, it's relatively easy to make ads lucrative in video perhaps since the format simply lends itself better to being both in your face, yet short enough to get out of the way.
In the very unlikely hypothetical that youtube were to allow other formats such as articles or images, I suspect many publishers would be able to make that work - on that plaform, as opposed to on a standalone website without the traffic attracting algorithm to help crowdsource valuable content for users.
In the very unlikely hypothetical that youtube were to allow other formats such as articles or images, I suspect many publishers would be able to make that work - on that plaform, as opposed to on a standalone website without the traffic attracting algorithm to help crowdsource valuable content for users.
If you look at e.g. GamersNexus, Hardware Unboxed, etc. the videos aren't really short form in that "10:02" way. Like there's plenty of detail, but 30 minutes with 15 minutes of it being looking at graphs is clearly a pretty slow way to do it compared to see they literally just presented the video script in article form and you could choose the graphs and time that matters to you.
Both Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed(Techspot) have Websites where they post all the related images/analysis(in text format) from their respective video content, and more! And so why are you not doing your due diligence before commenting!
Which generation? My parents really like video (boomer/genx line), but I prefer text (millennial). Not sure what the kids these days like, although I do recall some students (gen z) that really wanted videos for setting up basic stuff, like how to download VSCode.
I can see that. Television was the newest thing for the boomers, and was a big deal for early Gen X. Later Gen X and Millenials got the Internet, which in its infancy, was too slow to display anything other than text and crappy graphics. Once video became virtually free to transmit, we started seeing a lot of video-based content saturate the waves again.
Or CPUs really. Die shrinks just aren't giving the advantages they once used to.
You can see this in the fact that RISC-V and ARM architectures have caught up with x86 performance even though x86 has had a decade long head start and billions more invested in development.
We are quickly approaching a weird space. Barring some major innovations, you are likely to see that 10 year old equipment remains competitive with brand new products in terms of performance.
You can see this in the fact that RISC-V and ARM architectures have caught up with x86 performance even though x86 has had a decade long head start and billions more invested in development.
We are quickly approaching a weird space. Barring some major innovations, you are likely to see that 10 year old equipment remains competitive with brand new products in terms of performance.
ARM has gotten very good, and is definitely competitive with mid-range x86 while offering better performance-per-watt, but it is still not competitive with high-end x86.
Depends on the task and what you're measuring.
My M1 (standard) CPU is definitely faster than my Ryzen 7700x on some tasks, and it blows it away on perf/watt.
My M1 (standard) CPU is definitely faster than my Ryzen 7700x on some tasks, and it blows it away on perf/watt.
Those are both mid-range CPUs in standard consumer configurations, and I agree ARM does very well in that segment, and it does even better in the low-power/mobile/embedded segment where x86 is practically non-existent (recent gaming handhelds notwithstanding).
However, high-end workstations, compute-focused servers, and supercomputers, which use extremely expensive and power-hungry x86 chips, are a different segment, one to which ARM currently has no direct answer (and some might argue it shouldn't have one because such wasteful things shouldn't exist). This segment once had a number of competitive RISC players, like POWER and SPARC, so I don't think it's unobtainable for ARM.
However, high-end workstations, compute-focused servers, and supercomputers, which use extremely expensive and power-hungry x86 chips, are a different segment, one to which ARM currently has no direct answer (and some might argue it shouldn't have one because such wasteful things shouldn't exist). This segment once had a number of competitive RISC players, like POWER and SPARC, so I don't think it's unobtainable for ARM.
What are you talking about there are arm supercomputers.
There's at least 2 in the top 10, and the fugaku was the fastest in the world for a couple of years between 2020 and 2022.
There's at least 2 in the top 10, and the fugaku was the fastest in the world for a couple of years between 2020 and 2022.
You're absolutely right, I missed that entirely. The vast majority of the TOP500 is still x86 but it's already losing ground to ARM. There's still some POWER systems on the list too.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>
You can see this in the fact that RISC-V and ARM architectures have caught up with x86 performance
Concerning RISC-V having caught up with x86 performance: dream on ... :-(
Concerning RISC-V having caught up with x86 performance: dream on ... :-(
this was pretty impressive https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41364549
What do die shrinks have to do with ISA performance? Also, there are no RISC-V CPUs available that match the latest X86 or ARM CPUs. Even then, the ISA chosen doesn't have much to do with the performance of CPUs (at least, when comparing major ISAs like X86, ARM and RISC-V).
Smaller nodes (generally) translate to lower power consumption, more transistor density, and faster transistor switching speeds.
It allows for an architecture to deepen pipelines, add registers, add cache, and pull off tricks like SMT.
> the ISA chosen doesn't have much to do with the performance of CPUs
That's somewhat my point, the limiting factor for ISA performance is the physics surrounding the transistors.
It allows for an architecture to deepen pipelines, add registers, add cache, and pull off tricks like SMT.
> the ISA chosen doesn't have much to do with the performance of CPUs
That's somewhat my point, the limiting factor for ISA performance is the physics surrounding the transistors.
Yeah I keep looking into upgrading my 12 year old PC, but for like £1500 I can get one 10x faster (multithreaded) and only about 4x faster single core. I mean, that's a decent boost but it feels very disappointing for 12 years of progress.
That might've been a result of Intel having the best leading-edge fabs until 2018 or so. It was hard to judge different ISAs before then.
Interestingly Gamers Nexus is using the YouTube video & merch money to fund an (ad-free!) written article site: https://gamersnexus.net/
It never seems to rank in search results, though, so it's easy to forget it exists... But it makes a lot of sense. The charts & script is already created anyway for the video, just edit it a bit to fit written form better and you're basically done
The speed at which it loads without all the ad, tracking, and analytics bullshit is amazing. Especially on mobile.
It never seems to rank in search results, though, so it's easy to forget it exists... But it makes a lot of sense. The charts & script is already created anyway for the video, just edit it a bit to fit written form better and you're basically done
The speed at which it loads without all the ad, tracking, and analytics bullshit is amazing. Especially on mobile.
> yet you can see by the number of YouTube views what people are using
Doesn't help that Google search results spam videos they make money from in a carousel at the top of almost every query.
Doesn't help that Google search results spam videos they make money from in a carousel at the top of almost every query.
DC Rainmaker (sports gadgets reviews) has a nice compromise of having product video reviews on Youtube, but also even more in-depth reviews with all the tables and charts on his website. I used to read his written reviews, now I mostly skim his videos.
The ridiculously high prices of GPUs have really taken the fun out of hardware for me. I used to follow hardware developments closely, but now I upgrade much less often so that also stopped.
I agree but it's a little deceptive. For example I have a 4070 right now and I paid $600 for it. That's good money but it is more than likely far more than most people actually need.
If you watch or read reviews, you'd think only people in poverty use 4070s. I play competitive games and everything else I want to do with this card without issues and even with gas left in the tank.
They crank up settings in reviews to ultra settings and then try to make it look like if you don't have a $1200 GPU that you have trash. Reality is that these GPUs are overkill and in many games medium settings look nearly identical to ultra. I swear GPU manufacturers pay to have ultra settings available, with their nearly imperceptible improvements. The option is mostly there as far as I can tell, simply to upsell GPUs.
If you watch or read reviews, you'd think only people in poverty use 4070s. I play competitive games and everything else I want to do with this card without issues and even with gas left in the tank.
They crank up settings in reviews to ultra settings and then try to make it look like if you don't have a $1200 GPU that you have trash. Reality is that these GPUs are overkill and in many games medium settings look nearly identical to ultra. I swear GPU manufacturers pay to have ultra settings available, with their nearly imperceptible improvements. The option is mostly there as far as I can tell, simply to upsell GPUs.
First it was written reviews, then it was youtube videos, soon it will be short fast paced TikTok clips.
Also, I never saw half an ad on anandtech, or never noticed..
Which is what I liked about it, but possibly doomed them.
Which is what I liked about it, but possibly doomed them.
The comments about "AnandTech’s rebuke of sensationalism, link baiting, and the path to shallow 10-o'clock-news reporting" are interesting.
Sounds like it difficult to make enough to survive unless you're doing these things.
Which I suspect ties back to things like Google (and others) neglecting the quality of organic search, pushing it down the page, etc. Or competing with quality content by exposing it in snippets and AI summaries with only subtle ways to get to the actual article.
I suppose, if that's the case, those practices eventually eat their own tail. No new Anandtech content to ignore or copy now, for example.
Sounds like it difficult to make enough to survive unless you're doing these things.
Which I suspect ties back to things like Google (and others) neglecting the quality of organic search, pushing it down the page, etc. Or competing with quality content by exposing it in snippets and AI summaries with only subtle ways to get to the actual article.
I suppose, if that's the case, those practices eventually eat their own tail. No new Anandtech content to ignore or copy now, for example.
> Sounds like it difficult to make enough to survive unless you're doing these things.
Yup. However, I can't find a confirmation anywhere in TFA. Just some hints here and there. So I wonder, what finally made them quit?
Yup. However, I can't find a confirmation anywhere in TFA. Just some hints here and there. So I wonder, what finally made them quit?
It sounds like Future Brand, the owner of both AnandTech and Tom's Hardware wanted to consolidate.
> Sounds like it difficult to make enough to survive unless you're doing these things.
If you're on an advertising model, yes, impossible even.
If you're on a patronage/subscription model, totally doable nowadays.
If you're on an advertising model, yes, impossible even.
If you're on a patronage/subscription model, totally doable nowadays.
There is an alternative history where Google and FB et al. didn’t eat up all the advertising revenue that used to sustain good journalism.
It might be impossible to have independent journalism with the internet as it currently is.
I don’t know what the alternative is, but I do sometimes wonder what would have happened if search engines had been prevented from displaying search results from news organizations that happened within the last month. This might have trained internet folks to go to the news websites for news and kept the economics propped up a bit better than the disaster it currently is.
It might be impossible to have independent journalism with the internet as it currently is.
I don’t know what the alternative is, but I do sometimes wonder what would have happened if search engines had been prevented from displaying search results from news organizations that happened within the last month. This might have trained internet folks to go to the news websites for news and kept the economics propped up a bit better than the disaster it currently is.
My guess is that this would be even worse for news sites as it would lower their overall traffic. Certainly seems to be the case in Canada. I don’t get the sense that search engines/fb/etc are the problem. Rather it’s 1) loss of classified ads and 2) competition from all the free content provided in blogs, posts, tweets and so on. Why pay to read an uninformed opinion piece when you can get it for free scrolling through your X feed?
Absolutely. As someone who spent about 5 years working in local news a bit over a decade ago, it wasn't the search engines or Facebook that killed us, it was craigslist. Especially business classifieds, while not individually big $$$, they added up. We had some edge in content quality for a while, but the classifieds drying up led to deep cuts in the newsroom, and then there was nothing separating us from the local TV stations who also had superficial coverage, but got it out much quicker.
To get a full picture of what happened to journalism, we can't just blame Google and Facebook, we have to acknowledge all the years people stopped going to websites and only got their news on Google and Facebook. Those companies gave people what they said they wanted, or what they didn't outright say they wanted but silently expressed through their actions. Neither party cared that what they were doing was bad for the health of the web (to say nothing of journalism or the culture). If we just say "tech companies bad" and don't admit that our behavior is part of the problem, and that we're not robots or children—that we have choice and agency—we will only ever get a version of the same outcome.
I guess fundamentally I agree with this, but the user experience on most online publications is, and has been, wow, for more than two decades, I think, so bad that every time I'm forced to experience it, I can't even get through a single article before I get so repulsed in worst cases I get an actual negative physical reaction. And it's getting worse as time goes by.
I get that online publications have to advertise, but to do it with auto-play video w/ audio of unrelated content, animated/video ads, ads for items you already bought a month ago, the outright scam ads, SEO garbage ("this one trick to get a supermodel girlfriend"), superstitials blocking content, dark pattern ads (e.g. x icon opens a link rather than closes the ad), ads that move and hover on the page when you scroll down.
I could go on for longer, but I'm getting that same negative physical reaction by simply describing this crap.
I get that online publications have to advertise, but to do it with auto-play video w/ audio of unrelated content, animated/video ads, ads for items you already bought a month ago, the outright scam ads, SEO garbage ("this one trick to get a supermodel girlfriend"), superstitials blocking content, dark pattern ads (e.g. x icon opens a link rather than closes the ad), ads that move and hover on the page when you scroll down.
I could go on for longer, but I'm getting that same negative physical reaction by simply describing this crap.
Another version of this discussion that comes up frequently is something like the "Support local businesses!" thing, where we're supposed to spend more money at the local diner and ignore a chain like Denny's.. but Denny's is open 24 hours. And people should use Mom+Pop's furniture store, even though they can get a better price plus light bulbs, and the rest of the groceries from Walmart. And we need to use less water during my showers, and ignore the golf courses or the chip factory down the road.
The idea of being a "responsible consumer" at most just delays the inevitable shutdown for a few years, because economies of scale is a real thing. Moralizing to people that they need to spend more money / time / convenience / change their habits isn't effective, because even if consumers are genuinely interested in making sacrifices in exchange for quality, everything that's independent is closing anyway when the small owners sell out to whoever is buying. Those who thrive on mergers and acquisition don't care whether consumers are "responsible".
Consumers aren't children or robots, but we also don't have any choice or agency.. in the US at least there are 4-5 companies that make 80% of the groceries you buy. Telecommunications and media are going to look even worse, depending on how you want to measure it. As much as I hate to say it, it looks like only big government can protect us from big business. So yes, blaming big tech is missing the point, but so is blaming consumers. Write your congressman I guess? Wish I could write his economist instead though.. for whatever reason discouraging monopolies doesn't seem to work, so maybe we should look instead at deliberately incentivizing variety.
The idea of being a "responsible consumer" at most just delays the inevitable shutdown for a few years, because economies of scale is a real thing. Moralizing to people that they need to spend more money / time / convenience / change their habits isn't effective, because even if consumers are genuinely interested in making sacrifices in exchange for quality, everything that's independent is closing anyway when the small owners sell out to whoever is buying. Those who thrive on mergers and acquisition don't care whether consumers are "responsible".
Consumers aren't children or robots, but we also don't have any choice or agency.. in the US at least there are 4-5 companies that make 80% of the groceries you buy. Telecommunications and media are going to look even worse, depending on how you want to measure it. As much as I hate to say it, it looks like only big government can protect us from big business. So yes, blaming big tech is missing the point, but so is blaming consumers. Write your congressman I guess? Wish I could write his economist instead though.. for whatever reason discouraging monopolies doesn't seem to work, so maybe we should look instead at deliberately incentivizing variety.
The "professional" journalists were all to happy to load their sites with chum boxes and native ads disguised as articles. The search aggregators don't expose that crap.
> If we just say "tech companies bad" and don't admit that our behavior is part of the problem, and that we're not robots or children—that we have choice and agency—we will only ever get a version of the same outcome.
This is a remarkably-astute comment. The problem is that it is very difficult for people to be aware, in any given moment, that a seemingly-innocuous action they're taking now will have devastating consequences in a decade or a century or more. This is made more difficult by well-heeled commercial interests which are highly motivated to discourage such insight. Ultimately, one of the roles of government, and it seems strange to say this, is to develop laws which paternalistically protect people from themselves. As an example of this, see privacy/data protection legislation for the internet, e.g. GDPR. As a counter example, see any country which very deliberately avoids developing privacy legislation for the internet.
This is a remarkably-astute comment. The problem is that it is very difficult for people to be aware, in any given moment, that a seemingly-innocuous action they're taking now will have devastating consequences in a decade or a century or more. This is made more difficult by well-heeled commercial interests which are highly motivated to discourage such insight. Ultimately, one of the roles of government, and it seems strange to say this, is to develop laws which paternalistically protect people from themselves. As an example of this, see privacy/data protection legislation for the internet, e.g. GDPR. As a counter example, see any country which very deliberately avoids developing privacy legislation for the internet.
> what would have happened if search engines had been prevented from displaying search results from news organizations that happened within the last month
News sites would probably change whatever metadata Google is using to check site age to make their news articles appear one-day-more-than-month old to Google crawlers, all as a part of Search Engine Optimization techniques.
News sites would probably change whatever metadata Google is using to check site age to make their news articles appear one-day-more-than-month old to Google crawlers, all as a part of Search Engine Optimization techniques.
There is a trivial solution to this. Store your own copy (or hash, or whatever) of the article and don't rank it until your copy is at least a month old.
The idea is still nonesense because some other search engine will show up without this restriction, and any news site would prefer to be listed there, rather than not.
The idea is still nonesense because some other search engine will show up without this restriction, and any news site would prefer to be listed there, rather than not.
I dont believe your perception is accurate. I worked for Knight Ridder during this time, and print news was already a walking corpse. Cable/satellite news channels, and broadcast tv, and even radio before that had worn away the primacy of print. By the 2000s circulation had been dropping for decades. Local/regional newspapers were surviving on classifieds and local ad buys, which was eaten up by craigslist and ad exchanges generally.
At that point, 2000ish, there wasnt much newspaper journalism left to be sustained. Most US print news was gannett and knight ridder recycling AP/reuters wire stories. A handful of national/global mastheads could sustain real investigative reporters and foreign bureaus, for a little while.
Personally I dont see how (quality) “free to read” news persists. Quality and depth is the differentiation, and the consumer needs to pay for it. Id bet more on the bloomberg/the economist/stratfor models continuing in to the future.
At that point, 2000ish, there wasnt much newspaper journalism left to be sustained. Most US print news was gannett and knight ridder recycling AP/reuters wire stories. A handful of national/global mastheads could sustain real investigative reporters and foreign bureaus, for a little while.
Personally I dont see how (quality) “free to read” news persists. Quality and depth is the differentiation, and the consumer needs to pay for it. Id bet more on the bloomberg/the economist/stratfor models continuing in to the future.
Display ads / Google create lots of problems, but news used to be mostly funded by classified ads (and print subscriptions).
Craigslist basically killed that entire subindustry by giving the service away for free.
Craigslist basically killed that entire subindustry by giving the service away for free.
Right. That's an interesting though exercise. We ended up with "dumbed down" summary news.
Ian Cutress (TechTechPotato) made an emotional goodbye video this morning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud6DWmWcHaY
Tangent: Interesting coincidence that this is ten years to the day of Ryan Smith's tenure.
Tangent: Interesting coincidence that this is ten years to the day of Ryan Smith's tenure.
[deleted]
Gamers Nexus on YouTube appears to be carrying the torch of obsessively in-depth coverage. Ian Cutress has been doing his thing as well, but erred mostly on the side of being a philosopher rather than an investigator. Interested to see where all the people end up. Clearly the demand for good info hasn't vanished.
> Gamers Nexus on YouTube appears to be carrying the torch of obsessively in-depth coverage.
Although via videos rather than articles, sadly.
It's sad how much information is moving to a much slower and data-intensive medium. The same is happening in lots of other areas as well, like game development. Articles always been easier for me to consume, but more and more valuable information is moving into videos these days that it's hard to avoid even though I prefer other mediums...
Although via videos rather than articles, sadly.
It's sad how much information is moving to a much slower and data-intensive medium. The same is happening in lots of other areas as well, like game development. Articles always been easier for me to consume, but more and more valuable information is moving into videos these days that it's hard to avoid even though I prefer other mediums...
> Although via videos rather than articles, sadly.
I recall them talking about how they prefer writing articles, especially given how info-dumpy their content tends to be, but videos are what actually pays the bills.
I recall them talking about how they prefer writing articles, especially given how info-dumpy their content tends to be, but videos are what actually pays the bills.
I wonder if there will come a point when AI transcription/summarization gets good enough that, for any channel that cares, they can continue making their videos to pay the bills and also, for a trivial cost, publish associated articles for the people who prefer it. Given the assumption that not enough people will read articles to pay the bills, this shouldn't detract from their view count/income too much, and will provide a dramatically better experience for those who care.
And if the channels themselves won't do it, I wonder when it will be possible for the user to do it.
It seems like this is probably something that is already possible in a "good enough usually, even if not perfect" sense. I can imagine not too far in the future that a version of this could even embed clips/screenshots from the video for any portions where seeing how it is done is a useful addition to the text.
And if the channels themselves won't do it, I wonder when it will be possible for the user to do it.
It seems like this is probably something that is already possible in a "good enough usually, even if not perfect" sense. I can imagine not too far in the future that a version of this could even embed clips/screenshots from the video for any portions where seeing how it is done is a useful addition to the text.
They do post their video scripts as articles with the relevant screenshots. It’s not quite the same as a text-first article, but I prefer reading.
Completely agree. I am listening to some chill music and wanting to catch up on some hardware reviews, so I want to read a nice article. If I accidentally click on something that takes me to a god awful yt video, it completely disrupts my focus and irritates the hell out me. I instantly close the tab and never go back to whatever source pointed me there. I absolutely loathe yt video content of stuff that should obviously be text but isn't. Gaming content has gone this way a lot sadly.
Nobody pays for words, but YouTube pays for videos. Sad but true.
This reminds me of how shocked I was when memes using image macros started becoming a thing around 2008 or so. I still remembered the bad old days of dial up and waiting tens of seconds for images to load and thought it was so horridly inefficient to convey a message that way.
Now we have HD videos pushing the same (and arguably worse) content taking tens if not hundreds of MBs and conveying the same information that is much harder to parse than a text file could do in a few kilobytes.
I feel like I am having my old man yells at cloud moment here, but its a hugely inferior medium.
Now we have HD videos pushing the same (and arguably worse) content taking tens if not hundreds of MBs and conveying the same information that is much harder to parse than a text file could do in a few kilobytes.
I feel like I am having my old man yells at cloud moment here, but its a hugely inferior medium.
I feel like the "Cable TV-ification" applies to them, some of the videos are very much sensationalism. The host also comes off as a bit too full of themselves
That's what I thought as well, but then I saw their competition. Their ratio of bragging vs doing their homework is actually top notch.
[deleted]
That's so sad. Farewell and thanks for everything!
For me, the beginning of the end was when Anand and Brian Klug both moved to Apple. While I bet that they're doing great things there, I've been significantly less fascinated by new hardware, and in particular Apple hardware, ever since.
Shiny exteriors and magical features might appeal to many, but to me, somebody explaining in all detail what makes it work doesn't take anything away from the magic – quite the opposite.
For me, the beginning of the end was when Anand and Brian Klug both moved to Apple. While I bet that they're doing great things there, I've been significantly less fascinated by new hardware, and in particular Apple hardware, ever since.
Shiny exteriors and magical features might appeal to many, but to me, somebody explaining in all detail what makes it work doesn't take anything away from the magic – quite the opposite.
This times 1000. I loved their deeply technical reviews and articles. I got hooked early on their CPU and GPU deep dives and their mobile deep dives in the 2010s.
I've been reading them since before my teenage years and they got me interested in the insides of tech enough for me to pursue and gain my degree in Computer Engineering. It definitely changed when Anand and Brian left, but end of an era now that the site is shutting down.
I've been reading them since before my teenage years and they got me interested in the insides of tech enough for me to pursue and gain my degree in Computer Engineering. It definitely changed when Anand and Brian left, but end of an era now that the site is shutting down.
What a strange take on Apple hardware.
Apple is doing amazing things with Apple silicon.
Apple is doing amazing things with Apple silicon.
Of course they're doing great things, but my point is that they're trying hard to keep it a secret how they're doing them. Compare what Apple is revealing about their chips with what Intel used to present back when they were the market leader, for example.
Anandtech was great at exploring these secrets and presenting their findings in a great way. That's what I miss.
Anandtech was great at exploring these secrets and presenting their findings in a great way. That's what I miss.
> Finally, for everyone who still needs their technical writing fix, our formidable opposition of the last 27 years and fellow Future brand, Tom’s Hardware, is continuing to cover the world of technology.
I thought Tom’s Hardware was very consumer oriented, and didn’t go into nearly as much detail the way AnandTech did.
I thought Tom’s Hardware was very consumer oriented, and didn’t go into nearly as much detail the way AnandTech did.
I think Chips and Cheese is the real successor, but they are a small group with less throughput.
They're afaik owned by the same company, so it makes sense to point people there.
https://www.servethehome.com/ has been scaling up their reporting as of late.
Some of their reviews are either weird or questionable. I read them quite regularly, but I no longer trust most of what they say.
Got any examples?
Serve The Home with a $3,000 switch with 16 x 100 Gbps ports: https://www.servethehome.com/mikrotik-crs520-4xs-16xq-rm-16-... . I think everybody should get a couple of these for their home automation tasks /s
What about Ars Technica? It used to be pretty in-depth. Not sure about lately.
> And while the AnandTech staff is riding off into the sunset, I am happy to report that the site itself won’t be going anywhere for a while. Our publisher, Future PLC, will be keeping the AnandTech website and its many articles live indefinitely.
This is often not how these things go, and Future PLC deserves credit for good citizenship.
This is often not how these things go, and Future PLC deserves credit for good citizenship.
I agree. Archivists shouldn't hold their breath, anyway.
Wow. What a run, though. This is a hard business. I know, I ran a similar thing that was ever so briefly popular in the late 90s. I kept at it for a couple of years and maybe had a couple of reviews and articles get significant traffic over that span. I let it drop when I graduated high school - college was definitely the better bet for me haha. Back then I wished I could do it as well as Anand did. And they did it for almost 3 decades. If any of you happen to see this, I’m sad to see AnandTech end, but what you started had an amazing almost 3 decade run and you should be proud. I’m proud of you - AT is the best.
Interesting, it was literally exactly 10 years ago Anand announced his exit.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8456/the-road-ahead
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8456/the-road-ahead
> Finally, I’d like to end this piece with a comment on the Cable TV-ification of the web. A core belief that Anand and I have held dear for years, and is still on our About page to this day, is AnandTech’s rebuke of sensationalism, link baiting, and the path to shallow 10-o'clock-news reporting. It has been our mission over the past 27 years to inform and educate our readers by providing high-quality content
That’s the core of it. And too bad they’re off. Finding a news outlet that isn’t “tweeting” an article and isn’t a blog post on HN was great. And while they mention Tom’s hardware. It always felt (to me) less verbose where I needed it.
Fair well.
That’s the core of it. And too bad they’re off. Finding a news outlet that isn’t “tweeting” an article and isn’t a blog post on HN was great. And while they mention Tom’s hardware. It always felt (to me) less verbose where I needed it.
Fair well.
Tangential - your last line made me think about what "Fare well" means. Weird that I come across it so often, but never stopped to think what it means. :)
Also consider Goodbye, God be with ye. [0]
Adiós - A diós - go to god. [1]
[0] https://www.thetabernaclechoir.org/articles/goodbye-is-short...
[1] https://www.spanishdict.com/answers/145252/origins-of-adis
Adiós - A diós - go to god. [1]
[0] https://www.thetabernaclechoir.org/articles/goodbye-is-short...
[1] https://www.spanishdict.com/answers/145252/origins-of-adis
> Tangential - your last line made me think about what "Fare well" means.
Fare is unrelated to fair:
> From Middle English farewel, from fare wel! (and the variants with the personal pronoun "fare ye well" and "fare you well" used in the Renaissance), an imperative expression, possibly further derived from Old English far wel!, equivalent to fare (“to fare, travel, journey”) + well.*
* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/farewell#Etymology
* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fare
So to say "farewell" to someones is "have a good journey (in life?)".
Fare is unrelated to fair:
> From Middle English farewel, from fare wel! (and the variants with the personal pronoun "fare ye well" and "fare you well" used in the Renaissance), an imperative expression, possibly further derived from Old English far wel!, equivalent to fare (“to fare, travel, journey”) + well.*
* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/farewell#Etymology
* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fare
So to say "farewell" to someones is "have a good journey (in life?)".
In German there's a similar word, "fahren", which means driving or traveling. In Dutch the word "varen" mean to sail or in an older sense of the word "to move".
I can only assume, but considering the Dutch "vaarwel" is so close to English, I'm going to guess it means "Go well" - or more poetically when speaking of one's path in life: may fate treat you well.
I can only assume, but considering the Dutch "vaarwel" is so close to English, I'm going to guess it means "Go well" - or more poetically when speaking of one's path in life: may fate treat you well.
> Fare is unrelated to fair
True, but ‘fair well’ was likely just a misspelling.
> So to say “farewell” to someones is “have a good journey (in life?)”
On the wiki page for ‘fare’, you have to scroll a little to see the most relevant usage - see Etymology 2 definitions 2, 4, and 5. To get along, to pass through an experience, to happen, to progress.
As a verb, farewell is roughly synonymous with ‘be well’. (This agrees with have a good journey in life, but it doesn’t need to be thought of as travel or an analogy to travel, the meaning and common usage of farewell is already abstract and more general than travel, e.g., “how has your business fared?”)
As a noun, farewell has come to mean a valediction (the opposite of a greeting): wishing someone well when parting. Funny enough, valediction in multiple dictionaries I just checked is defined as a farewell or as the act of bidding farewell.
True, but ‘fair well’ was likely just a misspelling.
> So to say “farewell” to someones is “have a good journey (in life?)”
On the wiki page for ‘fare’, you have to scroll a little to see the most relevant usage - see Etymology 2 definitions 2, 4, and 5. To get along, to pass through an experience, to happen, to progress.
As a verb, farewell is roughly synonymous with ‘be well’. (This agrees with have a good journey in life, but it doesn’t need to be thought of as travel or an analogy to travel, the meaning and common usage of farewell is already abstract and more general than travel, e.g., “how has your business fared?”)
As a noun, farewell has come to mean a valediction (the opposite of a greeting): wishing someone well when parting. Funny enough, valediction in multiple dictionaries I just checked is defined as a farewell or as the act of bidding farewell.
Que te vaya bien!
You just gave me jamais vu.
Tom's Hardware has been biased towards intel(reg the recent 13th,14th gen over-voltage issues), Anand Tech seemed quite reliable in comparision.
I remember waaaaay back in the day when Tom’s Hardware was mocked as Tom’s Hotware because they did some testing of what would happen to AMD and Intel CPUs if the heat sink spontaneously fell off while they were running. I think at the time, the AMD CPU melted itself, which Tom’s Hardware criticized. It did seem back then that there was a subtle anti-AMD bias on the site, but I haven’t paid close attention to it over time. It’s interesting to hear that the accusations of Intel bias still exist!
Gamers Nexus also showed in their video that TH's writer was the moderator of intel subreddit and they had been deleting posts on the recent issues with intel CPUs.
That is interesting. Between Anandtech and Tom’s Hardware, I am sad to see that Tom’s has ultimately survived longer. Anandtech was one of, if not the, best.
To be fair I've accidentally run a CPU without a heatsink and it did a thermal shut down while testing a BIOS issue. It's a useful feature.
That was fairly standard startup behaviour across all makers. The comment you're replying to talks about the heatsink suddenly falling off - a very specific testcase seemingly chosen to make a company look bad.
“We dont play silly cheap web traffic games” [proceeds to pointlessly split every article across 10 pages]
I don't know your age but rest assured that when Anandtech started, and for the following 7-8 years, doing that was absolutely needed for a good user experience. Try loading a giant single page with dozens of images on a 28.8kbaud connection... It will not end well
Lol I read plenty of long articles on a 14.4kbps connection and have been around long enough to know you’re using baud incorrectly :-)
Without trackers and superfluous images, excessive CSS etc you could load a nice long article reasonably quickly. Text does not need to be split like that. It was done for $$$. Ars even offered a pagination escape hatch as a premium benefit at one point.
Without trackers and superfluous images, excessive CSS etc you could load a nice long article reasonably quickly. Text does not need to be split like that. It was done for $$$. Ars even offered a pagination escape hatch as a premium benefit at one point.
The print version concatenated all the pages. They did it to allow users to not load all the charts all at once.
Google captured the web with their search product. Then they monopolised it with Adsense.
And absolutely did not optimize for returning quality information.
> The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users.
- Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine
- Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine
The world is all that much worse for their poor character.
I disagree, their character does not matter, business incentives matter. Nothing would change, if other personalities were in charge, since profit maximization is still there.
[deleted]
Nothing personal, just business. Yes it sucks, but advertising is the business, not search. If it’s free, you’re the product.
The "it's just business" people will double dip and still inject advertising and sell your data while also directly taking your money for a product. Cable TV is a paid product that does both. Cellular carriers sell your data about your location and the usage behaviors of the services you pay for. Car manufacturers sell your movement data for a car you paid for. Sellers of any financial services are all in cahoots about your debt, incomes, holdings, credit worthiness, etc. Even brick and morter stores pull shit with rewards programs to track your buying behaviors to optimize advertising to you.
> Nothing personal, just business
To be candid, this might be the problem.
If we treated people with humanity and respect, we might not be so keen to throw them under the bus for a buck.
To be candid, this might be the problem.
If we treated people with humanity and respect, we might not be so keen to throw them under the bus for a buck.
over the really long term, it's poor business practices.
[deleted]
> If it’s free, you’re the product.
For Google (and others) you are the product even if you paid for it (Android).
For Google (and others) you are the product even if you paid for it (Android).
Seems like less something that Google did and more just a natural consequence of the massive economic value of being at the top of the ranking and therefore tremendous incentive to hack the algorithm with advanced SEO.
I don’t agree. As soon as commercialisation of the web began, this massive incentive existed. The early search engines all fell victim to “algorithm hacking” (granted, these algorithms were far more primitive). Google won search in these years by having much more sophisticated algorithms that were resilient to such attempts.
Today - well, two possible things have happened. Either scamming search engines have become too effective for even a company with the resources of Alphabet to mitigate. Or, Google optimised for revenue rather than knowledge indexing. Which one seems more likely?
Today - well, two possible things have happened. Either scamming search engines have become too effective for even a company with the resources of Alphabet to mitigate. Or, Google optimised for revenue rather than knowledge indexing. Which one seems more likely?
I wonder what makes you say that Google was more resilient to what you call “algorithm hacking” considering Google has quite literally auctioned off result placement for two decades. Do you think that selling result placement for keywords and search terms to the highest bidder had a higher resilience to search engine optimisation than other search engines? I’d argue that Google was simply good at turning search itself into a product. A lot of their early competition around the world didn’t really do “search” as much as they did a combination of web content in a “portal” sort of presentation.
Google is still better at it than their competition, but Google’s model is now being pressured by big money. Local businesses in Europe are simply losing any sort of search auction to the Chinese sites as an example.
Anyway, you can always pay for Kagi if you want a better experience on the internet.
Google is still better at it than their competition, but Google’s model is now being pressured by big money. Local businesses in Europe are simply losing any sort of search auction to the Chinese sites as an example.
Anyway, you can always pay for Kagi if you want a better experience on the internet.
> Google has quite literally auctioned off result placement for two decades
Adwords - clearly marked as ads. Or are you suggesting the results themselves could be bought and sold? This was definitely not the case.
> Do you think that selling result placement for keywords and search terms to the highest bidder had a higher resilience to search engine optimisation than other search engines?
Again, manipulating the actual results via financial inducement to google was not a thing. Quite the reverse.
> A lot of their early competition around the world didn’t really do “search” as much as they did a combination of web content in a “portal” sort of presentation.
I’m not sure why you have this impression. There were many competitors for search prior and concurrent with google that operated in the same fashion. As I said earlier, they were simply hacked into uselessness. The concept of adversarial knowledge indexing was at this time new; PageRank was a novel and revolutionary solution.
Adwords - clearly marked as ads. Or are you suggesting the results themselves could be bought and sold? This was definitely not the case.
> Do you think that selling result placement for keywords and search terms to the highest bidder had a higher resilience to search engine optimisation than other search engines?
Again, manipulating the actual results via financial inducement to google was not a thing. Quite the reverse.
> A lot of their early competition around the world didn’t really do “search” as much as they did a combination of web content in a “portal” sort of presentation.
I’m not sure why you have this impression. There were many competitors for search prior and concurrent with google that operated in the same fashion. As I said earlier, they were simply hacked into uselessness. The concept of adversarial knowledge indexing was at this time new; PageRank was a novel and revolutionary solution.
> Adwords - clearly marked as ads. Or are you suggesting the results themselves could be bought and sold? This was definitely not the case.
Ad words spending had clear manipulations on the organic search algorithm. More spending meant better organic search placement. This is officially denied, but I saw this take place.
Ad words spending had clear manipulations on the organic search algorithm. More spending meant better organic search placement. This is officially denied, but I saw this take place.
It is entirely possible that this would happen without manipulating the ranking algorithm. buy adds -> higher traffic -> higher ranking
https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/6366577?hl=en
https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/142918?hl=en
https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/142918?hl=en
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. These pages talk about how the ordering of marked adverts appear in results, not non-advert search results.
Having said that, I think it's clear the quality of non-ad search results isn't great, but I don't know if that's due to perverse incentives on Google's side or just the increasing sophistication of SEO defeating Google's relevance ranking.
Having said that, I think it's clear the quality of non-ad search results isn't great, but I don't know if that's due to perverse incentives on Google's side or just the increasing sophistication of SEO defeating Google's relevance ranking.
> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. These pages talk about how the ordering of marked adverts appear in results, not non-advert search results.
It also describes the situation as it is now, not how it was when Google still cared about search results. The paid ads didn't use to be part of the search resuls list at all but instead were clearly delineated.
It also describes the situation as it is now, not how it was when Google still cared about search results. The paid ads didn't use to be part of the search resuls list at all but instead were clearly delineated.
When google won, they were still having 2 text ads per page with a noticeable different font and style as the search results. It was trivial to point out the ad. All the ad growth, from the sensible to the massive, and the change to their relationship with SEO, all occurred after the competition had been sent down to, at best, the single digits
Yes, which is the point I was trying to make. I don’t think what we see is the cruel SEO victory over a valiant, but ultimately doomed defence by google. What we see is revenue optimization, that also happens to benefit SEO’s.
To be clear, Google very much had and has a culture of optimizing for (a certain) quality. They definitely fought spam.
It just so happens that their culture and employees value a “quality” that is distinctly incongruent with the wider 6b-person public. And also they completely dropped the ball on spam 10 years ago when (among other things) Matt Cutts left.
Don’t write off Google. They are an important case study of their own flavor of greed.
It just so happens that their culture and employees value a “quality” that is distinctly incongruent with the wider 6b-person public. And also they completely dropped the ball on spam 10 years ago when (among other things) Matt Cutts left.
Don’t write off Google. They are an important case study of their own flavor of greed.
They absolutely do not. Google has destroyed the promise of thr internet. In my experience the best resources on the internet no longer exist. They were hosted on some academics home page who retired or died 10 years ago. They could have spent their billions of dollars building a searchable internet archive that connects people to an organized library of the world's information. Instead they destroyed the internet and replaced it with affiliate marketing blog spam.
A lot of my favorite sites exist only as bookmarks and on the internet archive. If only there was software to explore the library. We could call it a 'search engine'. It would never catch on...
No doubt, but AI is already and will continue to make the web a true hellscape. The shitshow Google has created is nothing compared to what’s coming, sadly. Big tech is truly ruining everything.
In what sense did they monopolise the web with adsense?
I never thought I would pay for searching information; yet now that I do, it's decidedly not google exactly because of this. Adsense hot garbage.
I was really surprised they survived this long. Long, overly elaborate, badly structured, too technical, and hence boring for the average joe, kinda articles all around.
Future plc and their rooted in the 2000s, absolutely horrible website structure that is forced on every news outlet they own... bleh. Ancient mammoths need a good spanking.
Future plc and their rooted in the 2000s, absolutely horrible website structure that is forced on every news outlet they own... bleh. Ancient mammoths need a good spanking.
The whole point of some of their articles was to go into the more esoteric technical details rather than gloss over them like some other sites. So in that aspect you are correct: it wasn’t for “the average joe”. However, for some people it was what they wanted.
That attention to technical detail and knowledge is why people like Der8auer have an audience today and people respect his opinion.
That attention to technical detail and knowledge is why people like Der8auer have an audience today and people respect his opinion.
Der8auer doesn't cover CPU architecture hardly at all. He mostly just does overlooking, which is orthogonal.
Have you ever wondered whether these long form articles give you ANY substantial knowledge or only the illusion that you gained something...
For those of us with an attention span, long investigative reading is enjoyable and the knowledge gained is beneficial
I'm surprised people today even learn to read. Just watch youtube.
i was shocked when i realized some people cant write but use emoji as mean of communication
:clown + :pointright + ?!
(Surely, you jest?!)
(Surely, you jest?!)
Anandtech was the best place to get the full rundown of processors. Its really sad to hear its closing. Its going to be a huge loss to everyone.
Once upon a time Real World Technology was even better, but met the same fate. If you can write these sorts of reviews you can make much more money as a consultant than from a website.
Happily the RWT forum remains up and active. It's an absolute goldmine for deep discussions on processors.
Loved their MacBook reviews. And then eventually quit doing them.
Holy smokes. End of an era.
I was around when the ghz wars were happening. I remember reading SharkyExtreme, hothardware, 2CPU.com, hardocp, anandtech and others for their reviews.
Sad. Very sad. I almost wish they had not decided to close up shop. Instead spin out and go sub only.
I was around when the ghz wars were happening. I remember reading SharkyExtreme, hothardware, 2CPU.com, hardocp, anandtech and others for their reviews.
Sad. Very sad. I almost wish they had not decided to close up shop. Instead spin out and go sub only.
This may not be a popular opinion, but this news reminds me how much I miss the Block-era Engadget, and even the old Gizmodo. Both have woven politics in so deeply and the writing at times so clearly uninformed that they are not enjoyable.
I was genuinely curious what type of politics a tech website like Gizmodo would get into. Then I saw they have a "politics" section, with 9 out of the 20 first articles with "Trump" in the headline. Now I understand.
At this point I’m more surprised when someone doesn’t find a way to work politics into whatever they are saying. We are well past the point when a site needed to have some plausible connection to politics to justify including it.
The number of random Kamala blow job innuendo comments I’ve seen posted in completely unrelated topics in the last few jobs is disheartening.
The number of random Kamala blow job innuendo comments I’ve seen posted in completely unrelated topics in the last few jobs is disheartening.
How to say enough? Thank you thank you thank you
CPU Microarchitecture analysis was the best, after Ars Technica cofounder Jon Stokes retired from his site: Anand and Brian Klug and Ian Cutress; I'm certain I've overlooked a few stellar tech analysts.
Especially during the era when Intel was trying to wedge x86 into mobile and even wearable devices.
Of late, the site has been posting the occasional deep-dive hardware review (notably, PC power supplies by E. Fylladitakis) and industry breaking news (Ganesh, Anton Shilov), but it's all moved to Tom's Hardware.
CPU Microarchitecture analysis was the best, after Ars Technica cofounder Jon Stokes retired from his site: Anand and Brian Klug and Ian Cutress; I'm certain I've overlooked a few stellar tech analysts.
Especially during the era when Intel was trying to wedge x86 into mobile and even wearable devices.
Of late, the site has been posting the occasional deep-dive hardware review (notably, PC power supplies by E. Fylladitakis) and industry breaking news (Ganesh, Anton Shilov), but it's all moved to Tom's Hardware.
This makes me incredibly sad. Nothing lasts forever, but AT has been a part of my life since it launched, when I was a teen obsessed with computers. I didn't feel so sad when Slashdot or The Inquirer declined, maybe because they were in decline over a long period. But AT was special, they only declined in review frequency, not quality.
Quality journalism struggles to turn a profit. Soon we will only have a grey goo web, created by LLMs endlessly recycling each other's output in a race to the bottom. Sad face.
There was time I read Tom's Hardware and thought that was the top of tech journalism and reviews,until the (i don't remember when) a revamp to the site that focused more on news. Then I found anandtech, reading all in depth article from the marketing material down to architecture level. It was very eye opening, the quality and depth is even on higher level.
I was sad when Ian left, but now it's the ultimate sadness.
Tom's Hardware took a nosedive when Thomas Pabst left.
Selling it to have time with his kids (IIRC) was a fantastic choice, but I miss his version of it for sure.
Selling it to have time with his kids (IIRC) was a fantastic choice, but I miss his version of it for sure.
There was a time in early 2000's when both sites were great and very competitive. I was reading both to see what opinions they have about products they both reviewed. Quality was very good on both sites, it changed later.
Man this is sad … I think I’ve been visiting this site for its entire lifetime. AnandTech has always been the best place for unbiased, deeply technical looks at hardware and it will be greatly missed
So many good sites gone, or unrecognizable due to clickbait or outrage news. In particular:
Anandtech Tech Report HardOCP Ars Technica (Eric Berger is the lone holdout here) Slashdot
the list goes on. I'm glad at least that Anand went out as he went in. Thanks for all the years, Anand!
Anandtech Tech Report HardOCP Ars Technica (Eric Berger is the lone holdout here) Slashdot
the list goes on. I'm glad at least that Anand went out as he went in. Thanks for all the years, Anand!
Where to go now?
Chips and Cheese https://chipsandcheese.com/
Serve the Home https://www.servethehome.com/
Tom's Hardware https://www.tomshardware.com/
Chips and Cheese https://chipsandcheese.com/
Serve the Home https://www.servethehome.com/
Tom's Hardware https://www.tomshardware.com/
I was going to say ArsTechinica which I have fond memories of from many years ago, but I just took a look and I don’t even recognize it - looks more like engadget. So, no, not recommending.
Ars Technica is more of a general tech and science news site. They do some computer hardware and phone reviews, but nowhere near what a dedicated tech site does, and they're often not Day 1 reviews.
I find their content generally pretty high quality for their niche (with Beth Mole's and Eric Berger's content being my personal standouts), but Ars Technica is by no means a substitute for a site like AnandTech.
I find their content generally pretty high quality for their niche (with Beth Mole's and Eric Berger's content being my personal standouts), but Ars Technica is by no means a substitute for a site like AnandTech.
Have they changed to be more of a general tech news science in recent years? I remember them being much more technical review focused years ago, but I might be remembering incorrectly.
Any other sites folks would recommend? It doesn't look to me like the sites mentioned have the same mix of stories as Anand would have covered. I'd like something that's really in the same vein.
Tom's - not the same quality it used to be.
Serve the Home - some articles only. Others are bad.
C & C - no comment, not enough experience with them.
Occasionally:
LTT (Linus Tech Tips), very commercial
Hardware Unboxing
Gamer's Nexus
JayzTwoCents
der8auer
Serve the Home - some articles only. Others are bad.
C & C - no comment, not enough experience with them.
Occasionally:
LTT (Linus Tech Tips), very commercial
Hardware Unboxing
Gamer's Nexus
JayzTwoCents
der8auer
Anandtech was one of my earliest sources of highly quality tech reporting. In particular their reliance on data and testing always stood out.
Many hours were spent there during my formative years. And, while I did stop reading it regularly at University, it had already played an important part in informing, and so shaping me.
Thanks, and farewell!
Thanks, and farewell!
It would be extremely interesting to understand the detail of why anandtech can't function any more. Is it just too low-paid for core contributors, who could get more elsewhere? Is it the cost of running servers? What're the things that cause a web-based company like this to (seemingly) abruptly stop?
Just wanted to say that I remember joining the Anandtech forums in middle school in the early 2000's and was quite active for a number of years.
Reading articles and discussions there was my first experience getting into tech and helped my build my first computer.
I hope the editor and writers of Anandtech know the impact they had!
Reading articles and discussions there was my first experience getting into tech and helped my build my first computer.
I hope the editor and writers of Anandtech know the impact they had!
HN might as well put up a black ribbon for this news.
Ahhh this is so sad. So many of my favorite online spots are ending recently.
On a brighter note, Chips and Cheese are continuing the effort of quality technical journalism.
On a brighter note, Chips and Cheese are continuing the effort of quality technical journalism.
The quality of their content, back when they still produced any, was top. It always felt to me that the life departed with Ian. Ian's substack fills the place for me that AnandTech used to.
Kudos from my 2003 self, when Anandtech helped me build my first PC for university.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1094
Uni had fiber to the dorm room, so I was interested in maximizing available bandwidth through the rest of the system. Which in P4 / PCI days wasn't trivial!
Ironically enough, I still have that motherboard downstairs in a backup system, humming away... with a Pentium M via adapter. :)
Couldn't bring myself to put it out to pasture, and thought it was an interesting inflection point as "the last of the Netburst" era.
Interestingly enough, one of my favorite uni classes was on microprocessor design, taught by someone who apparently taught Anand at NC (Tom Conte).
RIP. But better to call it quits when they're playing the send-off music.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1094
Uni had fiber to the dorm room, so I was interested in maximizing available bandwidth through the rest of the system. Which in P4 / PCI days wasn't trivial!
Ironically enough, I still have that motherboard downstairs in a backup system, humming away... with a Pentium M via adapter. :)
Couldn't bring myself to put it out to pasture, and thought it was an interesting inflection point as "the last of the Netburst" era.
Interestingly enough, one of my favorite uni classes was on microprocessor design, taught by someone who apparently taught Anand at NC (Tom Conte).
RIP. But better to call it quits when they're playing the send-off music.
As far as Anandtech's published article history that has to be kept online or else so much Wikipedia content will lose the Anandtech article references that are used heavily there and in other places online!
So the status of that content needs to be discussed and how that can be preserved!
So the status of that content needs to be discussed and how that can be preserved!
For anyone here working or in contact with the people at Future: the post mentions that the forums are still going to be open, but will there be any active work on it?
I keep thinking that these specialized forums that lost space to Reddit could be revived if were integrated with ActivityPub.
I keep thinking that these specialized forums that lost space to Reddit could be revived if were integrated with ActivityPub.
Good opportunity to make the best of the forums. I would prefer traditional forums for community building over anything else.
> And while the AnandTech staff is riding off into the sunset, I am happy to report that the site itself won’t be going anywhere for a while. Our publisher, Future PLC, will be keeping the AnandTech website and its many articles live indefinitely.
THANK YOU!
THANK YOU!
Ⓧ Doubt
I remember reading their review for the Core 2 Duo E7500, which was my first foray into PCMR back in 2009 along with a GTX 260. FSB multipliers were fun!
Quite sad, we lost two of the greatest tech journalism of yesteryears, Game Informer and now Anandtech. Maximum PC barely hung on and later were boughtout by PCgamer.
I doubt anything will replace the in-depth tech journalism of Anandtech without visible paid biases and manipulation by big tech. I think Video centric media tech houses will rule the roost like Linus Media, GamerNexus and HuB.
Hoping Igors lab, chips&cheese and der8auer to carry the baton forward. I will kiss an old LGA 775 processor in their honor, rest in circuits.
Quite sad, we lost two of the greatest tech journalism of yesteryears, Game Informer and now Anandtech. Maximum PC barely hung on and later were boughtout by PCgamer.
I doubt anything will replace the in-depth tech journalism of Anandtech without visible paid biases and manipulation by big tech. I think Video centric media tech houses will rule the roost like Linus Media, GamerNexus and HuB.
Hoping Igors lab, chips&cheese and der8auer to carry the baton forward. I will kiss an old LGA 775 processor in their honor, rest in circuits.
I will really miss this site. They did incredible deep reviews of tech.
But once Anand left, the site started dying. They posted 1 review a month, and didn't even cover the iphone or galaxy or pixel launches. How on earth was that meant to survive?
But once Anand left, the site started dying. They posted 1 review a month, and didn't even cover the iphone or galaxy or pixel launches. How on earth was that meant to survive?
It's shocking to realize I've been reading AnandTech's insightful and profound analysis for over two decades. The tech landscape has undergone a dramatic transformation in that time, yet AnandTech remained a steadfast and reliable source of information. They inspired countless hardware enthusiasts and reviewers, myself included, with many of us pursuing performance analysis as a career path. Their absence will be deeply felt, and it's truly a sad day for the tech community.
This makes me so sad. AnandTech was the leading, consistently reliable source of technical information and opinion that informed my views on so many products. And it was immensely fun to read. Its departure leaves a sore gap in my technology assessment toolkit, and a heaviness in my heart.
I hope tomorrow's enthusiasts take up the torch of deep technical reporting and fight back against all the shallow, clickbait reporting out there.
I hope tomorrow's enthusiasts take up the torch of deep technical reporting and fight back against all the shallow, clickbait reporting out there.
For me, Anandtech often scratched the itch that once upon a time was satisfied by Byte, 2600, and some of the trade magazines. Sad day.
One thing I can take from this is that even when you are not necessarily building all that cool/complex tech yourself, whatever else you are good at, take a good hard look at it. What ever is important to you, you can always apply what you are good at to some facet of what you admire and find value. Anandtech folks learned a lot about cool tech standing on the shoulders of giants, but they added value by teaching us what is really significant to look for and then benchmarking the hell out of it.
Distilling what you like about a thing and then build it (and don't forget that finding someone to pay you to do it is essential too) is key. Intellectual honesty is key in this process: You have to be honest about what you like about the Acquisition, Assimilation, and Dissemination of your ideas and product. They did that so well.
I always thought that whatever I wanted to build, it has something complex(and hence cool), but it could instead just what I want and have it be cool anyway.
Distilling what you like about a thing and then build it (and don't forget that finding someone to pay you to do it is essential too) is key. Intellectual honesty is key in this process: You have to be honest about what you like about the Acquisition, Assimilation, and Dissemination of your ideas and product. They did that so well.
I always thought that whatever I wanted to build, it has something complex(and hence cool), but it could instead just what I want and have it be cool anyway.
I've been reading Anandtech for over a decade. Sad to see it go.
Same. It's so hard to stand out with a tech review site when there are dozens of other great ones, but this one truly did for me.
Real Shame. Does make me think what kind of business model is needed for this type of publication to survive and thrive? There must be a way ... I would really hope. Would be very curious at to the conversations that happened at Future PLC prior to shutting this asset down. Couldn't find much on companies fillings.
Yeah- I am personally struggling to understand how a website could be successful in 1997 run out of an apartment, but now that the PC and tech industry is many times bigger these sites can't make a go of it. And the headwinds Anand and Ars etc faced... I remember back in the 90s they wouldn't let them into Computex and CES.
Interestingly it was just last week that I was looking into building a NAS (Synology is leaning in hard on enshitification lately) and its suprisingly feasible, and I was wondering why no one talks about motherboards anymore, only CPUs/GPUs, and occasionally disks (spinning rust or solid state)- I thought I might have just been mentally ignoring those articles, but they really don't exist anymore. Ars/Anand/Toms had reviews for models once every 6 months or so.
Into the graveyard you go with, Aces Hardware, Sharky Extreme, Thresh's Firingsquad, and I am sure I am forgetting others that I used to load up every day but just don't exist anymore.
Interestingly it was just last week that I was looking into building a NAS (Synology is leaning in hard on enshitification lately) and its suprisingly feasible, and I was wondering why no one talks about motherboards anymore, only CPUs/GPUs, and occasionally disks (spinning rust or solid state)- I thought I might have just been mentally ignoring those articles, but they really don't exist anymore. Ars/Anand/Toms had reviews for models once every 6 months or so.
Into the graveyard you go with, Aces Hardware, Sharky Extreme, Thresh's Firingsquad, and I am sure I am forgetting others that I used to load up every day but just don't exist anymore.
I'm sad to hear that they're shutting down. I thought that Anandtech would be one of the holdouts for written tech journalism in a world that's become increasingly video first.
What are people reading these days for hardware reviews?
I find that Notebookcheck and GSMArena are decent for laptop and phone reviews respectively.
What are people reading these days for hardware reviews?
I find that Notebookcheck and GSMArena are decent for laptop and phone reviews respectively.
A very sad, but not unexpected, end to another important source of quality journalism. Outcompeted, no doubt, by the noise & churn of the attention economy.
I hope they open source their benchmarking procedures. It’s valuable to see the results of comparable testing across multiple generations of hardware.
I hope they open source their benchmarking procedures. It’s valuable to see the results of comparable testing across multiple generations of hardware.
Those OS X reviews will go down in the history books of tech journalism.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6/
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6/
Breaks my heart. Grew up reading AnandTech in the early 2010s for all things hardware -- processor releases, updates to the DDR SDRAM standard, motherboard and NAND flash reviews.
The era of unbiased, objective and deeply technical journalism is dying out. Sad.
The era of unbiased, objective and deeply technical journalism is dying out. Sad.
> now, more than ever, it’s necessary to counter sensationalism and cynicism with high-quality reporting and testing that is used to support thoughtful conclusions. To quote Anand: “I don't believe the web needs to be academic reporting or sensationalist garbage - as long as there's a balance, I'm happy.”
A postscript deep dive article for AnandTech could look at the audience and business metrics of an ad-funded tech review site in 2024, in the context of competition from substack, Discord/Patreon, YouTube, neo-cable-tv, and other channels.
Does Algolia have enough data for a graph of AnandTech article discussions on HN, e.g. submissions and comments?
A postscript deep dive article for AnandTech could look at the audience and business metrics of an ad-funded tech review site in 2024, in the context of competition from substack, Discord/Patreon, YouTube, neo-cable-tv, and other channels.
Does Algolia have enough data for a graph of AnandTech article discussions on HN, e.g. submissions and comments?
AnandTech was one of the websites that helped me as a child. I found it around 2002, and the clear-headed manner in which it discussed chip fabrication, function, lithography and the associated engineering and scientific foundations of them - as well as general concepts of bios, motherboard, chipsets, slots, bandwidth etc - helped foster a curiosity and familiarity with electronic hardware that has served me well for my whole life.
It helped me dream larger than my surroundings; which in turn helped me get out of an unstable home, poverty, and a dead-end town. I was sad when [H]ardOCP went down, but this hits different.
It helped me dream larger than my surroundings; which in turn helped me get out of an unstable home, poverty, and a dead-end town. I was sad when [H]ardOCP went down, but this hits different.
I bought my first AMD Processor after reading review of it on their website in 2002.
Thanks to an in-depth Anandtech review way back in 2011, I purchased a super cheap Dell Vostro laptop with a staggering 8 hours of battery life, pretty much unheard of for Windows laptops at the time. Plenty of OEMs would straight up lie, but AT's battery tests provided the proof consumers needed.
It's sad to see the state of 'tech journalism' in the Youtube age when it comes to hardware products. I feel like I'm watching a 20-minute lifestyle commercial rather than an actual nuts-and-bolts review. I guess that's what gets views and affiliate link revenue now.
It's sad to see the state of 'tech journalism' in the Youtube age when it comes to hardware products. I feel like I'm watching a 20-minute lifestyle commercial rather than an actual nuts-and-bolts review. I guess that's what gets views and affiliate link revenue now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud6DWmWcHaY
Dr. Ian Cutress did a video of his thoughts. (Just a subscriber of his channel)
Dr. Ian Cutress did a video of his thoughts. (Just a subscriber of his channel)
This is really tragic. I understand the pressures that Anandtech is under, and of course they've just been doing it for so long that I have to think Ryan and team are burnt out, but what a bummer! AFAIK Anandtech is unique at least in the English-language internet. It's going to leave a huge hole.
I'm glad the forums continue and hope they thrive. Those forums are where I started my tech support journey 20+ years ago. It'll be interesting to see if Toms can fill in some of the more in-depth, technical and objective reporting.
I'm glad the forums continue and hope they thrive. Those forums are where I started my tech support journey 20+ years ago. It'll be interesting to see if Toms can fill in some of the more in-depth, technical and objective reporting.
I feel so nostalgic when these old places close up shop. I remember visiting AnandTech in the late 90s when I was still struggling to install Linux. Back when brick and mortar software stores were still a thing, staffed by like minded nerds who were happy to guide a young one and share knowledge.
I can't think of many other sites that have been around this long. https://www.bluesnews.com/ for gaming news comes to mind. It's been going since 96.
I can't think of many other sites that have been around this long. https://www.bluesnews.com/ for gaming news comes to mind. It's been going since 96.
The Register. But it’s also not a good as it used to be.
I think the underrated aspect of the downfall is just how much tech was for the lack of a better word commoditized. I used to be the target audience, but even I don't really care that much anymore about all the details -- my last PC was built over 10 years ago, and when my laptop dies I will again buy a laptop that is the best combination of performance and hassle free. And the new generation that still cared never peeked beyond YouTube, which is definitely true.
It's actually crazy how fast new media became old media.
It's actually crazy how fast new media became old media.
I'm glad to hear the website will stay up, for now.
This makes me wonder if there's a way to preserve websites indefinitely in ebook form. A small device that contains the entire history of a website, and is self-contained in the ebook. The device would obviously require power and the hardware could degrade, but this could be mitigated by making the hardware replaceable, or rather the content swappable across devices.
It seems like a middle ground between durability/portability (printed book) and usability/access (website).
This makes me wonder if there's a way to preserve websites indefinitely in ebook form. A small device that contains the entire history of a website, and is self-contained in the ebook. The device would obviously require power and the hardware could degrade, but this could be mitigated by making the hardware replaceable, or rather the content swappable across devices.
It seems like a middle ground between durability/portability (printed book) and usability/access (website).
Sad to read this, AnandTech has been one of the good and respectable sites all these decades. Old-timers (like myself) will for sure miss their reviews.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish.
Last week while looking into the Apple DMP exploit paper [1], I noticed that the researchers were inspired by this [2] anandtech article.
Y'all will be missed.
[1] https://www.prefetchers.info/ [2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-de...
Y'all will be missed.
[1] https://www.prefetchers.info/ [2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-de...
So sad. I even create a userscript to reformat your website to read articles there. This is a screenshot of that format https://github.com/dxxvi/node-express-example/blob/master/Sc...
Those who wish the web to return to its hobbyist roots where nobody gets paid to write content online any more are starting to get their wish.
That wish didn't involve a world where search engines were intentionally tweaking their algos to serve up low-effort blogspam with zero individuality, burying actual hobbyist websites.
The impression I've got from said people here on HN is that search engines are disgusting ad powered horrors and therefore they're not needed either.
How anyone finds anything I don't know but I guess we'll find out!
How anyone finds anything I don't know but I guess we'll find out!
Wow the end of an era. I first heard about it at Cal through college roommates. I haven’t used it much lately but still.. sad to see it go.
I already kinda moved away from reading it after Anand moved to Apple. The quality and frequency seemed to drop and I lost interest.
Wow, so sad to see it go... this was one of my main websites in the early days of the net. Helped me build so many computers and loved the community. I even built a website with some of the Anandtech team that consolidated reviews across the net during college. Sad day. Change be changing.
I am disturbed by the death of long-form content happening. Google is failing.
I am disturbed by the death of long-form content happening. Google is failing.
I felt a deep sadness after reading just the first paragraph, and I had to stop there for a while. It's very powerful. If you run your own business(es), you know how challenging it is. The stories of unicorns (epsilons) are rare and almost insignificant compared to the reality faced by most businesses.
I read Toms Hardware before AT even existed. Toms had a dark era for a while, but Anandtech has fallen off hard for years now. It hasn't been worth even visiting. I still visit Tom's though! For me, this is a fitting end that I started with Tom's and still reading it as AT shuts down.
A red flag needs to go up when Future PLC buys anything.
We need a case to be made for enthusiast-owned media. Anything left to the corporates will eventually degrade and die.
This is something I will work on, once I reach the stage of my life that involves capital. Things need to be better for the niche reporting world.
We need a case to be made for enthusiast-owned media. Anything left to the corporates will eventually degrade and die.
This is something I will work on, once I reach the stage of my life that involves capital. Things need to be better for the niche reporting world.
It's very sad but not unexpected. Hard to live off advertising when your demographics are prime adblock users. I did disable adblock on AnandTech when I remembered to, and gritted my teeth at how awful it was to have ads covering every square millimeter of free space.
Man, this is some sad, sad news.
Goodbye, and thank you for the content that has accompanied me for more than a decade.
Goodbye, and thank you for the content that has accompanied me for more than a decade.
Over to "Samsung will release THIS device on 2nd October" headlines in media that survive.
Anandtech, Slashdot, etc. These are some of the best websites that I followed throughout my career. Slashdot is where I learned about bitcoin for example. Phoronix is another. Level1Tech replaced some of these for me but the long forms are harder to come by these days.
I wonder when text based media actually became unsustainable on Internet. And how publications somehow lasted until now, was there still someone funding them in hopes of them working out? Like whole timeframe when things went from somewhat sustainable to unsustainable.
But the site gets millions of clicks per month. Why would they kill a google ads printing machine?
My journey into building computers and networking were partly driven by Anandtech. I bought and sold quite a few things on the forums, too. I always thought Anandtech was one of the higher quality tech publications. RIP to one of the best.
I'm glad to hear the forums are still going to be around. They certainly aren't as popular as they once were but I still consider myself a part of that community and enjoy conversing with the old timers once and awhile.
I first came across AnandTech sometime in the fall of 2020 when covid lockdowns were still going strong and I was starting to get more interested in computer hardware. It seemed like a pretty decent site with good articles in a world full of crappy seo-optimized clickbait. I usually go there to read about new CPUs or CPU designs that have been released by AMD, ARM, etc. These days it feels like those aren't coming out as frequently as they did back then (not sure if this is true or if there's just more going on in my life these days) and as a result I haven't spent much time on their site lately.
I'll miss them, but for what it's worth they could probably be replaced by one guy with a decent substack. Or maybe that already exists, if anyone has any recommendations let me know.
I'll miss them, but for what it's worth they could probably be replaced by one guy with a decent substack. Or maybe that already exists, if anyone has any recommendations let me know.
I did not expected such a sad news this Friday ...
AnandTech - one of THE sites that literally done hardware upbringing for me ... will be no more.
Thank you for all the in depth reviews and explanation how hardware work - I use this knowledge to this day ...
Farewell.
AnandTech - one of THE sites that literally done hardware upbringing for me ... will be no more.
Thank you for all the in depth reviews and explanation how hardware work - I use this knowledge to this day ...
Farewell.
I really don’t want to watch ad riddled reviews on YouTube. I always went to their site to read an actual article that goes into depth about tech and gave great reviews. Truly a sad day for the internet.
Sad day but I guess Anand moving to Apple made this more plausible. I’m going to miss the meticulously perf charts.
They do have some great talent, I hope they go on to do great tech journalism.
Dang silly videos took down written journalism. Readers are mourning.
Some macro-trends that must have contributed:
* Rise of social media
* Popularity of short-form video
* Significant deceleration in single-core performance gains
* Focus on fashion (e.g. colored LEDs) over performance in computers
* Popularity of smartphones/consoles
* Rise of social media
* Popularity of short-form video
* Significant deceleration in single-core performance gains
* Focus on fashion (e.g. colored LEDs) over performance in computers
* Popularity of smartphones/consoles
>Focus on fashion
People have been tricking out their rigs with fancy lighting since the beginning, it's not a new development.
People have been tricking out their rigs with fancy lighting since the beginning, it's not a new development.
I assume it is because DIY PCs plateaued two decades ago. Now it's all Macs, mobiles, and consoles.
Agree. The most significant improvement in a long time has been has been SSDs. Was cool to have lived through a period where compute power was delivering real-world 2x performance every 18 months.
There just isn’t a need for legacy media anymore. Anyone can shitpost all day on X or Threads and reach an audience 10x that of AnandTech or any other traditional media outfit.
Haven't all the good review article sites disappeared at this point? DPReview springs to mind.
Anandtech was always reliable. It was Tom's Hardware when Tom's Hardware sold out (some 20 years ago). Many here may not even know that Tom's Hardware was originally a well-respected source of information. But I guess Tom's Hardware was a glimpse into the future, low-quality content litttered with affiliate-spam.
But there is a market for high-quality content still. I can't help but think that the article sites simply failed to adapt. Look at Linus's Tech Tips [1]. Yes, video production is expensive but the advertising revenue is also higher.
None of these sites seemed to have adapted to the world of short form video content (Tiktok, Youtube Shorts, IG Reels) in a way that feels fresh, organic and useful.
Reddit seems to be the last bastion of getting authentic information and even that is steadily getting astroturfed.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/user/linustechtips
Anandtech was always reliable. It was Tom's Hardware when Tom's Hardware sold out (some 20 years ago). Many here may not even know that Tom's Hardware was originally a well-respected source of information. But I guess Tom's Hardware was a glimpse into the future, low-quality content litttered with affiliate-spam.
But there is a market for high-quality content still. I can't help but think that the article sites simply failed to adapt. Look at Linus's Tech Tips [1]. Yes, video production is expensive but the advertising revenue is also higher.
None of these sites seemed to have adapted to the world of short form video content (Tiktok, Youtube Shorts, IG Reels) in a way that feels fresh, organic and useful.
Reddit seems to be the last bastion of getting authentic information and even that is steadily getting astroturfed.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/user/linustechtips
I'm confused, was he the only writer left? I know Anand doesn't run the site anymore, but is there really nobody to keep the site running with new articles?
> In-depth reporting isn’t always as sexy or as exciting as other avenues, but now, more than ever, it’s necessary to counter sensationalism and cynicism with high-quality reporting and testing that is used to support thoughtful conclusions.
Very true. But, in-depth reporting doesn't have to be not-sexy either. Considering the marked drop in audience attention spans in today's world along with the emergence of AI-driven knowledge sources, journalists will benefit a lot from just improving their presentation from long-form writing to something analogous to presentation slides with understandable visualizations.
Very true. But, in-depth reporting doesn't have to be not-sexy either. Considering the marked drop in audience attention spans in today's world along with the emergence of AI-driven knowledge sources, journalists will benefit a lot from just improving their presentation from long-form writing to something analogous to presentation slides with understandable visualizations.
I wonder how much of a difference our ad-blockers made to their revenue; I always liked AnandTech and now I'll feel guilty about leaving my blocker enabled.
The reader demographic is more likely to run adblockers because installing them is trivial to us - in the same way a reader of a cooking website discussing flour products can probably bake a cake with their eyes closed (I on the other hand would probably burn down the kitchen).
early days, it was a great site and a valuable resource. It became less so over the years to the point I forgot about it. Kind of like Tom's Hardware.
It ran great articles to the very end but it also had some series that were real stinkers.
The one that bugged me was the monthly roundup of HDDs where, usually, they recommended that you pay $100 extra to get an expensive consumer HDD that, according to the spec sheet, was 3db quieter and consumed maybe 0.5W less than an inexpensive enterprise HDD (funny reversal, but the enterprise product is a mass-produced product they sell a lot of and all the hyper-thin SKUs aimed at consumers probably sold one here and one there) although anything is one bad bearing away from being 20db louder.
This went in for years but they never confronted the issue directly by taking measurements or asking if the HDD industry was destroying itself by offering too many SKUs — if WD had just one SKU maybe Best Buy would stock it, but if there is a different one for a 2 bay NAS, a 3 bay NAS, a 4 bay NAS, and for recording video they won’t stock any of them. (And with all those spurious choices they didn’t give you a clear choice of CMR vs SMR!)
Charlie Demerjian stands almost alone as a tech journalist who doesn’t get high on the industry’s supply and, on that level, Anandtech was another tech outlet dependent on that industry that couldn’t give it the tough love to point out rampant brand destruction. Charlie told you 5 years ago that Intel’s product roadmap was a suicide note, Anandtech sure didn’t.
The one that bugged me was the monthly roundup of HDDs where, usually, they recommended that you pay $100 extra to get an expensive consumer HDD that, according to the spec sheet, was 3db quieter and consumed maybe 0.5W less than an inexpensive enterprise HDD (funny reversal, but the enterprise product is a mass-produced product they sell a lot of and all the hyper-thin SKUs aimed at consumers probably sold one here and one there) although anything is one bad bearing away from being 20db louder.
This went in for years but they never confronted the issue directly by taking measurements or asking if the HDD industry was destroying itself by offering too many SKUs — if WD had just one SKU maybe Best Buy would stock it, but if there is a different one for a 2 bay NAS, a 3 bay NAS, a 4 bay NAS, and for recording video they won’t stock any of them. (And with all those spurious choices they didn’t give you a clear choice of CMR vs SMR!)
Charlie Demerjian stands almost alone as a tech journalist who doesn’t get high on the industry’s supply and, on that level, Anandtech was another tech outlet dependent on that industry that couldn’t give it the tough love to point out rampant brand destruction. Charlie told you 5 years ago that Intel’s product roadmap was a suicide note, Anandtech sure didn’t.
SemiAccurate has always been true to its name: occasional scoops but mixed with a lot of hyperbole, bluster, half truths and things that are just flat out wrong.
Back when I worked at a semiconductor company, reading any articles about us was always very funny because it always had more things wrong than right.
Back when I worked at a semiconductor company, reading any articles about us was always very funny because it always had more things wrong than right.
This was a site with good content and whenever there was a link pointing to AnandTech I knew there was something interesting to discover.
Thanks for all the good work!
Thanks for all the good work!
First time I’m actually seeing a picture of Anand! Always figured there is probably some young guy named that behind it but never put a face to it
Unsurprising - people don’t pay, and their audience is perhaps a bit more likely to use Adblock, not to mention the decline in news in general.
Did someone create an archive for this site? It's a treasure trove for future generations to see how it distorted views when needed.
> we’ll still have a place for everyone to talk about the latest in technology – and have those discussions last longer than 48 hours.
Good jab!
Good jab!
Did not think Anandtech would have lasted almost 30 years. Sad non the less. What's the oldest tech site still around now?
God, I used to read Anandtech religiously in the '00s. So sad to see them closing shop, even though I understand why.
Ugh so sad. I really liked AnandTech's knowledgeable product reviews, especially SSD reviews and benchmarks.
With 27 years of people’s trust, I think this is one of the best exits of tech history.
Even though it’s not best financially.
Even though it’s not best financially.
Absolutely gutted to see another long running website from the glory days of the Internet closing up shop.
[deleted]
In a hostile landscape it seems that the good ones shutdown, and the indifferent ones sell out.
all good things come to an end - others do too but we won't remember them.
good run, and remember from the late 90s - later at my interview in Lehman Brothers, the hiring manager was looking at the site when I walked in and that was the small talk. RIP AnandTech
good run, and remember from the late 90s - later at my interview in Lehman Brothers, the hiring manager was looking at the site when I walked in and that was the small talk. RIP AnandTech
Farewell team. One of my favorite quality reads of genuine hardware pieces on the Internet.
Damn. End of an era. Anandtech was the reason I got into hardware and computers in general.
It's truly sad to see one of few traditional web sites of extraordinary quality go.
One of the few tech outlets that I find to be trustworthy, it's sad to see them go.
Can't believe it!
Thank you, Anadtech, for all the great stuff over the years.
This is a bit sad.
Tech report became a zombie about a decade ago.
Tom's hardware has always just been 'mid'.
I feel old
Tech report became a zombie about a decade ago.
Tom's hardware has always just been 'mid'.
I feel old
I guess it's too much work to write articles all the time?
Sad to read this, but all things pass I guess. Spent a large chunk of my life posting on and reading the AT forum. Last I checked I still have a mod account. Things sort of started to go downhill for me with the sale to... meh can't even recall the purchaser it's been so long. Farewell AT, thanks for all the good advice on builds and overclocking through the years.
One of my main bookmarks when I got an internet connection. o7
This is a very sad day. Along the way in my life and career I had a brief stint building custom computers for other people, and I spent quite a lot of time getting into overclocking for myself. Those journeys and my interest in computer hardware, performance, security, and how that impacted systems was heavily influenced by gaming and by the community that surrounded it. Most of the places I used to haunt are long gone, but through all that AnandTech was always around. It's the first place I go when I want to learn about a piece of hardware, and now it's gone.
I am happy at least that there are others trying to carry the torch. Gamer's Nexus, Chips and Cheese, and a few small blogs here and there are still trying to dig into the nitty gritty of computer hardware in a way that's not only approachable, but accurate, without all the marketing BS. It's unfortunate though that it's so hard to make something like this survive.
I am happy at least that there are others trying to carry the torch. Gamer's Nexus, Chips and Cheese, and a few small blogs here and there are still trying to dig into the nitty gritty of computer hardware in a way that's not only approachable, but accurate, without all the marketing BS. It's unfortunate though that it's so hard to make something like this survive.
Thank you AnandTech. Happy ride in to the sunset.
It will be missed.
> AnandTech’s final boss
Quips like that, are one reason.
> AnandTech’s final boss
Quips like that, are one reason.
Felt like it went downhill once Ian Cutress left..
So much nostalgia from my teen and 20s, this site was not only entertaining but equally educational and always looked forward to reading the next review. I hadn't thought much of this website frankly in decades, but this is a bittersweet encounter, thank you for all the great memories and all the knowledges bestowed upon us.
Sometimes I wonder if my knowledge on hardware and software integration is largely because of I have been reading Anandtech ( and many other sources ) since late 90s.
It first stated as the journey of AMD CPU. Who wouldn't want the best bang for the bucks. And then Pentium II / III, SSE. Pentium 4, Itanium, AMD64. Pentium M, Core, and then the rise of SSD. In between that we also have many Video Card reviews, S3, Matrox, Voodoo, Nvidia, ATI, PowerVR, explanation of Playstation CELL processor. Creative Sound Blaster. I think by mid 2000 all those news were quite boring. Largely because most of the consumer decisions are settled. Until iPhone came around Anandtech was the first and perhaps still the only tech site that goes behind the scene and start looking not only the Apple technology but a educational guess behind the rationale why some of those product decisions were introduced. And only after a few years Anand himself got hired from Apple.
I also remember my first death threat on Anandtech Forums from Intel Fan Boys. That was before most tech people knew much about TSMC. There was a time when people think Intel is an undisputed king in technology and wont believe TSMC would take over.
Lot of memories. It is very unfortunate Anandtech is closing down. I just wish I am a multi billionaire and could buy it and keep it running even as a hobby. Somewhat fortunate is that we have Chips and Cheese, a relatively new site which fills a lot of what Anandtech used to do. Servethehome for Enterprise section.
Really Sad. I know some of current and ex-anandtech staff lurks on HN but dont post much. Farewell, Thank You and Good Luck to you all.
It first stated as the journey of AMD CPU. Who wouldn't want the best bang for the bucks. And then Pentium II / III, SSE. Pentium 4, Itanium, AMD64. Pentium M, Core, and then the rise of SSD. In between that we also have many Video Card reviews, S3, Matrox, Voodoo, Nvidia, ATI, PowerVR, explanation of Playstation CELL processor. Creative Sound Blaster. I think by mid 2000 all those news were quite boring. Largely because most of the consumer decisions are settled. Until iPhone came around Anandtech was the first and perhaps still the only tech site that goes behind the scene and start looking not only the Apple technology but a educational guess behind the rationale why some of those product decisions were introduced. And only after a few years Anand himself got hired from Apple.
I also remember my first death threat on Anandtech Forums from Intel Fan Boys. That was before most tech people knew much about TSMC. There was a time when people think Intel is an undisputed king in technology and wont believe TSMC would take over.
Lot of memories. It is very unfortunate Anandtech is closing down. I just wish I am a multi billionaire and could buy it and keep it running even as a hobby. Somewhat fortunate is that we have Chips and Cheese, a relatively new site which fills a lot of what Anandtech used to do. Servethehome for Enterprise section.
Really Sad. I know some of current and ex-anandtech staff lurks on HN but dont post much. Farewell, Thank You and Good Luck to you all.
Jesus I had no idea Anandtech was in trouble. Did they ever say anything about it? I would've signed up for a Patreon to keep them afloat.
They’ve been gradually dropping in quantity (though not quality) for a decade. The writing’s been on the wall for a long time.
Yeah I don't think they ever mentioned anything before this. I suspect this was a slow decline over several years and many meetings where they realized they'd either have to "sell out" or shut doors - if it were a new sudden thing they probably would've asked for help or indicated a willingness to try and stay afloat. I can't really blame them.
up next slashdot?
feels like the old internet is nearly gone
feels like the old internet is nearly gone
Not Slashdot, buy soylent news is also circling the drain...
RIP Anandtech.
sic transit gloria mundi
> the market for written tech journalism is not what it once was - nor will it ever be again
This is very darkly ominous and of course it does not apply just to tech journalism.
Written communication, by real people, is not an optional luxury, its the best means to exchange dense, valuable, high quality information.
It feels as if the current digital "economy" is hell-bent to turn society into an illiterate, short-video watching, ad-clicking mob.
Not sure there has ever been technological innovation that was so regressive in its impact, profiting by actively degrading the human condition. Alas, here we are and we can't blame the Martians.
This is very darkly ominous and of course it does not apply just to tech journalism.
Written communication, by real people, is not an optional luxury, its the best means to exchange dense, valuable, high quality information.
It feels as if the current digital "economy" is hell-bent to turn society into an illiterate, short-video watching, ad-clicking mob.
Not sure there has ever been technological innovation that was so regressive in its impact, profiting by actively degrading the human condition. Alas, here we are and we can't blame the Martians.
I would push back some. Humans have communicated orally long before writing and lectures / interviews / discussions remain highly effective.
After all, not everyone was in favor of the pulp that churned from mass-market printing presses.
However, I can certainly imagine a voice-enabled LLM trained on European History that students could learn a lot from. People have been printing books for 500+ years, but we’ve really only gotten into user-generated video within the past 10 years.
Throughout my childhood video was really quite time-consuming to produce. It largely still is. If we can continue get that friction down, then over time I expect we’ll se more and more valuable video content being produced.
After all, not everyone was in favor of the pulp that churned from mass-market printing presses.
However, I can certainly imagine a voice-enabled LLM trained on European History that students could learn a lot from. People have been printing books for 500+ years, but we’ve really only gotten into user-generated video within the past 10 years.
Throughout my childhood video was really quite time-consuming to produce. It largely still is. If we can continue get that friction down, then over time I expect we’ll se more and more valuable video content being produced.
Compare broadcast television's first days with what it is now. There are a lot of parallels.
OTOH, although not tech journalism, but consider the Substack success of The Free Press and some others. There might be some light at the end of this tunnel.
It’s not really a “current economy” thing or anything to do with technological innovation itself. As someone mentioned elsewhere, our economic model of line must go up quarterly forever is the real thing to fix here. Does turning society into an illiterate mob make sense long-term? Most would say no. Does it make sense short-term? Unfortunately it makes a lot of sense as long as you can get out with your cash hoard before everything burns. Companies are simply acting towards what we have been incentivizing for decades now.
> you can get out with your cash hoard
cash is effectively claims against what other people can give you in the future.
An illiterate mob can only give you very few things of value. So, indeed, this is short-termism running society to the ground - as if there is no tomorrow.
cash is effectively claims against what other people can give you in the future.
An illiterate mob can only give you very few things of value. So, indeed, this is short-termism running society to the ground - as if there is no tomorrow.
This is why some of the rich are constructing elaborate bunkers just in case. So I guess there is some long-term strategizing after all.
[deleted]
[deleted]
A bit sad. But I haven't checked the site in 10+ years. It was hot in the heydays of the Internet and Pentium processors, reading reviews about CPU and motherboard performance really helped in deciding what to buy when a top of the line computer was already obsolete a year later.
Progress has essentially halted since 15+ years. Back then a new computer really coud do something the old one didn't even dreamt of. Now what can the new generation of CPU do? Watch YouTube shorts even shorter? :) Or the new Android or Apple phone? Send more pictures on WhatsApp? Literally don't see any difference between my current phone / computer compared to what I had 10 years ago. (I don't play games, maybe there it's visible somewhat).
Anyhow, it was nice while it lasted but all good things must come to an end ... Bye Anandtech, you will be remembered.
Progress has essentially halted since 15+ years. Back then a new computer really coud do something the old one didn't even dreamt of. Now what can the new generation of CPU do? Watch YouTube shorts even shorter? :) Or the new Android or Apple phone? Send more pictures on WhatsApp? Literally don't see any difference between my current phone / computer compared to what I had 10 years ago. (I don't play games, maybe there it's visible somewhat).
Anyhow, it was nice while it lasted but all good things must come to an end ... Bye Anandtech, you will be remembered.
Knew them for most of their existence, though I never actually read them that often.
On the one hand a bittersweet end to a familiar editorial, on the other hand a deserved end to one of many "journalism" outlets. No, I don't have a good opinion of journalists.
In any case, RIP.
On the one hand a bittersweet end to a familiar editorial, on the other hand a deserved end to one of many "journalism" outlets. No, I don't have a good opinion of journalists.
In any case, RIP.
What killed it? that's terrible
For Anandtech to shut down means we are headed for a major recession.
Wait what is happening?
I'd like to bring AnandTech content to the public domain. Put it on the world wide scroll.
Let me know if I can help [email protected]
I'd like to bring AnandTech content to the public domain. Put it on the world wide scroll.
Let me know if I can help [email protected]
From the article:
> Our publisher, Future PLC, will be keeping the AnandTech website and its many articles live indefinitely. So that all of the content we’ve created over the years remains accessible and citable.
> Our publisher, Future PLC, will be keeping the AnandTech website and its many articles live indefinitely. So that all of the content we’ve created over the years remains accessible and citable.
[deleted]
Maybe a potential acquirer could start a video team to catchup with modern times.
I am not super familiar with AnandTech, but I question the idea that "tech journalism" is dead or dying. Marques Brownlee has almost 20 million subscribers on YouTube. Consumer Reports has 6 million members. Etc.
The difference, I think, is that media is shifting to video as the default, for better or worse. Looking at their YouTube channel, AnandTech only has about 20,000 subscribers, which looks like they never quite figured out how to transfer their content into video format.
The difference, I think, is that media is shifting to video as the default, for better or worse. Looking at their YouTube channel, AnandTech only has about 20,000 subscribers, which looks like they never quite figured out how to transfer their content into video format.
Video was a mistake. Even high quality YouTube tech channels (like GamersNexus) work far better in a text format where you can compare benchmark results without running the video in mpv, taking dozens of screenshots, and then painstakingly comparing them. And that channel has a charismatic anchor, unlike many.
At least they have a website with the same material.
Have a look at rtings and try to come up with an idea how to make this work in a video format:
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/sony/wh-1000xm4-wi...
https://www.rtings.com/mouse/reviews/logitech/g305-lightspee...
without losing 90% of information and getting shitty jokes instead.
At least they have a website with the same material.
Have a look at rtings and try to come up with an idea how to make this work in a video format:
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/sony/wh-1000xm4-wi...
https://www.rtings.com/mouse/reviews/logitech/g305-lightspee...
without losing 90% of information and getting shitty jokes instead.
It doesn't really matter if it "was a mistake," because it's what the market is asking for. Cars were probably a mistake ecologically, vs. horses, but it's what we've got.
Horses caused a huge pollution problem in urban areas. By the 1890s, New York City had over 100,000 horses, which produced over 2.5 million pounds of manure per day. The streets were covered with manure and dead horse carcuses. Cars were seen as the far cleaner alternative.
> it's what the market is asking for
Facebook, for example, famously misrepresented market demand for video. Video is what advertisers were asking for: https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/facebook-online-video-p...
Facebook, for example, famously misrepresented market demand for video. Video is what advertisers were asking for: https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/facebook-online-video-p...
Was the market asking for tech review videos, or was the market asking for a platform that helps select, curate, and present content?
If this trend were merely about format, then websites that just host videos would be a viable model - they're not really. I think this is more about the power of platforms than of the format.
I'm sure the format _also_ helps, given how donation-dependent small-scale publishers are which works best if publishers are humanized, but I'd guess the more impactful matter is the way platforms can keep consumers onboard and help them discover new publishers than the format.
If this trend were merely about format, then websites that just host videos would be a viable model - they're not really. I think this is more about the power of platforms than of the format.
I'm sure the format _also_ helps, given how donation-dependent small-scale publishers are which works best if publishers are humanized, but I'd guess the more impactful matter is the way platforms can keep consumers onboard and help them discover new publishers than the format.
My experience is that for 95% of people under the age of 30, their media consumption is almost entirely video. That's simply the way it is, fortunately or unfortunately. And these tech review YouTube channels seems to do quite well for themselves, dramatically better than the equivalent text-only sites.
A large portion of people are genuinely or functionally illiterate. Like we're supposed to pitch general material at ~ a 5th or 6th grade reading level because that's the average. Half of people can't even do that. I have daily encounters with adults who work corporate jobs/own businesses who can't interpret compound sentences. I can't use conjunctions or sentences with multiple clauses, etc.
This is going to get worse: the elementary and middle school teachers/education professionals have been screaming at us that there's a major issue with reading in the upcoming generation due to a change in how many schools taught reading for several years that turned out to be a horrible idea. Add the pandemic on top of it (because losing a year of learning is a big deal at the elementary school level), and now we have a generation who can't read.
I think we're going back to having a literate class and a non-literate class, honestly. I can't see us putting in the time, money, and effort to fix the situation. Instead we'll just change formats (and probably have a bunch of middle men pop up that turn text into video with AI for the illiterate).
We're never going to see general purpose text again as a culture. Text will only be primary in certain audiences. (Lawyers, software people, librarians, etc.)
This is going to get worse: the elementary and middle school teachers/education professionals have been screaming at us that there's a major issue with reading in the upcoming generation due to a change in how many schools taught reading for several years that turned out to be a horrible idea. Add the pandemic on top of it (because losing a year of learning is a big deal at the elementary school level), and now we have a generation who can't read.
I think we're going back to having a literate class and a non-literate class, honestly. I can't see us putting in the time, money, and effort to fix the situation. Instead we'll just change formats (and probably have a bunch of middle men pop up that turn text into video with AI for the illiterate).
We're never going to see general purpose text again as a culture. Text will only be primary in certain audiences. (Lawyers, software people, librarians, etc.)
Can confirm, English teacher friends report that reading ability is dropping with each year and is now so bad they’re concerned about the survival of literate society, period. “Advanced” kids struggle with books that were considered normal for their age in the 80s or 90s. Compound sentences are exactly part of the problem these teachers have highlighted—the kids can’t keep enough context in their heads to track what’s going on through multiple clauses, even the simple sort that were common in writing for kids within the last 50 years.
Right, it's a perfect storm.
And I really do think we'll just give up on the idea of literacy being required in society as that generation grows up. Fixing it would be too much work and cost too much money/time, and would be incompatible with current American social values. I also genuinely do think a lot of Boomers and Gen X have mild lead poisoning, so our elders are probably also going to struggle more the older they get. (Who knows, maybe the microplastics are also eating the contextual reasoning parts of our brains and we'll have the same problem.) So if 80% of society isn't functionally literate, functional literacy will go away as an information requirement for the average citizen.
I wouldn't be shocked if literacy becomes a college level skill that's only taught until students stop having to consult sources/teaching materials from before the 2010s/2020s. There will be a few exceptions, like the historians, but eventually literacy is going to be seen as an eccentric skill that used to be a sign of culture but is no longer relevant. (As an example, my basic knowledge of Latin would be very impressive in a lot of historical periods but in 2024 America it's just a weird personal quirk.)
And I really do think we'll just give up on the idea of literacy being required in society as that generation grows up. Fixing it would be too much work and cost too much money/time, and would be incompatible with current American social values. I also genuinely do think a lot of Boomers and Gen X have mild lead poisoning, so our elders are probably also going to struggle more the older they get. (Who knows, maybe the microplastics are also eating the contextual reasoning parts of our brains and we'll have the same problem.) So if 80% of society isn't functionally literate, functional literacy will go away as an information requirement for the average citizen.
I wouldn't be shocked if literacy becomes a college level skill that's only taught until students stop having to consult sources/teaching materials from before the 2010s/2020s. There will be a few exceptions, like the historians, but eventually literacy is going to be seen as an eccentric skill that used to be a sign of culture but is no longer relevant. (As an example, my basic knowledge of Latin would be very impressive in a lot of historical periods but in 2024 America it's just a weird personal quirk.)
> also genuinely do think a lot of Boomers and Gen X have mild lead poisoning
So do countless children and adults today. It's in a lot of people's water.
So do countless children and adults today. It's in a lot of people's water.
Fair point.
I used to live in Flint. Maybe that's why I didn't remember to mention it...
I used to live in Flint. Maybe that's why I didn't remember to mention it...
It's happening all over the country.
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium_100/p...
I have some family in Chicago who haven't been able to drink their tap water for years. The city will get around to replacing the pipes eventually, but it's a mess. (https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/05/27/chicago-lead-pipes...)
I have some family in Chicago who haven't been able to drink their tap water for years. The city will get around to replacing the pipes eventually, but it's a mess. (https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/05/27/chicago-lead-pipes...)
Well, one trend that seems to be going in the opposite direction is how many videos / shorts now have subtitles and text by default. So that will still presumably have an effect on literacy.
Even then, I think readers overestimate the amount of people that are/were actually reading serious literature. Even when literacy and books were at their peaks, most people were reading pulp novels and other low-end books.
So while I don't really disagree with you per se, I do think it's unnecessarily pessimistic, and it's a better approach to try and approach this new media format with fresh eyes and optimism.
Even then, I think readers overestimate the amount of people that are/were actually reading serious literature. Even when literacy and books were at their peaks, most people were reading pulp novels and other low-end books.
So while I don't really disagree with you per se, I do think it's unnecessarily pessimistic, and it's a better approach to try and approach this new media format with fresh eyes and optimism.
I like how much more prevalent subtitles are now, but I don't think that most people are going to read them. People are astoundingly good at ignoring things they've decided are irrelevant.
> Even then, I think readers overestimate the amount of people that are/were actually reading serious literature. Even when literacy and books were at their peaks, most people were reading pulp novels and other low-end books.
Oh, absolutely. People into 'serious' literature have always been a minority and definitely never close to the average person's experience with the written word. I think what we're seeing is more that less literacy is needed to be functional in society. The average PMC/middle class person in the 1970s needed a higher rate of literacy than they do in 2024 because video used to be a lot more expensive to create and disseminate: I work in corporate training and the videos we create now would have been handbooks or factsheets in the 70s/80s. For domain specific or technical knowledge, the written word was basically the only option for several decades (aside from like...audio tapes, which have their own issues). Housewives used to have to grab different flyers from grocery stores and price compare, everyone had to be able to read maps (with no spoken directions), mechanics had to consult the Giant Car Books, etc. This did present a lot of problems for people who didn't or couldn't reach that level of literacy for whatever reason, and I'm glad those people (e.g. those with dyslexia, those who were forced to read in a language they didn't know well, etc.) have better options now.
> So while I don't really disagree with you per se, I do think it's unnecessarily pessimistic, and it's a better approach to try and approach this new media format with fresh eyes and optimism.
I'm neutral on the shift from a societal perspective. My main point of judgement is more 'our changes are happening because we lack the political will to address issues' rather than the changes themselves. For example, if we want to commit to video being the default form, we should have video literacy classes in the same way we did written literacy: People should know basic video creation techniques, be able to determine what makes a video more/less trustworthy, how to effectively navigate through a video, how to use videos as reference pieces, etc. I'm displeased because the post-literate world is coming about due to a failure of education and governance rather than due to the positives of video. But objectively, the shift from the written word to video isn't any worse than the shift from oral tradition to the written word. It also makes sense since humans learn by imitation and are very visual animals.
I'm personally pessimistic, but that's because I'm visually impaired, so everything being primarily focused on inalterable visuals is a loss for me (whereas an article I can make big text/zoom/print/whatever for accessibility purposes), but I've also been sad about that since Instagram started and made everything about pictures. Video is an improvement there: At least I can follow videos by sound.
> Even then, I think readers overestimate the amount of people that are/were actually reading serious literature. Even when literacy and books were at their peaks, most people were reading pulp novels and other low-end books.
Oh, absolutely. People into 'serious' literature have always been a minority and definitely never close to the average person's experience with the written word. I think what we're seeing is more that less literacy is needed to be functional in society. The average PMC/middle class person in the 1970s needed a higher rate of literacy than they do in 2024 because video used to be a lot more expensive to create and disseminate: I work in corporate training and the videos we create now would have been handbooks or factsheets in the 70s/80s. For domain specific or technical knowledge, the written word was basically the only option for several decades (aside from like...audio tapes, which have their own issues). Housewives used to have to grab different flyers from grocery stores and price compare, everyone had to be able to read maps (with no spoken directions), mechanics had to consult the Giant Car Books, etc. This did present a lot of problems for people who didn't or couldn't reach that level of literacy for whatever reason, and I'm glad those people (e.g. those with dyslexia, those who were forced to read in a language they didn't know well, etc.) have better options now.
> So while I don't really disagree with you per se, I do think it's unnecessarily pessimistic, and it's a better approach to try and approach this new media format with fresh eyes and optimism.
I'm neutral on the shift from a societal perspective. My main point of judgement is more 'our changes are happening because we lack the political will to address issues' rather than the changes themselves. For example, if we want to commit to video being the default form, we should have video literacy classes in the same way we did written literacy: People should know basic video creation techniques, be able to determine what makes a video more/less trustworthy, how to effectively navigate through a video, how to use videos as reference pieces, etc. I'm displeased because the post-literate world is coming about due to a failure of education and governance rather than due to the positives of video. But objectively, the shift from the written word to video isn't any worse than the shift from oral tradition to the written word. It also makes sense since humans learn by imitation and are very visual animals.
I'm personally pessimistic, but that's because I'm visually impaired, so everything being primarily focused on inalterable visuals is a loss for me (whereas an article I can make big text/zoom/print/whatever for accessibility purposes), but I've also been sad about that since Instagram started and made everything about pictures. Video is an improvement there: At least I can follow videos by sound.
Maybe rebuses will come back in a big way.
OT: you are the same mezzie as mezzie was?
OT: you are the same mezzie as mezzie was?
I am!
I chop my accounts every once in a while so I don't get too attached to them/so my karma doesn't influence how people receive my ideas.
I also take breaks for a few months from each social site fairly regularly to ensure that they're not slowly boiling my brain into brain rot.
I chop my accounts every once in a while so I don't get too attached to them/so my karma doesn't influence how people receive my ideas.
I also take breaks for a few months from each social site fairly regularly to ensure that they're not slowly boiling my brain into brain rot.
Sure, but the least we can do is support the few sane places that still remain, like rtings. Lest they follow the way of AnandTech and we're forced to scroll through hours of video to get the same information contained in a ten-minute text article, with interactive charts and comparison tools.
I agree, but unfortunately that support doesn't seem to be widespread enough to sustain these kinds of things.
At this point, I think efforts would be better placed in making a method that enables videos to be viewed in a way akin to text. AI transcription tools are getting there, so I think it might just be a matter of time.
At this point, I think efforts would be better placed in making a method that enables videos to be viewed in a way akin to text. AI transcription tools are getting there, so I think it might just be a matter of time.
I don't agree that the market (consumers) are asking for video, they just refuse to pay for words, while Google (not the consumer) will pay for videos.
Video is increasingly becoming the dominant way people use the internet:
As of 2023, roughly 65% of all internet traffic came from video sites,[4] up from 51% in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_traffic
As of 2023, roughly 65% of all internet traffic came from video sites,[4] up from 51% in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_traffic
The article hints at this, with the following sentence: "Still, few things last forever, and the market for written tech journalism is not what it once was – nor will it ever be again" (emphasis on the written).
Yeah, it's just weird to me that this entity with a big following and storied history isn't willing to adapt to the times, or even get a little creative and figure out how to do longform video combined with longform text.
I don't think Marques is a tech journalist. He is a consumer goods journalist.You wouldn't see videos about architecture of Zen processor and their impact from Marques. Not a criticism, different fields.
I would describe him as a tech enthusiast.
His content doesn't have the journalistic quality that feels like he is going out and digging for stories etc. The content is given to him by companies and he chooses to showcase what he is given.
There is not really anything wrong with that either but I don't expect any real scoops to come from his channel.
His content doesn't have the journalistic quality that feels like he is going out and digging for stories etc. The content is given to him by companies and he chooses to showcase what he is given.
There is not really anything wrong with that either but I don't expect any real scoops to come from his channel.
I agree, but so does the article; I quote:
"Still, few things last forever, and the market for written tech journalism is not what it once was – nor will it ever be again."
>I am not super familiar with AnandTech
>Marques Brownlee ( MKBHD )
I think comparing Anandtech to MKBHD is quite offensive. There is at least multiple order of magnitude difference.
>Marques Brownlee ( MKBHD )
I think comparing Anandtech to MKBHD is quite offensive. There is at least multiple order of magnitude difference.
For worse.
The main reason for tech journalism being more sustainable on YouTube is non-skippable ads and the recommendation algorithm.
The main reason for tech journalism being more sustainable on YouTube is non-skippable ads and the recommendation algorithm.
Unlike a random blog, I can pay YouTube to remove all the ads. I watch GN videos, and they get paid, but I never see ads other than GN's sponsor message and merch which are trivial to skip.
Compare AnandTech which has always been a user-hostile visual insult. The whole article is covered in ads. You can barely find the words. The articles are needlessly split over 25 pages so you click and load over and over. They really pioneered a lot of bad patterns.
Compare AnandTech which has always been a user-hostile visual insult. The whole article is covered in ads. You can barely find the words. The articles are needlessly split over 25 pages so you click and load over and over. They really pioneered a lot of bad patterns.
> I can pay YouTube to remove all the ads
Yes, and I do that myself, but most people don’t, and the overall model wouldn’t work without the ads.
Yes, and I do that myself, but most people don’t, and the overall model wouldn’t work without the ads.
I'm more optimistic. Video may be clunky and largely difficult to search within now, but in the near future, with AI transcription and some kind of new UI, will become as easy to access as text is today.