The question isn't "what is the lowest cost that a CSS library could be maintained for"
The question is rather, how can the most popular UI system (especially for AI models) have a healthy business model?
Think of the immense value that Tailwind is bringing to all the companies and developers using it. Surely there should be a way for the creators to capture a small slice of that in our economic system.
> the most popular UI system (especially for AI models)
Like others earlier in the thread I'm symphatetic to this company/project, but your code/project being referenced often in AI output in itself doesn't imply that the thing needs to be a business.
bash, curl, awk, Python code with numpy imports, C++, all sorts of code is constantly being generated by AI, doesn't mean curl or numpy should be its own company, or that the AI Labs need to fund them.
As other fave written, making $1M+ already feels like a lot, maybe this shouldn't be a company, just 1-2 people who have a great time supporting this thing. I wonder if curl or awk have that kind of funding even..
Apparently they have an annual budget of ~$10M. From the contributors, it's easy to recognize the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (so Meta), Google, MSFT. This is great.
Having said that, I'd still say that $1-2M for a CSS library seems more than enough. Not everything needs to be "scaled"..
That’s the All Modern Digital Infrastructure relying on a dependency a Nebraskan has been thanklessly maintaining since 2003 one: https://xkcd.com/2347/
> The question is rather, how can the most popular UI system (especially for AI models) have a healthy business model?
My question is why does it need one? Most web libraries I've used for the last few decades have not had any corporate structure and certainly haven't made a profit. They're done because someone wanted to showcase their skills and others got involved to help, or for fun or because a company who does something else built them internally and decided to open source.
We don't need to apply capitalism to everything. Not everything needs a profit and scale.
Profit is the life blood of a business. It’s what pays for, mistakes, new ideas, responding to changes in the market. It tells you your are doing good things and that you are doing them well
It’s the engineering tolerance that allows a company to operate and remain reliable.
It’s amazing to me that engineers don’t understand this concept.
I think you've missed my point. Most of the libraries I'm talking about are not part of a business. And they didn't need anything to pay for mistakes, new ideas, etc.
I understand companies needing to profit, my question is why does an open source library need a company?
> I understand companies needing to profit, my question is why does an open source library need a company?
Because people like to eat and have homes and not everyone wants to work full time on someone else's code and then come home and work full time on their own. Because paying people for the work that they do is a good thing.
OpenAI, Anthropic, Loveable, Figma and others meaningfully sponsoring Tailwind seems like a no-brainer. They want it to thrive because it makes their generated code much better.
It seems like every (coding) AI model out there is generating html with TailwindCSS styling.
@adam: this is just an idea. Have you tried reaching out to OpenAI, Anthropic et al to become sponsors of tailwind? Could that be a viable revenue path?
Maybe you could offer LLM friendly docs to them, or access to something valuable for them? Or maybe they’re just happy to sponsor.
Tailwind and its popularity make LLM’s more valuable, so I’m sure the model makers want Tailwind to thrive.
The main difference is that slash commands are invoked by humans, whereas skills can only be invoked by the agent itself. It works kinda as conditional instructions.
As an example, I have skills that aide in adding more detail to plans/specs, debugging, and for spinning up/partitioning subagents to execute tasks. I don't need to invoke a slash command each time, and the agent can contextually know by the instructions I give it what skills to use.
In the reddit thread Boris says they’re adding the ability to call skills via slash commands in an upcoming release and that he uses the term skill and slash commands interchangeably.
I believe slash commands are all loaded into the initial context and executed when invoked by the user. Skills on the other hand only load the name and description into initial context, and the agent (not user) determines when to invoke them, and only then is the whole skill loaded into context. So skills shift decision making to the agent and use progressive disclosure for context efficiency.
An immense amount of abuse is being done to "consumers" because most people don't have a mental model for how expensive subscriptions are and end up counting them as nearly free, because they are not even tomorrow's problem, but next month's problem. Entire industries run on that principle, like the burgeoning buy now pay later space (which promise no interest but I promise you they're not making money on a whole bunch of "0% interest" loans so you do the math). Meanwhile companies love the recurring revenue. It's a perfect storm of corporate greed meeting a consumer blindspot.
Even if they "knew" they may well have not been accounting for it properly. I've been annualizing all my subscription fees for a long time now and dealing with the resulting number, but that's still an unpopular approach. Subscription fees are bleeding more people than ever dry.
“I've been annualizing all my subscription fees for a long time now and dealing with the resulting number, but that's still an unpopular approach.”
This is my trick. I simply take the monthly price and multiply am by ten to quickly get a crude imperfect annual cost (adding two more months if I wanted to be exact)
Then I’ll look and go gee is this thing actually worth $150 or whatever the value is and ask “or more” assuming I wouldn’t cancel?
The answer is usually no. I’m slowly teaching this trick to my elementary school daughter.
Are most people really this naive? I might be "the exception", and have had this discussion with friend _who are accountants no less_ and they all consider the monthly price "cheaper" than when presented as a yearly price.
Should we start a "subscription review day": make a list of all your subscriptions, change them to yearly amounts and ask yourselves "am I getting that much value out of it"?
But they have scale. A small company will save less because it’s not that much more work to handle say a 100 node kubernetes cluster vs a 10 node kubernetes cluster.
Self hosting nowadays is way way way way easier than you're thinking. I'm involved working with various political campaigns and the first thing I help every team do is provision a 10 year old laptop, flash linux, and setup a DDNS. A $100 investment is more than enough for a campaign of 10-20ish dedicated workers that will only be hitting this system one/two users at a time. If I can teach a random 70 year old retiree or 16 year old on how to type a dozen different commands, I'm sure a paid professional can learn too.
People need to realize that when you selfhost you can choose to follow physical business constraints. If no one is in the office to turn on a computer, you're good. Also consumer hardware is so powerful (even 10 year old hardware) that can easily handle 100k monthly active users, which is barely 3k daily users, and I doubt most SMBs actually need to handle anything beyond 500 concurrent users hardware wise. So if that's the choice it comes down to writing better and more performant software, which is what is lacking nowadays.
People don't realize how good modern tooling + hardware has come. You can get by with very little if you want.
I'd bet my years salary that a good 40% of AWS customers could probably be fine with a single self hosted server using basic plug in play FOSS software on consumer hardware.
People in our industry have been selling massive lies on the need for scalability, the amount of companies that require such scalability are quite small in reality. You don't need a rocket ship to walk 2 blocks, and it often feels like this is the case in our industry.
If self hosting is "too scary" for your business, you can buy a $10 VPS but after one single year you can probably find decade old hardware that is faster than what you pay for.
I'm in your camp but I go for the cheap VPS. Lightsail and DigitalOcean are amazing -- for $10/mo or less you get a cheap little box that's essentially everything you describe, but with all the peace of mind that comes from not worrying about physical security, physical backups, dynamic IPs/DDNS, and running out of storage space. You're right that almost nobody needs most of the stuff that AWS/GCP/Azure can do, but some things in the cloud are worth paying for.
Yea absolutely this. This is what I was saying, so like having a vps for starting out definitely makes sense. Like, I think when it starts making sense to build your own cloud is around the 500-1000$ mark per month
I searched hetzner and honestly at just around the 500 mark (506.04) seeing it on their refurbished auction for sale, I can get around 1024 GB of ram AMD EPYC 7502 2 x 1.92 TB Datacenter SSD
In this ramflation imagine getting so much ram would cost a bank.
Like I love homelabbing too and I think that an old laptop sometimes can be enough for basic things to even more modern things but I did some calculations and colocrossing or the professional renting model or even buying new hardware model in this ramflation would probably not work.
It's sad but like, the only place it might make sense is if you can get yourself a good firewall and have an old laptop or server and will do something like this but even then I have heard it be described as not worth it by many but I think its an interesting experiment.
Also regarding the 1024 GB of ram's, holy.. I wonder how many programs need so much ram. I will still do homelabbing and things but like, y'know I am kinda hard pressed in how much we can recommend if ramflation is so much and that's when I saw someone originally writing saying 100x I really wondered how much is enough and at what scale or what others think
Yea, but admit that I am right that it is not that much harder to manage 100 nodes vs 10 nodes. (At least you can agree you don’t need 10x more staff to manage 100 nodes instead of 10)
That’s the key. If you need one person or 3 persons doesn’t matter. The point is the salaries are fixed costs.
You are right, but it's a feature of Kubernetes actually. If you treat nodes as cattle, then it doesn't matter if there is 10 or 100 or 1000, as long as the apiserver can survive the load and upgrades don't take too long (though upgrades/maintenance can be done slowly for even days without any problems).
But all the stateful crap (like databases) gets trickier and harder the more machines you have.
Ah sorry, I completely misread. You are right, and to add another dimension even when you choose to go to the cloud you still have to hire nearly the same amount of personal to deal with those tools. I've never worked at a software company that didn't have devs specifically to deal with cloud issues and integrations.
A small company benefits more than anyone since it's not rocket science to learn these things so you can just put on your system administrator hat once every few weeks, would not be ideal to lose that employee which is why I always suggest a couple of people picking up this very useful skill.
But I don't know much about how it is a real world and normal 9 to 5 I have taken up jobs from system administration to reverse engineering and to even making plugins and infrastructure for minecraft I generally only work these days when people don't have any other choice and need someone who is pretty good at everything so I am completely out of the loop.
It takes me almost equal time to manage a Kubernetes cluster with 10 nodes as with 100 nodes. If I have to spend say 5 hours per month and with a cost of say 100 usd/hour it means it cost 500 usd/month to manage. If leaving cloud saves say 100 usd/node from 200 usd/node it means for a small company its cost would be (10100)+500=1500 usd/month which is a cost reduction of 25%. For a large company it would be greater (100100)+500=10500 which means a 47.5% savings. Do you see why the savings are greater with scale?
Considering the fact that ramflation happened, and we assume the cost of hardware to be spread between 5 years, someone please run the numbers again.
It would be interesting to see the scale of basecamp. I just saw right now that hetzner offers 1024 GB of ram for around 500$
Um 37signals spent around 700k$ I think on servers so if someone has this much amount of money floating around, perhaps.
Yea I looked at their numbers and they mentioned a 1300$/month for just hardware for 1.3 TB and so hetzner might still make economically more sense somehow.
I think the problem for some of these is that they go too hard on the managed services and those are good sometimes as well but like, there are cheaper managed cloud than aws etc. as well (upcloud,ovh etc.) but at the end of the day, it's good to remember that if it bothers you financially, you can migrate.
Honestly do whatever you want. Start however you want because like these things definitely interest me (which is why I am here) but I think most compute providers have really gone the path of the bottom.
The problem usually feels to me when you are worried that you might break the term of service or anything similar if you are at scale or anything, not that this stops exactly being a problem with colo but that still brings more freedom
I think if one wants freedom, they can always contact some compute providers and find what can support their use case the best while still being economical. And then choose the best option from the multitude of available options.
Also vertical scaling is a beast.
I really went into learning a lot about cloud prices recently etc. so I want to ask a question but can you tell me more about the servers that 37signals brought or any other company you know of, I can probably create a list when it makes sense and when it doesn't perhaps and the best options available in markets.
Hardware with service contracts makes sense. You can probably get the hardware even cheaper is you build supermicro servers, but then you'll spend more time on hardware support.
Constrict the supply, and price goes up. It works like textbook economics.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting "et tu" here.
Or maybe you meant "free markets" instead. Modern RAM production requires enormous R&D expenses, and thus has huge moat, which means the oligopoly is pretty safe (at least in the short to medium term) from new entrants. They "just" need to keep each other in check because there will be an incentive to increase production by each individual participant.
Not OP, but one example could perhaps be American Prometheus and the Oppenheimer film. I would consider them "dominant Western narratives" about the origin of the nuclear bomb.
And like the person said, there is nothing inherently wrong with such a narrative. Like them I'm also curious about non-western narratives.
If most groups, cultures, religions, countries were more curious about "non-native" stories, maybe we'd all be a bit more open-minded and understanding.
I think Oppenheimer is pretty fair as it goes. It's pretty clear with it being the US perspective and they give credit to the other countries that they have good scientists that will figure the thing out (and they did). I think for exposing a man's experience, it's quite good. What makes me wrong? (An honest invitation to illuminate me)
The last paragraph is true, but up to the point where one becomes a useful idiot for a totalitarian state. I don't mean you, but on social media there are quite a few people like that.
What exactly are you advocating? You seem to be going back to Cold War logic.
Your initial assertion that people online criticizing the West are "often" criticizing "absurd" things is simultaneously wrong and condescending, some sort of thought-terminating cliché.
The lessons of the Cold War, a substantial duration of which I lived through, should not include "actually the American system and the Soviet system were equally bad".
The term "useful idiot" has no expiration date, and is more relevant now, in the age of social media, than ever. The world's major powers still attempt to propagandize their rivals.
> The lessons of the Cold War [...] should not include "actually the American system and the Soviet system were equally bad"
I was arguing that the Cold War, a substantial duration of which I also lived through, introduced a mistrustful "us vs them" kind of thinking that is harmful. The Soviet system is no longer relevant, and unfortunately "the end of history" didn't happen as Fukuyama predicted. What matters today are the successes but also the failings, lies, and fabrications of the systems that endured, and it's not all China.
Cold War mentality is what makes you (specifically you, in this context) mistrustful of any narratives not dictated by your country. So when someone else, as in this thread, praised an article for showing points of views other than the dominant narrative [1], you instantly questioned what the user meant, out of suspicion. You cannot deny it was suspicion, because in other comments you clarified what kind of "criticism of the West" you meant (and tellingly, you equated listening to other narratives to criticism of the West!): that "as often as not" it's "absurd" whining about Churchill or about the term "Iranian regime", or (in another comment) claiming that "China is freer than the US".
> The term "useful idiot" has no expiration date
As long as you acknowledge it's a term of propaganda. It has no value today other than as a relic of the Cold War past.
I hope you're not trying to use it as a thought-terminating cliché to criticize anyone who wants to say something about China that doesn't belong with the usual tropes.
> The world's major powers still attempt to propagandize their rivals.
Yes, though we would likely disagree about which is the major world power more likely to engage in this tactic today.
---
[1] what's even more puzzling is that I think TFA actually shows the same point of view as the Western narrative: China doing China things, secrecy, military projects, enclosed towns, executions. This wouldn't feel surprising or novel to an English-speaking reader, it would just confirm what they already thought of China!
The question is rather, how can the most popular UI system (especially for AI models) have a healthy business model?
Think of the immense value that Tailwind is bringing to all the companies and developers using it. Surely there should be a way for the creators to capture a small slice of that in our economic system.
reply