> Pebble proves that a simple, shallow, and linear menu system works great!
Hard to say this is true when Garmin watches are far more successful than Pebble. That aside, the forerunner is a sports watch first where you want lots of physical buttons that don't get bothered by sweat. The better Garmin comparison is the Venu series which only have two buttons https://www.garmin.com/en-US/c/wearables-smartwatches/?serie....
I'm making a subjective comparison here, true. But spend fifteen minutes with each company's watches and you'll see what I mean.
> Hard to say this is true when Garmin watches are far more successful than Pebble.
A company's success != UX efficacy. That's like saying Apple's products had terrible UX in 1997 because they were flailing up against their Microsoft counterparts of the same era, despite the fact that Apple's UX guidelines of the nineties are regularly raised here as a rubric for UX evaluation, even against Apple's own modern products!
> The better Garmin comparison is the Venu series which only have two buttons
I'm not sure you've ever used a Pebble, but Pebble OS is entirely button-driven with four buttons, whereas the Forerunner and Instinct have five. I've never used a Venu, but isn't it primarily touchscreen-driven?
(yes, the upcoming pebble watches do have touchscreens, but I believe that's just for use in apps and watchfaces, not navigating the system)
> Hard to say this is true when Garmin watches are far more successful than Pebble
This may not be true for long, honestly. Pebble hasn't made watches in years, and I wouldn't be surprised if within 2-4 years they were selling more units than Garmin. The Pebble UI is a dream, especially compared to Garmin. I could never get my parents to get a Garmin, but a Pebble could totally work for them. Super intuitive, hardly needs charging, gives them notifications when they're in a different room than their phone, always-on/always-readable screen.
Very unlikely. The reason Garmin watches are successful is because they've carved out an audience (athletes, health and exercise focused). Pebble might have a nice UI but most people would be better off with an Apple Watch or whatever the current flavour of the week is on Android
I think a lot of people bought AWs because they seemed like the right thing to get, integrated easily, and were more or less easy to use.
But most people I know who have AWs don't use most of the functionalities they provide. If you went up to 20 random AW wearers and ask them if they would give up a bunch of features they don't use (like the awful Siri assistant) in exchange for 15-30x the battery life, I think a lot of them would say yes.
Add onto that the fact that Pebbles are cheaper than AWs, and I think we're going to see a non-trivial number of people "upgrading" from AWs to Pebbles when the batteries start to degrade.
Ironically, I just talked to all my mates about our Apple Watches, and universally Siri on your wrist for setting timers and replying to messages with voice, completely hands free, was the killer app that everyone agreed on.
Setting a timer is as simple as bringing your wrist to your face and saying the amount of time.
I literally only use Siri on my Apple Watch, I’ve only triggered it accidentally on my iPhone and have the hot word disabled on all my other devices. Of course, all I ever use it for is setting timers and alarms on the watch, but still…
I doubt most consumers would care if you could sideload apps on their iOS device or play PlayStation and Nintendo games on their Xbox. In fact most consumers would be all for it!
They buy these things because they find there's already enough value there.
I don't think so - the hugely negative perception of virus-laden wildlands on Android (which is somewhat true! most people could be tricked into bypassing the security prompts) makes people choose a safer option time after time.
You could absolutely make the case that users ought to be smarter, use technology as a power user, etc, but that's not the reality at the moment.
> the hugely negative perception of virus-laden wildlands on Android
I... don't see this in real life? There have always been San Bernadino-emboldened Apple customers that love to dunk on Android security, but recently that's gone away. Trojan horses are making it through[0] Apple's manual review, NSO Group has working exploits more often than not, the US government has wiretapped Push Notifications[1] and Apple has seemingly slowed their persecution of organized hacking groups.
iOS is in a post-Pegasus world. Android was perceived to be vulnerable if you downloaded the wrong app; iOS was proven to be vulnerable if you received an SMS payload from any user. And Apple has admitted that they cannot even really detect it[2] anymore. Neither educated users nor common people are associating Apple with security, especially now.
Sorry but comparing NSO Group's state actor malware to the tens of thousands of Android malware campaigns targeting everyone's bank account is so completely bad-faith. Every single thing you point to on iOS is about 10000x worse on Android; even if you look straight to state actors, Cellebrite can crack almost every android ever, whereas iPhones take at least a few years and the latest models are almost always protected.
That's ignoring the fact that literally zero average consumers are even targeted by these groups, nor do they have any perception of it. The average person is worried about exactly one thing: common consumer malware.
Non technical users are absolutely unable to discern security things or keep malware out. They’re sitting ducks.
If our OSes were not polished glorified 1970s Unix and had real security isolation we could allow more freedom, paradoxically. But given that our security is awful, freedom for non technical users means the freedom to get spyware and malware.
While I won't go as far as to say that Dominos & co. are trying to run delivery entirely at cost, it is not clear to me that delivery from a shop directly vs delivery with a middle layer (having to pay lots of engineers fancy salaries mind you..) is an equivalent operation.
Remember, delivery apps take the costs and then their cut. That cut theoretically has some pressure from markets or whatever, but ... well.....
> they only collapse when nearly everyone is finally convinced they never will
I get that rationale in some bubbles as that means people are not parking their money as cash where they can buy the dip and support the market (tell me if I'm widely off). But I think this case is different because there's actually VAST sums of money being spent in AI by some very big players who will need an return.
This is fair but it's also assuming that today's AI has reached its potential which frankly I don't think any of us know. There's a lot of investment being spent in compute and research from a lot of different players and we could definitely make some breakthroughs. I doubt many of us would've predicted even the progress we've had in the last few years before chatGPT came out.
I think the bubble will be defined on whether these investments pan out in the next two years or if we just have small incremental progress like gpt4 to gpt5, not what products are made with today's llm. It remains to be seen.
> It's always baffled me how the same candidates that claim to be pro labor and pro environment are also pro globalization. The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections.
Why's that? The jobs and lives of individuals in those countries are better than the alternatives present otherwise to them. Globalization may hurt certain America jobs but certainly countries like India is grateful for all of the engineering roles.
High consumerism is harmful to the environment but I don't think the link between offshoring jobs is direct to environmental harms and certainly it's helpful to giving more job opportunites.
Insofar as a "pro-labour" position exists in practice it has to be anti-globalist. If pro-labour is going to mean something it has to mean trying to get labour a better deal than a free market would offer, otherwise it isn't really taking a position on labour at all. A key part of globalism is it makes it impossible for labour in any given country to avoid being paid the market price for their labour.
Environmentalism is similar. Globalism fixes the amount of pollution globally to the market optimum where presumably an environmentalist wants to control pollution using some other system than markets.
You seem to be arguing that globalism makes the world better off. I agree, but that is because pro-labour and pro-environmentalist ideologies are pretty explicit that they aren't trying to maximise the general welfare. A situation where one soul works very hard and happily for little pay making things for everyone else could be a good outcome for everyone (see also: economic comparative advantage). The pro-labour position would resist that outcome on the basis that the labourer is not making very much money. And the environmentalist would probably be unhappy with the amount of pollution that the hard work generates. The globalist would call it a win.
Globalism as an ideology is distinct from globalization of trade. Globalists would argue for expansive supranational regulatory controls. Migration and alleged environmental concerns are typical rationalizations for their expanding powers. The distinction is better understood as between a set of liberal, laissez-faire trade policies and an emerging illiberal supranational regulatory state.
Specifically when you say:
>Globalism fixes the amount of pollution globally to the market optimum where presumably an environmentalist wants to control pollution using some other system than markets.
We can observe that the Globalist organizations regard not just pollution, but carbon consumption to be something which markets cannot be trusted to manage. Instead they propose top-down regulatory management on a supranational level.
> If pro-labour is going to mean something it has to mean trying to get labour a better deal than a free market would offer, otherwise it isn't really taking a position on labour at all
I think you're assuming here that 'a better deal' means 'more money than someone else', whereas lots of people would define it as 'everyone has more rights/security'.
I'm very much free trade and pro-globalization, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a candidate for political office in country X should be most concerned about the overall welfare of the citizens of country X, then next for the non-citizen residents of country X, then non-citizen/non-residents last. We can argue how steep the dropoff should be, but I think most people would believe that the ordering is that one, with some possible ties.
Overall welfare is about more than just income though. It’s about national security, the cost of living, and the benefits of things like innovation, technology, culture.
Let’s look at US imports from China. Last year that was $462bn worth of goods. Suppose the development of China never happened and all those goods were manufactured in the USA instead. That’s impossible, the US doesn’t have tens of millions of industrial workers lying around spare to do those mostly low end, low value jobs and if it did they would cost more and the goods would all be much more expensive. So the cost of living would go up, the economy would less efficient because many workers would be doing lower value add jobs than they are now. The country would be much worse off overall. It would basically amount to enormous government subsidies and protections for vast swathes of lower value assembly work than what many people are doing now.
I support global trade because I think it’s best for the west. Not hyper-liberal ultra free market trade. Negotiated, rules based, moderately regulated trade and investment that is balanced to meet domestic and international needs.
In the recent podcast Balaji said, both Red and Blue America will start hating Tech for distinct reasons. Red America will hate for H1Bs. Blue will hate for AI displacing high paying white collar jobs.
They may not care about Suresh specifically, but they're probably happier than if no one in their country had a well-paying tech job. Suresh and his tech worker colleagues don't sit on Scrooge McDuck piles of gold coins; instead they spend the money in their country and community.
I'm pretty sure my local pizza shop, waitstaff, and other small businesses are happy to have my money spent on their products and services. They don't care that I have a tech job, but they do care that I spend money with them, and spending money with them is only one degree of separation from having a job.
I could see that being the case in a scenario where all countries had strong labor protections. However, in practice globalism tends to result in jobs being exported from countries with strong protections to countries with weak protections. In that sense it is anti-labor.
In the case of bringing in workers; those workers are less likely to join unions or demand good working conditions since they are effectively indentured servants. That also is bad for labor.
That's a little reductive. I grew up in San Diego and went to school in LA and had the same experience with taxis - never took them. But now I use ubers in those cities whenever I'm there.
The US has tons of cities like this that I imagine would have issues with taxis - all parts of the bay area peninsula / east bay, cities in Texas, Denver, etc. Most cities are not like the NYC/Boston and even in places in Chicago, unless you lived downtown likely didn't see taxis driving around.
Well I can disagree with you and can tell you that more money would solve my money problems, particularly with my housing and being able to buy / rent a bigger place.
Hard to say this is true when Garmin watches are far more successful than Pebble. That aside, the forerunner is a sports watch first where you want lots of physical buttons that don't get bothered by sweat. The better Garmin comparison is the Venu series which only have two buttons https://www.garmin.com/en-US/c/wearables-smartwatches/?serie....