Microsoft got this right once, and it cost them big to turn up late - that was the Internet and Windows 95 and the massive u-turn. Otherwise, they've been defining stuff early a lot I think. It's hard to explain how big a turnaround they had to do back then, but then it says a lot that until they made that u-turn the leadership was so confident in their own hubris they thought they could take on the entire internet with their own crap version of AOL.
IBM invented the PC and then lost control of that identity. Figuring out how that happened is something they are going to have a meeting about, but they're still working through the meetings to plan that meeting, and the Gantt chart for those meetings takes meetings to adjust, and everybody is in meetings so doesn't have time for those meetings. They'll get to them though.
Apple consistently turn up late, but redefine and improve the status quo. They sometimes prototype early in public (for example, the Newton), but normally they show up with the version 3 that everyone else wished they'd thought of that then goes on to define a sector quite cleanly (Mac, iMac, Mac OS System X, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, Mac Mini). They Newton'ed Siri, but I'm pretty sure they're going to come back strong in the next 18 months, unless the enshitification we've all witnessed over the last few years really has taken hold and Siri is just going to automate that at scale. Maybe we will all be killed by AI, but not through malevolent evil, but widely distributed incompetence.
Meta are constantly taking swings at the latest thing the founder is excited by - the Metaverse (now with legs!), pervert glasses, and so on - but they mostly prop up a bunch of expensive failures on the back of a hugely successful advertising business. I don't think they come late to the party per se, they're just not very good at anything that isn't killing & harming children, or undermining democracy. They should stay in their lane and keep doing that, I guess.
You should never name a tech product Bob in the UK, because the moment it isn't perfect, it'll just get called "Bobbins" [0], especially where I'm from.
I wish IBM got better at product again, and took themselves off the services and consulting morphine they've been on for ~35 years now since OS/2 Warp flopped. Their 1980s/1990s hardware was great. Their software actually was great until Win95 took their lunch money. They've just slunk off into a corner hugging their old architectures they have a moat around, and thrown out some audacious nonsense like Watson now and again, but nothing has stuck. When is somebody in that organisation going to try and innovate properly again?
I'm not sure this is the answer I'd be rooting for.
We did a deal with IBM back in the day to adapt our tech as the code generation for enterprise java beans.
The commercial guy I dealt with made it very clear that a primary concern was IBM not being humiliated and shafted like their MS dealings. It colored our commercial arrangements, which had to include "break glass" arrangements for them to gain full access to our source code.
How to not learn from your mistakes and actually make them worse. I wonder how many valuable alliances they lost just because of that fear. Whoever was willing to sign was already probably not going to be a threat.
To be fair, source code escrow was for a long time a standard feature of contracts between small/medium software companies and large enterprises.
It's actually one of the reasons that open source took off in the early 2000s - if the source was already available all you needed to do was come up with a legal agreement that says something to the effect of "EnterpriseCo has a limited license to use SmallCo's software which reverts to full rights in the event that SmallCo is unable to carry out its obligations", with no need to bother arranging (and paying for) escrow.
That made it easier and cheaper to deal with open source companies, and made escrow seem weird and expensive by comparison. But in the 90s it was almost universal in those sort of contracts.
OS/2 was the only thing I remembering being great. If they practically gave it away I think we'd be living in a different world. Pre-emptive multitasking long before OSX/Windows. I mean Microsoft essentially had to force windows (eg. 3.1) down our throats until it become tolerable.
You should also never name your faulty/flaky Dell server Bob when Bob is also the name of your company president (though the president came after the server).
Calling Bob (the server) a piece of shit ("Bob is a piece of shit") because it crashed again was a very risky move that we often didn't fully think through.
As with most things on the UK, probably. I definitely used Bobbins.
I used to think everyone called (cobs|bread cakes|rolls|barns) muffins, and it turns out it was just my small town that did it. As in, just my small town, not region, county, etc.
>> I used to think everyone called (cobs|bread cakes|rolls|barns) muffins
UK regional dialects are summed up really well here because despite listing five different names for a specific thing you still neglected the word I use (baps).
If you call it a teacake, and I say no those have raisins in, and you protest that's a fruit teacake, I know you're probably from Burnley: https://www.ourdialects.uk/maps/bread/
It’s barm, with an m, from barm cakes. Barm is the frothy scummy stuff you get on top of fermented beer, and it contains yeast. Back in the day bakers would take the barm from local brewers to make weakly fermented bread rolls… barm cakes.
(So obviously those calling them cobs or rolls or whatever else are just wrong!)
Can confirm. Per the (paywalled) Oxford English Dictionary [0]: 'barm' is The froth that forms on the top of fermenting malt liquors, which is used to leaven bread, and to cause fermentation in other liquors; yeast, leaven. OR The froth or foam on the surface of beer OR English regional (chiefly Lancashire). A soft round bread roll, a barm cake.
Might also mark you out as a certain age if not from the right region - I’m familiar with it as a word for “a bit rubbish” because of listening to Mark & Lard’s late night show on Radio 1 in the 90s
Speaking of UK, I was immediately reminded of the Blackadder episode where the men-servant calls herself “Bob”. Rowan Atkinsons pronunciation is how I imagine this Bob to pronounced, with the same look of course!
IBM actually do a bunch of semiconductor research, which they license to other fabs. I'm not sure how much money they make (probably nothing compared to support contracts with banks etc), but they actually do innovate. At least, a small portion of one of their business sectors still innovates. The rest are probably engaged in aggressive IP lawsuits or taking CFOs out to strip clubs on golf courses or something.
I'm not sure where that "again" comes from. IBM has never been good a product and everybody is looking at OS/2 through glasses so rose tinted that they're essentially blind. The PC itself was a skunk-works project that was removed from their influence as soon as the rest of company got involved.
Not so much rose-colored glasses, but in comparison to MS-DOS and 16-bit Windows, 32-bit OS/2 was a dream.
Native application support was limited, and it was even less of a pure 32-bit OS than Windows 95, but for about a year it was the only game in town if you wanted to run 16-bit Windows applications with preemptive multitasking and memory protection, and still had some advantages over NT when it shipped.
I don't remember all the details, but I recall not switching to NT full-time until 3.5, and even then the UI wasn't as nice.
You're making a lot of assertions without citations here.
If I look at a BYD at my local dealership, and compare it to a comparable spec German car (I live in the UK, so tariffs are not the thing shifting the needle here), I can see where the cost savings are and the trade-offs.
I don't think they're artificially more affordable. I just think they're more affordable.
Using public funds to invest in capital expenditure is - outside of the US - considered a wise use of public funds. If the result is a more competitive industry, whether that's ship building (South Korea), steel production (recent UK nationalisation efforts), military hardware (United States), or medical research, physics, chemistry, computing (look at the history of all the G7 there), and so on, and so on... irrelevant.
China has decided to spend it on complex manufacturing that they've been the supply chain for to Western manufacturers for the last 30 years. That's not controversial - it's been obvious this is where they were heading for some time.
First off, I admit I have no idea what the EU and US car manufacturers are doing, their positions for the past decade don't make any sense to me in the electric market. Actually smells like hubris and inertia more than anything to be honest.
I'm not being super academic with citations, but the CCP investments in BYD, to the point it makes no sense to exist without aren't exactly hard to find secrets.
You're not comparing comparable things, in the UK, there is a great deal of expectations of what an employee has as rights for instance. There are extremely rigorous safety regulations that are very onerous. We can debate wether those are justified but it's a very complex topic you're brushing off. Their innovation seems mostly on small iterative gadgets, but look more closely into what they tolerate as self driving and the death it causes, and be sure you want that in the UK for profit margins.
I'm really not against neither subsidies nor artificially inflating one's strategic advantage at all to develop a market and corner the competition. I never said China is wrong to do what it's doing. What I am saying is that its dangerous for us outside of China to buy into it now. Beyond the security implications of chinese robots with sensors everywhere roaming about cities the CCP considers their ennemies, there's just the dependency risk, there's the "how much do you trust the people who fed paint to their babies to handle super dense explosives that cant be put out by water in dense cities", and the basic question, maybe its better to have the lightest car possible, not the most gadgetty with drones and ipads.
So the basic point above "China has more electric trucks therefore it makes economic sense" is helped by none of this
Not much airport shenanigans in the small island hopping nations and the fjords this is aimed at. 125 miles in 2 hours is assuming flat, straight, high-speed, low-traffic roads. Sure, people might not use these to fly SFO → LAX or back, but they likely will use them to go ABZ → LSI, and the "check-in and security shenanigans" are, errr, quite relaxed, compared to what you might be used to at JFK...
There's a ton of small routes that just aren't getting much service now because of operating costs - the founder speaks to that in the video - that this could serve.
A slightly larger aircraft able to do ~300 miles on battery and then say 1,000 in hybrid mode, might resurrect the economically unviable but relatively fast LHR/LGW flights down to NQY. The six hour drive is pretty, but... yeah...
Yeah, you need to look away from private equity investment. Mutuals, co-ops, LLPs, there's lots of other models, but VC and PE money is not where you want to be.
I have thought about this a lot over the years and tried to spot these companies - many of them are the type of business that Berkshire Hathaway would love to find.
Some of them are a little more visible simply because they’ve scaled and developed a moat - logistics, particularly trucking in the UK, and international cargo shipping, stand out here for me. But also social care, floristry and grocery wholesaling, weird sectors in aviation (I worked in that for a while), all sorts.
And then I look at family businesses that shouldn’t be able to exist all the time. In my nearest town centre there is a grocer, a fish shop and a butchers on the high street. Common sense tells us the extra large supermarket built on the outskirts of the town in the 1990s should have obliterated them, but no.
In the UK there is a common assumption that a lot of vape shops, barbers and even some takeaways are fronts for money laundering (and that definitely happens - there is a chicken shop in one Northern town I know that to my knowledge has no ability to actually sell you chicken, nor can the 4 others next door to it). But there are definitely some that are making good money via the legal route.
As a software guy I look for opportunities to sell to them and there’s one theme that stands out across many of them that is also an invisible sector: have you noticed how many small companies make and sell touchscreen tills/cash registers? In the UK it seems to be a thriving cottage industry.
I used to think that all those Persian carpet stores on University Avenue in Palo Alto were a way to get immigrants jobs in the US. But no. Turns out the carpet store guy had been renting upstairs office space to startups in exchange for an equity stake. That worked out very, very well for him.
Oriental carpet stores are interesting businesses. I always wondered how they stayed open until I met someone whose family has been in the business for several generations.
Individual sales are in the thousands, so they operate more like high-end jewelry stores than a "normal" business. One sale a day is minimum 250K/year.
The store itself seems to be more of just a show room. There are other sales routes too. Selling into hotels would be an example. There are also maintenance services, so a high end rug in some sense can be seen as a recurring revenue source.
I recall going to a carpet/tapestry shop in Turkey where, as we enjoyed the ever-present sales-pitch tea, the owner showed us his wares. After the 5 grand mark, he just stopped listing prices. For the final assortment, he brought out some exquisite silk tapestries about the size of welcome mats. He joking clarified that these were tapestries, to be hung on walls. If you bought one without having a wall to hang one on, he'd be happy to fly out and build you one.
My family is Persian and I grew up in Turkey. You definitely develop an appreciation for carpets, and it's sooooooo heartbreaking to see people use art as an entryway rug, simply because they don't know :(
Oriental carpet stores seem to be doing alright still in the bay; less so in Manhattan, though you would think the same opportunity to rent property to startups could exist. Many of them have shut down or are only open by appointment. None of them offer the personal service I suspect the author is insinuating exists still. Near as I know that level of bespoke care died off a couple of decades ago unless you are very wealthy. No doubt the competition (but not competition) of sites like etsy, temu, ebay, and the large number of people who think things look sorta like something nicer contributed to the death of the end-to-end streets of Persian carpet stores. I still remember purchasing a knock off for under $85 during the dotcom boom. Nothing was individually dyed; it was all mostly just meant to look that way, like most 'oriental' carpet now. The materiels going into making the new-fangled rug bears no resemblence to those which make an old-style one. God-forbid you drop the wrong beverage or something on a really good old hand-made rug and the dye runs. Shopping in those large Persian rug stores are still lovely, when you can find one that is open (by appointment or not). They rarely have posted hours either.
I had a phase when we bought several rugs at the price point you're talking about and also found some "subprime" sources of rugs that were authentic but not so go good and much more affordable.
Then I had a house full of oriental rugs and haven't needed a new one ever since.
Furniture in general is a low turnover industry and tough.
One of the ironic reasons that Ikea/Wayfair do well is their stuff looks good but is basically garbage and can't survive a move or two so people are forced to buy from them more often than they would with better brands. Better brands are too expensive (and also a bit stodgy usually) so younger and poorer people just keep getting the same lower end stuff repeatedly.
Guitars don't seem to be like that. Like sometimes my son is talking with my son about his latest guitar with my wife and that guitar is newer than the guitar that my wife thinks is his latest guitar. If he hasn't bought a new guitar he just made a new one.
[The Amidi family through] its various holdings and brands, currently owns and manages more than 1 million square feet of real estate space along with assets under management exceeding $2 billion.
Yes. Startups which started with office space above one of his carpet stores include Logitech, Google, and PayPal. Plus, one of the carpet stores became the first Apple Store location, before Apple built the glass box.
They were loaded before owning real estate next to Stanford. It isn’t some mom and pop they were upper crust
> Rahim co-founded the Amidi Group in 1980, a conglomerate of privately-held business enterprises consisting of several domestic and international entities with significant manufacturing, distribution, trading, retail, and real estate holdings
I worked at a small bike shop in the 90s and when we had issues with our point of sales system we would call a number on the till and it connected us to the single developer who maintained all the software for it!
It’s sad that in the face of seeing AI content out there, so many writers are retreating to not feed the beast: it’s a white flag that speeds up the war being won by AI.
Per Brandolini's law, genuine writing cannot ever compete with spam. The amount of humans is relatively the same while the ease of generating convincing blogspam has increased by multiple orders of magnitude.
Yours is a nice sentiment, but we have to accept that the Web is pretty much lost.
Tech companies invested in AI: AI is amazing (so good, it might kill us all, help?), and the ROI is going to be amazing.
NVIDIA specifically: We will allocate cash in strange deals that makes it looks like we're making investments but actually we're buying sales from those companies as they'll spend the money back with us, and everyone seems to think that's OK because the share price is going stinkers.
Cynics: AI is a scourge on society, and the fiscals are circular and a scourge on the economic stability of the planet.
The more nuanced argument I take is that Zitron is right about the circular finances and hyperinflation of valuations, and wrong about the utility of AI to help people. The Tech companies are just outright wrong about the finances, but right about everything else. And, NVIDIA's time will come, and it won't be pretty.
None of this requires me to believe that if Ed says something it must be true or false. It's just another data point, and he does uncover information I can't find myself that checks out. The fact he is wrong about the functional utility of AI or that he's getting super focused on hyperscalers when the real issues are in Oracle and NVIDIA, I can live with.
As the last two paragraphs of TFA point out, this idea is now widely discredited.
However, there are a lot of things that don't seem widely known in popular culture about Stonehenge that might colour perceptions about this theory, and the counters to it.
First, it's worth remembering the thing you look at today has been mucked about with for thousands of years. It's not "original". Depending on your definition of that word, it's either a comparatively modern fake, or the current evolution of something that's always evolving.
For perspective: the stones now have concrete bases. Officials were concerned in the 1920s that the "conservation work" being done at that time was starting to head into "faking" the monument. Cranes were used to "reassemble" the famous (c.f. Spinal Tap), "Great Trilithon" in 1958. Make your own mind up.
But let's just pull it back to post holes and the archaeology of what has been discovered in more recent decades, even in this century.
Archaeologists now know that the site evolved even in the earliest incarnations over thousands of years. There is also now evidence it should not just be seen as a single stone circle. Within the nearby - ~5 miles radius - landscape, there is evidence of other circles, roads, burial mounds, feasting sites, all settlements slowly being understood.
We also now know a lot more of nearby cremations and burials, some of high-status individuals, over the course of hundreds of years. Turns out people travelled from all over, including continental Europe, to visit Stonehenge over a very prolonged period of time. Women seem to have been particularly key to the site.
All of this suggests something complex within the cultural mindset of the neolithic people who built that landscape, and the subsequent populations that moved into it and adapted it. It's not just a stone circle used to predict/measure equinoxes or eclipses - as important as those things might have been to ancient peoples. The site carried weight.
Was it the ancient version of Mecca? Or the Temple on the Mount? Or was it something more trivial and akin to the modern (nearby-ish) Glastonbury festival or Burning Man?
We don't know. We will probably never know for sure unless ancient contemporaneous writing is discovered and understood. But we know it wasn't just a prehistoric "computer".
I think people underestimate how similar to us people were a few thousand years ago. We build places like Glastonbury and Burning Man all the time and it doesn’t really mean much beyond looking kind of cool. Stonehenge might just be something like that.
I have always thought they were likely seasonal camps. Many peoples living off of the land are seasonally nomadic. Having the stones arranged to also be season change indicators based on the sun would be helpful.
In Alaska we still head out to fish camp. Places along the river where people gather for a few months because that is where the food is. Building a permanent structure at such places for seasonal use just seems logical.
And you would make a circle of little rocks at the centre. Next year you would put bigger rocks there, then you needed bigger rocks than the place up the road, or you were not as cool.
Yep. Reading some of the earliest written stories really shows how little we have changed socially since then, and I imagine that goes back a lot further.
I fell down one of those rabbit holes by watching a young adult TV show called "The Children of the Stones" which was filmed at Avebury (a village built around a stone circle, about 25 miles north of Stonehenge) and the book "The Old Straight Track" which claimed all these neolithic sites were linked by Ley lines.
There are a lot of stone circles in Great Britain. I suspect that others located in Europe would have been dismantled for building materials over the past millennia.
IBM invented the PC and then lost control of that identity. Figuring out how that happened is something they are going to have a meeting about, but they're still working through the meetings to plan that meeting, and the Gantt chart for those meetings takes meetings to adjust, and everybody is in meetings so doesn't have time for those meetings. They'll get to them though.
Apple consistently turn up late, but redefine and improve the status quo. They sometimes prototype early in public (for example, the Newton), but normally they show up with the version 3 that everyone else wished they'd thought of that then goes on to define a sector quite cleanly (Mac, iMac, Mac OS System X, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, Mac Mini). They Newton'ed Siri, but I'm pretty sure they're going to come back strong in the next 18 months, unless the enshitification we've all witnessed over the last few years really has taken hold and Siri is just going to automate that at scale. Maybe we will all be killed by AI, but not through malevolent evil, but widely distributed incompetence.
Meta are constantly taking swings at the latest thing the founder is excited by - the Metaverse (now with legs!), pervert glasses, and so on - but they mostly prop up a bunch of expensive failures on the back of a hugely successful advertising business. I don't think they come late to the party per se, they're just not very good at anything that isn't killing & harming children, or undermining democracy. They should stay in their lane and keep doing that, I guess.