jaaval

Better local AI capability. It's definitely something they are working with, introducing new accelerator features with new processors. Currently most of the actually great AI tools still require you to offload the workload to a server somewhere. And some stuff is not worth doing in a mobile device before it can be done at a fraction of the power.

For the basic hardware features, mainly the camera and image processing tools are actually relevant. Almost all non professional photography in the world is now done with phones and there is still a lot to do to improve the miniature cameras.

Some of the greatest new features from the past few years are things people don't even realize weren't always there. Like for example my phone opens up when I pick it up and look at it. And locks when I put it down. This makes usage so much more fluid and is something that did not happen just ten years ago. This kind of UI optimizations are way more important than some numbers in spec sheet. And the local AI processing I mentioned is a key in enabling more situations where the phone understands what you want without you explicitly pressing buttons.

Let me install my own third party apps w/o the App store (I know altstore exists, but needing to renew apps every few days is super janky). If I spend my money on a device, I should be allowed to put whatever I want on it, however I want. Let me, the consumer accept the risks of doing so.

I'm honestly a bit divided on this. Like yes, freedom is great, but the Apple app monopoly, for all its faults, does one good thing and it's the fact that all the software is easily available in one place and I am not forced to install multiple app stores to search trough to find what I'm looking for. It turns out that while I like to tinker with personalized Linux installs on my computers, on my phone I just want it to work as quickly and easily as possible without having to figure things out.

I would like an easier way to compile your own app packages for the phone though.

I have soon a PhD in computer tech related subject, program for living, and am a lot younger than the judge, and if you ask me if Mozilla makes a search engine I would say I have no idea, they've made a lot of stuff. And if you asked me how Google's SEM tools work I would ask wtf is SEM.

The problem is, free software model is actually difficult to make profit with. Red hat has long been touted as the prime example of how to do it, by selling service and support instead of software, and even they try to limit the customers' freedom as much as possible now. Turns out a lot of people don't need support. And the better the software the less support is needed.

I struggle to see a way to make a game engine available so that it's free software and the customers can just take it if they don't like your pricing policy, but still make money from developing it. Or even break even. What would the engine developers sell? What would the game developers sell if the code could just be redistributed for free?

Unfortunately, realistically speaking there are no users here to suck. In a few days of existence threads already grew ten times bigger than all the fediverse combined.

Pragmatically, twitter style system requires a large networked userbase to be useful for most of the population, otherwise people are tooting into the void in mastodon. So even if I have to work with some soulless corporations to get there I think it's a net positive. For lemmy i don't think threads matters much.

13700k seems to be similarly priced now compared to 7900x.

AMD slashed prices due to poor sales of zen4, 7700x used to be more aligned to 13700k pricing than 13600k. Before that Intel was actually usually the better choice between the two.

Yes, the benefit of RISC-V I can see is that if a large company, let's say intel, designs a high performance CPU, a small company can also create a compatible alternative CPU. I don't think the small companies can really compete in performance with the large ones, even if you manage to create a good CPU once it's not simply feasible to keep up with hundred times larger r&d teams in long term, but there is a place for the smaller CPUs filling specific niche use cases.

Now, let's be clear, RISC-V is a loose definition of an instruction set. It's free in the sense that you don't need a license to design a CPU that uses it. However the actual CPU designs are no more free than any other ISA, they will be closely guarded IP of the companies that design them.

Also, since RISC-V includes a minimal base set (truly minimal of like 50 instructions that doesn't even implement multiplication and division) and a large number of optional extensions and freedom to create new extensions, software compiled to one RISC-V processor doesn't necessarily run on another. Hence, "ecosystem" people talk about might not happen.