What about a Mac? macOS isn't exactly Linux, but you can run a lot of Linux command line things just fine on it, and Apple will always make sure macOS works 100% on the Macs they sell.
Game selection is terrible on a Mac. I find it mindblowing that my Linux desktop/laptop run all my games, bar none, but a very small percentage runs on my Mac.
The exact same underlying software (Wine) that lets you run all of your windows games on Linux using Proton also works on MacOS using Crossover.
I haven't found anything in my steam library that Crossover (wine with a nice GUI) hasn't handled on my Mac yet. I'm sure a bad game exists, but for most games it is seamless.
I tend not to have unrealistic expectations like running AAA titles at high framerates on a mid-tier laptop, and tend to go for indy games, but the games I have run work great.
Native game selection is - in fact - pretty limited, but who cares if it is being run with a compatibility layer if it plays well.
Interesting. I would imagine the experience would be pretty poor (compared to Linux), and that the state of Direct3D/OpenGL/Vulkan to Metal translation to not be very mature or performant.
Yes, it isn't as good as Linux in some cases. It hasn't stopped me from running Cyberpunk on a Macbook though. Nobody is under the impression that a Mac running a translation layer is going to be better than a purpose built machine running native code. But is it not worth bothering, at all? No, there are plenty of circumstances where Steam via Crossover is essentially unnoticable.
Really, though, if we are going to nitpick at "perfect or don't bother" level. Skip linux too, Windows beats both on equivalent hardware.
meh, there's gotta be a specific Mac port, and there's not much love put into keeping those working when Apple makes breaking changes like "killing 32-bit addressing" or "switching cpu architectures".
When I worked at Netflix many years ago, they loved to boast about how they didn't have any "processes". My experience was that process ALWAYS exists, but at Netflix you just had to figure it out and hopefully not step on the wrong toes along the way.
This could backfire on Microsoft - if a company's leadership sees low Copilot by their employees, cancelling the subscription is an easy way for the company to save money.
I’m astounded, this has been a problem for 10+ years and I just assumed they didn’t care and would never change it. Better late than never, but why the sudden change?
Brands have started getting into ecommerce/d2c directly where earlier they left it up to distributors and third parties. Amazon needs to attract them because co-mingling is a strict no-no for them.
They could have lost enough brand name vendors who decided not to deal with amazon because customers get counterfeit or expired products. Nike and Johnson and Johnson are mentioned in the article, but there are also smaller brands like ThermoWorks who were staunchly anti-Amazon because of co-mingling until very recently. I suspect it was due to a promise to end the process which brought brands back.
Due to a lack of a presence by name brands, Amazon has been devolving into a platform for selling drop-shipped no-name Chinese products. Whether this scared them because of long-term sustainability, tariffs, or just practical business sense is unknown.
> During Wednesday’s presentation in Seattle, Amazon executives said the economics of commingling no longer worked. With the company’s logistics network now capable of storing products closer to customers, the speed advantage of pooled inventory has diminished. At the same time, Amazon estimated brand owners spent $600 million in the past year alone through re-stickering products, the process of placing new labels or barcodes over existing ones on products.
I guess it's one thing to say you are going to do it and another thing to actually do it. Is anyone going to be verifying this? How would you? Mark your products and ask customers to check for the mark?
yeah, this has been obviously a bad thing for so long, and they've been so stubborn, it's hard to believe anything has actually changed in the "economics" of it.
it smells like the sort of policy change that happens when an exec gets personally impacted by it.
It smells to me like the sort of policy change that happens when Amazon starts to worry about it affecting their bottom line and relationships with suppliers. It used to be enough to solve the problem with support/email. I do wonder what changed…
This. Amazon made a number of changes to the Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) program related to lost and damaged inventory among other things. The changes risked increasing the costs and also required Amazon to be provided information that they really shouldn’t need, such as as the cost to source that inventory.
My assumption is that the decision to stop commingling is more to support these changes to the FBA program and allow them to extract more money via fees.
I feel like this is one of the things where the most parsimonious explanation by far is to take their stated explanation at face value. It makes perfect sense that Amazon would insist on commingling when it's necessary to achieve fast shipping speeds, and end it if their logistics network is so good that it's no longer necessary. (Anecdotally, I just got an Amazon order to my doorstep in four hours yesterday - their logistics really are mindbogglingly fast now.)
The issue is that saying "the economics no longer work" isn't correct because the economics never worked. They traded longterm real value for short term shareholder gains and they're running out of real value runway. It would be more accurate if they said "we can no longer bare the cashing in of our reputation because there is nothing left to cash in".
“Short term shareholder gains” covers a time period of 20+ years?
Amazon is the poster child for the exact opposite of what you claim. They spent two decades plowing every cent into land acquisition, warehouse construction, expanding their labor force, and developing software and hardware.
It was thought impossible to compete with Walmart and others with established logistics networks. Now, they eclipse Walmart because Walmart was focused on the short term, while Amazon was playing to where the ball would be in 20+ years.
There have been a lot of boycotts and blackouts so maybe they're trying to win back some of the customers they've lost after repeatedly selling them fake garbage.
did any Amazon boycott ever achieved anything? (ie. did any of them ever reach the threshold of a statistically significant impact on their bottom line?)
I’m not sure that it’s possible to track this. Personally I went from probably thousands of dollars a year in 2017-ish to “only after I’ve checked every other store and never a large purchase” today (probably about $150/yr). I never explicitly participated in any boycott, but I’m sure the messages resonated with me and helped me realize I was routinely getting fleeced by Amazon and not the sellers.
It is tricky to boycott Amazon because when I search for a product using Google, I get lots of links to Amazon, and not much else. So I look at the Amazon pages to get search terms and then type those in to other search engines, such as Bing, Brave, or Yandex, and keep going to find online shops. Since Yandex is Russian, I add my country code to my search terms. I also try adding my city name and sometimes find a bricks-and-mortar shop close enough.
It is totally possible that on the second day of launch someone realized the problem, truly thought this being wrong, and deeply cared about all the impact on consumer and seller. Yet, it took them 10+ years for the circumstances to be right to get this fixed.
Commingling must have been someone's big, successful project, with all the benefits, probably faster shipping, lower cost, etc.
Once a big project got launched with all these benefits materialized, it is really hard to undo it. When a problem is identified, higher-ups usually ask to address it, rather than undoing the whole project. Anyone pushing to undo a project would be claiming the entire team up to whatever level making that original decision made a huge mistake. In other words, committing a political suicide.
It may take some mix of the following to trigger such drastic changes:
- Some fundamental assumptions changed (for example, one may claim that the logistics got so much better that the original benefits on the delivery speed can be achieved now without commingling).
- Multiple attempts at addressing the problems without killing the project proved unsuccessful.
- The ppl who original launched the project moved, to other domains or other companies.
- Some external triggers (new regulation, a large chunk of partners / stakeholders complaining, the company literally dying, etc.)
In all, there has to be someone for whom the incentive to undo it overcomes the hurdle, political or otherwise to reverse course on a huge project. After that, there need to be the usual logistics, including convincing, budgeting, prioritization, and a million other things you do at a big company to get a thing done. Now, 10 years have passed and it is finally making news.
Or, I can be totally wrong and it's just a bunch of privileged dumbasses who don't give a fork and randomly making one project after another, while pointing at some graphs and numbers claiming successes regardless of what really happens. ;)
Amazon has turned racketeering brands into a profit center. Brands now pay Amazon to block unauthorized sellers. Only Amazon would have the gall to turn their willful negligence into an opportunity.
I REALLY wish this was a setting I could set once on my computer and ALL games respected it. I prefer inverted X and Y but there’s SO many games out there that just don’t provide this as a setting. I’ve tried playing with non-inverted but I end up just getting frustrated and stopping.
Cynically, it doesn't matter if AI actually replaces jobs, but as long as the stock market BELIEVES that it does, then it gives companies permission to do layoffs without taking a hit to the stock price.
“Pay this or we will concoct some criminal charges on your entire leadership team, append each of you to interpol lists and formally request your extradition” is probably a good start.
This is well after the fact though, and it does sound like in this circumstance he was treated unfairly. I don’t begrudge him some annoyance/complaining now.
https://www.theverge.com/24295971/we-are-rewind-fiio-cassett...
reply