> Why would companies sell you the golden goose when they can instead sell you an egg every day?

Because someone else can sell the goose and take your market.

Apple is best aligned to be the disruptor. But I wouldn’t underestimate the Chinese government dumping top-tier open-source models on the internet to take our tech companies down a notch or ten.

▲

eloisant 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, the company that launched iTunes and killed physical media, then released a phone where you can't install apps ("the web is the apps") will be the disruptor to bring back local computing to users...

▲

paxys 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

By that logic none of us should be paying monthly subscriptions for anything because obviously someone would disrupt that pricing model and take business away from all the tech companies who are charging it? Especially since personal computers and mobile devices get more and more powerful and capable with every passing year. Yet subscriptions also get more prevalent every year.

If Apple does finally come up with a fully on-device AI model that is actually useful, what makes you think they won't gate it behind a $20/mo subscription like they do for everything else?

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> By that logic none of us should be paying monthly subscriptions for anything because obviously someone would disrupt that pricing model and take business away from all the tech companies who are charging it?

Non sequitur.

If a market is being ripped off by subscription, there is opportunity in selling the asset. Vice versa: if the asset sellers are ripping off the market, there is opportunity to turn it into a subscription. Business models tend to oscillate between these two for a variety of reasons. Nothing there suggets one mode is infinitely yielding.

> If Apple does finally come up with a fully on-device AI model that is actually useful, what makes you think they won't gate it behind a $20/mo subscription like they do for everything else?

If they can, someone else can, too. They can make plenty of money selling it straight.

	▲	Draiken 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> If a market is being ripped off by subscription, there is opportunity in selling the asset. Only in theory. Nothing beats getting paid forever. > Business models tend to oscillate between these two for a variety of reasons They do? AFAICT everything devolves into subscriptions/rent since it maximizes profit. It's the only logical outcome. > If they can, someone else can, too. And that's why companies love those monopolies. So, no... other's can't straight up compete against a monopoly.

▲

cloverich 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because they need to displace open AI users, or open AI will steer their trajectory towards Apple at some point.

▲

phinnaeus 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What on-device app does Apple charge a subscription for?

▲

troupo 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Apple is best aligned to be the disruptor.

It's this disruptor Apple in the room with us now?

Apple's second biggest money source is services. You know, subscriptions. And that source keeps growing: https://sixcolors.com/post/2025/10/charts-apple-caps-off-bes...

It's also that same Apple that fights tooth and nail every single attempt to let people have the goose or even the promise of a goose. E.g. by saying that it's entitled to a cut even if a transaction didn't happen through Apple.

▲

likium 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unfortunately, most people just want eggs, not the burden of actually owning the goose.

▲

gizajob 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Putting a few boots in Taiwan would also make for a profitable short. Profitable to the tune of several trillion dollars. Xi must be getting tempted.

▲

CuriouslyC 3 days ago | parent [-]

It's a lot more complicated than that. They need to be able to take the island very quickly with a decapitation strike, while also keeping TSMC from being sabotaged or destroyed, then they need to be able to weather a long western economic embargo until they can "break the siege" with demand for what they control along with minor good faith concessions.

It's very risky play, and if it doesn't work it leaves China in a much worse place than before, so ideally you don't make the play unless you're already facing some big downside, sort of as a "hail Mary" move. At this point I'm sure they're assuming Trump is glad handing them while preparing for military action, they might even view invasion of Taiwan as defensive if they think military action could be imminent anyhow.

▲

gizajob 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Destroying TSMC or knowing it would be sabotaged would pretty much be the point of the operation. Would take 48 hours and they could be out of there again and say “ooops sorry” at the UN.

	▲	CuriouslyC 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Hard disagree. They need chips bad, and it's the US defense position that TSMC be destroyed if possible in the event of successful Chinese invasion. They also care about reunification on principle, and an attack like that without letting them force "One China" on the Taiwanese in the aftermath would just move them farther from that goal.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> then they need to be able to weather a long western economic embargo until they can "break the siege" with demand for what they control along with minor good faith concessions

And you know we'd be potting their transport ships, et cetera, from a distance the whole time, all to terrific fanfare. The Taiwan Strait would become the new training ground for naval drones, with the targets being almost exclusively Chinese.

▲

CuriouslyC 2 days ago | parent [-]

I worked with the Taiwanese Military, that's their dream scenario but the reality is they're scared shitless that the Chinese will decapitate them with massive air superiority. Drones don't mean shit without C2.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-]

> they're scared shitless that the Chinese will decapitate them with massive air superiority

Taiwan fields strong air defenses backed up by American long-range fortifications.

The threat is covert decapitation. A series of terrorist attacks carried out to sow confusion while the attack launches.

Nevertheless, unless China pulls off a Kabul, they’d still be subject to constant cross-Strait harassment.

	▲	CuriouslyC 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		China has between 5:1 and 10:1 advantage depending on asset class. If not already on standby, US interdiction is ~48 hours. For sure China is going to blast on all fronts, so cyber and grid interruptions combined with shock and awe are definitely gonna be a thing. It's not a great setup for Taiwan.