I switched last year and discovered I wasn’t as locked in as I thought.
SongShift moves your library from one app to another super easily. In 20 minutes my whole collection, playlists and all, moved from Spotify to Apple. And it was free.
I encourage everyone who is dreading moving to a better app to try it… it’s pretty easy now.
I’m tempted to try Tidal myself because Apple Music’s recommendations aren’t that great.
The worst are the ones who say things like “OpenAI only has 5% paying users!” As if that’s a really bad number. That is the same ratio YouTube, the world’s largest media company, has. And ChatGPT has like 800m users after only a few years of existence.
And “once they sell ads, they’ll lose all their users!” As if that happened to FB, Google, YouTube, or Instagram…
Some people are really rooting for the downfall of OpenAI that will simply not happen, and their rage makes them utterly unreasonable.
> Do you really believe ChatGPT will lose significant users?
I didn't say I believed that, I said that the reasons provided (for people to stick with it) were, to me, insufficient reasons.
The examples of people sticking with a product undergoing enshittification are not representative of the type of product that ChatGPT is. Those other products you mentioned had a strong moat - network effects.
Users had to stick with them, or lose their network.
AI Chat is, almost by definition, a non-network product. When you switch you don't lose updates from your friends, you don't lose subscribers to your channel, you don't lose your followers.
So, what exactly does someone lose when switching from AI Chat $FOO to AI Chat $BAR? Those saved conversations aren't exactly worth much, those "memories" that the Chat AI stored about you aren't worth much either (I was surprised at how many people thought those saved chats didn't contribute to the responses they get in the current chat).
I just can’t imagine anyone really bothering to switch, tbh. Even for a less enshittified product. For a better product, sure. Like if Google hadn’t rolled out Gemini in Search, ChatGPT would’ve crushed them. But not because of lack of ads in ChatGPT, because it was a better search product.
Google Search doesn’t have a network effect right? And people still tolerate their ads… they have 90% marketshare.
People still tolerate Netflix and Hulu ads right?
I think the only people that really care about enshittificafion are a few HN commenters and not broadly represented in the population.
Even at my company, our testing shows no drop in usage as we roll out ads.
> And “once they sell ads, they’ll lose all their users!” As if that happened to FB, Google, YouTube, or Instagram…
Enshittification only works for the middleman in a two-sided market, which is what those things are. LLMs are a commodity, so their path to monopoly profit is very different.
I don’t see any comments at all, at least on mobile. Is this a bot?
I was going to look at the comments out of curiosity, because I was surprised that there would be any comments at all on an AP article, for several reasons.
I think that might be a "you" thing, there certainly are comments.
And here's a link to APNews' comment guideline page, showing they have comment sections on lots of places in their website
Comment by burkej27.
41 MIN AGO
No state run media!
Comment by Robertl.
55 MIN AGO
Is there anything that Trump does that is legal and won’t be overturned? What a waste of 4 years. They should be held responsible to the 1000 people damaged by his actions. If he can’t then his cabinet.
Comment by Trumpisyourpresident.
1 HR AGO
Just like NPR, it's the voice of liberal America, not America, so it should not be funded.
Comment by KendallGrubb.
1 HR AGO
We’re not in the 1950’s building Crystal am radios anymore. The cost of this service is unnecessary given today’s media options
The last one is so close to the point. Iran had Internet blackouts earlier this year, Russia has been experimenting with the same - options like shortwave are just as relevant as ever.
News article comments are funny. I think some people are just angry about politics and feel the need to vent it all the time. I actually read the NYT comments occasionally, and it's the liberal version what you posted. Some people have the amazing ability to bend any topic into a long complaint about Trump. They're almost like that version of Claude that couldn't stop talking about the Golden Gate Bridge.
Does the technology already exist? Things are almost never only a tech issue alone. That does not mean tech can not help, even if the tech that would help is currently impractical. What is impractical now though may not be in 10, 20, 50 years.
Going over what I quoted:
> You can’t serve up intentionally stale information without inviting legal repercussions.
Keeping information fresh and up to date is something technology has helped with in many areas. If there is a reasons why it can not help here then I an interested in why or that the current tech already does a good enough job in this area.
> These are being revised and updated right up until the point they are released to provide the most accurate reporting possible.
Technology can help verify last minute changes, running a test suite for example or similar. How hard that is to make or maintain though may make impractical.
> You gravely underestimate the legal seriousness of these reports.
Having an audit trail and known processes may be helpful here too if the current tooling is not adequate.
I quoted parts of the comment that looked like areas where tech has already helped in other areas. What I want to find out are details about what exists, why people think it can not be better, or why pervious attempts have failed, or why things are currently optimal.
Absolutely. Quarterly reporting is enormously expensive.
The average Nasdaq firm spend 850 hours per quarter purely on earnings. It’s absurdly burdensome.
It is part of the reason companies don’t want to go public (it’s not the only reason, obviously). But the harder you make it for companies to go public, the more will stay in private markets.
Then the only companies going public are going to be the ones that aren’t hot enough to stay private. Then retail will lose out on a lot of good growth companies.
And you could say, “well let retail invest in private companies” but that makes the information asymmetry problem even worse. Because now instead of investing in companies with biannual reporting, retail is investing in companies with no reporting at all. I guess you could say “well make private companies have to report more” and now you’ve just created a public market again.
I like Anthropic’s models better than OpenCode + GPT/Gemini.
reply