Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

    (twitter.com)
    521 points OlympicMarmoto | 15 comments | 29 Aug 25 16:45 UTC | HN request time: 0.427s | source | bottom
    1. lukev ◴[29 Aug 25 17:53 UTC] No.45067307[source]▶
    This is completely right from a product point of view, which is Carmack's argument.

    But I have wondered why one of these companies with billions of dollars to burn hasn't tried to create something new as a strategic initiative. Yes, there wouldn't be any ROI for years, and yes, the first several products on the platform would probably be better off on something more traditional.

    But the long term value could potentially be astronomical.

    Just another case of quarterly-report-driven decision making, I suppose. Sigh.

    replies(9): >>45067386 #>>45067442 #>>45067633 #>>45067946 #>>45069483 #>>45069522 #>>45069523 #>>45069591 #>>45070319 #
    2. philistine ◴[29 Aug 25 18:00 UTC] No.45067386[source]▶
    Apple bought one of those in the 90s, and they are still reaping the benefits of that strategic initiative. But the thing is, NeXt allowed Apple to think up new, differentiated products. If you come at the problem of the OS from a purely technical perspective, you'll waste time for no gain.
    3. spankalee ◴[29 Aug 25 18:05 UTC] No.45067442[source]▶
    This is what Google has been trying to do with Fuchsia and the fact is that you can't escape the product point of view because the products exist, already have an OS stack, and get pretty defensive when another team tells them they're going to replace their OS, or their core if the product team is Android or Chrome OS.
    4. jmull ◴[29 Aug 25 18:20 UTC] No.45067633[source]▶
    How does it pay off in the long run?

    If you're competing against nothing, then I see it: it opens up a wide variety of product possibilities. But linux exists. Why not spend 1/1000th the time to adapt linux?

    That's not even counting the rather substantial risk that your new OS will never approach the capabilities of linux, and may very well never become generally usable at all.

    Option A: spend years and millions on a project that may never be as good as existing solutions, diverting attention and resources from actual products, or...

    Option B: work on products now, using an existing, high-quality, extensible, adaptable OS, with very friendly licensing terms, for which numerous experts exist, with a proven track record of maintenance, a working plan for sustainability, a large & healthy developer community exists, etc.

    It's hard to imagine how it wouldn't be a complete waste of time.

    5. TiredOfLife ◴[29 Aug 25 18:50 UTC] No.45067946[source]▶
    Microsoft had Singularity - canceled after 12 years in development

    Google has Fuchsia - is about 10 years in development. Recently was a target for layoffs

    6. CamperBob2 ◴[29 Aug 25 21:16 UTC] No.45069483[source]▶
    But I have wondered why one of these companies with billions of dollars to burn hasn't tried to create something new as a strategic initiative.

    They have; Taligent comes to mind. You may not have heard of that -- or more likely, you have but just forgot about it -- but it's a good object lesson (no pun intended) in why a successful new OS is hard to just conjure into existence. There has to be a crying, desperate need for it, not just a vague sense that This Time We'll Get It Right.

    You could probably cite OS/2 Warp as a less-obscure example of the same phenomenon.

    7. twelvedogs ◴[29 Aug 25 21:20 UTC] No.45069523[source]▶
    How would that be better than just grabbing a bsd and starting with that, PlayStation and Apple did it and actually ended up with functional products
    replies(2): >>45069783 #>>45072262 #
    8. Keyframe ◴[29 Aug 25 21:20 UTC] No.45069522[source]▶
    While I appreciate Carmack and all, I'd love to hear from someone like Dave Cutler who's been over that bridge at least a couple of times successfully about if and what he'd do if he had resources to create whatever the hell he wants.
    9. Aurornis ◴[29 Aug 25 21:27 UTC] No.45069591[source]▶
    > But I have wondered why one of these companies with billions of dollars to burn hasn't tried to create something new as a strategic initiative.

    See Google's Fuschia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchsia_(operating_system)

    > But the long term value could potentially be astronomical.

    Such as what?

    replies(1): >>45069913 #
    10. throwway120385 ◴[29 Aug 25 21:46 UTC] No.45069783[source]▶
    Hell, if you're Meta you could just by QNX from RIM.
    replies(1): >>45070937 #
    11. crote ◴[29 Aug 25 21:59 UTC] No.45069913[source]▶
    > Such as what?

    Historically? The internet, the concept of a graphical user interface, the mouse, the smartphone, the LCD display, the laser printer...

    It's about clever people trying weird stuff, and occasionally ending up with a world-changing idea. Asking for examples of to-be-discovered innovations is, by definition, an impossibility.

    replies(1): >>45070087 #
    12. const_cast ◴[29 Aug 25 22:23 UTC] No.45070087{3}[source]▶
    Companies are risk averse, ask DARPA to do it.
    13. vinyl7 ◴[29 Aug 25 22:54 UTC] No.45070319[source]▶
    Western companies haven't thought about long term value in decades
    14. emmelaich ◴[30 Aug 25 00:41 UTC] No.45070937{3}[source]▶
    I wonder how well that would play out. Surely you'd only do if you got a perpetual license or bought it outright. I can imagine RIM would fuck you over eventually with with any other arrangement.

    (Actually I just realised you meant "buy")

    15. pjmlp ◴[30 Aug 25 06:04 UTC] No.45072262[source]▶
    Apple surely did not, as NeXTSTEP wasn't invented at Apple.