[HN Gopher] Mighty Retrospective ___________________________________________________________________ Mighty Retrospective Author : drewbent Score : 58 points Date : 2022-11-17 20:43 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.chaselambda.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.chaselambda.com) | iLoveOncall wrote: | > Mighty's short term goal was to make people more productive | with their browser. | | I believe the biggest reason for their failure and lack of | traction is because they misidentified their value proposition | from day 1. | | No, loading web pages marginally faster is not going to make you | more productive. It will save you a few minutes per day in the | best case scenario, nothing else. | | Productivity does not come from loading speed, it comes from how | quickly you can identify the information that matters on a page | and absorb it. | | This HackerNews page took 320ms to load, but I've been on the | page for 5 minutes already. They really think saving even 90% of | the load time is going to make any difference to my | _productivity_? | lxe wrote: | > In addition, Suhail had been trying out building a new product | that was showing to be a reasonable alternative bet. | | I see they've been distracted with AI art just like everyone else | and had to jump on that bandwagon :). | | Don't get me wrong -- Stable Diffusion is probably the fastest | progressing thing on the internet in decades. | swyx wrote: | yeah but do they have some core insight that makes them better | at building the 34th Stable Diffusion UI compared to the | others? | el_nahual wrote: | I wish Mighty had succeeded for a different audience. The core | value prop "make figma faster" was not very compelling--people | who need to use Figma can buy a mac. | | You know who _does_ struggle with slow computers and memory | issues? Call center employees who have to run Front, Slack, | Chrome, and probably one or two other electron-based apps. | | At our startup (not in USA), these issues are so bad we've ended | up getting people who earn $700usd/mo M1 macbook airs anyway | because otherwise an electron-based workflow is unamnageable. | | I would have _loved_ to buy them cheaper computers instead that | ran entirely in the cloud...plus extra permission management, no | local storage, and other "really, really, really nice to haves" | for remote workers dealing with PII. | | If Mighty's value prop had been "never worry about remote wiping | an employee's computer ever again, oh, and it's faster too, and | it's all OPEX, and we charge you by minute instead of by the | computer" I would have signed up immediately. | gruez wrote: | >CPU: We gave users a 16 core machine just for their browser, but | it turns out that the web is largely limited by single core | performance (think JS, layout, html parsing, etc). | | I'm pretty sure that javascript being largely single-threaded was | well known knowledge since day 1. Did they not know this? Did | they think that mulit-threaded javascript was just around the | corner? | [deleted] | quickthrower2 wrote: | JS is single threaded, but does a browser use that same thread | for rendering, animations, web workers, network etc.? How much | front end JS code is intensely computational vs. simply | spending most of its time waiting on a callback? | | Genuine question - I might see if I can find out next time I | have to do a performance profiling in Chrome! | kevingadd wrote: | The design of web APIs means that a lot of stuff _has_ to | happen as if it were on the main UI thread, so while you can | do fork /join stuff to optimize it - for example, doing | layout in parallel, etc - you're still bottlenecked by how | fast the main thread is able to do all the stuff it needs to | do. This is why many APIs disallow synchronous use or have | serious constraints on synchronous use now. | [deleted] | itake wrote: | AFAIK, rendering and animations are on the same thread as JS. | | web workers have their own thread, but I think adoption is | low. | | Network requests are async (JS doesn't have to wait for the | network request for it to do other things), but JS can still | only start one network request at a time. | ignoramous wrote: | _If_ each of the 100 open tabs are all run in separate threads, | then there are a 100 active threads. I think what TFA means to | convey is, the user is interacting with only a single tab at | any given point in time; hence any percieved gains are bounded | by single core perf. And that there weren 't that many web- | native apps using service workers to make any material | difference to the UX to justify the cost of running just Chrome | on a 16-core i9 machine. | mwcampbell wrote: | I wonder if they ever got around to implementing accessibility, | e.g. for screen readers, in their remote browser. That's an | interesting problem. Do you send serialized accessibility trees | (and hopefully incremental updates) down to the local machine so | it can implement the platform accessibility API and work with a | user's existing assistive technology (e.g. screen reader)? Or do | you run the AT remotely as well? I believe the former is feasible | with Chromium (though I haven't yet proven it), but Cloudflare | went with the latter in their Browser Isolation product, probably | because converting the Chromium accessibility tree back to HTML | in the local browser would compromise the security benefit of | Cloudflare's product. But Mighty didn't have that concern AFAIK. | fragmede wrote: | The place where they really could have won is iOS, where browsers | aren't allowed to use their own rendering engine, and system | specs still lagged behind the M1. | kevingadd wrote: | I'm sure Apple would have rejected the app from the store, | unfortunately. Lots of vendors have failed to get streaming | apps of this sort onto the store and had to (heh) distribute | them via Safari as web pages instead. | samwillis wrote: | While I never really believed in Mighty as a concept, I think the | technology has enormous potential in some industries. A robust, | performant and versatile VNC like toolkit to enable traditionally | desktop software to be made available in the cloud could be be | very successful. | | There are many CAD, Visualisation, Rendering, Editing, and | Simulation tools that are incredible CPU, GPU or Memory intensive | that could be made available in a collaborative environment for | the first time using some of the Mighty tech. I hope someone | picks it up and explores other ways it could be used. | ghostly_s wrote: | Industry has been using Citrix in that problem space for nearly | a decade. What does Mighty bring to the table? | samwillis wrote: | I think it's more of a hybrid approach, the web renderer was | running in the cloud, the ui was native and local. | | I beleve Citrix is mostly a standard VNC type product where | everything is rendered on a server and streamed. I was | envisaging a toolkit to enable you to build an app where | parts of it run in cloud, parts of it locally. | | Think of a 3D cad tool, the ui could be all local, but the | rendering and compute is in the cloud. Or a 3d physics based | ray tracing app, you could do the 3d wire frame locally, but | have the real-time ray tracing happening on a very large | server. | | On top of that, by have a cloud based state, it's only one | step away from marking that state shared with other users to | enable collaboration. | paulgb wrote: | Having used both Citrix and Mighty, it's clear Mighty cared | about latency in a way that Citrix doesn't (or, more | generously, is out of control of Citrix since they don't own | the end-to-end system) | cokeandpepsi wrote: | parsec, nvidia's thing and a few other companies are already | in that specific space as well, mighty just seemed dumb | slashink wrote: | There are tons of these solutions in production for well over | 10 years. Big media customers has run virtualized edit bays in | AWS for at least 4 years at this point. | | Reasons people don't use these solutions are the same reason | Mighty ended up not working. Even in CAD applications, latency | matters when trying to move objects in 3D space with precise | mouse input or using a 3dconnexion spacemouse. Sure, you can | overcome latency by doing what Google essentially invested in | with Stadia, run GPU's closer to the edge but at that point the | cost of just buying workstations for your employees is not that | different from acquiring a stable connection (for 8+ hours a | day) with the fee of renting the hardware. | jamiek88 wrote: | Isn't this just Citrix? | paulgb wrote: | We've been working on a way for browser-based apps to run a | rendering thread on the server and streaming back to the | client, possibly composited into client-sode-rendered UI. So | far the results are promising: you get the power of a server- | side GPU with no additional latency for the normal UI | interactions that can be drawn without a server round-trip. | | Here's a demo of a full-blown Blender "running in the browser" | (I don't have a demo with local compositing yet, so this is all | server-side) | | https://twitter.com/drifting_corp/status/1583460106963820545... | swyx wrote: | previous discussion: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33583830 4 days ago | | interesting that https://www.mightyapp.com/ still has not been | updated with any mention of shutdown | asadlionpk wrote: | Streaming Chrome with some value adds must have been a short-term | product right? It could only have existed until PCs caught up on | processing speed (Apple's M1?). | | I wonder what vision did Suhail pitch to PG to deserve high | praise. Because this can't be it. | [deleted] | GMoromisato wrote: | The ultimate vision is/was to have everything run in the cloud. | Imagine if you could run any app on the most powerful machine | in the world. | | See: https://blog.mightyapp.com/mightys-secret-plan-to-invent- | the... | | In my opinion, this is the right goal, but I don't think this | can be done by running existing apps in the cloud (and remoting | their UI). Instead, I think we need a new cloud-native platform | so that any app can be written as a cloud app. (Obligatory | self-promotion: that's what we're trying to do with | https://gridwhale.com) | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _The ultimate vision is /was to have everything run in the | cloud. Imagine if you could run any app on the most powerful | machine in the world._ | | IMO the core paradigm shift that needs to happen is for the | software _and_ infrastructure to become commoditized. The | only way for cloud-everything to not be a nightmarish abuse | of the end-users is for the mode of operation to change, from | the current "data comes to the app", into "app comes to the | data". That is, I believe the data, the application and the | compute running it need to be independent to the extent | possible. | | In particular, the choice of an app and where it runs should | be entirely up to user. The user should be able to easily | switch from e.g. a cloud run by Amazon to e.g. a "cloud" run | by their HOA in the basement of their block of flats. And | then possibly switch to a cloud run by a company local to | their city, or one of their employer, etc. | | The primary point behind my view is to prevent application | vendors from being able to take their users hostage by | keeping users' data under lock on their own infrastructure, | accessible only through their own software. The second point | is to increase efficiency and boost local markets worldwide. | swyx wrote: | as pmarca is fond of saying, ideas are never wrong, just | early. i bet at some point in the future a New Mighty will | come along and work | jamiek88 wrote: | Hmmm. Interesting. Would the UI be local and compute remote | in this paradigm? And how is that different from the old thin | client model? | | just read your site, and I'm thinking of this as more like a | super massive global mainframe? | GMoromisato wrote: | Yes, that's exactly it. Local UI (initially in the browser, | but could be on a rich-client or mobile app) but all | compute is in the cloud. | | The difference from existing thin-client models is that | it's a single stack: When you write a program, you write | the UI code as if on a local computer. E.g., you just call | MessageBox("Hi, there") and the platform is responsible for | remoting that as appropriate. | | "A super massive global mainframe" is the correct analogy, | but instead of a text-mode VT100 terminal, you get a full | remote GUI (more like X Windows). | jamiek88 wrote: | Sounds really interesting! | | Thanks for the follow up. | janef0421 wrote: | Or people started closing tabs more frequently and/or used | something other than chrome. | dhoe wrote: | My guess when it launched was (maybe too cynically) that it's | the 100% complete visibility of user behavior. | samwillis wrote: | A team with a background in data analytics, starting a fully | hosted browser platform? You don't have to squint too hard to | to come to that conclusion. | | Although they did claim to keep your browsing data privet: | https://www.mightyapp.com/security | | Maybe four years ago it was seen as a strong counter to | ad/tracker blocking. But now, with increased regulation and | consumer resistance they couldn't make that play? | dhoe wrote: | Doesn't have to be personal data. You'd know the | performance of every website's funnel, most used features | of every app etc. Somebody would have paid a lot for it. | nickdothutton wrote: | I have some experience building infrastructure for on-demand | cloud hosted desktops (HDx3DPro) for scientific users and their | apps. Often wondered if there was a consumer play there too. | Better someone tried and failed than never tried at all. | fleddr wrote: | I always found the idea to be bizarre. | | The group of people for which a browser is truly horrendously | slow would be on something like a low-end Windows laptop. From | mid-end and upwards it's fine (or good enough) and for Mac users | pretty much never an issue. | | The people with such crappy hardware are exactly the group to not | be able to afford 35$ a month. That's like the price of 3 or 4 | streaming services combined. Just to browse!? | fossuser wrote: | I had a similar impression of it, the best I can come up with | is I think it was a bet based on a prediction of the future | that is kinda true, but just doesn't matter as much as they | thought. | | 1. Personal computers are dead and just a means to access a | browser via dumb terminals | | 2. Applications will be Figma style - web based entirely. | | 3. Intel/AMD chips are bad and not getting that much better | (this one is true, but missed the mark entirely because of | Apple silicon throwing a curve ball) | | 4. Given that your personal computer is basically a dumb | terminal to a web browser you could imagine a world where it | doesn't matter and it's worth paying $35/mo for a super | computer to run your web apps streamed to whatever local | hardware you're using, since your local machine is basically | useless as a machine and only serves to load a web browser | (which is where your actual applications are). This super | computer will also remember state so any devices you access | mighty on is exactly as you left it. Long term, this could end | with a Chromebook like devices of some sort that just connects | to mighty and are really nice low power hardware. | | -- | | Personal bias aside (I hate this future and I'm actively | working on software trying to bring personal computing back in | a from first principles networked way) - it was a bet on trends | and fits squarely into the PG concept of a good startup being a | bad sounding idea that might have recently became good because | of changes in the environment that have not yet been really | recognized. I think Apple made it less relevant. I also agree | there's a weird issue of who is the actual target market at | that price point (the exact people that would maybe need it can | also afford good hardware). | | That and there is obviously fertile ground in AI right now and | the founder sees a bigger opportunity there with a lot of low | hanging fruit. | andrewstuart wrote: | I had expected Mighty to pivot to solving the giant problem of | corporate computing security. | paulgb wrote: | You might find Whist interesting | | https://www.whist.com/ | FanaHOVA wrote: | https://www.island.io/ (not affiliated in any way) | yamtaddle wrote: | > RAM: Mighty allowed users to open hundreds of tabs without | being worried that their RAM would be consumed. But my sense is | this was not a killer feature. The benefit simply isn't massive: | the alternative is to close tabs and "clean things up". Many | people probably do this anyway because it's visually hard to have | hundreds of tabs open, so users end up closing tabs even with | infinite RAM. This is evident in the data: when we gave users | 32gb of RAM, 90+% of them didn't go beyond 16. We did have the | opportunity to provide users with a whole new interface of tab | management - one in which tabs never have to be closed and | hundreds of tabs are visually manageable. Maybe this would have | been a smash hit, it's hard to be sure. | | What I want is for the address bar to give me a really quick way | to jump to existing tabs, if I start to type in the address of | one I already have open. The entire reason my tabs get out of | control is that at some point I get enough open that I start to | lose track of what's there, and repeat myself. End up with like 5 | AWS tabs, only one of which I'm actually using, stuff like that. | So finally I just bookmark the whole set ("just in case"--I've | not _once_ looked back at these, in almost a decade of working | this way, though I bet there 's some great shit in there) and | start over. | | Apple's "tab groups" approach being a solution, but the trouble | is I forget to switch to the correct group for a given site and | end up using a single jumbled-up session anyway. It needs better | (more automatic, probably) UI. | Jarwain wrote: | > What I want is for the address bar to give me a really quick | way to jump to existing tabs, if I start to type in the address | of one I already have open. | | Chrome's been doing this recently and I absolutely love it | joncfoo wrote: | In Firefox, type % followed by a space and you can then search | tab titles and jump to a tab. | mmcclure wrote: | Others mentioned Chrome doing this, but it never really seemed | to work reliably for me. | | This actually came up in a thread the other day, so feels weird | to be talking about it again, but I've been playing with Arc[1] | lately. Took me a while to get used to how they treat tabs | (almost more like bookmarks) but I've enjoyed it. Squirrel the | ones I want to truly keep around into folders ("To Review", | "Some Project"), but all the randomly opened tabs automatically | get closed after a specified time period (default 24 hours, I | have mine set to a week). When I hit cmd+t I can _reasonably_ | often get to the right tab I've already got open. | | I have a feeling the honeymoon will end when they start trying | to figure out a monetization strategy, but so far I'm rooting | for them. | | [1] https://arc.net/ | jamiek88 wrote: | Yes tab groups has helped a lot and is _nearly_ there but not | quite. | | I try and be disciplined but like you end up having to manually | stop myself and drag tabs back to the 'proper' group. | jemmyw wrote: | The tab groups extension for Chrome works well for automating | moving tabs to the correct group. | https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tab-groups- | extensi... | yamtaddle wrote: | Just manual settings I could use to say "always open this | site in tab group X" or "prompt to move this site to tab | groups Y or Z if I open it somewhere else (but with the | option not to)" would probably make it usable-enough for me. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-17 23:00 UTC)