With Valve's track record, I absolutely believe they have limited plans for production in the long term. But their long-term hardware support is impeccable. I have several discontinued pieces of hardware from Valve (the Steam Link and Steam Controller), both of which are still used and work as well as they day I bought them - better even, thanks to continued software updates.
Valve's long-term support of the hardware they do release really is impeccable.
I'm still bitter about how bad & expensive Internet access is in the Silicon Valley
Besides, when it comes to infrastructure and consumer habits, influencing any change for the better is still better than none at all.
At these speeds, the WiFi adapters are more of a bottleneck than the ISP. I can only get close to full speed on ethernet.
Still a problem in many places in the USA in 2021.
I heard that the 3 best speeds are in Romania, they bad 500 Mbps dirty cheap about 7 years ago.
What are you paying?
It is completely random what internet speeds you can get. The only constant is the monopoly of Comcast & AT&T.
Two can be as lonely as one, but it’s still two.
I live in a rural city of France and I pay €24 a month for 400Mbps (upload: 200Mbps).
My family in rural areas are waiting and hoping for 5G internet to save them, but I live in a rather hilly region and many are worried their homes won't get good 5G service!
Rural users are sick of slow speeds, and in low density areas there should be enough bandwidth for starlink to work well.
Dont know how starlink would handle a city-full of users; Think that is something we are looking forward to finding out.
1Gb fiber symmetrical - 30 €
40us for 45mbps feels old. Any money for 10mbps feels antiquated in an urban area of a developed country :(
Of course, for that price I have to regularly deal with the shitty service of Numericable (payment service down, money extorsion for which I have to send snail mail to recover... and I still haven't).
Comcast: $70/m 1gbps/30mbps down/up
Chicago
Both are copper. RCN is slowly rolling out fiber but I think it’ll still be asymmetric.
Hardware is extremely difficult and extremely expensive.
High effort and almost always low to no reward unless you manage to create a breakout device.
Valve already has the business that most people build the hardware for in the first place. The reason Microsoft makes Xbox is to get a cut of game sales and sell a subscription. Valve already gets a cut of almost all PC sales so really trying to build hardware looks bad on almost every conceivable company chart within Valve.
Yet they keep doing it every 5 years ago due to presumably due to their weird management.
IMO, this is a great move. They're building a cheap device that plays AAA games in a cool Switch-like form factor. I think targeting teenagers and young adults.
I think the industry is changing how they do business, a mainstream Linux/AMD device is leading the way.
I can tell you from personal experience this isn't easy at all and is just as difficult as any other hardware project, even if you're not literally building new processors or hardware firmwares it's still a huge mission getting something like that to market let alone making it profitable.
I work on a company that has shipped laptops where we designed all the casing with off the shelf processor/storage/etc, so have worked on what you're describing here.
The very clear message from Microsoft was that the future of Windows was in fullscreen tablet apps and that the desktop - as well as third-party app stores - was going away. Valve would proceed to launch a Linux version of Steam a few months before Windows 8 RTM'd, their own Linux distro a year later, and consolized PC hardware another year after that. Basically, the whole company made a very clear pivot away from game development (which they still haven't fully gone back to) to ensure Steam had a lifeboat if Windows 9 were to drop the Desktop or enforce app lockouts on it.
Of course, what actually happened is that Windows 8 became the laughing stock of the entire PC industry. Microsoft was trying, like, five developer transitions at once and nobody was interested. (Not even Apple can do that, and they actually did try. Ask me about Rhapsody sometime.) So the end result is that app developers never wrote anything to the new native XAML APIs, users just used the Desktop app, and nobody had any interest in Windows on ARM tablets. That's why you don't remember the Windows Store lock-in; in Windows 10, Microsoft got rid of it.
https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2021/06/24/build...
(Yes you might have to switch out of S mode, but that wasn’t an option in RT)
Windows store is already in place.
I'd actually love to hear what you think about rhapsody, a quick google search doesn't tell me too much about it
Existing Macintosh software could be run under emulation, and the original plan was that everything going forward would need to be rewritten using the NextStep APIs. (All those NS frameworks still used on iPhones and Macs today)
Eventually Apple decided they would have to create an additional set of APIs (Carbon) based on the existing Macintosh APIs that would allow software vendors an easier path forward.
Developers could adopt Carbon with much less effort and eventually transition to the NextStep APIs as part of a future large scale rewrite.
Carbon never transitioned to 64 bit, so those NextStep APIs did eventually become the default for native software.
In order to explain why that comparison makes sense at all, I first need to go over some basics.
After shipping the original Macintosh in 1984, Apple's investors got really mad about how the computer wasn't selling, and more or less forced Steve Jobs out of the company. Jobs decided he was going to build another computer company called NeXT, which was going to out-engineer Apple and make the next big thing. It didn't actually work out that way, but conveniently for Steve, Apple had been mismanaged into the ground and drowning in technical debt. So Apple basically bought NeXT because OPENSTEP (previously NeXTSTEP; at this point Steve was trying to turn it into a cross-platform API) was a functional operating system and all of Apple's attempts at System 8 (including asking IBM to finish Copland, which is another boondoggle called Taligent) weren't.
So, right when Apple announced the NeXT buyout, they also announced that the next version of the Macintosh's OS would be built on top of OPENSTEP, with all existing Macintosh software running in a fullscreen "Blue Box" VM. The "Yellow Box" would hold new software written to the OPENSTEP APIs, and these apps were properly memory-protected. (Context: At this point in time all System 7 apps ran in kernel mode with separate segmented heaps. It's exactly as bad as it sounds.) This new OS was code-named "Rhapsody", and it even came in an Intel port that would install and run just fine on most PCs (albeit without the Blue Box).
Apple's plan was basically to continue the NeXT business as-is, with some quick rebrands (including rebranding the Windows NT port of OPENSTEP as "Red Box") and hastily-written compatibility bridges so that Macintosh users wouldn't be completely left out in the cold. Users were anticipating the new OS, but developers were utterly furious that they were being told to basically abandon all of their software and rewrite it to this entirely different and far more complicated API. They called the Blue Box the "penalty box", because they felt punished for staying loyal to the Mac.
I call Rhapsody "Apple's Windows 8" because it basically tried the same thing Windows 8 did a decade later: foisting a technically superior but entirely incompatible API on developers who weren't interested in any of it. Some might disagree because, well... Apple never actually shipped what they announced. A year after assuming control of Apple, Jobs would come up on stage again and announce that Rhapsody was "cancelled". Instead they'd build an entirely new OS called Mac OS X, built exclusively for the Mac, with three new subsystems; "Cocoa" (OPENSTEP APIs), "Classic" (Mac Toolbox APIs), and now "Carbon"; the latter being specifically intended for quickly porting existing Macintosh software to OSX without rewriting your app. This made developers a lot happier and saved the entire transition.
In the meanwhile, because Mac OS 8 was terrible for running servers on, Apple would ship another """unrelated""" OS called "Mac OS X Server", which was literally just the cancelled retail release of Rhapsody with some extra server applications bundled in. It even called itself Rhapsody in uname.
If you're wondering what happened to the Intel version of Rhapsody, well... not counting the two developer releases before Rhapsody's faked death, Apple would maintain Intel ports of everything up until actually announcing a proper developer transition from PowerPC to Intel years later. Just as proof of how much Apple had learned their lesson of how not to handle a developer transition, Carbon would actually get ported to Intel, and there were Intel OSX apps that needed it. It was ultimately removed only in macOS Catalina.
You might not have noticed this because nobody cared about the store and just used Windows 8 like Windows 7 with some annoying tablet UI duck-taped to it.
No, even native ARM executables weren't allowed to run if not downloaded from the Store.
https://www.ign.com/articles/steam-deck-hands-on-impressions...
> This flexibility means you can do pretty much anything on the Steam Deck that you can do with a regular PC. Connect a mouse and keyboard? Yep. Alt-Tab out of your games to a browser or video? Sure. Load third-party programs or even other game stores like Origin, uPlay, or Epic Games Store? No problem. You could even wipe Steam OS entirely and install a fresh version of Windows if you want – but the default Steam OS is smooth and efficient at getting you into your games, so I imagine most people won’t want or need to go that far. The point is, you can if you’d like to.
I think users care more about being able to play their games on any hardware platform they own than about which software platform hosts their games. Also, it seems like Steam Deck is just running a customized Linux distro, so it isn't really a lock-in.
If Epic Games or Ubisoft decides to make their game stores work on Linux, I bet they would run on Steam Deck too. If that's the case, then how is it Valve's fault that other vendors/game stores aren't bothering to make their software platforms/games work on Linux? Valve put in the work, and they want to reap the fruits of it, without even trying to lock-in their device from using any other competitors' software (as far as I am aware). Competitors just gotta put in the work to make their platforms work on Linux.
They can, because the FAQ says it's just a PC running Arch linux and you can install Windows on it if you want, which means you can do whatever you want. Maybe it can run on the same OS (probably, if it's just Linux, but we'll see how customized it is), or at a minimum you could just install something else.
Apple to Valve?
valve so far has been miles better than any other big DRM platform. i would almost bet valve will let you have root on these and do whatever you want with the hardware without any jailbreaks. It may not be supported, but I really cannot imagine them locking this down. That would be very much unlike valve.
iirc steam machines back in the day did also let you go into a bash shell?
full disclosure: i may contain traces of a valve fanboy.
They do, and they let you install your own OS.
https://www.steamdeck.com/en/software
> The new version of SteamOS is optimized for handheld gaming, and it won't get in your way with other stuff. But if you want to get your hands dirty, head on out to the desktop.
And https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtiRGTZvGM has a Valve engineer it's more accurate to view these devices as PCs with custom controllers, and that you can install your own OS.
This is pure speculation on my side and I really hope I'm dead wrong but that's the first thing that comes to mind when I think about it (also, their own DRM right?).
Edit : the reply bellow seems to prove me wrong =)
>You can also install and use PC software, of course. Browse the web, watch streaming video, do your normal productivity stuff, install some other game stores, whatever.
and
>The default Steam Deck experience requires a Steam account (it's free!). Games are purchased and downloaded using the Steam Store. That said, Steam Deck is a PC so you can install third party software and operating systems.
Definitely. I have a Steam Link and you can enable ssh access to the root account by simply plugging in a USB flash drive with a particularly named text file and rebooting.
On the hardware page they show it docked and running a normal desktop interface and say "Use your Deck as a PC. Because it is one" and "You can also install and use PC software, of course. Browse the web, watch streaming video, do your normal productivity stuff, install some other game stores, whatever."
On the spec page, it says the OS is SteamOS 3.0 (Arch-based) and Desktop is KDE Plasma.
I guess I'm just not understanding where you'd even get the impression that it would be locked into a Steam account.
> Do I need a Steam account to use Steam Deck?
> The default Steam Deck experience requires a Steam account (it's free!). Games are purchased and downloaded using the Steam Store. That said, Steam Deck is a PC so you can install third party software and operating systems.
I imagine that would be because the "default Steam Deck experience" probably defaults to booting into Steam Big Picture mode, just like SteamOS does by default.