I love Valve but it seems like they create these hardware projects to occasionally remind platform owners like microsoft/playstation/nintendo that they can't completely abuse their users and software devs (Win10 store lock-in, etc) and retain all of them. Valve just wants to protect steam and credible hardware platform competition is how they do it. I don't think they have any real plans to produce and support hardware long term.
A reminder that if Microsoft does continue along that path, Valve is happy to come along and gobble up significant portions of their market share. It's a win-win for Valve: either MS keeps their platform out of a walled garden, allowing Steam to continue it's current path, or Valve eats their lunch while making Linux in general a more mainstream option.
> I don't think they have any real plans to produce and support hardware long term.
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.
Seems like the Google Fiber strategy - start deploying key products/services to influence the big players in the market to finally innovate or at least play nice for consumers.
SF is actually getting really fast internet now. All the new developments we looked at had gigabit internet at ~$80/month with multiple competing providers. It's getting to older apartments now as well.
At these speeds, the WiFi adapters are more of a bottleneck than the ISP. I can only get close to full speed on ethernet.
Just in SF, though, right? Immediately south in Daly City the options were either paying through the nose for Comcast's mediocre cable or being stuck with DSL, and that was in 2019.
This is a result of the low density of SV. In my Oakland apartment I have 1Gbs symmetric internet. In fact we have the choice of 3 ISPs offering gigabit internet (only one of them is symmetrical though).
Honest question (I may have misunderstood): Do you mean to imply that those are good prices? For reference, I'm paying about $40 for 1000 mbps (I'm not in the US). Can go to 10gbps for about double that price (IIRC), but I think the bottleneck becomes server bandwidth so it wouldn't speed me up for most services.
$80 USD for 1000mbps in Tennessee, USA. Unfortunately I have the best internet of all my friend groups and will be moving across town to a newer home soon where the best I can get is 50mbps for $50 USD.
It is completely random what internet speeds you can get. The only constant is the monopoly of Comcast & AT&T.
A duopoly can be a distinction without a difference if there's territory-dividing collusion, or even just game-theoretically "optimal" moves by the players towards a sub-optimal state for the customers.
So what use is that 5gbps? Do you run multiple machines? Do you use 10gb NICs? Or is this just simply what your ISP offers? I’m curious what people beyond 1gbps are using their extra speed for.
I'd personally use it for remote backups. I guess this is with Free (illiad). They also offer 10G-EPON (8Gbps) with their "Freebox Delta" router with at least one SFP+ port.
Yes it's real! In rural cities in the USA many people only have 1-2mbps speeds still!
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!
Is that in a metropolitan area? Wow that's worse than what we have Australia, and internationally we are the laughing stock of internet connections! Here, you can get double than 10MB/s even in some remote areas now.
Really curious about DIGI. fed up with Orange and I want to try DIGI, 1gbs down + 2 unlimited data mobile lines for <50 EUR is really good value IMHO.
Is it stable? How fast was the install¿? I've had everything from 48hs with ONO to 2 weeks delay with Orange
Their connection is good.
They lease the last mile to Telefónica (Neba). They exchange traffic in Espanix.
Fun thing is sometimes Google says you're in Romania :-D
20€/month for 150Mbps download, 10Mbps upload in France.
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).
Absolutely in most countries you get either a much faster connection for the same price, or a connection of the same speed for less than that. And in this comparison I'm including a few developing countries where I've been recently (SE Asia).
End of the day Valve will never work seriously on hardware at a level will allow them to compete.
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.
They're not building traditional hardware. This is off the shelf components assembled in a particular manner, most likely by a 3rd party.
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.
> They're not building traditional hardware. This is off the shelf components assembled in a particular manner
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.
Laptops are completely commoditized, of course you would struggle with profitability there. For a company the size of Valve, building these devices probably carries very little risk. The biggest risk is the software, which they were going to tackle anyway.
This is way back about a decade ago, when Valve was very Windows-centric and barely even had macOS ports of Steam running. Windows 8 was announced with an entirely new application type, APIs, and distribution model intended to support tablets. Existing applications were shoved in the Desktop penalty box, while new applications had to be fullscreen or side-by-side, like a tablet. Furthermore, Windows on ARM was announced, with the Desktop penalty box further restricted to only Windows apps (though you could jailbreak it). If you wanted your app to work as a tablet app, you had to rewrite it for XAML and distribute it through the Microsoft Store, with similar technical restrictions to that of Apple's.
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.
After Apple bought NextStep to serve as the basis of their next gen OS, Rhapsody was a developer preview that was a reskinned NextStep running on Mac Hardware.
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 very, very short terms, Rhapsody is Apple's Windows 8.
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.
The funny thing is that Carbon was based on the modified Toolbox APIs that were intended for Copland! There used to be a header with a big comment block telling the whole history. AFAIR, they had tried changing the System 7 APIs so they could run on a system with memory protection, then they gave up because Copland had failed (and I think part of it was a mandate to be able to use the System 7 API _without_ changes, which was impossible), then Mac OS X came along and the comment changed to "we're doing this after all, lol".
You don't remember the Windows Store lock-in because there wasn't one. (Except for the arm based Windows RT and even that because of no x86 emulation). It was mostly FUD by companies that already had app stores (EA/Valve) or were preparing one (Epic).
No, it absolutely did exist, but it only applied to the new tablet/store app environment and APIs exclusive to it (such as native/WinRT XAML). Win32 apps weren't locked out from running, but they also couldn't use these new APIs. If you wanted to rewrite your app for the tablet environment (perhaps because Win32 was entirely inadequate for developing apps even back in 2012), then you had to also distribute that app on the store, as AFAIK there was no easy way to sideload AppX packages. In fact, games that were packaged for the store couldn't support things like G-Sync, Vulkan, or overlays because the lockout technology also firewalled off external DLLs.
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.
The lock-in they were talking about was that of the only way to get software to Windows would be from Store.
On the other hand all the half baked "modern" apis were Sinofskys revenge for not getting the CEO job.
I think it's reasonable to think Valve is more committed with this. Valve now faces more competitors in game distribution than ever and it's a good way to shore up their value proposition in a way that is not easily replicated by its PC-only competitors.
> 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 wonder if pure cloud service like GeForce Now can then be used, to benefit from portable hardware but have semblance of battery life, and avoid a likely jetengine cooling fan spin up...
Apples to oranges. Valve is concerned about hardware lock-in, not software lock-in.
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.
> If Epic Games or Ubisoft decides to make their game stores work on Linux, I bet they would run on Steam Deck too.
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.
> And yet it looks like you cannot use the Steam Deck without logging into a Steam account. Looks like we are trading in one lock-in for another.
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.
> 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.
I'd like to think they'll at least make it easy to root or otherwise repurpose these because I like them and would likely get one, however, in the software part of the specs they state that they have been in the works with game studios to basically have them implement their anti-cheat systems in their platform so I suspect said studios would be against that.
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 =)
Why speculate when you can read directly from the product page yourself?
>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.
> 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.
>i would almost bet valve will let you have root on these and do whatever you want with the hardware without any jailbreaks.
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 landing page they say "You can connect to peripherals, throw the picture onto a big screen, and do all the other PC things you'd expect."
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.
Seems like you can access the KDE desktop, so I think using the Steam account isn't mandatory. Not 100% sure though. Previous Steam machines allowed full control, even changing the OS.
The FAQs and such make it clear that it's basically an ordinary PC in a handheld form factor; if you don't want to log into a Steam account, then any ol' Linux distro or even Windows should run on it just fine (though whether the handheld controls play nicely is something I'd be curious about).
You don't need a Steam account if you're not using the default Steam Deck install. Wipe it and install TempleOS.
> 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.
> The default Steam Deck experience requires a Steam account (it's free!). Games are purchased and downloaded using the Steam Store.
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.
They state you can install a different OS. That is just if you want the default system. There was a video playing CK3 that shows KDE running so it's not like you can't install windows or a different distro.
KDE is part of the stock software, apparently. Similar to existing versions of SteamOS in that regard, except with Arch + KDE instead of Debian + GNOME.
