5 ms·
I'm wondering what the business model is exactly. Or rather what it will become once the VCs who are paying for all this start the squeeze. I'd be nervous abo
by jmull 3y ago
I'm wondering what the business model is exactly.
Or rather what it will become once the VCs who are paying for all this start the squeeze.
I'd be nervous about getting in too deep with tools from a company with what looks to me like an utterly unsustainable business model. The house of card will have to come down, won't it? You don't want your stuff to go down with it.
IDK, been wrong before, could be here too. It's disconcerting, though.
- EnergyAmy 3y agoIf it gets open sourced before that happens, it'll get forked if it's good enough. Just happened recently with OpenTF. I'm really interested in it, but I'll wait until it gets put under a permissive license before getting too invested.
- barryrandall 3y agoSame. I don’t feel strongly about project governance or specific OSI-approved license choice, but I’m not stepping on this rug while VC is still holding on with both hands.
- synthos 3y agonod.ai was just acquired by AMD for a chunk of money. I expect they hope to find a similar exit once they can show an end-to-end product: Take a model written in Pytorch, upcast it to mojo, and put it through their unified compiler stack to accelerate on <hardware>
- subharmonicon 3y ago> Or rather what it will become once the VCs who are paying for all this start the squeeze. How do we know that squeeze isn’t already happening? The mojo launch was extremely underwhelming, and I wonder if it was forced by early investors to help drive hype and the next round of funding.
- twoodfin 3y agoWild speculation: 1) Have a compelling enough product to become an essential tool in data-focused workflows across the massive Python ecosystem. 2) Get acquired by someone interested in a deeply wedged stake across the massive Python ecosystem. At that point, it doesn’t matter if they’re open source or not.