195
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
195 points (93.3% liked)
Google Pixel
5906 readers
5 users here now
The World's Google Pixel community!
This community is for lemmings to gather and discuss all things related to the Google Pixel phone and other related hardware. Feel free to ask questions, seek advice, and engage in discussions around the Pixel and its ecosystem.
We ask you to be polite when addressing others and respect Lemmy.world's rules.
NSFW content is not allowed and will immediately get you banned.
It also goes without saying that self-promotion of any nature and referral links are not allowed. When in doubt, contact the mod team first.
Also, please, no politics.
For more general Android discussions, see !android@lemmy.world.
This community is not in any way affiliated with Google. If you are looking for customer support regarding your Pixel phone, look here instead: https://support.google.com/pixelphone/
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Isn't that kinda the dream. We have devices that remote the os. So we get a super powerful device that keeps getting updated and upgraded. We just need a receiver ?
Isn't that what we want. Can reduce down the bulk on devices. Just a slab with battery, screen and modem and soc that can power the remote application ?
Sometimes that's what people dream about. On the other hand that hybrid cloud model is giving up the last remnants of computing autonomy and control over devices we own.
What I would like is something that gives me the framework to host my own server-side computations at home.
What privacy though? What would actually change ?
I mean it sucks for offline situations or for actions that need very good latency.
But the phone's battery would be happier if the processing is not done locally.
For some things I prefer to do the stuff locally, for other things on the cloud.
Some cloud Vs local examples I'm thinking about:
For example (example not related to the Pixel) if I'm generating an image with stable diffusion at home I prefer to use my RX 6800 on my private local Linux rather than a cloud computer with a subscription. But if I had to do the same on a mobile phone with tiny processing power and battery capacity I'd prefer to do it on the cloud.
(Another non AI example): for gaming, I prefer to run things natively. At least until it is possible to stream a game without added latency. Obviously I don't play games on a phone.
Another example (Google photos): I would prefer to connect Google photos to a local NAS server at home, and "own the storage on premise" and then pay a lower fee to Google photos for the extra services it brings. Browsing, face and objects recognition, etc. But this is not an option. With this I would be able invest on my own storage, even if I had dozens of gigabytes in 4K60FPS videos.
Funny you should say that. I'm basing this on GeForce which I use exclusively. It runs games from the cloud. I play Valhalla on my TV. I love rural and don't have don't have fibre.
Yes you read that. No fibre.
I recently got starlink and have been loving life. Living on a farm playing GeForce games. I loved stadia and bought into the whole thing. Raged that they cancelled it. But I got my money's worth.
Now it's not perfect but I live in rural NZ. So I have streaming to Aus to use GeForce since GeForce isn't native to NZ.
It's insane how good this cloud gaming is.
So fuck Google but first company to get a phone running on remote I will be buying
I mean I didn't mean it to be funny...so apologies if you took it as a bad joke.
But basically I just meant that I prefer (for gaming) to run the game locally than on a cloud. I barely tried remote gaming. I tried on WLAN the one from steam but only for 5 minutes. Then I tried PS Remote play last week streaming FF16 (just for testing) to my steam deck running W11 but at the home I was there was not enough bandwidth because there was a delay while moving the camera.
I usually play at 144Hz 1440p (on PC) and also at 2160p 60Hz (TV, although the PS5 gives crappy 30 FPS in many heavy games).
I also play some online games like Warzone with some friends. So if the experience of cloud gaming works for games like these then of course I'd be more happy with it.
Yeah nah. You ain't getting anything like this. Nobody who plays that kinda high level would be Happy with cloud. I'm trying to live on the cheap and since I'm nomad with no house or fixed abode.
Yoid not get that can off power from GeForce. You can't really play any competition games as latency would be too high.
I suggest everyone gives it a go as it's been great for me. But we need more people involved and more competition. If it's just GeForce then they can price it through the roof with no improvements
I'll definitely give it a shot. At least to the ones I have at home (the one from steam that uses my desktop and the one from the PS5).
I think everyone playing with it would be good. Can force them to work for the consumers and not just give us what is cheap or best for them.
Cloud works well for me as I don't need the best graphics and can't really justify buying an expensive console. Especially with how good GeForce has been. Tried Luna and it was honest just as good. Sat on my lawn playing ac origins. Was glorious
That would be, if Google wasn't constantly killing things that didn't do good enough. Especially given how expensive generative AI can be to run remotely. Just look at what happened with Stadia
Also, it just feels disappointing. Ever since chatGPT, they've been pouring near infinite budget into stuff like this by hiring the top talent, and working them to the latest hours of the night. And the best that they could come up with for the pixel 8 is feeding it data from the cloud.
And I can't even really believe the whole "consumer hardware isn't powerful enough" thing given that there's quite a few ARM processors, Apple especially, That's been able to build consumer hardware capable of performing generative AI (I've personally been able to run stable, diffusion and whisper on my M1 MacBook). Maybe not at the scale or quality of the cloud, but still capable of doing so regardless.
Obviously, I mean, Google did so well with Stadia.
/s
Stadia was great. People were just attacking it. Bad marketing from the get go. Have you tried it ? Did you just follow what everyone else says or actually try things for yourself
No, how could I try it? it doesn't exist anymore. Poor tiny little startup Google, bullied by the big bad user mob who paid for the service they sold and actually expected to receive what they had bought.
I'm not from the USA, how could I possibly have tried it? It died before it could've even become a product. Even if they would've gone to rural areas or the developing world it would've failed because there's not sturdy enough infrastructure to support the service. And as the experience proved, not even South California has enough infrastructure to support the service without massive lag. I remember reading that even people with Google Fiber had issues. So it was a failed service for a strong technical reason, not just the awful marketing and even worse service offering. Paying a subscription and buying games was the most retarded move Google made at the moment, but they make so many stupid moves so frequently that it's hard to tell if it was the worst.
I tried it. It worked reasonably well when wired and pretty terribly wireless, which isn't that surprising. The free starter kits they gave out came with a Chromecast Ultra for a reason: it had Ethernet on the power brick.
On the other hand, I hated it ideologically from the start. You bought games that were only available on their service and could only play with an active Internet connection. That's also to be expected. Not ideal, but not a big deal in itself so long as you know what you're getting into. What isn't okay is that you could lose access to the service permanently and there was no guarantee you would be compensated in any way whatsoever. At most they gave vague "don't worry about it wink wink" answers when asked in Reddit AMAs. Fortunately they did refund everyone when they shut it down, but they were under no legal obligation to do so. People who bought in were lucky. I wish I could say it was purely out of goodwill, but it's more likely that a bean counter at Google decided it was cheaper to refund everyone than to shoulder the bad press from not doing so.
Thank goodness there were also no notable exclusives on the service. The idea of games just completely disappearing from history just because Google got bored with a product like they always do is nauseating. It's bad enough that they bought out Typhoon Studios only to pretty much immediately shut them down. Again, thank goodness they were able to rise from the ashes and reform the studio under a new name.
Interesting. I only had access to it wireless. I used a OnePlus one VPN to North America and HDMI to a screen. It wasn't flawless but I didn't expect it to be.
Oh I agree but also I don't. Ubisoft games are still the same. They can drop access at any point and they likely wouldn't refund. Unfortunately unless we build an open source internet that is backward compatible I think we are fucked.
Will Xbox and PS5 games work without a patch. Could they yank a game and stop it being playable? Can steam epic gog ?
Yeah there was a game that was exclusive? Was that the one you mentioned?
Fuck Google but I loved the idea and now use GeForce. Similar concept I suppose
Good idea, while they're at it, they could tweak their prices accordingly.