[hedora]

I'm not sure how much of it is subsidies. If the open weight models are anything to judge by, China is taking price performance seriously, and the US model vendors are looking for performance at any cost. Like any other Pareto optimization, we end up paying 10x more for the last few percent improvement on benchmark scores.

Of course, like literally every other time this has played out in computing history, the companies focused on price performance will end up with more economic resources, and get to turn the upgrade crank more often and for longer.

Also, of course, China's way ahead of the US on things like renewables, batteries, and electrification of their economy. All of that feeds into cheaper power to run the models, but I suspect it's a second order effect vs. "improve the software".

[layoric]

They also banned crypto mining which previously was using the free to cheap electricity, so if AI data centres are using those now under utilised supply, very possible subsidies are very low.

[aftbit]

And yet despite the ban, China's contributions to Bitcoin mining remain very large.

https://cryptonews.com/news/china-doubles-down-on-crypto-ban...

[submain]

It seems to me China is chasing widespread adoption, while the US is chasing the AGI dream.

[ifwinterco]

This is my read as well - Chinese labs don’t really seem to believe in AGI and instead the focus is on optimising the transformer architecture so it can be actually useful for specific tasks, ideally at a low cost

[mxschumacher]

not just renewables, also massive nuclear capacity and huge modern coal plants. They can really crank up capacity if they want to. How long will it take to get a new nuclear power plant operational in the US?

[ian_holt]

I agree with that too. Whilst we here in the "Land Down Under" (Australia) seem to have a fixation on NOT wanting to go down the nuclear energy route and we seem rather keen on tearing down our last remaining coal-fired power stations and 'trying' to rely on so-called renewables. From direct experience, our energy costs have gone through the roof and regardless of what our 'wonderful' politicians tell us, that is not going to change any time soon. We seem to want to just give our uranium to USA, Japan, France, and South Korea so they can make cheap energy, whilst we send our best coal to Japan, China & India. Go figure...

[kllrnohj]

> Of course, like literally every other time this has played out in computing history, the companies focused on price performance will end up with more economic resources, and get to turn the upgrade crank more often and for longer.

Eh? The entire CPU & GPU wars for the last 30 years consistently rewarded the top performer above all else. Price/performance has always been the consolation prize of the loser of any given generation, and sitting in the price/performance pit for several generations in a row results in being essentially out of money in a fringe position. Like, for example, AMD's GPU division currently but also AMD's CPU division before Athlon 64 and also Phenom up through Ryzen.

[weakened_malloc]

Someone (can't remember who) said it best. US is the best at going from 0 to 1, China is the best at going from 1 to 100.

[dluan]

This has been a meme in Chinese tech/startup world lately, as it's now the main problem they are trying to solve. They largely consider 1 to 100 solved, and have set their sights on the new goal.

[radialstub]

> Of course, like literally every other time this has played out in computing history, the companies focused on price performance will end up with more economic resources, and get to turn the upgrade crank more often and for longer.

The iphone is the best selling computing device in history and is among the most expensive in its category.

[palata]

Most smartphones being sold are Android, though.

[radialstub]

True, however apple makes the overwhelming majority of the profit in the smartphone market.

[tancop]

profit only matters for investors. if anything its a sign that apple is selling overpriced products and underpaying workers and you should avoid them.

[dietr1ch]

For most people Apple's main selling point is about showing off the cute devices and battery life, but that's not going to play a role when users are free to choose the tool that will call the models.

[swingboy]

You might be vastly overestimating what a majority of phone owners use their phone for.

[rootusrootus]

I’ve never seen anyone show off an iPhone. What a weird take.

[dietr1ch]

I was talking more about laptops, but haven't you seen people sms bubble colour-shaming?

[coldtea]

That Apple serves as a "Veblen goods" lifestyle brand is well established. Your amusement is what's weird.

Of course people show off their iPhone. It's a big reason of owing one, it's also a big reason behind slight/major redesigns (people are able to show they have the latest model).

Perhaps you take "show off" literally, like someone going "hey, look, I have an expensive phone"?

It's way more subtle than that, only someone totally crash would do it that way. It's done the same way people buy expensive sneakers and clothes, or how people buy Teslas (or used to) and similar stuff. As a consumer identity that signals you afford a higher cost lifestyle.

[1over137]

Really? What country are you in?

[hedora]

It's also one of the better performing. Is the value line (currently, the 17e, I guess) typically much more expensive than an android with comparable battery life, CPU performance, and OS support lifespan?

This year, things look pretty comparable according to this shopping guide. You can get slightly worse or last year's line for about $100 less, or something with comparable specs (some better, some worse) for about the same price:

https://www.androidcentral.com/phones/apple-iphone/4-android...

The thing with price/performance is that it doesn't dictate high end or low end. It just says you need to be competitive at some price points.