$30-50/month is a wild price point for this. Who is going to pay that? It feels too expensive both for enterprise (existing remote desktop solutions run about half the cost) and for end-users.<p>I worked on a similar solution to this and we had a price point of $5/month per user...<p>EDIT: 16GB of RAM and 16vCPUs. What a weird balancing of resources. Chrome is typically memory bound, not CPU bound. This also explains why it would be so wildly expensive compared to anything else out there.<p>EDIT2: A lot of the replies I'm getting seem to think my implication here is that no one would pay for this or it would be easier for people to build this themselves. I'm not saying that at all, I'm just critiquing the price point. There's huge market demand for browser isolation, I've worked on products in that field, I just haven't encountered any customers willing to pay $30-50/month for it.
The Cloud is just someone else's computer.<p>As a self hoster, nothing irks me more that more software that takes control from the user to some random third party.<p>And I fail to see why anyone would use this, you need high speed internet capable of streaming 4k for one and if you have access to that, then chances are you also have access to a sufficiently powerful computer capable of running chrome locally.<p>Coming to security, this is a complete disaster. All your traffic including passwords are going to a third party server and you have to trust that server to not do anything shady.<p>This cant be economical either, or will be too expensive.<p>And the testimonial on the website, I find it hard to believe that a CEO of a company cannot afford a powerful computer but can afford a (presumably expensive) subscription service giving them access to a video stream of a browser running on powerful hardware.<p>Like another user said VNC can already do this, and much more without the electron wrapper.
Maybe I'm biased (I certainly use powerful-ish machines, so maybe I'm not the target market), but I genuinely can't relate when people on here talk about the web being slow as a category.<p>Sometimes a heavy web-app like Twitter will be slow on first load, but Mighty wouldn't help with network speed, right?<p>Slack is slow because it's slow to load actual conversation data; the iOS app is just as slow as the Electron app. This is not UI jank; it's a slow API and/or insufficient prefetching.<p>Jira is slow because it sucks; I've used native apps that are slow because they suck.<p>Other than that, I don't have many relevant experiences to point to. I'm sure for people running older machines the picture is different (the state of web engineering as a whole could certainly be improved on several dimensions), but I also doubt people stuck using slow computers can afford to spend $30-$50/month on something like this.<p>I'm genuinely asking: what things are slow for you? Is it just the fact that the code has to load before it can request the data (or render anything) that makes it feel slow? Or is there genuine sluggishness? What web apps are you using that I'm not?
So Figma is written in JS and C++, compiled to WebAssembly so it runs in a browser, which runs in a datacenter, with video streamed to Mighty, an Electron app where the front-end is written in JS and some C++, running inside Chromium.
The fact that a web email client (gmail) can turn the fan on when it’s mostly text and runs in a VM <i>written and published by the same company that wrote the email client</i> just makes my head spin.<p>And the solution to this is to put the browser in the cloud? So what’s the desktop browser on your new $3,000 mbp now, like... a demo environment?<p>It boggles my mind that we’re not demanding the web bloat stop. Maybe figma just doesn’t really work as a web app! If I have to run my browser in a datacenter, I think it’s fair to say it doesn’t.<p>As a web dev I’m just embarrassed. How are we not saying “this is too much, stop making web apps that crash my computer it’s not worth it.”
I've been excited about Mighty ever since it was first announced — I was the ideal customer: I use all the apps mentioned on the landing page all day long and was super pissed at how slow everything was on my MacBook Pro.<p>And then I upgraded to the new M1 MacBook Pro. It's been a week, and this one's so smooth I can never go back to my old computer. I just realized I get most of the advantages mentioned on Mighty's landing page (more tabs, fast performance, no fan noise) already. I don't think I need anything beyond my local Chrome.<p>Question to suhail: Do you think people who are on M1 (and in future, those who're on more advanced Apple Silicon) are your target customers? Is there a benchmark for Mighty's performance vs M1s?
I wish they actually gave latency statistics instead of just saying "we worked really hard don't worry about it".<p>There's definitely potential to do well on latency, if for example you have a server in NYC and your client has FIOS the inherent network latency could be 3ms and the only challenge is the encode/decode latency. It's possible Mighty has done something better, but every other remote desktop system I've tested spends more time on encode/decode than in the network, while claiming they're great (without giving numbers).<p>If you have figured out encode/decode latency, show me a high speed video (including the user's hands, not a screen recording) of say a Macbook on residential internet in NYC separate from your servers clicking things, compared to that Macbook running Chrome locally. Your numbers will almost certainly be worse for local interactions like typing in a text box, but you can show how it's better for things like clicking links.<p>Another issue other desktop streaming systems have is that video compression makes text ugly, especially when scrolling. This isn't as big of a deal for the game streaming systems but is noticeable on a retina display desktop. It's plausible Mighty has the codec settings cranked up enough so this isn't an issue though.
It's shocking that Paul G thinks this the future.<p>Casey Muratori said it well: Running a browser to connect to the cloud to run a browser to connect to the cloud to retrieve the contents of a single 2D page to recompress and send back to the original browser is now "the future of computing".<p>Perhaps we need a new "test", like the "Turing Test", but this time for when humans can no longer tell the difference between new technology and old technology. "Mighty", for example, is just a "dumb terminal" - technology we had in the 1970s. Yet it is called "the future".<p><a href="https://twitter.com/cmuratori/status/1387126330961981441" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/cmuratori/status/1387126330961981441</a>
> There are strict policies internally about viewing someone’s browser history: it is prohibited.
<a href="https://www.mightyapp.com/mightyapp.com/security" rel="nofollow">https://www.mightyapp.com/mightyapp.com/security</a><p>This is a strange commitment to pricacy. Not that there’s a technical barrier to employees accessing data, but something along the lines of “we wrote up a rule in the company wiki, so we trust that employees won’t violate it”
This is a stop-gap before the web apps are rendered server side and streamed to the client. Not as HTML and JS, but as 4/8K 60FPS video, like Stadia or Xbox cloud. The reason is simple, your smartphone, tablet or laptop can already view a Netflix HDR 4K stream but still cannot render Gmail or Figma with acceptable performance. You can also do things like remove ads and telemetry which the service providers would really you rather not.<p>The app will display exactly as the provider intended, all compatibility issues will be eliminated, and the performance will be entirely uniform and in the provider's control, provided by AWS, Azure and Google Cloud. Stadia for gaming is OK, but Stadia for Adobe Creative Cloud, Figma and Visual Studio is much more interesting, coming to your browser tab soon.
I have been following Mighty for a while and while I'm certainly curious to try it and have no doubt that the team behind is top-notch from an Engineering perspective, I generally dislike the direction of this product.<p>Why? I'm sure there are valid use-cases for it (Figma, other heavy apps), especially for B2B customers, just like there are for other RBI solutions. But the way that it's hailed as a Chrome killer or "The Best Browser" by many of its fans is disingenuous because it is simply not a browser that you run yourself, and the minute you stop paying or your high speed network is unavailable you can't use that browser anymore. Nobody would think of their Netflix subscription as their own "library" that sits in their own shelf, it's a subscription.<p>Lastly, and this is what was the final straw, their own damn website makes my browser crawl. Try developing a marketing page on a Linux machine without HW-accelerated rendering or WebGL support please. It's ironic (or genius) that you make people wish they were using your product when they visit your own website already.
This is a great technical solution to a problem that is really about users not understanding how their use of a computer really affects performance, and companies under-spec'ing the machines they give people.<p>4GB of RAM in a MacBook Air is not enough for your average knowledge-worker living in their web browser. 8GB is probably fine for most, but if you're a designer using Figma? Maybe not.<p>Also I suspect that while most users know that lots of tabs makes their computer slow, I think most users also have a fairly fuzzy idea of what's a slow computer, what's slow internet, what else might be slowing their computer down, etc. If you're here on HN you're probably not one of these users, but they're not uncommon.<p>While I applaud the technical solution here, I think a lot of companies should be seeing their logos on this page as a sign that they have failed to create accessible software. If your target market is considering renting cloud compute to run your webapp, maybe that's something you need to fix.
It's like VDI, but for apps that we originally designed as thin clients. Does that make Chrome a thin thin client? I think if a modern PC can't run your web app it's a sign that web developers have gone off the deep end, and either need to re-architect their app or ship it as Electron with a lighter web-only substitute.<p>Also, Cloudflare recently launched a similar thing, but it's designed for situations where you want an employee to access a service but don't trust their browser: <a href="https://www.cloudflare.com/teams/browser-isolation/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cloudflare.com/teams/browser-isolation/</a>. That's the only situation in which this makes any sense, and even then, if you don't trust the employee's device you are probably hosting them a virtual desktop anyway.
Yes I would like you to render all my browsing on your servers. Yes, all of it - my emails, social media, bank account.. What is this privacy you speak of? Never heard of it. Don't need those pesky things..<p>On a serious nore. I run on 32+GB RAM on my primary machine, open all the tabs and IDEs I want and stay generally in the 11GB range.<p>My guess is, get yourself 16GB ram and you should be okay.
Isn't typing the credentials of my bank, email, etc into a cloud browser run by someone else just as untrustworthy as using a hotel lobby browser? I might use a hotel lobby browser to look up directions or browse local attractions but I'd never log into any account knowing that all my keystrokes might be logged etc...
Clicking the "security" tab on their website scrolls down at around 3 fps in Firefox running on a Ryzen 5900X and GTX 3080. (<a href="https://memes.peet.io/img/21-04-ed2a915e-f3cb-4372-ba3a-4a3750a3c13b.mp4" rel="nofollow">https://memes.peet.io/img/21-04-ed2a915e-f3cb-4372-ba3a-4a37...</a>)<p>The solution to that problem is clearly to subscribe to their service so that I can stream from a less-anemic machine.
>> "No more cookie banners"<p>...I want cookie banners. When implemented correctly they let me turn off the cookies I don't want.<p>>> "We commit to keeping your browser history private"<p>Are there limits to this? Law enforcement for example? A company having your full browsing history sounds like a privacy nightmare.
I have worked on teams where we rushed to deploy things that we knew should be faster or more resource efficient. The incentives are simply not aligned right now — it usually pays to get stuff out even if it’s a bit slow, and the cost of browser resources are not yours to bear. This results in webpages with janky rendering (the Mighty home page itself may be guilty of this) or web apps with performance issues.<p>Implementing the browser as a VNC client is a clever approach but seems to be a band-aid for browser performance instead of attacking root cause. Shifting the incentives for product development teams could be a more permanent solution. Perhaps by imposing stricter resource restrictions in the browser or by adding performance metrics to search engine algorithms that go beyond initial load time.<p>EDIT: Reading other comments, it sounds like the founders have ideas for the cloud browser that go beyond performance. I’ll be curious to see how this plays out.
At the lowest price point, i.e. 30/month, you'd be paying $1440 every 4 years... for a browser??<p>I kind of understand the price point if you're getting a whole "computer in the cloud" kind of thing, but for <i>just</i> a browser, it feels like a rip off.<p>And you're capped by internet speeds too... yeah that's rough.
Why do I have the thought, that this is really not about Chrome?
How about "Mighty Makes ${xyz} Faster"?<p>Its VNC.
And Cloudflare has pitched same [0] with different value dimension (security).<p>[0] <a href="https://www.cloudflare.com/teams/browser-isolation/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cloudflare.com/teams/browser-isolation/</a>
1. I don't have the problem of feel like Chrome being slow, and I don't hear this complaint much. The complexity of the web is not increasing as quickly as computers are increasing in power. This seems like a temporary and niche problem to be working on.<p>2. Reliable low latency streaming on wired connections is pretty straightforward, and should work fine. This is an easy problem.<p>3. Reliable low latency streaming on wireless connections is an unsolvable problem due to the nature of physics (basically), and will be an endless source of frustration. There's a reason no FPS gamer would ever play on wifi by choice. It will work fine at times and then randomly start sucking right as you're trying to do something important.<p>4. If it turns out this is useful in some cases, Google can easily do a better job than Mighty. And there's no reason this couldn't be done by AWS and Microsoft as well. It's trivial for a major tech company to do this better than Mighty does. They already built Stadia and the rest. Unlike when Dropbox launched, these companies aren't sleeping on stuff like this anymore.
You can basically either pay for this for ~3 years or buy an M1 machine for the ~same amount of money.<p>With the differences being:<p>1. The M1 machine will most probably feel faster, Mighty can't even build custom servers with M1 processors or whatever comes next from Apple as of today.<p>2. The M1 machine will probably retain some value after 3 years, your Mighty subscription will retain no value, you can't resell it or anything.<p>3. Using your own laptop means you won't have to send your data to Mighty servers at all, as such if there's some security bug in their system it won't impact you.<p>4. Using your own laptop means that downtimes or unexpected service errors from Mighty won't matter to you either.<p>5. Using your own laptop means that if your internet connection goes down temporarily and you are using a well designed web app that handles that case you might not even notice that you went offline, with Mighty I guess the whole thing will just stop responding, which isn't great.<p>6. On the other hand using Mighty might allow you to run multi-GB applications remotely consuming fewer resources, but like if you need to run those kinds of applications wouldn't it make more sense to just buy a beefier machine? Mighty servers seem to be limited to 16GB anyway, plus as far as I know V8's heap for JS is hard limited at 4GB currently, these browser apps that takes tens of GBs of RAM don't exist.<p>At the end of the day though without even considering all the issue will Mighty even fell faster than a 16GB M1 Macbook? If yes how much faster? If not this is already a non starter. And we haven't even seen what the M2 or M5 or whatever will ship in the new Mac Pros will be able to do.
The browser was supposed to be a thin client, but it's gotten so thick that people will now pay to run it in the cloud and stream it to... a thin client.<p>Technology is insane. No one would have ever designed it this way from scratch and yet, here we are.
I was going to jump in the "who is going to pay for this bandwagon" but, knowing silicon valley, some _js_framework_ cult leader will give them a shout out, then their herd will start retweeting , someone at a VC will notice, drop a couple of millions, and before you notice they have a 1B valuation. I certainly wish them the best.
Jonathan Blow's comment on twitter[1]<p><i>The public version of the Web started taking off in 1995, around the time Netscape Navigator was released. Here's the World Supercomputer List for 1995:<p><a href="https://top500.org/lists/top500/1995/06/" rel="nofollow">https://top500.org/lists/top500/1995/06/</a><p>A Coffee Lake GPU in a random laptop is almost double the performance of the top of that list.<p>So what we are observing is, since the Web started, it has become so much slower that a supercomputer would no longer be able to run it? Does that make sense to anyone?</i><p>[1] <a href="https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1387100601784233985" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1387100601784233985</a>
This is a very very weird product. From the site which looks like a nice pitch btw, this basically looks like a VM that only serves as a browser. What problem does it solve?<p>Btw. My teeth gnash at the thought that my assumption above about the product is correct.
The only real use case I see for this is for anyone working from an under powered machine who needs to run _really_ resource heavy web apps. If your working in tech, chances are you're running with at least 16gb ram and a half decent CPU. I'm sure there's some edge cases where this _could_ be useful, but certainly not at that price point.<p>Can you install Chrome extensions? Does it support things like adblock? What are some concrete use cases and examples of who this is for?<p>The marketing talks about the ability to have more tabs open... In my experience, once you go beyond about 25 tabs (15" mbp) they basically become impossible to mentally manage.<p>Maybe rather than having 50+ chrome tabs open, people need to learn how to manage resources on their machines.
Just use the new Chromium-based Edge. It comes with Sleeping Tabs feature <a href="https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2020/12/09/sleeping-tabs-beta-performance/" rel="nofollow">https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2020/12/09/sleeping-tabs...</a>
This only makes Chrome faster until you saturate your remote instance's memory with open tabs. The faster isn't really there. A 16gb machine on your desk would run Chrome just as fast. Technically faster cuz no input lag.<p>This is like selling a monthly subscription to 16gb of RAM, which you can use only for the web browser.
Huge respect for YC and Suhail. I understand what Mighty is solving. Also, I understand there are more Chrome users. But...
1. I want everyone to take a look at it after using Safari on M1, this solution sounded obsolete already. 2. The-Balaji mentioned Mighty is not building browser but a web based OS. Well, yes! I liked that part. 3. And, the price of Mighty is too much! When compared to the M1 performance per MBP cost - it is the cheapest yet highly performing device. Why would I use Chrome? That too a hosted model of Chrome. 4. Building a solution around Chrome and a problem caused by Chrome have been puzzling for me. Chrome itself is a memory hungry machine. To solve that problem, we can't just go for a radical problem while other FREE alternatives are there. Is this for Chrome fan base?<p>I am very curious to see the future of this product and observe. Much to learn from this.<p>Kudos team!
This is a privacy nightmare. This maybe fine for work where my privacy is compromised as is. But outside, this is a thinly veiled data grab. That will come.
>Who can access my data/browsing history?<p>>Your data will never be shared with another person or entity. There are strict policies internally about viewing someone’s browser history: it is prohibited. Humans don’t access your information unless we’re given permission by you. We use automated tools that access your instance in order to update your browser’s software to keep making Mighty better.<p>What about law enforcement?
Dan Kaminsky died three days ago, and someone recommended on the news thread his talk "The hidden architecture of our time", which goes about process isolation, cloud computing and infosec.<p>I watched it today, and funnily enough, he started by showcasing a fully working chrome browser inside a chrome tab, being serviced from a virtual machine of some cloud provider.<p>That talk was from five years ago.
I have an 8 core i9 @ 2.4 and 32GB Of RAM and opened this page in Safari and good grief it’s the worst performance of a web page I’ve ever seen, not joking. It’s practically unusable.<p>Given the product I’m curious is the performance of your landing page by design?
I hate this kind of marketing BS. Mighty does not make Chrome faster, it just runs it on more powerful hardware in the cloud.<p>Crowing about how much less resources they consume is disingenuous. Of course it uses less resources locally when all the heavy lifting happens in the cloud.<p>Statements like “Mighty uses 10x less memory than Google Chrome.” are outright deception, it likely doesn’t use less memory at all, it just uses cloud memory instead of local.<p>I guess we shouldn’t ask about the ecological impact of all “Mighty” users having their browser running on beefy server hardware.
Is this really solving performance issues by streaming a video over the internet ?<p>Solving problems caused by overengineering with overengineering ?<p>Isn't this just insane ?<p>If you have performance issues because you use a lots of tabs, just use a browser which is able to pause background tabs ?
"Get a reminder about your meetings one minute before they start so you can stay focused on your work until it's time. No more hunting down the meeting link."<p>If you're not preparing more than a minute out from your meeting start time.. you are the reason why meetings are bad
I don't see the actual business case for this at all.<p>Most businesses amortise a laptop/PC over a number of years. Would you rather pay $10/month/user for this cloud service, or spend the additional $360 (laptop/PC lifespan for a business that can amortise the asset over 3 years) in the first place to get more powerful hardware locally, and benefit all apps rather than just the web browser?<p>I'd like to be proved wrong.
Being a naysayer is no fun so here’s a positive question: given you know that your website’s speed is bound by network and not compute, what crazy sites could you build? What could you do with a WebAssembly + WebGPU stack that isn’t being done?
I thought this was a shitpost at first... rather than spending time to decrease Chrome's memory footprint their solution is to just run it on a bigger machine in the cloud?
Yeah, call me skeptical about this. Yes the technology is probably interesting, still.<p>It's a nice example of what happens when people have more money than actual issues. You're not solving the actual problem, you're just working around it by shifting the place where it happens (which is a good thing in a lot of cases, but not necessarily here)<p>To me what they excel in is in hubris.
Interesting reading through all the negative comments here. Maybe this is an indictment of the state of the web, but it seems to clearly solve a problem a lot of people have.<p>Also have to imagine the long term vision is beyond just accelerating the web as it is now. This opens up possibilities for moving resource hungry applications to the cloud, expanding beyond just a browser to be more of an OS, white-label installs for brands to offer a cloud app, etc.<p>That this has been tried before (Silk, Stadia, etc) IMO is validation that this idea has legs and just needs the right timing and execution. No idea if Mighty will be what makes that go mainstream, we'll see!
> <i>Mighty streams your browser from a powerful computer in the cloud.</i><p>So Mainframes and dumb AS400 terminals are back in vogue again. Computer technology is truly cyclical in nature.
Fascinating concept and yet I find something about it really disturbing... the exact opposite of the future I'd hope for. It just sounds so inefficient. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong or something.<p>Also, maybe I'm just being pedantic, but exactly what is the meaning of "10x less memory"? Is that the same as "One tenth the memory"?
I saw the founders tweeting yesterday about launching today, but the page still shows a button to request access. Makes me wonder if I could also launch like this.
Interestingly Mighty seems to be a browser built with Electron, and Electron's docs themselves say [1] this is not what Electron was build for and it's discouraged for security reasons.<p>"With that in mind, be aware that displaying arbitrary content from untrusted sources poses a severe security risk that Electron is not intended to handle."<p>That's not a great start is it.<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.electronjs.org/docs/tutorial/security" rel="nofollow">https://www.electronjs.org/docs/tutorial/security</a>
I'm a bit confused: Google Stadia (and the Amazon/Nvidia) HN has a deserved reputation for missing the obvious value add of a service, so I'd like people to correct me but - isn't this basically Stadia, except it costs 5x as much, and you can only "play" Chrome?
There's a specific niche where this kind of technology makes quite good sense, although it looks like the current focus is primarily B2C.<p>With the sheer number of exploits against complex attack surface web browsers, I could see organisations using this to mostly eliminate use of the web browser locally. If you can get a trusted, audited provider to host remote cloud browser instances that ship with "always on" policy enforcement (ad blocking, site blocking, phishing filtering, data loss prevention etc.), you can move all web activity to another system in the cloud. You can erase and have new instances set up as needed (daily?).<p>Web browsing locally would then be restricted by firewalls to only work on high security local systems (which themselves are not pulling in any external dependencies) - you could eventually lock the local browser down to only speak to a very limited internal IP range.<p>While this won't work for risk taking internet-first organisations, there's governments and enterprise users who would love something like this, as it helps them reduce their risk exposure on client devices - as long as the remote video and input protocol is robust and memory safe, it starts to become incredibly difficult for a lot of attacks to succeed against their protected systems. This also potentially removes the need in some cases for people to carry 2 laptops - one for higher security activities, one for public internet level activities. If this software can be assured to a suitable level and isolated appropriately, it could be an interesting solution to a very boring problem!
To all the people baffled here, try switching from one laptop to another. I recently did and had <i>almost</i> zero porting time.
My doc's are in notion/docs, passwords and preferences on chrome<p>There was a small amount of code files, even those I didn't really need.<p>It's not apparent how browser reliant we are till we actually move from one system to another.<p>This is the future. The price point is a topic thats up for debate, sure. But the general idea is absolute genius
This is awesome, because enables futuristic devices which otherwise wouldn't be possible. Untethered smartglasses, holographic wrist watches etc.<p>Miniaturization of compute is insufficient to implement such devices. And even if compute could be miniaturized to render interactive web pages with a coin-sized device, the sorry state of battery technology would render it impractical.<p>With 5G we only need enough compute and power to run a modem and a Mightyapp renderer.
The offer kinda looks like an April Fools joke to be honest.<p>> A browser that's always on.<p>Not when you experience a shortage of service and freeze all your users from doing basic work, not just on one service, but everything else.<p>They have a point though.<p>The plague of front-end is that most developers just don't care about performance. Take Redux for example, which for a while was considered a golden standard by many. When you look into it, you see that when one little thing changes in one big global store that has everything, everything else is notified and a comparison is run to see if that item has changed. (If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, but this was the impression I got when I was evaluating that framework). But if I'm not wrong and that's really the way it is, the fact that this framework was accepted by so many, just proves the point that most developers think all their end users have a high-powered Mac.<p>I could say something similar about virtual dom abstractions. I understand that there were no alternatives earlier (today we have Svelte), but you could still do a good front-end with classic dom-manipulation that was super fast, and with some thought put into it - well organized.
Yeah, um hmm, I'm going to let some computer in the cloud see EVERYTHING I do in browser and see all my key strokes. What could go wrong? Sign me up!
I don't disagree that people will pay for this.<p>I think it's more of a statement that the state of browsers, the web, etc. neccessitates this sort of solution. This is like the underclass taking the trash out of the shining skyscrapers in the middle east by hand: a symptom of a system so broken that people do insane things to pretend that it's not broken.
All consumer services tend toward free.<p>It seems to me that if this becomes a successful (consumer) product it will either become free – or be replaced by the free version. The free version would generate revenue through advertising or by data collection and user surveillance.<p>Since Suhail is following this thread, I'd be curious to know if he'd ever consider that route.
I wonder what the founders felt when they saw the M1 benchmarks.
It seems that Apple’s solution to underpowered laptops is giving them serious power.
If I were the founders I’d be queasy.
How is this different from Cloudflare Browser Isolation?
<a href="https://www.cloudflare.com/teams/browser-isolation/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cloudflare.com/teams/browser-isolation/</a>
Can't wait to see all the security problems by logging into your bank account from "somewhere" in the cloud. I think the idea is wrong, not everything has to be a subscription, especially not a web browser.
I'm curious how they deal with local printers, file downloads, file uploads, links that launch things like a native local Zoom app, etc. That wasn't fun last time we did this with thin clients and Citrix :)
Hear me out.<p>Privacy is really a concern here. They want me to send all of my key strokes to them? Get out of here.<p>But they are providing me a smooth development experience-- there is definitely a need of this.<p>My 16GB MBP starts dying very easily with chrome, docker and intellij opened. Don't get me started on what happens when I am sharing screen on zoom.<p>So maybe we need a sweet spot here.<p>How about they sell it as a self deployable software which I can run on aws and own the cost of the software abs hardware. And maybe economics work out in the favour of customer to try this combo out?
There seems to be a lot of people very focused on keeping a lot of tabs open in their browser. For me, I browse the web, hit CTRL+D for a site that I would like to visit again later, and then close all my tabs automatically by simply quitting the browser. Why do people hoard URLs in the tabstrip? I guess that's how people use the web+browsers now, and my approach is very unique and unpopular.<p>I know for me I have several Firefox profiles for different things, and doing cumbersome things like creating a new Firefox profile for task `x` is too much for people, but splitting sessions up is a big win both for privacy and productivity. If I'm in a browser tailor made for email, there is a better chance I will focus only on email and not trying to do something else.<p>Compartmenting your browsing like this is good for privacy because secrets can't spill over into other sites since your more sensitive browsing is done in a separate session, insulated from work email, and cookies can't correlate activity, and build a profile of you. Bonus points if you do all your political browsing in things like the Tor Browser Bundle or use privacy-aware browsers like Brave or Firefox. But that's just me!
I don't understand the negativity. I have tried similar technology and the speed bump was immediately noticeable, and that was rendering the client all in JS (this was the tech underneath Cloudflare's zero trust browser). The potential for central management is there so my guess is the product ends up being some sort of enterprise browser that provides both security and extends the life of existing IT infrastructure.
I was pretty sold on the concept and features of this browser until I started thinking, "hm... if this is streaming, they're gonna have to charge a monthly rate to use this."<p>So I filled out the questionnaire to request access (to find out the pricing) and the _cheapest_ option to the "how much would you think about paying" was $10/month.<p>I would expect this could find a place in the workplace where a company subsidizes employee use for workplace browser use but... I don't see this gaining any traction from the average consumer.<p>I don't think I'd pay more than a couple bucks a month (at most) for a web browser when my current one (and literally any alternative) already works great -- and even if they didn't, there's also tons of free plugins for managing tabs/sessions/etc AND already tons of general-purpose streaming services (like Shadow) that don't just limit you to a browser... at a seemingly lower price.<p>FWIW, I typically have 20+ windows open at a time (to context-switch between projects), each with 30+ tabs (each loosely mapped to a to-do item). I'm also not on a Mac, so maybe I'm just not the target market.
The landing page looks nice but has a lot of hand-wavy claims. For instance,<p>> Your Internet speed while using Mighty is over 1 Gbps.<p>How's that work if it isn't?<p>> 2 more hours to stay in flow<p>How are you going to improve my battery life by that much when I run a 4K monitor that makes it impossible?<p>It's also full of claims that would be labeled as [citation required] if it was on Wikipedia.<p>> uses 10x less memory<p>Where are the profiles? Where's the network timing graph?<p>You can get most of the way there by using Auto Tab Discard.
The requests are made direct from cloud servers?<p>With your early users, you might try to figure out their actual use cases. I imagine some of them might be evaluating it as an alternative for the same purposes for which they'd use a VPN service.<p>And if they're using it that way, you might make sure you're not going to get blocked by sites in a way that would kill your business.
Just close the tabs - I don't get why people keep so many open. Even when web developing 6 or so is probably the max I ever have open (apart from when opening links in other tabs to read in a few minutes).<p>I find more are just a distraction and a reminder to waste time. If I want to read HN I just type "Command-T ne Return" and chrome completes the URL and takes me there.
Honestly, I can see the value proposition for saving battery life on a laptop if you're doing something resource intensive in browser. I mean, if you still have to stream video I wonder how much battery most people would save.<p>But why would anyone want to outsource their web browsing to a third party? If this is something you need, you should setup a homeserver and RDP into it...
Unpopular opinion (for some reason): People in my home country would benefit vastly from this product. My dad's computer's main reason for crashing is due to memory intensive browsing.<p>I think this is a great idea. It's fascinating to see the default human behaviour for not understanding a new idea is to be relentlessly pessimistic about it. Best of luck Suhail!
What I'm learning about Mighty reminds me of a recent development at work: I have to use an ETL tool that is terribly resource hungry and consumes 5GB+ of RAM without doing much. My macbook pro only has 8GB of memory, so running Chrome and some other applications gets me close full memory usage. The result are frequent and frustrating crashes of the ETL tool. New hardware is not an option for the moment, so we decided to give Amazon Workspaces [0] a try.
It's basically a big Windows desktop (16GB RAM) running in the Cloud that I can just access like any other window. It consumes around 500MB of memory on my machine itself.<p>For highly interactive or latency-bound applications this is probably not an option but for asynchronous work (me launching jobs that take 5 minutes to run) I really appreciate this flexible cloud extension to my current setup.<p>[0] <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/workspaces" rel="nofollow">https://aws.amazon.com/workspaces</a>
I'm surprised by the amount of skepticism I'm noticing here. I have been following Suhail's work on Mighty for a few months and I was very much looking forward to it.<p>One use case that where I think this would make my life easier is in the big-data / ML space where I'm trying to visualize large quantities of data. JS, WebGL and other supporting tools are all available today, but it's quite painful to load a graph visualization with 1M nodes and make it responsive without spending a lot of time optimizing the JS code. As a data scientist when I'm simply hacking stuff and want a quick prototype it's nearly impossible.<p>Graphistry [<a href="https://www.graphistry.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.graphistry.com/</a>] has a decent setup for graphs viz, but it didn't quite fit my needs. I've also tried JS running on a large machine (with GPU) and VNCed to it. That experience was quite poor.
>Mighty uses 10x less memory than Google Chrome. Load hundreds of tabs without it stalling, freezing, and slowing down your computer.<p>That what Firefox was doing for me (i had 2000+ tabs - had to block Windows perf monitor staff which was just burning practically all CPU trying to "monitor" that Firefox :). Had to start using Chrome (company stuff), and it is like an order of magnitude downgrade, in particular when it comes to tabs.<p>So, Mighty sounds like a great solution to a self inflicted problem of a slow and resource hungry Chrome. Of course one could probably just fix the Chrome ... Whom i'm kidding?! I've worked on 2 browsers (pre-Firefox Mozilla is one) and of course there is practically no way of it short of deep rewrite.<p>I wonder though about copyright issues here. The creative layers who killed Aereo could possibly apply the same logic of "public broadcasting even if to just one person" to the Mighty too.
As others have said, the pricing seems completely out of range for the average home user. But for enterprise users, how frictionless is it going to be for IT and legal departments to sign off on a service that touches all of your browser-related work and data? Before you argue "<i>Yes but Google/Amazon/Microsoft/Salesforce....</i>" — yeah, but there's a big difference between entrusting a well-established cloud services company and a new streaming startup.<p>As a power user (who is, admittedly, overly anal about how many tabs I have open at once), this kind of dumb terminal doesn't feel that appealing. I need a laptop that's powerful enough to drive 2 high-res external monitors and do the data crunching tasks in the background, on top of web browsing. A potato terminal that can handle just the streaming isn't going to be much fun.
If they can get this running on an iPad that would be incredible. The real value of Mighty isn't for users who can afford a MacBook Pro. It's to unlock the utility of a dumb terminal and provide lightning fast performance on a underpowered device. And freed from Apple's shackles they put on Mobile Safari.
Looks really cool! This was my biggest pain before buying a M1 MBA. In the "running Slack/Figma/SaaS web apps" space, are they competing directly against low-energy, more-powerful chips like the M1? Whereas I can imagine lots of use-cases where it's impractical to buy a machine like that.
I'm not understanding the difference between this and webgap.io which seems a lot cheaper for same service. I have actually tried webgap.io and it offered modest but noticeable improvement in page load speed for sites in US.<p>FTR I live in rural Hongkong(there is such a thing) with line speed avg less than 12 Mbps.
I saw this on twitter yesterday and assumed it was someone retweeting an april fool's joke ... I guess I was wrong? This seems ... insane? Going back to thin clients because the very fat clients we have are too slow to render ad-infested web pages fast enough? Am I missing something here?
This clearly isn't marketed towards me (I'm happy running firefox locally), but from what I can tell I'd like to use every part of this product except the core offering.<p>- Mirror my tabs in the cloud? Great!<p>- Opt+Tab to navigate my overflowing tab bar? Sure!<p>- Cmd+J to instantly join meetings? This might be the killer feature for me honestly<p>- Search through all my google docs from anywhere? Sure, why not?<p>The problem is, I can get most of this through google calendar alerts and firefox extensions. I wonder how their value prop will evolve over time, because right now I don't see it being worthwhile for anything except crash recovery. With M1 Macs being as quiet and power-efficient as I've heard, it sounds like the main market these folks are targeting (execs/higher ups that aren't as tech-savvy) would rather just use newer machines?
The issue here is bad frontend engineers and people buying laptops and expecting good performance.
Everybody is so happy with the apple M1 but it is only as powerfull as a ryzen 3600, a 180$ cpu<p>If you write well your web it will perform in most devices<p>apple just has the worst ratio "computing power / dollar"
Kudos to suhail and others who pulled this off. The biggest challenge Mighty has, is that its offering a technical solution to a very technical problem, which many users dont fully understand.<p>On one end of the spectrum, we have the tech savvy users who would more likely care a lot about privacy, security and not have another layer in the middle which could potentially undermine it. On the other end of the spectrum, we have users who wont really understand the difference between slow computer and slow internet. I am not sure, how mighty can make it any faster.<p>The biggest challenge here is to educate the market you're going after. I see more of a B2B play here, where companies could use mighty instead of sending heavy client laptops to employees.
Apple has shifted the whole dynamics and I can see more products like this coming very soon. Earlier network was costly, RAM was cheap .. Now network is becoming cheap and all macs are the same except RAM.
Product will come filling this new dynamics.
First, I don’t understand how this is possible. Not technically; I get that. I don’t understand how the industry has accepted W3C standards that have such awful performance that it’s actually faster to render off-site and send video frames. What is the point of HTML? Just use VNC from the web service.<p>Secondly, it sounds like a security nightmare to expose an uncontrolled single point of failure. But it’s probably better than a consumer endpoint browser, because your OS is secure, while modern consumer operating systems are so full of junk that it’s impossible to defend plaintext, so video it is.<p>I get it. It’s a brilliant counterintuitive hack. I want it to be stupid, but it’s not.
With BoxedWine[1] this might be a the future of Windows in the Cloud! /s
1. <a href="https://github.com/danoon2/Boxedwine" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/danoon2/Boxedwine</a>
Why do people keep lots of tabs open?<p>I've asked colleagues who keep lots of tabs open why they do it, and the answer they generally give me is so that they can keep track of things. Is this why most people have lots of tabs open?<p>I often use Cmd+Option+Q to quit my browser, which also closes all tabs. I've never had a problem going back to wherever I need by typing in the address bar. The smart results quickly identify what I need and I select that result from the list (e.g., type the first few letters of a recent Google doc title, and it's there)<p>Can someone who does like a lot of tabs open explain the benefits?
While I appreciate that this company is trying to solve a real problem many people have and generally the trend of software has been to move more things into the cloud, my personal trend has been the opposite. I prefer apps that run locally. Of course as someone who understands computers I have that option but at the same time I learned how computers work precisely for the sake of having that option.<p>Personally my solution to the “slow web” problem is to disable JavaScript completely for casual browsing. It works beautifully.<p>It’ll be interesting to see how the pendulum swings back from this, if it ever does.
Maybe someone from Mighty can answer this: is user data encrypted (using E2E encryption obviously) when I am not currently using Mighty?<p>Obviously any architecture like this implies that user data is used unencrypted in the server memory, but I would not want my browser history stored in persistent media accessible to anybody besides myself.<p>In addition to history, perhaps the bigger issue is that I am kind of lazy and like to use my browser to store passwords. Are these regularly accessible from within the VM or is it stored encrypted with a master password like with Firefox or commercial password managers?
I'm no designer, but I can feel the pain whenever I pan around a huge figma project in Chrome.<p>Imagine all the enterprise customers who'd be willing to pay for this so their designers and engineers can be more productive.
TL;DR: it makes Chrome faster by running it in the cloud and streaming it to your machine.<p>One thing I don't see anywhere on the page: pricing. No-one is going to run a giant fleet of cloud servers out of the goodness of their own heart, so either I end up paying for this service or they extract some icky level of personal information to pay for it. The site says "Your data is your data. You’re not the product", so I assume it's the former. But without any pricing details I can't really evaluate whether this is worth trying or not.<p>My personal method of making Chrome faster is to use Safari. It consumes way less battery and sites run more than smoothly enough for me. Everyone's situation differs, obviously, but I'm more comfortable running that locally than depending on a remote service (and a very stable internet connection!) to do my essential everyday tasks. At a bare minimum I'd want this to have an option to "downgrade" to local browsing for when I'm tethering, etc.
Why not just use Firefox? Are you not worried by the announcement of FLoCs to replace cookies? Are we really ready to give all of our lives to Big G and Big G only?!<p>START USING FREE/LIBRE BROWSERS. Before is too late.
To me this doesn't really make much sense to me as its own product, but it seems ripe for an acquisition play. This would make an excellent addition to say the Office 365 or Dropbox suite of tools.
I wonder if you can install extensions to the cloud browser. And whether the service can add intelligent ad blocking.<p>But the real question is, of course, of trust. If I were using the service, they would literally see my screen, with all the private and sensitive info on it. They can't but watch my screen to be able to video-compress and transmit its contents.<p>Let's rule out the lowly idea of the service itself stealing customers' data. Let's consider a three-letter agency, or even a court order + a gag order. Wiretapping your screen just gets easier.
Can anyone estimate the environmental impact of running your daily browsing this way as compared to locally on a laptop? I can see factors in both directions, curious how others would estimate it.<p>Also if you have a MacBook and you hate the fan, install Turbo Boost Switcher:
<a href="http://tbswitcher.rugarciap.com/" rel="nofollow">http://tbswitcher.rugarciap.com/</a><p>I haven't heard my fan in a year (literally) and I have not noticed any significant slowdowns in my daily work, which involves two monitors and 50+ tabs.
Think about future in 10 years from now, I see what mighty's end goal might be. They are trying mass market EaaS (User Experience as a Service) where we can run all high performing operations in cloud in browser as simple as transfer a file to Dropbox. So i would like to be such a world where access barrier to high performance systems is brought down. Imagine combining mighty+replit+video editor boom . This would be as revolutionary as dropbox, when Google presented Map Reduce paper on commodity hardware.
This made me laugh out loud. What a commentary on the current state of front-end development.<p>- Chrome uses a <i>ton</i> of memory. Is this necessary?<p>- V8 is incredibly fast, but front-end developers have somehow found a way to slow it down (maybe through gigantic React apps that recompute the entire state tree with every user interaction?)
This would make sense if somehow Chrome was a powerful platform that could take advantage of high-powered hardware in the cloud. In practice, Chrome is extremely limited in how it can actually use the hardware and thus nobody is writing high-end applications to target Chrome.<p>Therefore, realistically the only thing that you can meaningfully speed up with this is already woefully inefficient web apps, in case your hardware isn't up to par. However, at that price point, you should just buy better hardware.
This is like a parody of the current state of affairs in modern web development. Except it's actually serious.<p>Sigh. I am so disappointed in our industry that tools like this even need to exist. It really makes me want to quit programming entirely.
So this is like a virtualized Citrix terminal without the encumbrance and with enough performance not to drag you down? Makes perfect sense for large corporations.<p>Taking Citrix as example since the specific market served by them has existed for decades. Virtualized personal computing services are a segment of course as well.<p>(I wonder why they pivoted away from just Windows desktop but maybe this is an easier entry point to market given browser performance seems to be the specific huge paint point).
Fifteen years ago I worked for a hosting company for a couple of years. I was stunned how much faster that I could browse using one of the companies unused servers hooked up to those big pipes.<p>If VSC had existed back as well as Chromebook's I might very well have moved off a PC. I'd personally rather have a fiber connection but seeing as how no one is offering me one this could prove quite useful but I need to have VSC included in the package.
This ridiculous. The rendering of a thin client streamed from a hosted VM.<p>How is it not an April joke?<p>There's something rotten in the state of Denmark.
This is another big if true thing. It could lead to a potential dominating OS.<p>I would invest 1/10 of my annual savings into it, if possible. Are there any product for me to do that?
Anyone knows the current state of Amazon's Silk browser[1]? It's a similar product; do the heavy lifting (network fetch, HTML parse etc., etc.,) on the server (EC2 machines) and stream the final result to the client.<p>[1] <a href="https://docs.aws.amazon.com/silk/latest/developerguide/what-is-silk.html" rel="nofollow">https://docs.aws.amazon.com/silk/latest/developerguide/what-...</a>
IMO the audience for Mighty ($30/month + BYO crappy computer) over something like an M1 MacBook Pro ($1200) is very small. Yes your Chrome will be faster when you have a fast internet but at all other times (other apps, slow internet) your computer will suck or be unavailable.<p>Also based on my experience with Stadia it will be magic 90% of the time and so frustrating the other 10% of the time that you throw the whole thing out the window.
I think it's a confusing proposition to claim Mighty makes Chrome faster, which in fact it's replacing Chrome with a cloud-based video streaming service - a totally different architecture and operational model.<p>For consumer scale, I think decentralized (edge compute) wins. Possibly a good product for enterprise. Regardless, Mighty has a great team backed by top investors. No doubt they'll innovate their way through it.
The web has become so slow that we need to rent out NASA supercomputers to process those CSS files and decide where the DIVs and SPANs go. What a world.
This is very clearly targeted at running heavy SPAs, so I don't see this as a step in the direction of taking general computing from our hands, as many in this thread do.<p>In a way it lets one (more likely a corporation or independent professional) to pay for a stable and secure way to not have a software that they depend on and already have no control over from being suddenly unusable on their machine.
It's shocking that there aren't many positive comments. I've met people who had 200+ tabs in their browser, using 10 GB+ of memory on Chrome. Good luck telling them to use a thin client/buy a faster computer/change their workflow. Do the people suggesting those solutions realistically think their advice will be followed, or are they just showing off how smart they are? <a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wow%20thanks%20i%27m%20cured" rel="nofollow">https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wow%20thanks...</a><p>Suhail came up with a solution to a real problem (Chrome is slow so I get less work done), but just because you don't have that problem, it's absurd for anyone to want this? It doesn't matter if the solution isn't a sexy new technology, or there are cheaper clunkier alternatives, who cares, all I care about is getting more work done. $30-50/month is nothing, if I just get 1 hour back a month it already pays for itself. I know plenty of people who value their time way more than $50/hour - if they can get more work done with a faster browser, getting Mighty is a no-brainer.<p>Edit: comments like "Maybe rather than having 50+ chrome tabs open, people need to learn how to manage resources on their machines." in another thread drive me crazy. Ok, how are people going to learn this? Are you going to teach them? Statements like that are not helpful because nothing will get done and we will still be at square one.
I'm not sure I see what it's all about, but Paul G seems to think the world of them.<p>> I love how friendly Replit and MIghty are to one another. One day they will divide the world between them.<p><a href="https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1357097710734749700?lang=en" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1357097710734749700?lang=en</a>
I will happily pay $30/month for Mighty. The browser is literally where I spent 100% of my time. The pattern of hosted/virtualized browsers is well understood for over a decade but mostly built and delivered poorly for the low end of the market. I love this idea, and I am happy Suhail is building this. (I am not an investor or a customer, yet.)
If it works well, I wouldn't be opposed to using it. $30 is kind of steep, but a web browser is something I spend the vast majority of my computing time using. Depends on how good the tab management is, and how fast it starts up locally on my computer. Some websites are so shitty I don't even want to open them on my own computer.
Personally, I believe Mighty is basically a new type of browser. What Chrome OS is supposed to be.<p>Of course the business model limits the number of people that would try it however, perhaps the target market would be businesses interested in controlling the browsing of their employees. For security and other purposes.<p>All the best Suhail and congratulations on your launch.
Ironically enough, Mightyapp.com is not so mighty. Their website is super choppy on my M1 macbook in firefox<p>Screen recording:
<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P_OV6bRrpji-Jcd5WHGO5CQWkvwz6FHV/view?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P_OV6bRrpji-Jcd5WHGO5CQWkvw...</a>
Didn't Opera do this back in the day? Like, exactly the same thing? It was awful.<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/operabrowser/comments/ls6on/can_someone_explain_to_me_how_operas_turbo_mode/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/operabrowser/comments/ls6on/can_som...</a>
Fat server, thin client might be an attractive model for businesses if all they had to do was issue cheap laptops and reap powerful hardware performance. But Mighty only targets web applications? How many slow web applications do people use as a core productivity tool anyway?<p>(While writing this I realised I already had an example, and it's Notion)
There's a team at amazon (I want to say part of their worklink product?) doing cloud-based rendering and then streaming it back to clients.<p>I believe they're focused on solving security problems though, not performance.<p>Perf market feels pretty narrow, but corporate security is huge market, and Amazon in the space would really justify the solution here.
There are too many skeptics.
THIS IS DROPBOX MOMENT!
I wont sleep on this.
Mighty is the future, it gives convenience to the users.
Who cares if it renders my bank account, email, password, etc on their server (don't we all already put a lot of trust/confidential data on Google?)
Users only care about CONVENIENCE.<p>Where can I invest?
Not sure how big the target market will be for this. Wonder if they've done research to see what %, or how many users have more than 10 tabs open at once? I don't see any performance issues at all even on machines from 2012 unless there's more than 10 tabs open, sometimes even more tabs can perform just fine.
As someone with a past life on the Ops/Sysadmin side of the house, this is a enterprise nightmare.<p>Enterprise may not be the targeted market at this point, but its a cash cow that would be hard to chase (Especially given M1 hurts the consumer side). A number of VDI/Terminal protocols solved this problem a long time ago.
Let's say my Computer is 32 Core Xeon with 128GB of Memory. If Chrome is already slow on my computer, what makes it fast on their server? Or do they limit the amount of Tabs per server to retain that speed? And if they do, what is stopping me from running hundreds if not thousands of tabs for one flat rate?
So I have a question. Does Mighty also improve my internet speed? There is a point on the landing page about breaking the bandwidth barrier, but I'm kinda confused. I have a pretty terrible internet connection, so will Mighty solve that too (along with the obvious faster Chrome value proposition)?
I'm super excited about Mighty - not only because they're solving a real problem that a lot of people have, but some of the underlying technology (ultra-low-latency streaming of headless apps) is applicable to a wide range of apps, not just Chrome. Hope the launch goes well!
For enterprise this could make sense, you decrease the service area (no desktop OS, only a browser). Enterprises often have difficulties scaling their remote desktop solutions. But then again, enterprises can have difficult requirements which could make scaling hard again.
I ditched Mac OS for XFCE and I have zero Chromium performance issues. There's something very wrong with Apple's Macbook PROs and non-M1 devices.<p>The fix is to either upgrade to M1 or make the Linux switch.<p>The fix is not a "cloud browser".<p>Cloud browser is terrible for a million reasons.
While I am on the Mighty waitlist, I am skimming this thread to find quick alternatives for remote desktops that are fast? (shadow.tech waitlist until march 2022..OK..)<p>I will use Mighty but would like to find quick remote desktop software in general, any recommendations?
With The Mighty Suspender (formerly The Great Suspender), I'm much more CPU limited than RAM limited these days.<p>Will this measurably improve CPU usage for 300+ suspended tabs on an modern i7+ machine? What streaming tech is used to keep inactive tab CPU usage low?
A guess: Suhail did not begin with a mission of “reduce Figma’s RAM consumption.” He began with a mission of “disrupt Google’s monopoly on the browser.” Then he retconned the short term business plan he thought could achieve the true long term mission.
The problem here is similar to Netflix & a lot of other SaaS's billing as opposed to the functionality they provide.<p>Mighty could have a sweet list of use cases but how do they justify month billing for every minute that you do not use it?
It s 2022 and humanity discovers... drumroll... The Terminal<p>I don't know what to think of this. Looks like a bad joke<p>Abd the fact that it's all over my twitter... Did I take the blue pill?
With all due respect, this will not be a problem anymore with Apple’s M1 and the upcoming chips from Intal, Nvidia, and Apple.<p>Plus you don't know if tomorrow Google comes with a solution that’s will make chrome faster<p>Remember what’s happened to TwitPic?
I peaced-out the second I realised it was paid.<p>I guess, I might pay if the js engine was literally 2x faster. But I do not see that happening.<p>If I hear a heap of social proof about its perf, I'll have another look.<p>Sidenote: bloody Atlasssian web apps. And LucidCharts.
How is this different from Cloudflare Browser Isolation?<p><a href="https://www.cloudflare.com/teams/browser-isolation/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cloudflare.com/teams/browser-isolation/</a>
It will know every website you visit and also takes your money. It will be very easy to target you with ads. What a valuable idea for following people who chase speed over privacy.
IIRC, Amazon Silk browser used to promise something like this, but seems like settling on a traditional browser design. I wonder where it went and what pushed to that decision.
On the other side of the spectrum: <a href="https://www.ekioh.com/flow-browser/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ekioh.com/flow-browser/</a>
Product solves a valuable problem. Not gonna make any assumptions about price that's for the market to decide. If it works it works but excited to see feedback
I would love to see this on iPad and iPhone. I haven’t been too bothered by Apple’s rules, but in this case you can clearly see how they stifle innovation.
product solves a valuable problem so interested to see how the market reacts. Not gonna make any assumptions about price as that's up to the market to decide. i personally don't have problems with chrome so I obviously wouldn't pay that anything for it but other people might.
I think it has a broader vision. Basically it is laying the groundwork for lots off enterprises in specific verticals in future when they can switch to Mighty app in the cloud. The underlying assumption is that chrome as a platform should continue to grow.<p>Individual consumer - Not sure.
From a HN lense this product feels silly, but the target market I believe is non engineers with beefy machines, who will view this as just a really fast browser. I think it's clever and all the best to the founding team! (ex mixpanel).
This has been posted to death at this point, and it blows my mind that people still think this is interesting. Remember how lackluster Stadia was with <i>video games</i>? Imagine how fun it will be with Airtable and Figma!
Do we really need this though? Web browsers are slow because of all the javascript running on them, not because we all don't have Intel Xeons clocked in at 4 GHz.<p>I even have Firefox sitting at 5 GB ram usage right now for 150 tabs. I don't think I've ever had an issue with performance on browsing the Internet.<p>Most probably, the bottleneck is bandwidth/CPU for most users.