Can everyone please stop claiming and speculating that Valve’s new hardware will be loss leaders? If you watch LTT and Gamers Nexus’s first videos on the announcement, they actually spoke with Valve’s engineers. And the Valve representatives already said that the new hardware WILL NOT BE LOSS LEADERS.
There isn’t even evidence that the Steam Deck was a loss leader. All GabeN said was that the lowest cost launch model was priced “painfully”, which doesn’t necessarily mean it was sold at a loss, it could easily have been sold at a very tight margin.
And no, low margins does not meet the definition of a loss leader. A loss leader is a product sold below cost, in that every unit sold actually costs the seller money.
I get the desire to speculate on new hardware. It’s fun and it helps pass the time until we hear more info from Valve. But there’s limits to what is reasonable. Valve has already stated that the new hardware won’t be loss leaders, so hoping and/or claiming they are isn’t reasonable.
Sorry for the rant, but all of the comments that seem to have only skimmed headlines are quickly getting to me
That’s like saying an unlocked Pixel phone is a PC because you could technically develop an OS for it. Unlocked bootloader doesn’t an open system make.
I think we’re using different terms for hacking. You are using the exploit definition.
Yeah, that could very well be a PC. You could take the guts out, put it in a generic box, attach a monitor and peripherals, and have a Linux PC that drastically outperforms PCs of a couple decades ago, with similar functionality. Those were PCs then, why would the definition change?
Regarding the exploit definition, yeah, that’s the good one IMO. The other one is more akin to “life hacks” or “food hacks” and I think it’s silly. Using a butter knife as a screwdriver isn’t a “tool hack.” Putting Doom on a toothbrush isn’t hacking, provided no exploits were necessary. Putting Linux on a MacBook isn’t hacking just because it lacks documentation and the Asahi devs have to figure some things out before it works.
I would be curious to hear your definition of hacking, though. To me it seems if you’re calling Linux on Mac hacking, then there’s a million other things that are hacking and the word loses its meaning.
If Apple locks the bootloader then I’ll completely agree with you. And while I do agree it appears they’re heading in that direction and it sucks, a MacBook is far more “computer” than a console, even if poorly documented and thus difficult to develop for.
Hacking at the kernel to make it work on a new device is a valid definition of hacking IMO.
Hacking [something together] - building something quickly to make it work not necessarily a robust inplementation.