6 ms·

I think Stability is in an interesting situation. A few suggestions on its direction and current state: 1. Stability AI's loss of talent at the foundational re

I think Stability is in an interesting situation. A few suggestions on its direction and current state: 1. Stability AI's loss of talent at the foundational research layer is worrying. They've lost an incredibly expensive moat and there's enough unsolved problems in the foundation layer (faster models, more energy efficient models, etc.) to ensure Stability provides differentiated offerings. Step 1 should be rectifying the core issues of employment and refocusing this more into the AI lab space. I have no doubt this will require a re-steering of the ship and re-focusing of the "mission". 2. Stability AI's "mission" of building models for every modality everywhere has caused the company to lose focus. Resources are spread thin. With $100M in funding, there should be a pointed focus in certain areas - such as imaging or video. Midjourney has shown there is sufficient value capture already in just 1 modality. E.g. StableLM seems like early revenue rush and a bad bet with poor differentiation. 3. There is sufficient competition on the API layer. Stability's commitment to being open-source will continue to entice researchers and developers but there should be a re-focus on improvements in the applied layer. Deep UX wrappers for image editing and video editing while owning the end to end stack for image generation or video generation would be a great focal point for Stability that separates itself from the competition. People don't pay for images, they pay for images that solves their problems.

achow 2y ago
> Deep UX wrappers for image editing and video editing while owning the end to end stack for image generation or video generation would be a great focal point for Stability that separates itself from the competition. People don't pay for images, they pay for images that solves their problems. Recently, during an interview [1], when questioned about OpenAI's Sora, Shantanu Narayen (Adobe CEO) gave an interesting perspective on where value is created. His view (paraphrased generously).. GenAI entails 3 'layers': Data, Foundational Models and the Interface Layer. Why Sora may not be a big threat is because Adobe operates not only at first two layers (Data and Foundational model) but also at the interface layer. Not only Adobe perhaps knows better than anyone else what is need and workflow of a moviemaker, but I guess most importantly they already have moviemakers as their customers. So product companies like Adobe (& Microsoft, Google etc.) are in better position to monetize GenAI. Pure-play AI companies like OpenAI are perhaps in B2B business. Actually, they maybe really in api business, they would have great data, would be building great foundational models and giving results of those as APIs; which other companies who are closer to their unique set of customers with their unique needs would be able to monetize and some part of those $$ flows back to pure-play AI companies [1] At 5 mins mark.. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/02/20/adobe-ceo-shantanu-narayen-on-new-ai-tools-for-us-its-about-driving-responsible-innovation.html https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/02/20/adobe-ceo-shantanu-nar...
- Hendrikto 2y ago
  > Not only Adobe perhaps knows better than anyone else what is need and workflow of a moviemaker I only ever heard creatives complain about Adobe and their UI/UX and how they don’t understand their customers. Never really used any of their products myself though. Maybe they still are best-in-class. I can’t tell.
  - andy99 2y ago
    I don't know Adobe's business so could be wrong, but maybe "creatives" are not their key customers? If they're focusing on enterprise sales, they're selling to enterprise decision makers. Every user hates using microsoft products, and don't get me started on SAP. But these are gigantic companies with wildly successful products aimed at enterprise customers.
    - kamikaz1k 2y ago
      If they’re selling to enterprise decision makers, aren’t they also B2B? In which case they have the same deficiency they started OpenAI has.
    - oldgradstudent 2y ago
      > Every user hates using microsoft products Only because they've never had a chance to experience the competition. Having worked in IBM and had to use the Lotus Office Suite I can tell you Microsoft won fair and square. And I'm not even talking about the detestable abomination that is Lotus Notes.
      - razodactyl 2y ago
        This comment distracted me as I tried to recall a product I saw my mother using when I was younger. I fell asleep after I found it and never got back here until just now: Microsoft Works This one was so obscure to find because it seems to exist in a weird space of being Microsoft Office but not.
  - bamboozled 2y ago
huytersd 2y ago
They tried to ponder to the open source CEO’s but as much as open source is an ideal, it’s a pretty sure way to failure for the most part. The only way open source works is if a rich company open sources parts of their non revenue forming items.
- jacky2wong 2y ago
  Yes - open source is a good go to market strategy. They should not open source if there's no good, strong business strategy around how they plan to commercialize. But there are many ways to commercialize an open source model. For many it's lead generation into a paid offering or a managed offering of the open source model.

achow 2y ago

> Deep UX wrappers for image editing and video editing while owning the end to end stack for image generation or video generation would be a great focal point for Stability that separates itself from the competition. People don't pay for images, they pay for images that solves their problems. Recently, during an interview [1], when questioned about OpenAI's Sora, Shantanu Narayen (Adobe CEO) gave an interesting perspective on where value is created. His view (paraphrased generously).. GenAI entails 3 'layers': Data, Foundational Models and the Interface Layer. Why Sora may not be a big threat is because Adobe operates not only at first two layers (Data and Foundational model) but also at the interface layer. Not only Adobe perhaps knows better than anyone else what is need and workflow of a moviemaker, but I guess most importantly they already have moviemakers as their customers. So product companies like Adobe (& Microsoft, Google etc.) are in better position to monetize GenAI. Pure-play AI companies like OpenAI are perhaps in B2B business. Actually, they maybe really in api business, they would have great data, would be building great foundational models and giving results of those as APIs; which other companies who are closer to their unique set of customers with their unique needs would be able to monetize and some part of those $$ flows back to pure-play AI companies [1] At 5 mins mark.. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/02/20/adobe-ceo-shantanu-narayen-on-new-ai-tools-for-us-its-about-driving-responsible-innovation.html https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/02/20/adobe-ceo-shantanu-nar...

Hendrikto 2y ago
> Not only Adobe perhaps knows better than anyone else what is need and workflow of a moviemaker I only ever heard creatives complain about Adobe and their UI/UX and how they don’t understand their customers. Never really used any of their products myself though. Maybe they still are best-in-class. I can’t tell.
- andy99 2y ago
  I don't know Adobe's business so could be wrong, but maybe "creatives" are not their key customers? If they're focusing on enterprise sales, they're selling to enterprise decision makers. Every user hates using microsoft products, and don't get me started on SAP. But these are gigantic companies with wildly successful products aimed at enterprise customers.
  - kamikaz1k 2y ago
    If they’re selling to enterprise decision makers, aren’t they also B2B? In which case they have the same deficiency they started OpenAI has.
  - oldgradstudent 2y ago
    > Every user hates using microsoft products Only because they've never had a chance to experience the competition. Having worked in IBM and had to use the Lotus Office Suite I can tell you Microsoft won fair and square. And I'm not even talking about the detestable abomination that is Lotus Notes.
    - razodactyl 2y ago
      This comment distracted me as I tried to recall a product I saw my mother using when I was younger. I fell asleep after I found it and never got back here until just now: Microsoft Works This one was so obscure to find because it seems to exist in a weird space of being Microsoft Office but not.
- bamboozled 2y ago

huytersd 2y ago

They tried to ponder to the open source CEO’s but as much as open source is an ideal, it’s a pretty sure way to failure for the most part. The only way open source works is if a rich company open sources parts of their non revenue forming items.

jacky2wong 2y ago
Yes - open source is a good go to market strategy. They should not open source if there's no good, strong business strategy around how they plan to commercialize. But there are many ways to commercialize an open source model. For many it's lead generation into a paid offering or a managed offering of the open source model.