I suppose the issue is that it's a multiplier for bad actors. It has become so much easier to generate plausible-looking code (or any number of things that would've previously required a knowledgeable human to make something that at least passes the sniff test, let's say legal documents as another example) and just overwhelm the limited bandwidth of good actors.
The particularly clever part is making the implementation open source, which should significantly reduce the complexity for other news organisations wanting to include the same functionality in their own apps, which would further extend the cover of plausible deniability for a whistleblower.
You can of course still just export a static site and host it on a basic CDN, as you say. And you can self host Next.js in the default "dynamic" mode, you just need to be able to run an Express server, which hardly locks you into any particular vendor.
Where it gets a little more controversial is if you want to run Next.js in full fat mode, with serverless functions for render paths that can operate on a stale-while-revalidate basis. Currently it is very hard for anyone other than Vercel to properly implement that (see the opennextjs project for examples), due to undocumented "magic". But thankfully Next.js / Vercel have proposed to implement (and dogfood) adapters that allow this functionality to be implemented on different platforms with a consistent API:
I don't think the push for RSC is at all motivated by the shady reasons you're suggesting. I think it is more about the realisation that there were many good things about the way we used to build websites before SPA frameworks began to dominate. Mostly rendering things on the server, with a little progressive enhancement on the client, is a pattern with a lot of benefits. But even with SSR, you still end up pushing a lot of logic to the client that doesn't necessarily belong there.
> thankfully Next.js / Vercel have proposed to implement (and dogfood) adapters that allow this functionality to be implemented on different platforms with a consistent API:
Seeing efforts like this (started by the main dev of Next.js working at Vercel) convinces me that the Vercel team is honestly trying to be a good steward with their influence on the React ecosystem, and in general being a beneficial community player. Of course as a VC-funded company its purpose is self-serving, but I think they're playing it pretty respectably.
That said, there's no way I'm going to run Next.js as part of a server in production. It's way too fat and complicated. I'll stick with using it as a static site generator, until I replace it with something simpler like Vite and friends.
> The other unspoken risk is that while Apple may be vertically integrating its SOC, it still relies on a fab like TSMC. Intel's recent problem is rooted in their inability to move off legacy 14nm fabrication process. TSMC may have done great in 7nm and now to 5nm transition, but what happens if/when they stumble? Would Apple also want to acquire them or build its own fabs to mitigate this risk?
Surely this is an advantage to being fabless? If TSMC stumble, they can evaluate other options. Same for AMD, where would they be now if they were still tied to GlobalFoundries?
Valid point as a GF-tied AMD would not be in the same position as today.
That said, what are the other options if not TSMC? Besides Intel, Samsung is only other cutting-edge option. Intel's 7nm would be technically on par with TSMC's 5nm (marketing names aside). https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/7_nm_lithography_process
There is a chance, however unlikely, that TSMC's 3nm push will run into issues and be delayed. Would create an interesting scenario where Apple would pay Intel to fab their SOCs.
There were rumours going around about its demise a few years ago, but a fair bit of that was simply their failure to ship 10nm parts on schedule AFAIK. They're still doing some degree of third-party manufacturing, and I don't doubt once they reach a point of having the capacity for their first-party products on 10nm we might seem them expand.
However, the inevitable flip-side of this is unlike TSMC/SS where Apple can bid the highest for the early production of a new node, Intel are highly likely to keep the new node for themselves to start with.
Intel currently doesn't have enough capacity to make their own chips and are rumored to be outsourcing to Global Foundries as a result ( https://wccftech.com/rumor-intel-moving-select-cpus-to-globa... - huge grain of salt on this one ofc, but the supply constraints on Intel's fabs are well known - they mentioned it even at their earnings call) - why would they stop making their own products to make Apple's instead? Apple'd have to pay an absurd amount for that to make sense.
It's definitely possible, just need to expost the PCIe lanes in a sensible way (this has been rare to see on ARM-based machines so far) and have PCIe device manufacturers distribute drivers for ARM macOS.
PCIe is surprisingly robust for a high performance interface. fail0verflow mentioned doing PCIe over serial so they could mitm some of the communication when hacking the ps4.
A new spec for microSD cards (microSD Express) was announced last year, which would let them use similar protocols to SSDs. I don't know if this means they'll support things like TRIM, without which their performance may initially be fast but degrade over time. Still, it would be a significant improvement.
