Can we update the title?
> So let’s try this again…
At this point, I think that this is just going to get bought out by OpenAI.
Won't be totally surprised to see that outcome.
The price is reasonable I guess, but also, you can just get weather for free? IDK...
Weather requires ongoing costs. It’s always going to need to be maintained because meteorological models are evolving. Anything beyond a viewport will need to track and metabolize those changes.
I strongly doubt that this company runs their own weather stations or meteorological models. Their only recurring cost is API access to the companies that provide weather data, a negligible amount of IT infrastructure, and their employees. Considering that there are many free weather APIs, and that a polished frontend can be built by a single person, what exactly are the overheads?
To be fair, I'm not criticizing the subscription model. I think it makes sense for software that needs to be continually maintained. But a weather app shouldn't have large maintenance costs that couldn't be covered by a one-time payment. A big reason why companies love the Apple ecosystem is because subscriptions have been normalized, and users are used to paying them regardless if the model actually makes sense for the type of software.
No. But I'd suspect a tabula rasa approach to weather–particularly given it hasn't been rolled out globally in one go–incorporates satellite data, local measurements, et cetera.
Again, that may not take constant subscriprtion. But it does take constant expert monitoring and awareness.
> Considering that there are many free weather APIs
If you're a glorified viewport into these APIs' data, you may be able to stick with their most-static data and fire and forget. In reality, what those outputs mean change as the models and techniques evolve. There are new APIs with new data constantly coming out, and they're often adding connectors.
> a weather app shouldn't have large maintenance costs that couldn't be covered by a one-time payment
The only way I see this working is if the user is explicitly aware the app can break at any time if one of the APIs change anything, which they often do, and that this may not cause any obvious failures, just a decay in the app's accuracy or usefulness.
There most likely won't ever be such an effort - even in companies that are targeting verticalization of the "weather supply chain" (proprietary observations + models + decision support tools) - if only because it would be utterly foolish to exclude the vast amounts of data collected by government agencies and the wide variety of players in the weather enterprise. At best, verticalized weather companies can produce niche value over baseline from the single modality of proprietary data they collect.
The infrastructure for observing and forecasting the weather is incredibly sophisticated, and has been evolving for about 150 years at this point. The quality of contemporary numerical weather prediction likely doesn't leave much headroom towards the threshold of fundamental physical limitations on predictability. This is why there are groans and eye rolls from the weather community each time a new player steps forward with yet-another-AI-model-trained-on-ERA5-reanalysis and boasts some comically small improvement in average forecast skill.
With all that being said, there's likely an exciting frontier opening up as the AI models push towards encompassing data assimilation. But the applications that start to become extremely interesting there won't have any noticeable impact on average forecast quality for your typical weather app.
The features this ad promotes all seem like solutions to nonexistent problems. "Alternate possible futures" don't give me any more confidence in the forecast—it just shows that it's not reliable, which everyone should know already. "Community reports" just add another layer of uncertainty. How can I trust that someone's report is valid or up-to-date, or that it applies to my area? Maps are nice and visually interesting, but this is not exactly novel. Notifications? No thanks. A weather app "should be fun"? Huge no thanks. Privacy and trust? Why do you collect any data?? Unbelievable.
It takes about 24 cores with a GPU to do CONUS, Canada, Alaska, Pacific and Caribbean data. This should be 2x for redundancy. Even being cheap with main processing in my basement (gen power, backup internet) the cloud costs to serve it are $200 month plus data transfer. The standby grib machine spins up should it not see the cheap primary or the NOAAPort receiver is offline.
There is no money to be made without whoring out your user’s privacy. People just won’t pay for a privacy focused weather app. I keep this going as a hobby.
But then again, we don't know whether this company is maintaining this infra themselves, or if they're paying for API access. Besides, if anything, running their own servers is often the more cost-effective option, so the details you mention might not matter in practice.
My incredulity has more to do with the profitability of this type of software, considering that the free options are good enough for the average person, and that the features promoted in the article are hardly innovative.
> There is no money to be made without whoring out your user’s privacy.
Well, I do object to that. It's certainly possible to sustain a profitable business without selling out your users' data. It may not be as profitable as the advertising model, which is often too enticing for companies to ignore. This company explicitly says that their income comes directly from customers, so apparently I'm underestimating the amount of people who find these features valuable enough to pay for them.
There are like, billions of internet-connected barometers in the world that are not used in weather models. I don’t know if Acme has any of that in mind, but there is plenty of good reason for a weather app to collect data from phones. I know @counters may disagree with me, but I believe there are opportunities to improve short term forecast accuracy using data collected from phones.
Also, pretty much every day, all the apps and all the sites will tell me the incorrect current conditions at my location, much less the forecast. It’s 2026 damnit. Why doesn’t my phone know what the weather is outside right now?
I haven’t got the app yet, but I plan on it (gotta upgrade iOS first I think). Acme seems to have a lot of ideas I agree with, so, definitely following this.
One more thing. Weather apps have not been “solved”. Not even close. They all suck, there’s billions in untapped opportunity, and a stale existing market of bad solutions. People die all the time from severe weather. There is so much more work to be done in forecast accuracy and communication.
Alright, fair point. That could be a reasonable use case.
But judging by their advertised "Community reports" feature, Acme doesn't seem to be doing this. And even if they did, this feature should be opt-in, and their privacy policy should only apply for those users.
> Also, pretty much every day, all the apps and all the sites will tell me the incorrect current conditions at my location, much less the forecast. It’s 2026 damnit. Why doesn’t my phone know what the weather is outside right now?
Have you tried looking out the window? What do you need hyper-local and minute-accurate forecasts for? If you need to know accurate current conditions get a thermometer and barometer. If you want it on your smartphone, then the app could show you live readings from your device, without sending the data anywhere.
Weather forecasts have always been an inexact science, and likely always will be. Our models have gotten better over time, and at this point I think that they're good enough. I only need to know the general temperature and likelihood of certain weather events a few days in advance, at most. If there's a chance of rain, I carry an umbrella just in case. If it's going to be cold, I pack a jacket.
Highly accurate weather prediction doesn't solve any practical problem for the average person. Hyping it up like it does only serves as marketing for companies that want to build a profitable business around it.
Weather forecasting is anything but "an inexact science." It's extremely exact up to the limitations and assumptions you impose on your model due to resource constraints.
And yes - I assume that this is what you mean by "an inexact science." But still in 2026 I regularly meet people who think that weather forecasting is the same as astrology, completely ignorant of massive amount of physical scientific understanding that goes into it.
Smartphones are personal computers. They spend most of their time in pockets and controlled indoor environments. This ambient data is of no use to anyone, which is why there's still a market for home weather stations, whose sensors are typically placed outside.
Plenty of work has been done on this front, and it can be demonstrated that you can assimilate the smartphone pressures into weather models and get some good results. It is hard, of course, and I’m not sure personally how much better the forecasts get. But it’s absolutely possible.