WWDC is not going to be about the iPhone, or iPad, or Mac, or the Apple Watch. It better not be! WWDC is going to be a referendum on where Apple stands in relation to Google with respect to Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence. This is the conversation Google is forcing everyone to have, ready or not. And it's a conversation Apple would rather not have. The future isn't the iPhone, or iPad, or the Mac, or Apple Watch, or any iDevice. Google made all those devices irrelevant at I/O 2017. The future is AI that is ambient and pervasive. And Apple's sole job at WWDC is to convince us that it can remain relevant in that future. Note to the Author: Tensor Flow models can run locally on mobile and IoT devices. In fact, Google already runs Tensor Flow on some Android devices. They use it in GBoard for example.
Hmmm...you might think that WWDC is needs to be a response to Google's I/O on future topics of AI and ML, but not many others do. At WWDC, Apple focuses on what is coming up "next", in software/services mostly, with sometimes new product announcements. Apple's MO has never been to discuss future fuzzy topics - doesn't mean they aren't working in those areas (they have publicly provided some statements on AI research).
The "tech media" haven't thought Apple relevant for years, and that isn't going to change regardless of what is presented at WWDC. Which is actually good - Apple can do what they always do - build great products / experiences / ecosystems - and not have to worry about presenting the future.
While machine learning is a programming process/technology being used today, that is a means to an end. It does not define what a user experience is. It is a "tool".
As for AI, what is it "really"? What do you think it is? I guarantee someone else here will have a different opinion. If something is hard to define (in real terms), then I would say it has a ways to go before it is providing a real experience - which is what Apple focuses on.
Ambient computing is another buzz word, like AI, or cloud, etc. How do I have even better experiences without having any devices around me (as you say - those are irrelevant)? Does it require technology in every room and space. How does it know it is me. Google better get going, as there is a long road to that future. I tried it out today. As I walked out to my car, I asked the environment what time it was. Silence. I got in my car and asked what meetings I had first this morning. Silence. In the elevator at work, wanted to check Instagram, but there was nothing to look at.
All this is fine and dandy, but as it stands right now, Siri is so far behind it's competitors in terms of accuracy and information it can provide that it's pretty much unusable for me. I use Siri to set alarms and basic things but it stays there because it's just so frustrating to use for much else for me.
"Amazon lacks the critical element of a phone business or even a substantial hardware business with a real development platform, while Google has a huge platform of mostly low end phones and very poorly selling wearables. "
The trouble with these articles is that they view everything through an Apple lens and struggle to criticise Apple or praise competitors if they operate with a different business model.
Saying Amazon lacks a phone business is akin to saying Apple can't succeed in phones because it doesn't make its own components or assemble them. Amazon wants to make money from shopping and content not hardware. It's also happy to launch new services, like AWS, that might not make a tonne of cash at first but grow into large units eventually. Some of them will flop, that's fine too if some of your bets pay off. Alexa gives Amazon a new channel for shopping, a means of consuming Amazon's content, a better shopping experience that helps it cut returns costs (the new video version), a hub in the home and reason to invest in an assistant and AI. It's also an "independent" third assistant that can be put into home appliances by brands that are scared off by Google and Apple. Those are not necessarily things Apple cares about but they are Amazon's bread and butter.
Google's platform may be mostly low-end phones but the low-end phones of today are more capable than the high-end phones of a few years ago. Its primary goal is to sell ads, it doesn't need high-end phones for that. As the article states, mobile is now more than half of its ad revenue. This was an area of weakness a few years ago. Wearables are slow going but for everyone, including Apple. Google won't make money from them until they become mass market once the hardware makers themselves start seeing profits decline. Google, like Amazon, makes a lot of bets and is happy to cut some flops early and stay in others for the long run. Look at what Maps turned into - simple maps to satellite images and street view to navigation and crowd-sourced reviews with the technology in place for AR and autonomous vehicles. Google is comfortably placed to be a big part of the computing-everywhere future, whether it sells a lot of phones or not. It's in your pocket, in your car, in your home either on DT or connected speaker and eventually, I am sure, will be in your ear like Hint or on your face like Glass, but perhaps via kit made by someone else.
Google's Achille's heel is perhaps its dependence though on advertising. Advertising is over 90% of its revenue and mobile advertising is less profitable, so as mobile becomes a greater share that is problematic. On a more fundamental level, being totally dependent on advertising, as opposed to Apple and Amazon, is also a weakness as Google is vulnerable to those ad streams drying up. For example, were Apple to offer a built in VPN to Safari and ad/content blocker it would be potentially devastating to Google as it would not only deny Google the ad displays, but equally catastrophic would be the loss of the data mining. It's why Google is desperately moving to offer its own phones, Voice assistant, autonomous driving software, etc., where Google loses money in each area, but is fighting for ad space. Without that oxygen, Google will die. In contrast, Apple has software, services and hardware, as does Amazon increasingly. Whose boat would you rather be on?
WWDC is not going to be about the iPhone, or iPad, or Mac, or the Apple Watch.
It better not be!
WWDC is going to be a referendum on where Apple stands in relation to Google with respect to Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence.
This is the conversation Google is forcing everyone to have, ready or not. And it's a conversation Apple would rather not have.
The future isn't the iPhone, or iPad, or the Mac, or Apple Watch, or any iDevice. Google made all those devices irrelevant at I/O 2017.
The future is AI that is ambient and pervasive.
And Apple's sole job at WWDC is to convince us that it can remain relevant in that future.
Note to the Author: Tensor Flow models can run locally on mobile and IoT devices. In fact, Google already runs Tensor Flow on some Android devices. They use it in GBoard for example.
Apple doesn't need a marketing department when there is DED to do that. Its ironic that he's become his own Donald Trump attacking other Journalists in the Tech industry. This article comes off as a bit of hit piece on a journalist who is retiring.
Nonsense. Apple is so poorly understood by most journalists (and i use the term loosely) that there is a very needed niche for DED and PED and the Macalope to fill -- debunking the bullshit. Contrary to your strange claim, It's not an attack to analyze and point out the flaws in the arguments other writers are themselves are putting into the marketplace of ideas.
That you reduce down to "apple marketing" just shows either how misguided you are, or that you're a hater with an agenda to push.
When DED posts facts he's a "fanboy" and is attavking other "journalists".
WWDC is not going to be about the iPhone, or iPad, or Mac, or the Apple Watch.
It better not be!
WWDC is going to be a referendum on where Apple stands in relation to Google with respect to Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence.
This is the conversation Google is forcing everyone to have, ready or not. And it's a conversation Apple would rather not have.
The future isn't the iPhone, or iPad, or the Mac, or Apple Watch, or any iDevice. Google made all those devices irrelevant at I/O 2017.
The future is AI that is ambient and pervasive.
And Apple's sole job at WWDC is to convince us that it can remain relevant in that future.
Note to the Author: Tensor Flow models can run locally on mobile and IoT devices. In fact, Google already runs Tensor Flow on some Android devices. They use it in GBoard for example.
Google and Amazon are pathetic when comes to hardware, Apple at WWDC will do what they have always done be profitable at software and hardware.
Where I think Daniel is headed (and I agree) is that Apple's AI, AR, Voice recognition, 3D imaging development isn't going to be limited to the iPhone.
Imagine Macs, iPhones, iPads, AppleTVs, or Apple Watch all supporting Maps, Photography, Search all utilizing Apple's AI, AR, Voice recognition and 3D imaging. You can see it coming when you look at Apple's processor, GPU, Secure Element and Neural engine development in concert with MacOS and iOS roadmap.
Nobody beyond Apple has control of the silicon, hardware and OS necessary to accomplish this in the next 2 years. Does Apple need an Alexa-like device to compete with it? Absolutely not when you the Mac, iPhone, iPad, AppleTV, or Apple Watch can do the same thing, only better.
Connect the dots: Apple's fight with radio and GPU manufacturers and its obvious interest in AI/AR/3D imaging. Apple is about (next 2 years?) to introduce internally developed alternatives to current mobile processor/GPUs that will squash the competition in capability.
LOVE DED ARTICLES. They bring a dose of reality to a world full of faux tech media...where people with limited scope and vision think that by hammering home the same false narrative they can affect changes they desire to see, or would prefer to write about.
LOVE DED ARTICLES. They bring a dose of reality to a world full of faux tech media...where people with limited scope and vision think that by hammering home the same false narrative they can affect changes they desire to see, or would prefer to write about.
It is a good article and the comments are even better. Lots of thoughtful opinions here.
Apple has a wonderfully integrated platform and industry-leading devices, but unless they make a surprising change to their ecosystem lockdown they just won't be capable of addressing more than a small segment of the populace. There are other companies with much more developed multi-platform exposure and compatibility which gives them an automatic and significant advantage.
While you may prefer to use Apple, 90%+ (guessing so don't bother with the "prove it" silliness) of humanity won't have an Apple device they could use to access those preferred AI services. On the other hand a company such as Google can fairly easily make theirs available to nearly anyone with a Chromebook, PC, Android device, iPhone (with Apple competitive restrictions), Macs (ditto), various and sundry IoT systems and home control, automobiles, etc. It doesn't mean they "win". There's lots of opportunity for slips 'twixt the cup and the lips, but it seems to me to demand on open rather than closed system to become ubiquitous. Do others here think Apple could move to an open system accessible by Android, Microsoft or "other" smart devices?
Apple has a wonderfully integrated platform and industry-leading devices, but unless they make a surprising change to their ecosystem lockdown they just won't be capable of addressing more than a small segment of the populace. There are other companies with much more developed multi-platform exposure and compatibility which gives them an automatic and significant advantage.
While you may prefer to use Apple, 90%+ (guessing so don't bother with the "prove it" silliness) of humanity won't have an Apple device they could use to access those preferred AI services. On the other hand a company such as Google can fairly easily make theirs available to nearly anyone with a Chromebook, PC, Android device, iPhone (with Apple competitive restrictions), Macs (ditto), various and sundry IoT systems and home control, automobiles, etc. It doesn't mean they "win". There's lots of opportunity for slips 'twixt the cup and the lips, but it seems to me to demand on open rather than closed system to become ubiquitous. Do others here think Apple could move to an open system accessible by Android, Microsoft or "other" smart devices?
Apple would rather sell a great, secure experience to 10% of the population than give away a compromised experience to 90% of the population. The beauty is that we as consumers can pick and choose from these options. I use Apple devices and trust Apple with my data more than I trust Google, Amazon, or Facebook, but appreciate the "free" services I get from those other companies where I choose to use them. Fortunately the market for these technologies are so enormous on a global scale that it can easily support multiple players.
Apple has a wonderfully integrated platform and industry-leading devices, but unless they make a surprising change to their ecosystem lockdown they just won't be capable of addressing more than a small segment of the populace. There are other companies with much more developed multi-platform exposure and compatibility which gives them an automatic and significant advantage.
While you may prefer to use Apple, 90%+ (guessing so don't bother with the "prove it" silliness) of humanity won't have an Apple device they could use to access those preferred AI services. On the other hand a company such as Google can fairly easily make theirs available to nearly anyone with a Chromebook, PC, Android device, iPhone (with Apple competitive restrictions), Macs (ditto), various and sundry IoT systems and home control, automobiles, etc. It doesn't mean they "win". There's lots of opportunity for slips 'twixt the cup and the lips, but it seems to me to demand on open rather than closed system to become ubiquitous. Do others here think Apple could move to an open system accessible by Android, Microsoft or "other" smart devices?
Apple would rather sell a great, secure experience to 10% of the population than give away a compromised experience to 90% of the population. The beauty is that we as consumers can pick and choose from these options. I use Apple devices and trust Apple with my data more than I trust Google, Amazon, or Facebook, but appreciate the "free" services I get from those other companies where I choose to use them. Fortunately the market for these technologies are so enormous on a global scale that it can easily support multiple players.
There is way too much leeway given to other companies who jump on any/every tech fad that comes along...only to discontinue it a year later. I can't remember the last time Apple discontinued anything meaningful, that affects the consumer, that they put major weight behind.
When Apple does something, there is meaning. There is true commitment.
I've seen WAY too many things from Google, Microsoft, Amazon come and go without a whisper from any of the people who championed their "Apple-killer" offerings.
Apple has a wonderfully integrated platform and industry-leading devices, but unless they make a surprising change to their ecosystem lockdown they just won't be capable of addressing more than a small segment of the populace. There are other companies with much more developed multi-platform exposure and compatibility which gives them an automatic and significant advantage.
While you may prefer to use Apple, 90%+ (guessing so don't bother with the "prove it" silliness) of humanity won't have an Apple device they could use to access those preferred AI services. On the other hand a company such as Google can fairly easily make theirs available to nearly anyone with a Chromebook, PC, Android device, iPhone (with Apple competitive restrictions), Macs (ditto), various and sundry IoT systems and home control, automobiles, etc. It doesn't mean they "win". There's lots of opportunity for slips 'twixt the cup and the lips, but it seems to me to demand on open rather than closed system to become ubiquitous. Do others here think Apple could move to an open system accessible by Android, Microsoft or "other" smart devices?
Apple would rather sell a great, secure experience to 10% of the population than give away a compromised experience to 90% of the population. The beauty is that we as consumers can pick and choose from these options. I use Apple devices and trust Apple with my data more than I trust Google, Amazon, or Facebook, but appreciate the "free" services I get from those other companies where I choose to use them. Fortunately the market for these technologies are so enormous on a global scale that it can easily support multiple players.
There is way too much leeway given to other companies who jump on any/every tech fad that comes along...only to discontinue it a year later. I can't remember the last time Apple discontinued anything meaningful, that affects the consumer, that they put major weight behind.
When Apple does something, there is meaning. There is true commitment.
I've seen WAY too many things from Google, Microsoft, Amazon come and go without a whisper from any of the people who championed their "Apple-killer" offerings.
So you think these "Assistants" are going to be discontinued soon?
gregg thurman said: Apple's fight with radio and GPU manufacturers and its obvious interest in AI/AR/3D imaging. Apple is about (next 2 years?) to introduce internally developed alternatives to current mobile processor/GPUs that will squash the competition in capability.
Doubt it unless manufacturers are willing to license their reference designs and patents to Apple, sort of like they do with ARM. The GPU and radio businesses are so mature at this point that there is no space for Apple to work around the patents.
Apple has a wonderfully integrated platform and industry-leading devices, but unless they make a surprising change to their ecosystem lockdown they just won't be capable of addressing more than a small segment of the populace. There are other companies with much more developed multi-platform exposure and compatibility which gives them an automatic and significant advantage.
While you may prefer to use Apple, 90%+ (guessing so don't bother with the "prove it" silliness) of humanity won't have an Apple device they could use to access those preferred AI services. On the other hand a company such as Google can fairly easily make theirs available to nearly anyone with a Chromebook, PC, Android device, iPhone (with Apple competitive restrictions), Macs (ditto), various and sundry IoT systems and home control, automobiles, etc. It doesn't mean they "win". There's lots of opportunity for slips 'twixt the cup and the lips, but it seems to me to demand on open rather than closed system to become ubiquitous. Do others here think Apple could move to an open system accessible by Android, Microsoft or "other" smart devices?
Apple would rather sell a great, secure experience to 10% of the population than give away a compromised experience to 90% of the population. The beauty is that we as consumers can pick and choose from these options. I use Apple devices and trust Apple with my data more than I trust Google, Amazon, or Facebook, but appreciate the "free" services I get from those other companies where I choose to use them. Fortunately the market for these technologies are so enormous on a global scale that it can easily support multiple players.
There is way too much leeway given to other companies who jump on any/every tech fad that comes along...only to discontinue it a year later. I can't remember the last time Apple discontinued anything meaningful, that affects the consumer, that they put major weight behind.
When Apple does something, there is meaning. There is true commitment.
I've seen WAY too many things from Google, Microsoft, Amazon come and go without a whisper from any of the people who championed their "Apple-killer" offerings.
So you think these "Assistants" are going to be discontinued soon?
They are so poorly implemented, with every gimmicky aspect as close to the surface as possible, with no real product focus around them. I think they have already hit their ceiling. So yeah, they won't be growing at all, and within a year or two, those projects will be shut down.
Apple has a wonderfully integrated platform and industry-leading devices, but unless they make a surprising change to their ecosystem lockdown they just won't be capable of addressing more than a small segment of the populace. There are other companies with much more developed multi-platform exposure and compatibility which gives them an automatic and significant advantage.
While you may prefer to use Apple, 90%+ (guessing so don't bother with the "prove it" silliness) of humanity won't have an Apple device they could use to access those preferred AI services. On the other hand a company such as Google can fairly easily make theirs available to nearly anyone with a Chromebook, PC, Android device, iPhone (with Apple competitive restrictions), Macs (ditto), various and sundry IoT systems and home control, automobiles, etc. It doesn't mean they "win". There's lots of opportunity for slips 'twixt the cup and the lips, but it seems to me to demand on open rather than closed system to become ubiquitous. Do others here think Apple could move to an open system accessible by Android, Microsoft or "other" smart devices?
Apple would rather sell a great, secure experience to 10% of the population than give away a compromised experience to 90% of the population. The beauty is that we as consumers can pick and choose from these options. I use Apple devices and trust Apple with my data more than I trust Google, Amazon, or Facebook, but appreciate the "free" services I get from those other companies where I choose to use them. Fortunately the market for these technologies are so enormous on a global scale that it can easily support multiple players.
There is way too much leeway given to other companies who jump on any/every tech fad that comes along...only to discontinue it a year later. I can't remember the last time Apple discontinued anything meaningful, that affects the consumer, that they put major weight behind.
When Apple does something, there is meaning. There is true commitment.
I've seen WAY too many things from Google, Microsoft, Amazon come and go without a whisper from any of the people who championed their "Apple-killer" offerings.
So you think these "Assistants" are going to be discontinued soon?
They are so poorly implemented, with every gimmicky aspect as close to the surface as possible, with no real product focus around them. I think they have already hit their ceiling. So yeah, they won't be growing at all, and within a year or two, those projects will be shut down.
Apple has a wonderfully integrated platform and industry-leading devices, but unless they make a surprising change to their ecosystem lockdown they just won't be capable of addressing more than a small segment of the populace. There are other companies with much more developed multi-platform exposure and compatibility which gives them an automatic and significant advantage.
While you may prefer to use Apple, 90%+ (guessing so don't bother with the "prove it" silliness) of humanity won't have an Apple device they could use to access those preferred AI services. On the other hand a company such as Google can fairly easily make theirs available to nearly anyone with a Chromebook, PC, Android device, iPhone (with Apple competitive restrictions), Macs (ditto), various and sundry IoT systems and home control, automobiles, etc. It doesn't mean they "win". There's lots of opportunity for slips 'twixt the cup and the lips, but it seems to me to demand on open rather than closed system to become ubiquitous. Do others here think Apple could move to an open system accessible by Android, Microsoft or "other" smart devices?
Apple would rather sell a great, secure experience to 10% of the population than give away a compromised experience to 90% of the population. The beauty is that we as consumers can pick and choose from these options. I use Apple devices and trust Apple with my data more than I trust Google, Amazon, or Facebook, but appreciate the "free" services I get from those other companies where I choose to use them. Fortunately the market for these technologies are so enormous on a global scale that it can easily support multiple players.
There is way too much leeway given to other companies who jump on any/every tech fad that comes along...only to discontinue it a year later. I can't remember the last time Apple discontinued anything meaningful, that affects the consumer, that they put major weight behind.
When Apple does something, there is meaning. There is true commitment.
I've seen WAY too many things from Google, Microsoft, Amazon come and go without a whisper from any of the people who championed their "Apple-killer" offerings.
"Amazon lacks the critical element of a phone business or even a substantial hardware business with a real development platform, while Google has a huge platform of mostly low end phones and very poorly selling wearables. "
The trouble with these articles is that they view everything through an Apple lens and struggle to criticise Apple or praise competitors if they operate with a different business model.
Saying Amazon lacks a phone business is akin to saying Apple can't succeed in phones because it doesn't make its own components or assemble them. Amazon wants to make money from shopping and content not hardware. It's also happy to launch new services, like AWS, that might not make a tonne of cash at first but grow into large units eventually. Some of them will flop, that's fine too if some of your bets pay off. Alexa gives Amazon a new channel for shopping, a means of consuming Amazon's content, a better shopping experience that helps it cut returns costs (the new video version), a hub in the home and reason to invest in an assistant and AI. It's also an "independent" third assistant that can be put into home appliances by brands that are scared off by Google and Apple. Those are not necessarily things Apple cares about but they are Amazon's bread and butter.
Google's platform may be mostly low-end phones but the low-end phones of today are more capable than the high-end phones of a few years ago. Its primary goal is to sell ads, it doesn't need high-end phones for that. As the article states, mobile is now more than half of its ad revenue. This was an area of weakness a few years ago. Wearables are slow going but for everyone, including Apple. Google won't make money from them until they become mass market once the hardware makers themselves start seeing profits decline. Google, like Amazon, makes a lot of bets and is happy to cut some flops early and stay in others for the long run. Look at what Maps turned into - simple maps to satellite images and street view to navigation and crowd-sourced reviews with the technology in place for AR and autonomous vehicles. Google is comfortably placed to be a big part of the computing-everywhere future, whether it sells a lot of phones or not. It's in your pocket, in your car, in your home either on DT or connected speaker and eventually, I am sure, will be in your ear like Hint or on your face like Glass, but perhaps via kit made by someone else.
Google's Achille's heel is perhaps its dependence though on advertising. Advertising is over 90% of its revenue and mobile advertising is less profitable, so as mobile becomes a greater share that is problematic. On a more fundamental level, being totally dependent on advertising, as opposed to Apple and Amazon, is also a weakness as Google is vulnerable to those ad streams drying up. For example, were Apple to offer a built in VPN to Safari and ad/content blocker it would be potentially devastating to Google as it would not only deny Google the ad displays, but equally catastrophic would be the loss of the data mining. It's why Google is desperately moving to offer its own phones, Voice assistant, autonomous driving software, etc., where Google loses money in each area, but is fighting for ad space. Without that oxygen, Google will die. In contrast, Apple has software, services and hardware, as does Amazon increasingly. Whose boat would you rather be on?
In a sense it is equally true that Apple is highly dependent on iPhone revenue. If that weakens, even to a relatively small degree, over a prolonged period of time, the impact would be far more noticeable than what has happened with the iPad line of late, even though the problem would be virtually identical. Such is the importance of the iPhone for revenues.
Some people speak of the post pc era but that doesn't mean the PC is going anywhere. It just means that some tasks that were handled by PCs in the past can now be handled by other devices too.
A phone is primarily a communication (I use the term in a very broad manner) device and as such will not see other devices replacing it for its core functions (just as PCs are still used for their core functions). As we reach saturation point in some markets and the differentiating features between phones become evermore dependent on price and design, Apple must inevitably look at a 'post iPhone' era. The first stage has already happened: saturation. It can try to maintain its current position (in the absence of massive new gains) in the tiers where it operates or, move down into the lower tiers with the obvious risk of canabalising its own high end offerings. It is also seeing more, not less, competition in the high end. Having a presence in the lower bands is also already happening with the existence of the SE and, in some markets, older equipment being given new life in 2017. It's a small scale toe dipping practice but very relevant nonetheless. While it makes sense in emerging markets, the fact that a 'new' iPhone 6 can be had in the UK in 2017 (as opposed to an emerging market) is noteworthy. There is little likelihood of an Android user buying into an 'old' small screen iPhone platform. The move is possibly aimed at retaining current iOS users who, for whatever the reason, are not interested in the current offerings. One of the reasons is probably price.
AI and AR will be important to a set of users and over time will probably become more important to a larger subset of users but it has to 'work'. How many people do you know that gave up on speaking to their smart TVs? That don't bother using Siri for much because they tired of the standard responses and getting pointed to the internet?
AI and AR have to be solid from the get go and improve from that point on. AI can be invisible (guessing where a user is about to touch the screen etc), learning etc but it must not be a cause for frustration and must not 'get in the way'.
Everyone and their dog is working on AI. It is going to be difficult for a company to stand out for any given time and unless someone comes to the fore with the so called 'strong' AI, everyone will be chugging along offering similar takes on what is available. They already do this in fact.
If someone manages to wrap AI up into a non-invasive, invisible (or invisible until you need it) package they might get some headway but it will take time.
Of course, if someone comes up with 'strong' AI we might be all doomed.
Comments
The "tech media" haven't thought Apple relevant for years, and that isn't going to change regardless of what is presented at WWDC. Which is actually good - Apple can do what they always do - build great products / experiences / ecosystems - and not have to worry about presenting the future.
While machine learning is a programming process/technology being used today, that is a means to an end. It does not define what a user experience is. It is a "tool".
Ambient computing is another buzz word, like AI, or cloud, etc. How do I have even better experiences without having any devices around me (as you say - those are irrelevant)? Does it require technology in every room and space. How does it know it is me. Google better get going, as there is a long road to that future. I tried it out today. As I walked out to my car, I asked the environment what time it was. Silence. I got in my car and asked what meetings I had first this morning. Silence. In the elevator at work, wanted to check Instagram, but there was nothing to look at.
Google's Achille's heel is perhaps its dependence though on advertising. Advertising is over 90% of its revenue and mobile advertising is less profitable, so as mobile becomes a greater share that is problematic. On a more fundamental level, being totally dependent on advertising, as opposed to Apple and Amazon, is also a weakness as Google is vulnerable to those ad streams drying up. For example, were Apple to offer a built in VPN to Safari and ad/content blocker it would be potentially devastating to Google as it would not only deny Google the ad displays, but equally catastrophic would be the loss of the data mining. It's why Google is desperately moving to offer its own phones, Voice assistant, autonomous driving software, etc., where Google loses money in each area, but is fighting for ad space. Without that oxygen, Google will die. In contrast, Apple has software, services and hardware, as does Amazon increasingly. Whose boat would you rather be on?
Imagine Macs, iPhones, iPads, AppleTVs, or Apple Watch all supporting Maps, Photography, Search all utilizing Apple's AI, AR, Voice recognition and 3D imaging. You can see it coming when you look at Apple's processor, GPU, Secure Element and Neural engine development in concert with MacOS and iOS roadmap.
Nobody beyond Apple has control of the silicon, hardware and OS necessary to accomplish this in the next 2 years. Does Apple need an Alexa-like device to compete with it? Absolutely not when you the Mac, iPhone, iPad, AppleTV, or Apple Watch can do the same thing, only better.
Connect the dots: Apple's fight with radio and GPU manufacturers and its obvious interest in AI/AR/3D imaging. Apple is about (next 2 years?) to introduce internally developed alternatives to current mobile processor/GPUs that will squash the competition in capability.
While you may prefer to use Apple, 90%+ (guessing so don't bother with the "prove it" silliness) of humanity won't have an Apple device they could use to access those preferred AI services. On the other hand a company such as Google can fairly easily make theirs available to nearly anyone with a Chromebook, PC, Android device, iPhone (with Apple competitive restrictions), Macs (ditto), various and sundry IoT systems and home control, automobiles, etc. It doesn't mean they "win". There's lots of opportunity for slips 'twixt the cup and the lips, but it seems to me to demand on open rather than closed system to become ubiquitous. Do others here think Apple could move to an open system accessible by Android, Microsoft or "other" smart devices?
Apple would rather sell a great, secure experience to 10% of the population than give away a compromised experience to 90% of the population. The beauty is that we as consumers can pick and choose from these options. I use Apple devices and trust Apple with my data more than I trust Google, Amazon, or Facebook, but appreciate the "free" services I get from those other companies where I choose to use them. Fortunately the market for these technologies are so enormous on a global scale that it can easily support multiple players.
When Apple does something, there is meaning. There is true commitment.
I've seen WAY too many things from Google, Microsoft, Amazon come and go without a whisper from any of the people who championed their "Apple-killer" offerings.
Some people speak of the post pc era but that doesn't mean the PC is going anywhere. It just means that some tasks that were handled by PCs in the past can now be handled by other devices too.
A phone is primarily a communication (I use the term in a very broad manner) device and as such will not see other devices replacing it for its core functions (just as PCs are still used for their core functions). As we reach saturation point in some markets and the differentiating features between phones become evermore dependent on price and design, Apple must inevitably look at a 'post iPhone' era. The first stage has already happened: saturation. It can try to maintain its current position (in the absence of massive new gains) in the tiers where it operates or, move down into the lower tiers with the obvious risk of canabalising its own high end offerings. It is also seeing more, not less, competition in the high end. Having a presence in the lower bands is also already happening with the existence of the SE and, in some markets, older equipment being given new life in 2017. It's a small scale toe dipping practice but very relevant nonetheless. While it makes sense in emerging markets, the fact that a 'new' iPhone 6 can be had in the UK in 2017 (as opposed to an emerging market) is noteworthy. There is little likelihood of an Android user buying into an 'old' small screen iPhone platform. The move is possibly aimed at retaining current iOS users who, for whatever the reason, are not interested in the current offerings. One of the reasons is probably price.
AI and AR will be important to a set of users and over time will probably become more important to a larger subset of users but it has to 'work'. How many people do you know that gave up on speaking to their smart TVs? That don't bother using Siri for much because they tired of the standard responses and getting pointed to the internet?
AI and AR have to be solid from the get go and improve from that point on. AI can be invisible (guessing where a user is about to touch the screen etc), learning etc but it must not be a cause for frustration and must not 'get in the way'.
Everyone and their dog is working on AI. It is going to be difficult for a company to stand out for any given time and unless someone comes to the fore with the so called 'strong' AI, everyone will be chugging along offering similar takes on what is available. They already do this in fact.
If someone manages to wrap AI up into a non-invasive, invisible (or invisible until you need it) package they might get some headway but it will take time.
Of course, if someone comes up with 'strong' AI we might be all doomed.