Kuo says Apple is behind, and won't release generative AI in 2024

Posted:
in iOS edited August 2023

Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo claims Apple can't make a ChatGPT app by 2024, but that is in conflict with other recent rumors about generative AI.

Steve Jobs Theater at Apple Park
Steve Jobs Theater at Apple Park



Ming-Chi Kuo has used Apple's forthcoming earnings call to examine where he thinks the company is going over the next couple of years. While he does see AI featuring in its future, he disagrees with other reports claiming Apple is aiming for a 2024 app launch.

"The progress of Apple's generative AI is significantly behind its competitors, so I don't expect Apple to talk too much about AI on the earnings call," writes Kuo in his full report. "At present, there is no sign that Apple will integrate AI edge computing and hardware products in 2024, so it is difficult to benefit the stock prices of Apple and its supply chain."

That's in direct contrast to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, who claims that unspecified sources say a major Apple AI launch is aimed at some point in 2024.

Gurman has also previously reported that Apple is currently accelerating its hiring of engineers to work on generative AI. Apple has also hosted in-house in-house AI team-building event at Apple Park.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,432member
    "Apple needs a portal strategy"  Circa 1995

    "Apple needs a search engine"  ongoing 

    "Apple needs a Game Console" - Circa 2000s 

    It's the same story over and over.  There's never a rush ....it'll happen when it happens and Apple's solutions 
    will address the little details that most others have missed in their zeal for rushing product to market. 

    Nothing about Generative AI is going to affect my bottom line in the near future.  My food costs,  energy costs and a myriad 
    of other things will continue to be areas of focus over a promising but nascent technology like AI. 
    lorca2770lotonesdewmewatto_cobrabaconstangFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 2 of 14
    ApplePoorApplePoor Posts: 290member
    The bigger concern is in controlling this technology to prevent negative results on humanity.
    sphericwatto_cobrabaconstang
  • Reply 3 of 14
    byronlbyronl Posts: 369member
    I tend to believe Kuo over Gurman on this one. 2024 seems too soon
    watto_cobragrandact73
  • Reply 4 of 14
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,537member
    Anyone who believes Apple suffers from FOMO will be disappointed to hear that Apple is never going to release that netbook they’ve been waiting for.

    Apple runs on Apple time. They release new products and technology only when they are satisfied that it solves the problem they set out to solve in a way that meets Apple’s standards. They will even put R&D projects that aren’t ready for prime time on the back burner and refocus on opportunities that present themselves along the path of solving other problems. For example, the iPad R&D started prior to the R&D for the iPhone. I’d say that things have worked out pretty well so far.
    sphericwatto_cobrabaconstangFileMakerFellerbyronl
  • Reply 5 of 14
    Apple will take their time and do it right. And I can almost guarantee you that it won’t just be some chat app or a button you push, like what every other company is rushing to do with their existing products. “Click a button and write and email!” It’ll be integrated throughout the ecosystem in much more clever and user friendly ways.
    watto_cobrabaconstangFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 6 of 14
    citpekscitpeks Posts: 247member
    "Apple needs a search engine"  ongoing

    The billions of dollars Google pays Apple annually to be the default search option is probably the easiest money Apple makes.
    FileMakerFellerspheric
  • Reply 7 of 14
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,888member
    citpeks said:
    "Apple needs a search engine"  ongoing

    The billions of dollars Google pays Apple annually to be the default search option is probably the easiest money Apple makes.
    It's true that it's easy money but maybe 15 or 20 years ago I was involved in a study of Google's business model which at the time was quite simple (when compared to today). A large part of its revenue stream was taking a slice of ad revenue for every single search made through its engine, whether it was clicked on or not.

    No matter what you searched for, Google would offer up related ad links on the results page. As the internet has grown business has grown with it, even with regulatory supervision and restrictions that didn't really exist back then.

    Although it is easy money for Apple, having an Apple branded search engine has huge potential.

    We mustn't forget though, that the secret to Google's success wasn't only the ad placement but the algorithm behind everything. Matching that is not impossible but they have a lot of accumulated knowledge to work off. 
    muthuk_vanalingamdewmeFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 8 of 14
    citpekscitpeks Posts: 247member
    avon b7 said:
    citpeks said:
    "Apple needs a search engine"  ongoing

    The billions of dollars Google pays Apple annually to be the default search option is probably the easiest money Apple makes.
    It's true that it's easy money but maybe 15 or 20 years ago I was involved in a study of Google's business model which at the time was quite simple (when compared to today). A large part of its revenue stream was taking a slice of ad revenue for every single search made through its engine, whether it was clicked on or not.

    No matter what you searched for, Google would offer up related ad links on the results page. As the internet has grown business has grown with it, even with regulatory supervision and restrictions that didn't really exist back then.

    Although it is easy money for Apple, having an Apple branded search engine has huge potential.

    We mustn't forget though, that the secret to Google's success wasn't only the ad placement but the algorithm behind everything. Matching that is not impossible but they have a lot of accumulated knowledge to work off. 

    As Google's search results have steadily declined in quality, I'd love to have a better alternative, whether from Apple or not.

    But the question would be, what would Apple get out of it, and how would it fit into their business?

    If we take Maps as an example of the difficult time Apple has had, both publicly and privately, in trying to catch up with Google's seven year lead in that product, would the company want to repeat that again with a search engine?  Would it have the ROI needed to make it worthwhile?  Does search and mapping help Apple sell more devices?  To a degree that would justify the investment?

    To me, a bigger missed opportunity was not treating the IoT sphere more seriously.  That's right in Apple's wheelhouse, making quality hardware working with good software, integrated into their ecosystem.  Apple had a big piece of the puzzle early, when it created HomeKit, but never followed it up with hardware to exploit that.  It left that to third parties, who had a difficult time trying to make it work, within the rigid, privacy-focused constraints that Apple set out.  Some tried, but most never bothered, and the path to conquering the home was made easier for Google and Amazon.

    Matter might serve to be HomeKit's savior to a degree, but where are the options for hardware from a company that won't, or doesn't need to monetize its users data?  Or, in the case of a bankruptcy, see that data sold off to the highest bidder that has no obligation to treat it responsibly?

    Imagine a doorbell cam from Apple, that performs with ease, reliability, and privacy, integrated with iCloud.  If someone rings my doorbell, or trips the motion detection, a notification would seamlessly appear on my Apple TV and ask to pause the show I was watching.  If I wanted to ignore it, I could then cue the recording and watch it after I'm done, straight from iCloud, or my Apple Home Hub.  That's a UX I'd want that before a search engine.
    edited August 2023
  • Reply 9 of 14
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    citpeks said:
    avon b7 said:
    citpeks said:
    "Apple needs a search engine"  ongoing

    The billions of dollars Google pays Apple annually to be the default search option is probably the easiest money Apple makes.
    It's true that it's easy money but maybe 15 or 20 years ago I was involved in a study of Google's business model which at the time was quite simple (when compared to today). A large part of its revenue stream was taking a slice of ad revenue for every single search made through its engine, whether it was clicked on or not.

    No matter what you searched for, Google would offer up related ad links on the results page. As the internet has grown business has grown with it, even with regulatory supervision and restrictions that didn't really exist back then.

    Although it is easy money for Apple, having an Apple branded search engine has huge potential.

    We mustn't forget though, that the secret to Google's success wasn't only the ad placement but the algorithm behind everything. Matching that is not impossible but they have a lot of accumulated knowledge to work off. 


    To me, a bigger missed opportunity was not treating the IoT sphere more seriously. 

    Matter might serve to be HomeKit's savior to a degree, but where are the options for hardware from a company that won't, or doesn't need to monetize its users data?  Or, in the case of a bankruptcy, see that data sold off to the highest bidder that has no obligation to treat it responsibly?

    Imagine a doorbell cam from Apple, that performs with ease, reliability, and privacy, integrated with iCloud.  If someone rings my doorbell, or trips the motion detection, a notification would seamlessly appear on my Apple TV and ask to pause the show I was watching.  
    Not that it particularly matters to someone 100% invested in Apple's ecosystem, but Google Nest devices do that now (not certain about pausing the TV), and without monetizing user data gathered by them. It's also encrypted and requires two-factor to ensure only the owner and those they have specifically approved, ie wife, hired security company, can access and view them.   Many people assume Google harvests everything from their home devices to use for ad targeting, but not so. 

    From Google's published privacy policy:
    "For all our connected home devices and services, we will keep your video footage, audio recordings, and home environment sensor readings separate from advertising, and we won’t use this data for ad personalization. 

    Like you though, I'm more than a little surprised Apple didn't expand out on home control hardware. They certainly had the opportunity, but perhaps there isn't enough profit in it, or they were distracted by more promising products?  
    edited August 2023
  • Reply 10 of 14
    ApplePoorApplePoor Posts: 290member
    Not sure I believe any statements from Google about people's privacy. That information is what they sell.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    ApplePoor said:
    Not sure I believe any statements from Google about people's privacy. That information is what they sell.
    You don't have to, and no Google doesn't sell user data any more than Apple does. All that matters in practical terms is that government agencies and regulators believe them, with the admonition that if they aren't being truthful and accurate, then there will be ramifications. Published privacy policies carry legal weight, and lawyers LOVE finding inaccuracies. Money, money....

    Sad and silly that so much FUD gets thrown around about this (does no one research anymore?), but nothing Google or anyone else can do about it. It's not like unclear policies and past practices aren't Google's own fault. Only time and continuing privacy improvements can change it.

     
    edited August 2023 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 12 of 14
    ApplePoorApplePoor Posts: 290member
    Google can "say" what they want to say. I avoid anything labeled "Google" like the plague. Burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice shame on me.

    I do not knowingly use Google search or any of their other so called services.

    Works for me. Others are free to do as they wish....


  • Reply 13 of 14
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,888member
    citpeks said:
    avon b7 said:
    citpeks said:
    "Apple needs a search engine"  ongoing

    The billions of dollars Google pays Apple annually to be the default search option is probably the easiest money Apple makes.
    It's true that it's easy money but maybe 15 or 20 years ago I was involved in a study of Google's business model which at the time was quite simple (when compared to today). A large part of its revenue stream was taking a slice of ad revenue for every single search made through its engine, whether it was clicked on or not.

    No matter what you searched for, Google would offer up related ad links on the results page. As the internet has grown business has grown with it, even with regulatory supervision and restrictions that didn't really exist back then.

    Although it is easy money for Apple, having an Apple branded search engine has huge potential.

    We mustn't forget though, that the secret to Google's success wasn't only the ad placement but the algorithm behind everything. Matching that is not impossible but they have a lot of accumulated knowledge to work off. 

    As Google's search results have steadily declined in quality, I'd love to have a better alternative, whether from Apple or not.

    But the question would be, what would Apple get out of it, and how would it fit into their business?

    If we take Maps as an example of the difficult time Apple has had, both publicly and privately, in trying to catch up with Google's seven year lead in that product, would the company want to repeat that again with a search engine?  Would it have the ROI needed to make it worthwhile?  Does search and mapping help Apple sell more devices?  To a degree that would justify the investment?

    To me, a bigger missed opportunity was not treating the IoT sphere more seriously.  That's right in Apple's wheelhouse, making quality hardware working with good software, integrated into their ecosystem.  Apple had a big piece of the puzzle early, when it created HomeKit, but never followed it up with hardware to exploit that.  It left that to third parties, who had a difficult time trying to make it work, within the rigid, privacy-focused constraints that Apple set out.  Some tried, but most never bothered, and the path to conquering the home was made easier for Google and Amazon.

    Matter might serve to be HomeKit's savior to a degree, but where are the options for hardware from a company that won't, or doesn't need to monetize its users data?  Or, in the case of a bankruptcy, see that data sold off to the highest bidder that has no obligation to treat it responsibly?

    Imagine a doorbell cam from Apple, that performs with ease, reliability, and privacy, integrated with iCloud.  If someone rings my doorbell, or trips the motion detection, a notification would seamlessly appear on my Apple TV and ask to pause the show I was watching.  If I wanted to ignore it, I could then cue the recording and watch it after I'm done, straight from iCloud, or my Apple Home Hub.  That's a UX I'd want that before a search engine.
    Search is just another service (or should be) for Apple. Easy to monetise and 'brandable'. It would need some serious backend infrastructure behind it and requireme commitment from Apple to develop it.

    Of course Google's dollars for having Google Search as the default is even easier but any revenue taken is sure to impact Google. That would be Apple’s overall goal. 

    I get very good results from Google and it handles my multilingual needs very, very well. 

    I now use Google Search/Petal Search on a 70%/30% basis. It used to be 100% Google. 

    I'm also using Google Maps/Petal Maps in similar terms. It used to 100% Google Maps.

    Apple Search could easily find its place. 

    As for consumer IoT, I completely agree. 

    I never understood why AirPort was wound down when literally everything was moving to wireless. 

    AirPort should have been the cornerstone of everything. Mesh systems, front line security, PLC backhaul, NAS storage and AI data. 

    From there an entire ecosystem should have bloomed with Apple providing IoT chipset options to partners and bringing key consumer hardware to market. That would include a full blown TV. 

    In a way, the HomeKit situation reminds me of the Firewire situation back in the day. So much more could have been done with it. 

    That ship sailed and Apple is behind as a result. 

    The doorbell (or doorlock) example is a classic. Competitors are already there with mature, advanced products. 

  • Reply 14 of 14
    ApplePoorApplePoor Posts: 290member
    Given an unlimited number of monkeys and typewriters, they might create a readable book.

    Despite their financial strength, Apple can only get a fixed number of hours per day of work from each employee. So the management job is to spread those finite man hours effectively on many projects. We are not given access to know the number of projects that are current, dead, or upcoming. Some nuts are harder to crack than others.

    I think they have done a darn good job improving their product lines over the years.

    I left the IBM computer based world in 1990 for Apple and have not ever regretted it.


Sign In or Register to comment.