Microsoft poised to overtake Apple as most valuable company

AppleInsider

As Microsoft stock rises and Apple's falls over analysts expectation of slowing iPhone demand, the two firms are once more within $100 billion of each other -- the smallest gap in over two years.

Credit: Microsoft

Apple and Microsoft have a long history of competing for the title of the world's most valuable company, although originally that was specifically in the technology category. In 2010, Apple dethroned Microsoft when it hit a market capitalization of $222 billion, and then in 2018 Microsoft briefly regained that top position.

Now those sums seem quaintly low, and the two companies have instead been vying for the title of most valuable company globally, in any category. In August 2020, Apple became the first publicly-traded US company to reach a $2 trillion market cap, and Microsoft became the second one in June 2021.

Later in October 2021, Microsoft took over the top spot, and for a time was move valuable than Apple by $100 billion.

While the values of the two firms have continually changed, Microsoft is now worth just $100 billion less than Apple, according to MarketWatch. Microsoft is valued at $2.73 trillion, while Apple -- fallen from its recent $3 trillion high -- is currently at $2.83 trillion.

How Microsoft may be beating Apple

MarketWatch

notes that Microsoft's stock rose 57% in 2023, compared to Apple's which rose 48%. Microsoft shares have also reportedly seen what are described as slimmer losses at the start of 2024.

Apple, on the other hand, has seen its shares take a considerable drop in recent days. The first hit was taken following a claim by Barclays that iPhone demand is weakening and that the iPhone 16 range will not offer any compelling new features to tempt upgraders.

The analyst view that Apple is dependent on iPhone sales is part of why Microsoft is doing better. Analysts see Microsoft has being less attached to any hardware, and more attached to subscription software such as Office 365, and so therefore less attached to any falling demand for phones or computers.

And, Microsoft has launched an AI tool in Copilot, while Apple has not unveiled any similar ChatGPT-style app or service. Analysts appear to be ignoring that Apple has been using AI for many years, under the name Machine Learning, though, and also that it is never first to a market, even ones that it later comes to dominate.



Read on AppleInsider

mikethemartian

They have been using AI, but have they been using generative AI?

AppleZulu

mikethemartian said:

They have been using AI, but have they been using generative AI?

As I suggested in another thread, there are ways that Apple can implement its own generative AI that would be more useful while avoiding the plagiarism and unreliability underlying the current generative AI models already out there. Microsoft’s generative AI is little more than a massive database of copyrighted material and a barely competent linguistic algorithm that regurgitates that material without adequately crediting or compensating the sources. 

As noted in the last paragraph of the above article, Apple doesn’t need to be first with something. They’ll just come in when they’re ready with an indispensable implementation of a technology, while others have raced to market with a janky hot mess. 

danvm

AppleZulu said:

mikethemartian said:

They have been using AI, but have they been using generative AI?

As I suggested in another thread, there are ways that Apple can implement its own generative AI that would be more useful while avoiding the plagiarism and unreliability underlying the current generative AI models already out there. Microsoft’s generative AI is little more than a massive database of copyrighted material and a barely competent linguistic algorithm that regurgitates that material without adequately crediting or compensating the sources. 

Maybe you don't know, but MS already is using generative AI in their MS 365 ecosystem, specifically in business and enterprises. IMO, that's more useful than what Apple is doing with AI.  

As noted in the last paragraph of the above article, Apple doesn’t need to be first with something. They’ll just come in when they’re ready with an indispensable implementation of a technology, while others have raced to market with a janky hot mess. 

Interesting that the article said that Apple is never first in the market, but they don't mention that Apple was ahead of the competition when they acquire Siri.  Thirteen years later we have a stagnant Siri and Apple behind the competition.  At the same time, OpenAI and Microsoft have a strong AI presence with services, datacenters and apps with AI integration. At the moment I haven't seen the "indispensable integration of technology" you mention Apple would bring.  I would wait and see what Apple brings in WWDC and compare it to what MS announce in their Build event. 

hmurchison

I can't point to much of what Microsoft is doing that another company isn't doing as well. 

Zoom is still a favorite for many over Teams. 
Azure hasn't killed AWS. 
Surface hasn't really put a dent in the iPad 

Generative AI has so much issues that have already been mentioned in this thread (copyright) 
the only reason why the Tech Press maintains the prattle is because they don't understand  the 
Tech industry beyond surface level stuff.  

I find the Vision Pro launch to be significantly more important to computing than Generative AI.   And if 
Apple is effectively able to put LLM right in silicon without heavy reliance on external servers for most 
of the daily AI tasks that will leapfrog much of today's  "Hey we have AI in our app but please don't use it 
too much because it's expensive" approach to extant AI use cases. 

tech_traveller

For the longest time I have written off Microsoft as being far behind Apple and Google and I didn't actually consider them a proper contender to either.

They don't have the aspirational appeal of Apple nor the software chops of Google. In fact, their UI is often very cluttered and overly complex.

However, in recent years they have become the safest tech company to bet on. People who are familiar with Microsoft's antitrust cases from way back will find it funny that the companies that were against Microsoft such as Apple and Google, are now being charged for the same things that they accused Microsoft for.

Microsoft's office suite still remains the default, their cloud services has a lot of potential even more than AWS(the current leader), Windows is the only PC choice for the majority of people (no programmer is going to buy a Chromebook and not everyone can afford a Mac), the recent game studio acquisitions has been slowly dethroning Sony and making Windows the only real PC gaming environment. Google started the cloud gaming market yet dropped out( they do this a lot...) and now Microsoft is carrying that with Xbox pass.

They don't have the same revenue dependency on ads and therefore don't have much to fear over new privacy regulations, they also don't have 50% of their revenue dependent on one product, such as iPhones for Apple.

They are also currently the leaders at AI along with Google, so I think they are future proofed too.

The only place they are lagging at is on the mobile market and I don't think they are going to succeed there as Apple and Google have grown too big in that space, but only time will tell, you never know with a company as big as them. Ever since Satya Nadella became CEO, Microsoft has been a different beast, making one right decision after another and he is arguably the best thing that happened to Microsoft.

auxio

As a friend recently put it so succinctly, "The current trend in AI has convinced people that garbage is gold. But then social media has been doing that for over a decade now, so it's not surprising."

Maybe I'm old school, but I've always looked for genuine solutions to problems, not approximations with a lot of hand waving. Which is where I feel AI is currently. But obviously that doesn't stop investors looking to ride the wave of interest.

tech_traveller

hmurchison said:

Zoom is still a favorite for many over Teams. 

Zoom isn't as prevalent as you think it is. Most companies have switched to Microsoft Teams or Google Meet.

Of course, there would be some individuals who still use Zoom, however, that number is decreasing every year.

hmurchison said:

Surface hasn't really put a dent in the iPad

Despite being a market leader, the iPad itself only accounts for a little over 7% of Apple's revenue.

hmurchison said:

I find the Vision Pro launch to be significantly more important to computing than Generative AI. 

Maybe in the third or fourth generation. This tech has existed in one form or another for the past many years, what Apple has done is crank up the specifications to 100. It is currently being marketed as a productivity tool but only the market will decide it's future. The first generation Apple watch was marketed as a premium watch but failed and only when Apple utilised its capabilities as a health tracker did it gain market share.

hmurchison said:

And if 
Apple is effectively able to put LLM right in silicon without heavy reliance on external servers for most 
of the daily AI tasks that will leapfrog much of today's  "Hey we have AI in our app but please don't use it 
too much because it's expensive" approach to extant AI use cases. 

The problem with that is, Android OEMs have already started doing that. Of course Apple's implementation will gain more mindshare (it is Apple duh...), however, it will not be something unique to Apple only, and that's not even considering the capability of the LLM model which Apple will use and whether it will be better than the competition.

tech_traveller

auxio said:

As a friend recently put it so succinctly, "The current trend in AI has convinced people that garbage is gold. But then social media has been doing that for over a decade now, so it's not surprising."

Maybe I'm old school, but I've always looked for genuine solutions to problems, not approximations with a lot of hand waving. Which is where I feel AI is currently. But obviously that doesn't stop investors looking to ride the wave of interest.

AI is not a new concept, we have been expecting this technology for a long time.

avon b7

AppleZulu said:

mikethemartian said:

They have been using AI, but have they been using generative AI?

As I suggested in another thread, there are ways that Apple can implement its own generative AI that would be more useful while avoiding the plagiarism and unreliability underlying the current generative AI models already out there. Microsoft’s generative AI is little more than a massive database of copyrighted material and a barely competent linguistic algorithm that regurgitates that material without adequately crediting or compensating the sources. 

As noted in the last paragraph of the above article, Apple doesn’t need to be first with something. They’ll just come in when they’re ready with an indispensable implementation of a technology, while others have raced to market with a janky hot mess. 

Apple 'can', 'could', 'would' etc. 

The point if the OP and many analysts is that none of what 'might' happen has shipped, while competitors are delivering.

The quality of what is shipping is neither here or there. Generative AI, for all its ethical problems, has hit the ground running. 

Yes, you will see absurd cases and weirdness getting spewed out but you will also get a lot of time saving results that are spot on. And it will get better. 

That’s on the generative front. On the LLM front for specific industries and scenarios, 'clean' data is used and the potential rewards are mind boggling.

Results are already proving this to be the case. 

Claiming that Apple already uses AI but calls it machine learning doesn't tackle the point. That is irrelevant in this context. 

Everybody uses ML. 

That was the point of the OP.

Not being first is also irrelevant. We're dealing with the 'now' and lots of manufacturers have 'indispensable' implementations of technology. Often superior to Apple even when Apple isn't first.

I've been talking cars a lot recently because they are all over the news with computing technology advances. 

So we are seeing all the classic use cases for AI. 

Sensing. 
Image recognition. 
Voice recognition. 
Audio processing. 
... 

Think about it. You get into your car and the driver is authenticated using image and or voice recognition. The settings of the car (including seat position etc) change to reflect that user's preferences. All other occupants can be identified and treated individually by the voice AI assistant. Calls can be isolated if necessary to not distract the driver or for privacy. Or the other way around. The audio is processed by AI to enhance the speech quality, eliminate background noise and reduce leakage. Users can seamlessly connect their phones and tablets, authenticate to different degrees and interact with the car by voice or touch. 

Even the headlights are taking on new tasks by moving from 'illumination' to 'projection'. Tie that into an AR-HUD (also powered by AI) and you can see massive progress. 

Basically, that is here now. It's shipping now. And getting better with each update. 

But Apple is nowhere to be seen and, unlike the Vision Pro, nothing has been said.

So. What's left. CarPlay? 

That's only cars. The scope for use cases is very broad yet Apple has only presented some machine learning initiatives. Very welcome, don't get me wrong, but everything I've seen (starting with a lack of any competing solutions to generative AI) and on through to recent investments, points to a company wrong-footed and scrambling to react. Scrambling to get a 5G modem finished.

Analysts may be getting it all wrong (or right - it's all guesswork) but when they reason their claims, there is always a possibility that it might actually make sense. 

That could be the case here independently of how financial results (and resulting stock movements) play out. 

AppleZulu

danvm said:

AppleZulu said:

mikethemartian said:

They have been using AI, but have they been using generative AI?

As I suggested in another thread, there are ways that Apple can implement its own generative AI that would be more useful while avoiding the plagiarism and unreliability underlying the current generative AI models already out there. Microsoft’s generative AI is little more than a massive database of copyrighted material and a barely competent linguistic algorithm that regurgitates that material without adequately crediting or compensating the sources. 

Maybe you don't know, but MS already is using generative AI in their MS 365 ecosystem, specifically in business and enterprises. IMO, that's more useful than what Apple is doing with AI.  

As noted in the last paragraph of the above article, Apple doesn’t need to be first with something. They’ll just come in when they’re ready with an indispensable implementation of a technology, while others have raced to market with a janky hot mess. 

Interesting that the article said that Apple is never first in the market, but they don't mention that Apple was ahead of the competition when they acquire Siri.  Thirteen years later we have a stagnant Siri and Apple behind the competition.  At the same time, OpenAI and Microsoft have a strong AI presence with services, datacenters and apps with AI integration. At the moment I haven't seen the "indispensable integration of technology" you mention Apple would bring.  I would wait and see what Apple brings in WWDC and compare it to what MS announce in their Build event. 

You're missing the point. Apple hasn't publicly entered the 'generative AI' field yet. Siri is not generative AI, at least not yet. But really, neither is the voice assistant competition. Microsoft and others have fielded generative AI, but their implementation isn't great, appears to rely on the wholesale theft of copyrighted material, and it spits out informational results that are offered authoritatively, but cannot be relied upon to actually be accurate. Presumably Microsoft and others also plan on using the tech to further traffic in users' private information. 

Before iTunes and the iPod, The digital music category had been cracked wide open by the mp3 format and companies like Napster that enabled and promoted the unrestrained theft of copyrighted music. Everybody was talking about it, but the format was crap, mp3 players were mostly crap, and the entire music industry was in a tailspin as theft of vast catalogs of copyrighted music was being normalized. Then Apple entered the market, making legal acquisition and playback of music reliable and easy. The simple convenience of 'doing it right' quickly diminished the consumer practice of stealing all your music, and ultimately created the bridge from the physical media sales model to the streaming subscription model spearheaded by Spotify. Now Apple Music is doing that better than Spotify, building an audience of paying subscribers. More recently, they've introduced lossless and spatial audio formats at no additional cost, instantly creating demand for content in those formats so that creating high-quality content is no longer about chasing the diminishing returns of niche audiophile markets. 

We all know the pre-iPhone mess of PDAs, cell phones, GPS devices, and Blackberrys that were dependent on an unsustainable back-end workaround for transmission of data. Then we got iPhones, the rapid build-out of wireless broadband networks and everybody trying to be like iPhones. I won't re-hash that story. The list goes on.

So sure, you can point at Microsoft and other companies pushing out their generative AI stuff, but we're essentially rhyming with the breakout of Napster and mp3s, and pretending that the "new normal" is wholesale electronic plagiarism. I don't know if it'll be at WWDC this year, but at some point, Apple is likely to actually enter that arena, but it won't be with a breathless us-too copy of what everyone else has scrambled to get out first. It will be something better thought out that doesn't rely on stealing copyrighted IP or on selling out user privacy. It'll be something that's actually useful, works seamlessly and that pays its own way. Also, it will build on and reinforce the market for Apple hardware, because that's how they make their money.

danox

tech_traveller said:

For the longest time I have written off Microsoft as being far behind Apple and Google and I didn't actually consider them a proper contender to either.

They don't have the aspirational appeal of Apple nor the software chops of Google. In fact, their UI is often very cluttered and overly complex.

However, in recent years they have become the safest tech company to bet on. People who are familiar with Microsoft's antitrust cases from way back will find it funny that the companies that were against Microsoft such as Apple and Google, are now being charged for the same things that they accused Microsoft for.

Microsoft's office suite still remains the default, their cloud services has a lot of potential even more than AWS(the current leader), Windows is the only PC choice for the majority of people (no programmer is going to buy a Chromebook and not everyone can afford a Mac), the recent game studio acquisitions has been slowly dethroning Sony and making Windows the only real PC gaming environment. Google started the cloud gaming market yet dropped out( they do this a lot...) and now Microsoft is carrying that with Xbox pass.

They don't have the same revenue dependency on ads and therefore don't have much to fear over new privacy regulations, they also don't have 50% of their revenue dependent on one product, such as iPhones for Apple.

They are also currently the leaders at AI along with Google, so I think they are future proofed too.

The only place they are lagging at is on the mobile market and I don't think they are going to succeed there as Apple and Google have grown too big in that space, but only time will tell, you never know with a company as big as them. Ever since Satya Nadella became CEO, Microsoft has been a different beast, making one right decision after another and he is arguably the best thing that happened to Microsoft.

AI is just tech Bitcoin right now, a vertical computer company featuring OS software/hardware design engineering like Apple brings physically and substance to the fight.

AppleZulu

auxio said:

As a friend recently put it so succinctly, "The current trend in AI has convinced people that garbage is gold. But then social media has been doing that for over a decade now, so it's not surprising."

Maybe I'm old school, but I've always looked for genuine solutions to problems, not approximations with a lot of hand waving. Which is where I feel AI is currently. But obviously that doesn't stop investors looking to ride the wave of interest.

This is largely correct. Much of the hoopla over AI that boiled over in the last year is based on the public perception that generative AI is at the cusp of computers thinking and maybe becoming sentient. This is in no small part because of the reactions of people in the press who have been fooled by language simulation that is, for those who can see it, still recognizably similar to ELIZA from 1964. The primary difference is the amount of data scraped and cataloged for regurgitation by the AI program. So with a few stories in early 2023 of AI seeming almost human, but also seeming a bit psychologically unstable, we were off to the races. Generative AI is not almost human, and the weirdness is what you get when you repeatedly steer the program into its restricted boundaries.

Because generative AI isn't almost human, it is not capable of being creative or original. As a result, the current batch of programs that are "trained" on other people's copyrighted work are incapable of doing anything more than regurgitating that work wholesale or in piecework mash-ups. Using the same legal definitions for humans who do that, it's plagiarism. Cutting and pasting other people's work into something and calling it your own is plagiarism. Doing so for money is called theft. Convincing investors and customers that this stolen product is gold really is selling garbage, and the pending lawsuits over that theft will soon enough eliminate the claimed value of the stuff. 

My guess is that Apple's "late" entry here will be one that gives attribution and pays for source content, while delivering it to users in intuitive and conversational formats that are actually useful. Coming up with that takes more thought and more time to develop, but will ultimately result in the model that everyone else will try to copy, while still claiming they were "first."

auxio

tech_traveller said:

auxio said:

As a friend recently put it so succinctly, "The current trend in AI has convinced people that garbage is gold. But then social media has been doing that for over a decade now, so it's not surprising."

Maybe I'm old school, but I've always looked for genuine solutions to problems, not approximations with a lot of hand waving. Which is where I feel AI is currently. But obviously that doesn't stop investors looking to ride the wave of interest.

AI is not a new concept, we have been expecting this technology for a long time.

Where did I say it was new? I was studying AI a couple of decades ago in college, and even then it had a long history.

AppleZulu said:

Because generative AI isn't almost human, it is not capable of being creative or original. As a result, the current batch of programs that are "trained" on other people's copyrighted work are incapable of doing anything more than regurgitating that work wholesale or in piecework mash-ups. Using the same legal definitions for humans who do that, it's plagiarism. Cutting and pasting other people's work into something and calling it your own is plagiarism. Doing so for money is called theft. Convincing investors and customers that this stolen product is gold really is selling garbage, and the pending lawsuits over that theft will soon enough eliminate the claimed value of the stuff. 

Exactly this. We're simply watching the knowledge and art we've generated being reflected back at us, often in ways which lose the original meaning or human expression. Which, in turn, is having the effect where I feel like we're actually losing the capability to discern fact from fiction and the ability to comprehend genuine human emotion. But money doesn't care about that, as long as there's growth.

danox

tech_traveller said:

For the longest time I have written off Microsoft as being far behind Apple and Google and I didn't actually consider them a proper contender to either.

They don't have the aspirational appeal of Apple nor the software chops of Google. In fact, their UI is often very cluttered and overly complex.

However, in recent years they have become the safest tech company to bet on. People who are familiar with Microsoft's antitrust cases from way back will find it funny that the companies that were against Microsoft such as Apple and Google, are now being charged for the same things that they accused Microsoft for.

Microsoft's office suite still remains the default, their cloud services has a lot of potential even more than AWS(the current leader), Windows is the only PC choice for the majority of people (no programmer is going to buy a Chromebook and not everyone can afford a Mac), the recent game studio acquisitions has been slowly dethroning Sony and making Windows the only real PC gaming environment. Google started the cloud gaming market yet dropped out( they do this a lot...) and now Microsoft is carrying that with Xbox pass.

They don't have the same revenue dependency on ads and therefore don't have much to fear over new privacy regulations, they also don't have 50% of their revenue dependent on one product, such as iPhones for Apple.

They are also currently the leaders at AI along with Google, so I think they are future proofed too.

The only place they are lagging at is on the mobile market and I don't think they are going to succeed there as Apple and Google have grown too big in that space, but only time will tell, you never know with a company as big as them. Ever since Satya Nadella became CEO, Microsoft has been a different beast, making one right decision after another and he is arguably the best thing that happened to Microsoft.

Microsoft has market inertia on their side, Apple currently has a M1, M2, M3 laptops that are fast powerful last virtually all day on charge with full performance perfect for job sites, and other power challenged scenarios yet good luck getting Autodesk, and most of the other software companies in the cad/construction market taking advantage of them (nothing in the Windows comes close). Maybe the Justice Dept. can help.  

jdw

What news stories are we to believe?  

It was only December 18th that the following story hit, claiming Apple is doing well in China and on its way to becoming a $4 trillion company.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/12/18/wedbush-still-very-happy-with-resilient-apple-in-china

danvm

AppleZulu said:

danvm said:

AppleZulu said:

mikethemartian said:

They have been using AI, but have they been using generative AI?

As I suggested in another thread, there are ways that Apple can implement its own generative AI that would be more useful while avoiding the plagiarism and unreliability underlying the current generative AI models already out there. Microsoft’s generative AI is little more than a massive database of copyrighted material and a barely competent linguistic algorithm that regurgitates that material without adequately crediting or compensating the sources. 

Maybe you don't know, but MS already is using generative AI in their MS 365 ecosystem, specifically in business and enterprises. IMO, that's more useful than what Apple is doing with AI.  

As noted in the last paragraph of the above article, Apple doesn’t need to be first with something. They’ll just come in when they’re ready with an indispensable implementation of a technology, while others have raced to market with a janky hot mess. 

Interesting that the article said that Apple is never first in the market, but they don't mention that Apple was ahead of the competition when they acquire Siri.  Thirteen years later we have a stagnant Siri and Apple behind the competition.  At the same time, OpenAI and Microsoft have a strong AI presence with services, datacenters and apps with AI integration. At the moment I haven't seen the "indispensable integration of technology" you mention Apple would bring.  I would wait and see what Apple brings in WWDC and compare it to what MS announce in their Build event. 

You're missing the point. Apple hasn't publicly entered the 'generative AI' field yet. Siri is not generative AI, at least not yet. But really, neither is the voice assistant competition. Microsoft and others have fielded generative AI, but their implementation isn't great, appears to rely on the wholesale theft of copyrighted material, and it spits out informational results that are offered authoritatively, but cannot be relied upon to actually be accurate. Presumably Microsoft and others also plan on using the tech to further traffic in users' private information. 

Before iTunes and the iPod, The digital music category had been cracked wide open by the mp3 format and companies like Napster that enabled and promoted the unrestrained theft of copyrighted music. Everybody was talking about it, but the format was crap, mp3 players were mostly crap, and the entire music industry was in a tailspin as theft of vast catalogs of copyrighted music was being normalized. Then Apple entered the market, making legal acquisition and playback of music reliable and easy. The simple convenience of 'doing it right' quickly diminished the consumer practice of stealing all your music, and ultimately created the bridge from the physical media sales model to the streaming subscription model spearheaded by Spotify. Now Apple Music is doing that better than Spotify, building an audience of paying subscribers. More recently, they've introduced lossless and spatial audio formats at no additional cost, instantly creating demand for content in those formats so that creating high-quality content is no longer about chasing the diminishing returns of niche audiophile markets. 

We all know the pre-iPhone mess of PDAs, cell phones, GPS devices, and Blackberrys that were dependent on an unsustainable back-end workaround for transmission of data. Then we got iPhones, the rapid build-out of wireless broadband networks and everybody trying to be like iPhones. I won't re-hash that story. The list goes on.

So sure, you can point at Microsoft and other companies pushing out their generative AI stuff, but we're essentially rhyming with the breakout of Napster and mp3s, and pretending that the "new normal" is wholesale electronic plagiarism. I don't know if it'll be at WWDC this year, but at some point, Apple is likely to actually enter that arena, but it won't be with a breathless us-too copy of what everyone else has scrambled to get out first. It will be something better thought out that doesn't rely on stealing copyrighted IP or on selling out user privacy. It'll be something that's actually useful, works seamlessly and that pays its own way. Also, it will build on and reinforce the market for Apple hardware, because that's how they make their money.

I suppose that when you mentioned "wholesale theft of copyrighted material" and "wholesale electronic plagiarism" is about the lawsuit against OpenAI and MS.  If that's the case, I suppose that we can call Apple "thieves", considering Masimo accuse them of stealing trade secrets, poaching employees and some patents violations.  I prefer to wait until both cases are done before making an opinion.

Second, I mentioned Siri because it's the closest thing Apple have similar to a generative AI chatbot. And they had the chance to improve it to be better than what we have today with OpenAI / Copilot and Bard, but it didn't happen.  Apple didn't have the vision to improve Siri to be more than just an assistant. 

The examples about digital music and smartphones were about how Apple turn around those markets, right? If that's the case, the same can be said about MS and enterprise / business software and ecosystem and Google with search and consumer cloud services. Also, you have to consider that Apple is competing with MS and Google, both massive companies and with more resources and infrastructure than what Napster or Blackberry had in the past.  

I would wait WWDC or the final product from Apple before saying they will be better than MS or Google. But if they repeat the mistakes they made with Siri, they will be behind MS and Google for a long time. 

AppleZulu

danvm said:

AppleZulu said:

danvm said:

AppleZulu said:

mikethemartian said:

They have been using AI, but have they been using generative AI?

As I suggested in another thread, there are ways that Apple can implement its own generative AI that would be more useful while avoiding the plagiarism and unreliability underlying the current generative AI models already out there. Microsoft’s generative AI is little more than a massive database of copyrighted material and a barely competent linguistic algorithm that regurgitates that material without adequately crediting or compensating the sources. 

Maybe you don't know, but MS already is using generative AI in their MS 365 ecosystem, specifically in business and enterprises. IMO, that's more useful than what Apple is doing with AI.  

As noted in the last paragraph of the above article, Apple doesn’t need to be first with something. They’ll just come in when they’re ready with an indispensable implementation of a technology, while others have raced to market with a janky hot mess. 

Interesting that the article said that Apple is never first in the market, but they don't mention that Apple was ahead of the competition when they acquire Siri.  Thirteen years later we have a stagnant Siri and Apple behind the competition.  At the same time, OpenAI and Microsoft have a strong AI presence with services, datacenters and apps with AI integration. At the moment I haven't seen the "indispensable integration of technology" you mention Apple would bring.  I would wait and see what Apple brings in WWDC and compare it to what MS announce in their Build event. 

You're missing the point. Apple hasn't publicly entered the 'generative AI' field yet. Siri is not generative AI, at least not yet. But really, neither is the voice assistant competition. Microsoft and others have fielded generative AI, but their implementation isn't great, appears to rely on the wholesale theft of copyrighted material, and it spits out informational results that are offered authoritatively, but cannot be relied upon to actually be accurate. Presumably Microsoft and others also plan on using the tech to further traffic in users' private information. 

Before iTunes and the iPod, The digital music category had been cracked wide open by the mp3 format and companies like Napster that enabled and promoted the unrestrained theft of copyrighted music. Everybody was talking about it, but the format was crap, mp3 players were mostly crap, and the entire music industry was in a tailspin as theft of vast catalogs of copyrighted music was being normalized. Then Apple entered the market, making legal acquisition and playback of music reliable and easy. The simple convenience of 'doing it right' quickly diminished the consumer practice of stealing all your music, and ultimately created the bridge from the physical media sales model to the streaming subscription model spearheaded by Spotify. Now Apple Music is doing that better than Spotify, building an audience of paying subscribers. More recently, they've introduced lossless and spatial audio formats at no additional cost, instantly creating demand for content in those formats so that creating high-quality content is no longer about chasing the diminishing returns of niche audiophile markets. 

We all know the pre-iPhone mess of PDAs, cell phones, GPS devices, and Blackberrys that were dependent on an unsustainable back-end workaround for transmission of data. Then we got iPhones, the rapid build-out of wireless broadband networks and everybody trying to be like iPhones. I won't re-hash that story. The list goes on.

So sure, you can point at Microsoft and other companies pushing out their generative AI stuff, but we're essentially rhyming with the breakout of Napster and mp3s, and pretending that the "new normal" is wholesale electronic plagiarism. I don't know if it'll be at WWDC this year, but at some point, Apple is likely to actually enter that arena, but it won't be with a breathless us-too copy of what everyone else has scrambled to get out first. It will be something better thought out that doesn't rely on stealing copyrighted IP or on selling out user privacy. It'll be something that's actually useful, works seamlessly and that pays its own way. Also, it will build on and reinforce the market for Apple hardware, because that's how they make their money.

I suppose that when you mentioned "wholesale theft of copyrighted material" and "wholesale electronic plagiarism" is about the lawsuit against OpenAI and MS.  If that's the case, I suppose that we can call Apple "thieves", considering Masimo accuse them of stealing trade secrets, poaching employees and some patents violations.  I prefer to wait until both cases are done before making an opinion.

Second, I mentioned Siri because it's the closest thing Apple have similar to a generative AI chatbot. And they had the chance to improve it to be better than what we have today with OpenAI / Copilot and Bard, but it didn't happen.  Apple didn't have the vision to improve Siri to be more than just an assistant. 

I suppose the examples about digital music and smartphones were about how Apple turn around those markets. But the same happened with MS and enterprise / business software and ecosystem and Google with search and consumer cloud services. Also, you have to consider that Apple is competing with MS and Google, both massive companies and with more resources and infrastructure than what Napster or Blackberry had in the past.  

I would wait WWDC or the final product from Apple before saying they will be better than MS or Google. But if they repeat the mistakes they made with Siri, they will be behind MS and Google for a long time. 

There’s a hung jury that was almost completely on Apple’s side in the Masimo case, but sure, wait for a final result. On the generative AI thing, you can experiment with it yourself. Ask MS Copilot to write a poem about Green Eggs and Ham in the style of Dr. Seuss. You get a verbatim or nearly verbatim regurgitation of a copyrighted work. Change the instructions to blue eggs, and you get nearly the same thing, but with blue eggs and Pam instead of Sam. You can wait for courts to work through the minutiae of IP case law, but there’s no argument that these AI programs aren’t packed with copyrighted material that they then regurgitate based on instructions for how to regurgitate it. 

wood1208

Hate to see the possibility of Microsoft, the Dark Force rise again!

danvm

AppleZulu said:

danvm said:

AppleZulu said:

danvm said:

AppleZulu said:

mikethemartian said:

They have been using AI, but have they been using generative AI?

As I suggested in another thread, there are ways that Apple can implement its own generative AI that would be more useful while avoiding the plagiarism and unreliability underlying the current generative AI models already out there. Microsoft’s generative AI is little more than a massive database of copyrighted material and a barely competent linguistic algorithm that regurgitates that material without adequately crediting or compensating the sources. 

Maybe you don't know, but MS already is using generative AI in their MS 365 ecosystem, specifically in business and enterprises. IMO, that's more useful than what Apple is doing with AI.  

As noted in the last paragraph of the above article, Apple doesn’t need to be first with something. They’ll just come in when they’re ready with an indispensable implementation of a technology, while others have raced to market with a janky hot mess. 

Interesting that the article said that Apple is never first in the market, but they don't mention that Apple was ahead of the competition when they acquire Siri.  Thirteen years later we have a stagnant Siri and Apple behind the competition.  At the same time, OpenAI and Microsoft have a strong AI presence with services, datacenters and apps with AI integration. At the moment I haven't seen the "indispensable integration of technology" you mention Apple would bring.  I would wait and see what Apple brings in WWDC and compare it to what MS announce in their Build event. 

You're missing the point. Apple hasn't publicly entered the 'generative AI' field yet. Siri is not generative AI, at least not yet. But really, neither is the voice assistant competition. Microsoft and others have fielded generative AI, but their implementation isn't great, appears to rely on the wholesale theft of copyrighted material, and it spits out informational results that are offered authoritatively, but cannot be relied upon to actually be accurate. Presumably Microsoft and others also plan on using the tech to further traffic in users' private information. 

Before iTunes and the iPod, The digital music category had been cracked wide open by the mp3 format and companies like Napster that enabled and promoted the unrestrained theft of copyrighted music. Everybody was talking about it, but the format was crap, mp3 players were mostly crap, and the entire music industry was in a tailspin as theft of vast catalogs of copyrighted music was being normalized. Then Apple entered the market, making legal acquisition and playback of music reliable and easy. The simple convenience of 'doing it right' quickly diminished the consumer practice of stealing all your music, and ultimately created the bridge from the physical media sales model to the streaming subscription model spearheaded by Spotify. Now Apple Music is doing that better than Spotify, building an audience of paying subscribers. More recently, they've introduced lossless and spatial audio formats at no additional cost, instantly creating demand for content in those formats so that creating high-quality content is no longer about chasing the diminishing returns of niche audiophile markets. 

We all know the pre-iPhone mess of PDAs, cell phones, GPS devices, and Blackberrys that were dependent on an unsustainable back-end workaround for transmission of data. Then we got iPhones, the rapid build-out of wireless broadband networks and everybody trying to be like iPhones. I won't re-hash that story. The list goes on.

So sure, you can point at Microsoft and other companies pushing out their generative AI stuff, but we're essentially rhyming with the breakout of Napster and mp3s, and pretending that the "new normal" is wholesale electronic plagiarism. I don't know if it'll be at WWDC this year, but at some point, Apple is likely to actually enter that arena, but it won't be with a breathless us-too copy of what everyone else has scrambled to get out first. It will be something better thought out that doesn't rely on stealing copyrighted IP or on selling out user privacy. It'll be something that's actually useful, works seamlessly and that pays its own way. Also, it will build on and reinforce the market for Apple hardware, because that's how they make their money.

I suppose that when you mentioned "wholesale theft of copyrighted material" and "wholesale electronic plagiarism" is about the lawsuit against OpenAI and MS.  If that's the case, I suppose that we can call Apple "thieves", considering Masimo accuse them of stealing trade secrets, poaching employees and some patents violations.  I prefer to wait until both cases are done before making an opinion.

Second, I mentioned Siri because it's the closest thing Apple have similar to a generative AI chatbot. And they had the chance to improve it to be better than what we have today with OpenAI / Copilot and Bard, but it didn't happen.  Apple didn't have the vision to improve Siri to be more than just an assistant. 

I suppose the examples about digital music and smartphones were about how Apple turn around those markets. But the same happened with MS and enterprise / business software and ecosystem and Google with search and consumer cloud services. Also, you have to consider that Apple is competing with MS and Google, both massive companies and with more resources and infrastructure than what Napster or Blackberry had in the past.  

I would wait WWDC or the final product from Apple before saying they will be better than MS or Google. But if they repeat the mistakes they made with Siri, they will be behind MS and Google for a long time. 

There’s a hung jury that was almost completely on Apple’s side in the Masimo case, but sure, wait for a final result. On the generative AI thing, you can experiment with it yourself. Ask MS Copilot to write a poem about Green Eggs and Ham in the style of Dr. Seuss. You get a verbatim or nearly verbatim regurgitation of a copyrighted work. Change the instructions to blue eggs, and you get nearly the same thing, but with blue eggs and Pam instead of Sam. You can wait for courts to work through the minutiae of IP case law, but there’s no argument that these AI programs aren’t packed with copyrighted material that they then regurgitate based on instructions for how to regurgitate it. 

It's evident that Open AI and MS Copilot have copyright content as part of their responses.  Looking forward how the issue is solved.

danox

jdw said:

What news stories are we to believe?  

It was only December 18th that the following story hit, claiming Apple is doing well in China and on its way to becoming a $4 trillion company.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/12/18/wedbush-still-very-happy-with-resilient-apple-in-china

China and Japan separately are bigger markets for Apple than the EU. Over and over eastern Asia shows they will buy quality higher end products from the west, what they won't is buy the 2nd and 3rd level if they have a choice at home.