The quote that resonated with me from the WSJ article is that Apple can do pretty much anything they set their minds to. I think that really is the bottom line. Apple has competent management, smart employees, and practically limitless financial resources. When you have those things, you can do just about anything (within the laws of physics)
Having an idea and an abundance of cash didn't work at Xerox PARC. It doesn't help much at IBM or Intel. The main new feature of iPhone 15 Pro was an extra button. USB-C was a requirement made by politicians. The main new feature of the next iOS will be... OpenAI powered by Microsoft.
Jobs made Apple the most valuable company in 2011. Cook has moved Apple down to #3. It has been a decade of iterative upgrades from Apple with AirPods and M-series being the stars.
"It has been a decade of iterative upgrades from Apple with AirPods and M-series being the stars." => The Apple Watch deserves credit as well.
"OpenAI powered by Microsoft" => OpenAI is not powered by MS. MS' CoPilot is powered by OpenAI
This „is behind“ thinking is a completely wrong idea. The idea of it is that there are companies like OpenAI, Meta, Google and lots of others competing about foundational AI models and that Apple would be late in the game on that.
The real competition Apple faces is in „use of AI features“. Foundational models are hyped upon because all of this is new, but in the long run there are not really useful as end user products. There are already lots of very good Open Source foundation models. Llama 3 is very comparable to GPT 4 and there are MANY other options. Finetuning those models for specific purposes and building actual product features around them is the real thing to be done.
its pointless to compete on foundation models for Apple.
Great post. I’d add that Apple isn’t always striving to be first, but they’re always striving to get it right. With AI having such a massive downstream impact on the future of computing, getting it right has never been more important than it is now.
2017 the Neural Engine was first introduced by Apple.
The software and hardware (tools) foundations have been in place for many years and there have been many pieces of software designed using what Apple has already released. The existence of a new button called CoPilot or calling something a AI computer won't affect the back of house infrastructure encoded by Apple the ground has already been laid the PC crowd and some of the Apple crowd just slept thru it because Robbie the Robot didn't hold their hand.
Recall and CoPilot will bore the PC public in a hurry remember the Gamer Boy/Tech/YouTube Crowd attention span is very short they miss the foundational work all the time.
If Apple had kept working in AI as serious as they were with the car, 5G and AVP, we should have at least something similar to OpenAI. But it looks like they lost focus. It came to my mind something SJ said, ‘I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.’ Looks like Apple is skating where the puck has been with generative AI. Steve Jobs used Wayne Gretzky as inspiration - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
I’m not sure where these “Apple Universe” stories come from. Most likely, Giannandrea and Federighi communicate frequently throughout the development process. I also don’t think Apple is “behind” with regard to AI. There are things that are being worked on that are years out — maybe some of those things got moved up and other things pushed out. Google is perceived and being on the forefront of this tech, and look at the issues they have had and are having.
I we are talking about generative AI / LLM, I could see why people think they are behind. Just look at what the competition is doing and compare that with what we have with Apple today. Things could change next week in WWDC, and they release something no one is expecting. We'll see what happens.
The quote that resonated with me from the WSJ article is that Apple can do pretty much anything they set their minds to. I think that really is the bottom line. Apple has competent management, smart employees, and practically limitless financial resources. When you have those things, you can do just about anything (within the laws of physics)
Except build a car or modem.
Can doesn't mean should. Apple can build a car, but is it the right decision to do so when you consider additional resources required, time and potential income? Sometimes the right decision is to pull the plug.
The quote that resonated with me from the WSJ article is that Apple can do pretty much anything they set their minds to. I think that really is the bottom line. Apple has competent management, smart employees, and practically limitless financial resources. When you have those things, you can do just about anything (within the laws of physics)
Having an idea and an abundance of cash didn't work at Xerox PARC. It doesn't help much at IBM or Intel. The main new feature of iPhone 15 Pro was an extra button. USB-C was a requirement made by politicians. The main new feature of the next iOS will be... OpenAI powered by Microsoft.
Jobs made Apple the most valuable company in 2011. Cook has moved Apple down to #3. It has been a decade of iterative upgrades from Apple with AirPods and M-series being the stars.
Note that I listed three factors: (1) competent management, (2) smart employees, and (3) limitless financial resources.
Xerox, IBM, and Intel all eventually had problems with #1.
Apple lost a step after Steve Jobs left, but nobody else has Steve Jobs, either. Cook is better than most CEOs out there. Comparing him to Jobs is pointless -- nobody is Steve Jobs.
The quote that resonated with me from the WSJ article is that Apple can do pretty much anything they set their minds to. I think that really is the bottom line. Apple has competent management, smart employees, and practically limitless financial resources. When you have those things, you can do just about anything (within the laws of physics)
Competent management wouldn't have let Siri languish for a decade or spent $1 billion a year on a failed car project. The state of Vision Pro is still up in the air. Competent management would have also invested whatever it takes to have their own in-house LLM to power Siri and have their own AI datacenter infrastructure ready to go by now. Apple saw the potential of technologies like Siri when they acquired it over a decade ago. They should leaders in this field at this point. Instead, it's OpenAI, Microsoft and Nvidia stealing the limelight.
I would have to agree with Siri languishing. It seems like every time there is an update, Siri loses the ability to answer a question that she's answered many, many time before. I'm hoping the next version of Siri will blow away what we've grown to grudgingly love.
I’m not sure where these “Apple Universe” stories come from. Most likely, Giannandrea and Federighi communicate frequently throughout the development process. I also don’t think Apple is “behind” with regard to AI. There are things that are being worked on that are years out — maybe some of those things got moved up and other things pushed out. Google is perceived and being on the forefront of this tech, and look at the issues they have had and are having.
I we are talking about generative AI / LLM, I could see why people think they are behind. Just look at what the competition is doing and compare that with what we have with Apple today. Things could change next week in WWDC, and they release something no one is expecting. We'll see what happens.
What is the competition “doing” that you think Apple isn’t doing? Are any of these things generating any revenue? As far as I can tell, AI profit is going to the semis, data centers, and cloud providers — Apple isn’t in any of these businesses, so what competition are you referring to?
The quote that resonated with me from the WSJ article is that Apple can do pretty much anything they set their minds to. I think that really is the bottom line. Apple has competent management, smart employees, and practically limitless financial resources. When you have those things, you can do just about anything (within the laws of physics)
Competent management wouldn't have let Siri languish for a decade or spent $1 billion a year on a failed car project. The state of Vision Pro is still up in the air. Competent management would have also invested whatever it takes to have their own in-house LLM to power Siri and have their own AI datacenter infrastructure ready to go by now. Apple saw the potential of technologies like Siri when they acquired it over a decade ago. They should leaders in this field at this point. Instead, it's OpenAI, Microsoft and Nvidia stealing the limelight.
So you believe managerial competence of a $3T company is based on their handling of a voice assistant feature that was released over ten years ago, and which generates no income for the company? And this “AI data center infrastructure” you speak of — what would this power, and what income would this generate? Because Apple isn’t in the cloud business like Amazon/Microsoft/Google, so what is the feasibility of building out an “AI data center infrastructure”? Do you think this should have been built to power Siri, which you seem to believe is the key to all opportunities in AI for Apple? And what of OpenAI, Microsoft and Nvidia, whom you regard as “stealing the limelight”? They are not in the same business, they are not competitors, so they aren’t even sharing the same “limelight”.
You are obviously one of the many sheep caught up in the AI frenzy. When the bubble pops, you will realize what a fool you are.
I’m not sure where these “Apple Universe” stories come from. Most likely, Giannandrea and Federighi communicate frequently throughout the development process. I also don’t think Apple is “behind” with regard to AI. There are things that are being worked on that are years out — maybe some of those things got moved up and other things pushed out. Google is perceived and being on the forefront of this tech, and look at the issues they have had and are having.
I we are talking about generative AI / LLM, I could see why people think they are behind. Just look at what the competition is doing and compare that with what we have with Apple today. Things could change next week in WWDC, and they release something no one is expecting. We'll see what happens.
What is the competition “doing” that you think Apple isn’t doing? Are any of these things generating any revenue? As far as I can tell, AI profit is going to the semis, data centers, and cloud providers — Apple isn’t in any of these businesses, so what competition are you referring to?
"so what competition are you referring to"
1. Microsoft / OpenAI in the desktop / laptop / tablet space 2. Google / Samsung / Huawei in the smartphone / tablet space.
The quote that resonated with me from the WSJ article is that Apple can do pretty much anything they set their minds to. I think that really is the bottom line. Apple has competent management, smart employees, and practically limitless financial resources. When you have those things, you can do just about anything (within the laws of physics)
Competent management wouldn't have let Siri languish for a decade or spent $1 billion a year on a failed car project. The state of Vision Pro is still up in the air. Competent management would have also invested whatever it takes to have their own in-house LLM to power Siri and have their own AI datacenter infrastructure ready to go by now. Apple saw the potential of technologies like Siri when they acquired it over a decade ago. They should leaders in this field at this point. Instead, it's OpenAI, Microsoft and Nvidia stealing the limelight.
So you believe managerial competence of a $3T company is based on their handling of a voice assistant feature that was released over ten years ago, and which generates no income for the company? And this “AI data center infrastructure” you speak of — what would this power, and what income would this generate? Because Apple isn’t in the cloud business like Amazon/Microsoft/Google, so what is the feasibility of building out an “AI data center infrastructure”? Do you think this should have been built to power Siri, which you seem to believe is the key to all opportunities in AI for Apple? And what of OpenAI, Microsoft and Nvidia, whom you regard as “stealing the limelight”? They are not in the same business, they are not competitors, so they aren’t even sharing the same “limelight”.
You are obviously one of the many sheep caught up in the AI frenzy. When the bubble pops, you will realize what a fool you are.
"When the bubble pops, you will realize what a fool you are."
Speaking for yourself and about yourself. You obviously can't see the forest from the f***g trees.
We should also not forget how complex Apples ecosystem is. They proudly produce at least 9 independent product lines with their own hardware and software, but that more or less seamlessly connect with each other. Any useful, magical, AI should take advantage of it, while not end up stuck on only one platform.
The quote that resonated with me from the WSJ article is that Apple can do pretty much anything they set their minds to. I think that really is the bottom line. Apple has competent management, smart employees, and practically limitless financial resources. When you have those things, you can do just about anything (within the laws of physics)
Having an idea and an abundance of cash didn't work at Xerox PARC. It doesn't help much at IBM or Intel. The main new feature of iPhone 15 Pro was an extra button. USB-C was a requirement made by politicians. The main new feature of the next iOS will be... OpenAI powered by Microsoft.
Jobs made Apple the most valuable company in 2011. Cook has moved Apple down to #3. It has been a decade of iterative upgrades from Apple with AirPods and M-series being the stars.
Note that I listed three factors: (1) competent management, (2) smart employees, and (3) limitless financial resources.
Xerox, IBM, and Intel all eventually had problems with #1.
Apple lost a step after Steve Jobs left, but nobody else has Steve Jobs, either. Cook is better than most CEOs out there. Comparing him to Jobs is pointless -- nobody is Steve Jobs.
I think one can argue that it’s time for new blood at the very top. Cook was a fantastic CEO: the Apple Watch was a wonderful addition to the line up and Services are doing great. Not to mention global expansion during difficult times. But Apple needs a little revolution, a break from the current cycle.
I’m not sure where these “Apple Universe” stories come from. Most likely, Giannandrea and Federighi communicate frequently throughout the development process. I also don’t think Apple is “behind” with regard to AI. There are things that are being worked on that are years out — maybe some of those things got moved up and other things pushed out. Google is perceived and being on the forefront of this tech, and look at the issues they have had and are having.
I we are talking about generative AI / LLM, I could see why people think they are behind. Just look at what the competition is doing and compare that with what we have with Apple today. Things could change next week in WWDC, and they release something no one is expecting. We'll see what happens.
What is the competition “doing” that you think Apple isn’t doing? Are any of these things generating any revenue? As far as I can tell, AI profit is going to the semis, data centers, and cloud providers — Apple isn’t in any of these businesses, so what competition are you referring to?
You just know that when profits are harvested so far down the value chain, there are no real benefits to consumers.
I’m not sure where these “Apple Universe” stories come from. Most likely, Giannandrea and Federighi communicate frequently throughout the development process. I also don’t think Apple is “behind” with regard to AI. There are things that are being worked on that are years out — maybe some of those things got moved up and other things pushed out. Google is perceived and being on the forefront of this tech, and look at the issues they have had and are having.
I we are talking about generative AI / LLM, I could see why people think they are behind. Just look at what the competition is doing and compare that with what we have with Apple today. Things could change next week in WWDC, and they release something no one is expecting. We'll see what happens.
What is the competition “doing” that you think Apple isn’t doing? Are any of these things generating any revenue? As far as I can tell, AI profit is going to the semis, data centers, and cloud providers — Apple isn’t in any of these businesses, so what competition are you referring to?
In response to your first question, generative AI / LLM. And you are right that they are not generating revenue today, but this is expected, as companies like Microsoft, Google and Amazon are heavily investing in the infrastructure for their AI services, and this comes at a high cost. You are right that Apple was not originally in the cloud services business, but that was the case with Amazon and Microsoft. The difference is that they recognized the market's direction and prepared for that. Now Apple depends on these companies for most of their services, including generative AI. In 2019 Apple pay Amazon $30M per month, and maybe that number is higher today. They also have services in Google, and now with OpenAI. If Apple had made a strong commitment and investment in datacenters and infrastructure, that money would be invested in their own infrastructure and would be in a better position to offer generative AI / LLM services to their customers and developers, in addition to host their own services.
The quote that resonated with me from the WSJ article is that Apple can do pretty much anything they set their minds to. I think that really is the bottom line. Apple has competent management, smart employees, and practically limitless financial resources. When you have those things, you can do just about anything (within the laws of physics)
Competent management wouldn't have let Siri languish for a decade or spent $1 billion a year on a failed car project. The state of Vision Pro is still up in the air. Competent management would have also invested whatever it takes to have their own in-house LLM to power Siri and have their own AI datacenter infrastructure ready to go by now. Apple saw the potential of technologies like Siri when they acquired it over a decade ago. They should leaders in this field at this point. Instead, it's OpenAI, Microsoft and Nvidia stealing the limelight.
So you believe managerial competence of a $3T company is based on their handling of a voice assistant feature that was released over ten years ago, and which generates no income for the company? And this “AI data center infrastructure” you speak of — what would this power, and what income would this generate? Because Apple isn’t in the cloud business like Amazon/Microsoft/Google, so what is the feasibility of building out an “AI data center infrastructure”? Do you think this should have been built to power Siri, which you seem to believe is the key to all opportunities in AI for Apple? And what of OpenAI, Microsoft and Nvidia, whom you regard as “stealing the limelight”? They are not in the same business, they are not competitors, so they aren’t even sharing the same “limelight”.
You are obviously one of the many sheep caught up in the AI frenzy. When the bubble pops, you will realize what a fool you are.
"When the bubble pops, you will realize what a fool you are."
Speaking for yourself and about yourself. You obviously can't see the forest from the f***g trees.
What an armchair CEO pronouncement, you should apply to be Tim's replacement, ffs.
From this article, it confirms my worry that Apple is not behind, but severely behind. From now on, Apple products will be using Microsoft technology in the core. Apple should go to Computex in Taiwan.
Jobs made Apple the most valuable company in 2011. Cook has moved Apple down to #3. It has been a decade of iterative upgrades from Apple with AirPods and M-series being the stars.
"It has been a decade of iterative upgrades from Apple with AirPods and M-series being the stars." => The Apple Watch deserves credit as well.
"OpenAI powered by Microsoft" => OpenAI is not powered by MS. MS' CoPilot is powered by OpenAI
Apple Watch was planned during the Jobs years but launched after. The launch was a disaster with it being marketed as fashion accessory. It took years for Apple to pivot it towards health. Not sure we can give Cook credit for Watch as an idea - but his team did fix the flawed launch.
Microsoft owns 49% of OpenAI and it is hosted on MS Azure. The payments from Apple are boosting the investment and core AI platform of MS. Your privacy when using OpenAI is protected by Microsoft. Better hope Apple will pay for us to avoid that "MS Privacy inside" sticker.
Competent management would have also invested whatever it takes to have their own in-house LLM to power Siri and have their own AI datacenter infrastructure ready to go by now.
And this “AI data center infrastructure” you speak of — what would this power, and what income would this generate?
With Apple paying OpenAI - 49% owned by MS and hosted on Azure we see Apple making Microsoft stronger. Actively funding your competitors, having no control over core tech, and fumbling around copying products from Zuckerberg and Musk - that is Team Cook.
Comments
"OpenAI powered by Microsoft" => OpenAI is not powered by MS. MS' CoPilot is powered by OpenAI
Steve Jobs used Wayne Gretzky as inspiration - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Can doesn't mean should. Apple can build a car, but is it the right decision to do so when you consider additional resources required, time and potential income? Sometimes the right decision is to pull the plug.
Xerox, IBM, and Intel all eventually had problems with #1.
Apple lost a step after Steve Jobs left, but nobody else has Steve Jobs, either. Cook is better than most CEOs out there. Comparing him to Jobs is pointless -- nobody is Steve Jobs.
You are obviously one of the many sheep caught up in the AI frenzy. When the bubble pops, you will realize what a fool you are.
1. Microsoft / OpenAI in the desktop / laptop / tablet space
2. Google / Samsung / Huawei in the smartphone / tablet space.
Those are the direct competitors.
Speaking for yourself and about yourself. You obviously can't see the forest from the f***g trees.
Microsoft owns 49% of OpenAI and it is hosted on MS Azure. The payments from Apple are boosting the investment and core AI platform of MS. Your privacy when using OpenAI is protected by Microsoft. Better hope Apple will pay for us to avoid that "MS Privacy inside" sticker.