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.
Apple was hardly ever first with something. I agree they are behind on AI, but look at the state of AI tools/integrations. They all suck, I work with a lof of those tools on daily basis. Maybe 0.01% of consumers have used it knowingly or with purpose. This market is still in its infancy and very nerd-focused.
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.
Why do you say that Apple is paying OpenAI anything? Are you privy to executive level negotiations at Apple? I don’t believe Apple will be paying them or anyone anything. The partnership is a rumor, as nothing has been announced, but the ability to be integrated onto 2B+ devices would be attractive to any AI company.
And what products do you think Apple copied from, of all people, Zuckerberg and Musk? Apple was supposedly working on an EV technology that no other company (including Tesla) has released yet, and Zuckerberg doesn’t produce anything that resembles Vision Pro in form or function. Vision Pro does seem to align with Varjo (and maybe Magic Leap/HoloLens) in terms of function and their particular market, but Apple obviously sees the opportunity to expand beyond enterprise. They made a key AR acquisition in 2017 that led them to developing the technologies that are now in Vision Pro.
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.
Correct its like saying Apple is late to the computer OS party because Apple uses NeXTSTEP and FreeBSD as the basis of MacOS (1998-2001) the only thing that counts in the end is who can get there first with solutions that are useful for the public that can used in their everyday computing life well, Recall and a CoPilot button represents two strikes for Microsoft and a hallucinating Gemini with doctored video presentation of its actual performance represents two for Google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS Mac OS and Apple Silicon are examples of not being first. First doesn't matter actual usability/performance matters more.
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.
Why do you say that Apple is paying OpenAI anything? Are you privy to executive level negotiations at Apple? I don’t believe Apple will be paying them or anyone anything. The partnership is a rumor, as nothing has been announced, but the ability to be integrated onto 2B+ devices would be attractive to any AI company.
And what products do you think Apple copied from, of all people, Zuckerberg and Musk? Apple was supposedly working on an EV technology that no other company (including Tesla) has released yet, and Zuckerberg doesn’t produce anything that resembles Vision Pro in form or function. Vision Pro does seem to align with Varjo (and maybe Magic Leap/HoloLens) in terms of function and their particular market, but Apple obviously sees the opportunity to expand beyond enterprise. They made a key AR acquisition in 2017 that led them to developing the technologies that are now in Vision Pro.
You're arguing against the point by saying no one knows what deal Apple has and then follow up by saying Apple was supposedly working in something no one else had so no one knows that either.
In this case the context is clear and the premise is 'if the different rumours are true...'
Supposing external solutions are being baked into the OS in some way, Apple is very likely paying for the functionality.
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.
In the time frame of a year Microsoft blew 69 billion dollars on a game content company and Google spent 12.5 billion dollars in a calendar year on a sinking Motorola, Apple spending one a measly one billion dollars per year on a internal on going R&D project pales in comparison?
Apple is frugal in comparison to their tech competition and usually get very good value over the years.
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.
In the time frame of a year Microsoft blew 69 billion dollars on a game content company and Google spent 12.5 billion dollars in a calendar year on a sinking Motorola, Apple spending one a measly one billion dollars per year on a internal on going R&D project pales in comparison?
Apple is frugal in comparison to their tech competition and usually get very good value over the years.
The reference to Motorola and Google isn't a good one to compare to Apple R&D expenditures. Google profited in several ways, but the most obvious would be monetarily. When Google acquired Motorola it also inherited a cash pile of $3.2 billion, as well as $2.4 billion in deferred tax assets, for a net acquisition cost of $6.9 billion. "Google then sold Motorola's set-top box business to Arris ($2.3 billion) and its factories to Flextronics ($75 million), further reducing the total acquisition cost to $3.85 billion."
After selling the remainder of Motorola to Lenovo for $2.91 billion and keeping all the intellectual property valued at $5 billion, Even after $2B in losses during Google's ownership they still walked away $3B in the black. It worked out pretty well IMO, and left them in a far better position to defend Android against claims.
But I also don't fault Apple for trying cars or any other R&D. It's not like available money is an impediment. They can't spend fast enough now, adding to the horde just about every quarter.
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.
Why do you say that Apple is paying OpenAI anything? Are you privy to executive level negotiations at Apple? I don’t believe Apple will be paying them or anyone anything. The partnership is a rumor, as nothing has been announced, but the ability to be integrated onto 2B+ devices would be attractive to any AI company.
And what products do you think Apple copied from, of all people, Zuckerberg and Musk? Apple was supposedly working on an EV technology that no other company (including Tesla) has released yet, and Zuckerberg doesn’t produce anything that resembles Vision Pro in form or function. Vision Pro does seem to align with Varjo (and maybe Magic Leap/HoloLens) in terms of function and their particular market, but Apple obviously sees the opportunity to expand beyond enterprise. They made a key AR acquisition in 2017 that led them to developing the technologies that are now in Vision Pro.
A few years back Apple was paying Amazon $30M per month and $300M per year to Google for cloud services. I assume the cost of the OpenAI agreement will be higher, considering the cost of AI infrastructure. Why you think Apple will not be paying?
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.
You mean the MS that has no mobile presence vs Apple with 1.46 B iPhone users?
Who do you think gains the most fainancially from OpenAI on iOS; Apple or MS?
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.
You mean the MS that has no mobile presence vs Apple with 1.46 B iPhone users?
Who do you think gains the most fainancially from OpenAI on iOS; Apple or MS?
Yes, the Apple with no generative AI / LLM infrastructure vs MS with one of the largest infrastructures in the world. Right now, no one knows how will gain more, since there are no details of Apple agreement with OpenAI. I suppose Apple will be paying far more than the $30M per month to Amazon and the $300M they pay Google for GCP cloud services.
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.
You mean the MS that has no mobile presence vs Apple with 1.46 B iPhone users?
Who do you think gains the most fainancially from OpenAI on iOS; Apple or MS?
Yes, the Apple with no generative AI / LLM infrastructure vs MS with one of the largest infrastructures in the world. Right now, no one knows how will gain more, since there are no details of Apple agreement with OpenAI. I suppose Apple will be paying far more than the $30M per month to Amazon and the $300M they pay Google for GCP cloud services.
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.
You mean the MS that has no mobile presence vs Apple with 1.46 B iPhone users?
Who do you think gains the most fainancially from OpenAI on iOS; Apple or MS?
Yes, the Apple with no generative AI / LLM infrastructure vs MS with one of the largest infrastructures in the world. Right now, no one knows how will gain more, since there are no details of Apple agreement with OpenAI. I suppose Apple will be paying far more than the $30M per month to Amazon and the $300M they pay Google for GCP cloud services.
Interesting article. I did notice that during the OpenAI event last month, the presenters used a Mac and iPhone — no Windows PC. That says a lot to me, given that MS later that same month introduced AI-powered PC devices. What do you think this means?
In terms of resurrecting a phone, do you think MS could do it? I don’t think so, given how entrenched Apple and Google are. It would be a major uphill battle.
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.
You mean the MS that has no mobile presence vs Apple with 1.46 B iPhone users?
Who do you think gains the most fainancially from OpenAI on iOS; Apple or MS?
Yes, the Apple with no generative AI / LLM infrastructure vs MS with one of the largest infrastructures in the world. Right now, no one knows how will gain more, since there are no details of Apple agreement with OpenAI. I suppose Apple will be paying far more than the $30M per month to Amazon and the $300M they pay Google for GCP cloud services.
It’s evident that not having a smartphone impact MS negatively, but the same can be said from Apple by not having their own generative AI / LLM infrastructure.
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.
You mean the MS that has no mobile presence vs Apple with 1.46 B iPhone users?
Who do you think gains the most fainancially from OpenAI on iOS; Apple or MS?
Yes, the Apple with no generative AI / LLM infrastructure vs MS with one of the largest infrastructures in the world. Right now, no one knows how will gain more, since there are no details of Apple agreement with OpenAI. I suppose Apple will be paying far more than the $30M per month to Amazon and the $300M they pay Google for GCP cloud services.
It’s evident that not having a smartphone impact MS negatively, but the same can be said from Apple by not having their own generative AI / LLM infrastructure.
Microsoft not having their own quality long term mobile hardware is by far more important than a dubious AI model, however the Google Tensor being five years behind the leader (Apple) may mitigate that problem.
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.
You mean the MS that has no mobile presence vs Apple with 1.46 B iPhone users?
Who do you think gains the most fainancially from OpenAI on iOS; Apple or MS?
Yes, the Apple with no generative AI / LLM infrastructure vs MS with one of the largest infrastructures in the world. Right now, no one knows how will gain more, since there are no details of Apple agreement with OpenAI. I suppose Apple will be paying far more than the $30M per month to Amazon and the $300M they pay Google for GCP cloud services.
Interesting article. I did notice that during the OpenAI event last month, the presenters used a Mac and iPhone — no Windows PC. That says a lot to me, given that MS later that same month introduced AI-powered PC devices. What do you think this means?
In terms of resurrecting a phone, do you think MS could do it? I don’t think so, given how entrenched Apple and Google are. It would be a major uphill battle.
Microsoft and Intel are not good at competition starting at ground level with equal or better opposition and unfortunately for them they won't be able to relive the 1980's or 1990's.
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.
You mean the MS that has no mobile presence vs Apple with 1.46 B iPhone users?
Who do you think gains the most fainancially from OpenAI on iOS; Apple or MS?
Yes, the Apple with no generative AI / LLM infrastructure vs MS with one of the largest infrastructures in the world. Right now, no one knows how will gain more, since there are no details of Apple agreement with OpenAI. I suppose Apple will be paying far more than the $30M per month to Amazon and the $300M they pay Google for GCP cloud services.
It’s evident that not having a smartphone impact MS negatively, but the same can be said from Apple by not having their own generative AI / LLM infrastructure.
Microsoft not having their own quality long term mobile hardware is by far more important than a dubious AI model, however the Google Tensor being five years behind the leader (Apple) may mitigate that problem.
Do you refer to the "dubious AI model" that Apple want to use for their AI services? And I'm aware that MS have been negatively impacted by not having a smartphone. Still, they managed to work with their strong points, had the vision to see where the market was moving, and now they have one of the largest AI infrastructures in the world. And it looks like Apple will use that infrastructure for their AI services. I suppose MS is doing something right, considering that Copliot was the inspiration for Apple AI effort, don't you think?
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.
You mean the MS that has no mobile presence vs Apple with 1.46 B iPhone users?
Who do you think gains the most fainancially from OpenAI on iOS; Apple or MS?
Yes, the Apple with no generative AI / LLM infrastructure vs MS with one of the largest infrastructures in the world. Right now, no one knows how will gain more, since there are no details of Apple agreement with OpenAI. I suppose Apple will be paying far more than the $30M per month to Amazon and the $300M they pay Google for GCP cloud services.
Which is great motivation for internal/external Apple (workhorse) hardware those three ex Apple engineers currently working at Qualcomm were right on that score there really isn't anymore excuses left for Apple it is enviable.
And Apples did shoot themselves in the foot letting those three guys go and ultimately on the rebound giving Qualcomm who was dead in the water life.
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.
Why do you say that Apple is paying OpenAI anything? Are you privy to executive level negotiations at Apple? I don’t believe Apple will be paying them or anyone anything. The partnership is a rumor, as nothing has been announced, but the ability to be integrated onto 2B+ devices would be attractive to any AI company.
And what products do you think Apple copied from, of all people, Zuckerberg and Musk? Apple was supposedly working on an EV technology that no other company (including Tesla) has released yet, and Zuckerberg doesn’t produce anything that resembles Vision Pro in form or function. Vision Pro does seem to align with Varjo (and maybe Magic Leap/HoloLens) in terms of function and their particular market, but Apple obviously sees the opportunity to expand beyond enterprise. They made a key AR acquisition in 2017 that led them to developing the technologies that are now in Vision Pro.
A few years back Apple was paying Amazon $30M per month and $300M per year to Google for cloud services. I assume the cost of the OpenAI agreement will be higher, considering the cost of AI infrastructure. Why you think Apple will not be paying?
Because right now Google is paying on the rebound And does it matter with Apple who has M//4M5/M6/M7 SOC'S coming up let alone R2 SOC'S coming up? Apple has many cards to play in comparison to competition. Having the best consumer facing software and best mobile hardware in house is the place to be ReCall and Copilot is not.
Apple Silicon/Mac OS plus four software/hardware ecosystems on one side or the Google Android/Tensor/Hallucinating Gemini or the Microsoft Windows ReCall, Copilot on the other.
Apple almost certainly will build a in house AI model and AI Agents, in fact small single and multipurpose AI Agents will become the weapons of choice. (Why most talented programers and small companies can't afford what Nvidia is selling to the large companies and as usual they will find a way around it. The AI revolution will happen at the high and the low end.
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.
You mean the MS that has no mobile presence vs Apple with 1.46 B iPhone users?
Who do you think gains the most fainancially from OpenAI on iOS; Apple or MS?
Yes, the Apple with no generative AI / LLM infrastructure vs MS with one of the largest infrastructures in the world. Right now, no one knows how will gain more, since there are no details of Apple agreement with OpenAI. I suppose Apple will be paying far more than the $30M per month to Amazon and the $300M they pay Google for GCP cloud services.
Interesting article. I did notice that during the OpenAI event last month, the presenters used a Mac and iPhone — no Windows PC. That says a lot to me, given that MS later that same month introduced AI-powered PC devices. What do you think this means?
In terms of resurrecting a phone, do you think MS could do it? I don’t think so, given how entrenched Apple and Google are. It would be a major uphill battle.
They can't be serious? Siri has been dumb since day one, and 13 years later since the introduction, Siri is still dumb. Can't even play a playlist on my phone. Siri - Sorry, I can't do that. So no, Apple has not had an Intelligent Assistant, ever. The majority of responses are, 'I can't do that' or 'Let me look that up on the internet'. I asked for Siri for directions while driving and her response was, 'You need to pull over for that', and this was the response through CarPlay. I am not holding my breath for anything AI from Apple since they let Siri continue to be stupid for over a decade.
Shouldn't it be Christmas of 2023 and not 2022? I don't think Copilot had been released until middle of last year had it?
If so Craig played with it 6 months ago, not a year and a half back, and thus Apple didn't get serious until earlier this year, perhaps the last 4-5 months.
EDIT: Verified that Copilot wasn't announced until March of last year. But apparently Mr. Federighi was playing around with pre-release Github code on the project.
Copilot is a rebranding of the GPT-enabled Bing chatbot that was made public at the end of 2022, so I presume that's what this article is referring to.
Comments
And what products do you think Apple copied from, of all people, Zuckerberg and Musk? Apple was supposedly working on an EV technology that no other company (including Tesla) has released yet, and Zuckerberg doesn’t produce anything that resembles Vision Pro in form or function. Vision Pro does seem to align with Varjo (and maybe Magic Leap/HoloLens) in terms of function and their particular market, but Apple obviously sees the opportunity to expand beyond enterprise. They made a key AR acquisition in 2017 that led them to developing the technologies that are now in Vision Pro.
Correct its like saying Apple is late to the computer OS party because Apple uses NeXTSTEP and FreeBSD as the basis of MacOS (1998-2001) the only thing that counts in the end is who can get there first with solutions that are useful for the public that can used in their everyday computing life well, Recall and a CoPilot button represents two strikes for Microsoft and a hallucinating Gemini with doctored video presentation of its actual performance represents two for Google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS Mac OS and Apple Silicon are examples of not being first. First doesn't matter actual usability/performance matters more.
In this case the context is clear and the premise is 'if the different rumours are true...'
Supposing external solutions are being baked into the OS in some way, Apple is very likely paying for the functionality.
In the time frame of a year Microsoft blew 69 billion dollars on a game content company and Google spent 12.5 billion dollars in a calendar year on a sinking Motorola, Apple spending one a measly one billion dollars per year on a internal on going R&D project pales in comparison?
Apple is frugal in comparison to their tech competition and usually get very good value over the years.
When Google acquired Motorola it also inherited a cash pile of $3.2 billion, as well as $2.4 billion in deferred tax assets, for a net acquisition cost of $6.9 billion.
"Google then sold Motorola's set-top box business to Arris ($2.3 billion) and its factories to Flextronics ($75 million), further reducing the total acquisition cost to $3.85 billion."
After selling the remainder of Motorola to Lenovo for $2.91 billion and keeping all the intellectual property valued at $5 billion, Even after $2B in losses during Google's ownership they still walked away $3B in the black. It worked out pretty well IMO, and left them in a far better position to defend Android against claims.
But I also don't fault Apple for trying cars or any other R&D. It's not like available money is an impediment. They can't spend fast enough now, adding to the horde just about every quarter.
Who do you think gains the most fainancially from OpenAI on iOS; Apple or MS?
Right now, no one knows how will gain more, since there are no details of Apple agreement with OpenAI. I suppose Apple will be paying far more than the $30M per month to Amazon and the $300M they pay Google for GCP cloud services.
In terms of resurrecting a phone, do you think MS could do it? I don’t think so, given how entrenched Apple and Google are. It would be a major uphill battle.
Microsoft not having their own quality long term mobile hardware is by far more important than a dubious AI model, however the Google Tensor being five years behind the leader (Apple) may mitigate that problem.
Microsoft and Intel are not good at competition starting at ground level with equal or better opposition and unfortunately for them they won't be able to relive the 1980's or 1990's.
Which is great motivation for internal/external Apple (workhorse) hardware those three ex Apple engineers currently working at Qualcomm were right on that score there really isn't anymore excuses left for Apple it is enviable.
And Apples did shoot themselves in the foot letting those three guys go and ultimately on the rebound giving Qualcomm who was dead in the water life.
Because right now Google is paying on the rebound
Apple Silicon/Mac OS plus four software/hardware ecosystems on one side or the Google Android/Tensor/Hallucinating Gemini or the Microsoft Windows ReCall, Copilot on the other.
Apple almost certainly will build a in house AI model and AI Agents, in fact small single and multipurpose AI Agents will become the weapons of choice. (Why most talented programers and small companies can't afford what Nvidia is selling to the large companies and as usual they will find a way around it. The AI revolution will happen at the high and the low end.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40612240 Just the beginning.
No
They can't be serious? Siri has been dumb since day one, and 13 years later since the introduction, Siri is still dumb. Can't even play a playlist on my phone. Siri - Sorry, I can't do that. So no, Apple has not had an Intelligent Assistant, ever. The majority of responses are, 'I can't do that' or 'Let me look that up on the internet'. I asked for Siri for directions while driving and her response was, 'You need to pull over for that', and this was the response through CarPlay. I am not holding my breath for anything AI from Apple since they let Siri continue to be stupid for over a decade.