gatorguy

As most here would not be subscribing (it's not cheap) here are a couple other pertinent excerpts:

"Several former employees said (Apple) made a number of decisions that the rest of the team disagreed with, including a plan to improve Siri’s capabilities only once a year. That was the approach Apple typically employed with iOS... they argued in vain that that model was wrong for Siri, which they believed needed to be an online service that continuously improved, not updated annually... 

"[Siri is] not in the search area,” Mr. Jobs said. “They’re in the AI area. … We have no plans to go into the search business. That's not something we know about. It's not something we care deeply about. Other people do it well.”

Still, a quality search apparatus is a critical component to creating a useful digital assistant. When a user asks a question, the AI needs to tap into a source of knowledge and quickly identify the right response."

Apple has of course made other purchases in the years since meant to bolster Siri capabilities.

"In October 2013, (Apple) bought Cue for over $40 million... The startup had built a personal assistant app that searched through a user's emails to spit out a personal agenda.

Apple made another big acquisition in 2013 by purchasing Topsy for more than $200 million. The Topsy technology was acquired to be used in Spotlight...

The Topsy team ultimately grew into a massive organization... that now nearly rivals the number of employees on the Siri team.

Members of the Topsy team expressed a reluctance to work with a Siri team they viewed as slow and bogged down by the initial infrastructure that had been patched up but never completely replaced since it launched.

“There was a feeling that, ‘Why don’t we just start over and build what we need to build, and then worry about reconciling those two later?’”

"Core Siri and Spotlight are powered by a combination of both Topsy's technology and Siri Data Services, which is based on older search technology ported over from iTunes search but modified for Siri and launched in 2013... Siri Data Services deals with things like Wikipedia, stocks and movie showtimes, while Topsy sorts through Twitter, news and web results. The Siri Data Services team was eventually lumped into the Topsy team... with the plan to integrate all of the tech into a single stack. But they're based on two different programming languages and are tricky to reconcile."

"The difficulty integrating the search teams led to some embarrassing outcomes. Users could get completely different responses to the same question based on whether they were using Siri or Spotlight—which were powered by two different search technologies built by two different teams."

In October 2015 (Apple acquired) VocalIQ. Apple has successfully integrated the VocalIQ technology into Siri's calendar capabilities, sources familiar with the project said.

In a sign of how unprepared Apple was to deal with a rivalry, (the Siri team) didn’t even learn about Apple’s HomePod project until 2015—after Amazon unveiled the Echo in late 2014. One of Apple’s original plans was to launch its speaker without Siri included...

But the most notable failure in Siri’s evolution is that it still lacks the third-party developer ecosystem considered the key element of the original Siri vision. Apple finally launched SiriKit in 2016 after years of setting aside the project .... Apple had been working on a developer kit off and on since 2012.

So far it includes just 10 activities—Apple calls them “intent domains”—such as payments, booking rides, setting up to-do lists and looking at photos. Several senior engineers who worked on SiriKit have left Apple or moved off the project. 

Among all these challenges, former Siri members noted that while Apple has tried to remake itself as a services company, its core is still product design. 

“The structure of Apple works against those efforts”

"Google acquired Android back in 2005 for $50 million, and former CEO Eric Schmidt admitted that Google’s initial focus was beating Microsoft’s early Windows Mobile efforts. “At the time we were very concerned that Microsoft’s mobile strategy would be successful,” said Schmidt during a 2012 legal fight with Oracle about Java. Android ultimately killed Windows Mobile and Windows Phone off, and became the Windows equivalent in the mobile world.

Gates’ admission is somewhat surprising, though. Many had assumed that Microsoft’s missed mobile opportunity was a Steve Ballmer era mistake. Ballmer famously laughed at the iPhone, calling it the “most expensive phone in the world and it doesn’t appeal to business customers because it doesn’t have a keyboard.” While Ballmer accepted the iPhone could go on to sell well, he crucially missed the touch-friendly era it was ushering in, and laughed off its lack of a keyboard.

This was a key part of Microsoft’s early mobile mistakes, and it came from the very top.

Gates said that, without his mistake, Microsoft would today be the biggest company in the world.

“It’s amazing to me that having made one of the greatest mistakes of all time, and there was this antitrust lawsuit and various things, that our other assets like Windows and Office are still very strong, so we are a leading company,” says Gates. “If we had gotten that one right, we would be the leading company, but oh well.”

Fun Fact: Samsung could have had Android for all to themselves in mid-Dec 2004, but they pretty much laughed Rubin and Danger out of the room when they visited Korea to pitch it. No interest, waste of time. By the first week of January 2005 tho it was Google who approached Danger and ultimately purchasing them in February 2005. ...And there went Windows Mobile.

omasou said:

 The only reason I can fathom for so much whining is maybe b/c Apple customers pay their bills and GS isn't making "as much" from interest and fees?

sunman42 said:

kelemor said:

All the billing is done electronically so how is hard to send it at the same time. Computers should be doing everything. 

I read the article as saying the issue with a single billing date was the impact on customer service: presumably, all the customers calling with billing issues call in the same, few days per month window, instead of spread out through the month. That leads to the conclusion that Goldman regrets having to hire more, low-wage, Tier 0 customer support people to keep us overprivileged Apple types happy.

For what it’s worth, I, too, have had zero problems with my Apple Card. Hope Apple can find a more competent, consumer-credit savvy home for it.

rob53 said:

omasou said:

Since when has airing your dissatisfaction publicly help to attract a company to take ownership of your problem child? /s

EDIT: Love the card, love the customer service, love the Apple Cash/Savings, love the first of the month billing. The only reason I can fathom for so much whining is maybe b/c Apple customers pay their bills and GS isn't making "as much" from interest and fees?

Last part is the key. Maybe, just maybe, people who buy Apple products are better at personal finances than non-Apple product users.

Reportedly, it's just the opposite.

Apple Card accounts have a higher write-off rate at 2.93, meaning the account holder hits the trigger point of at least 6 months behind on payments, than the industry average. That rate of card write-offs is also worse than even sub-prime lenders experience. 

Now couple that with the fact a whole lotta' Apple users have credit scores under 660, which resulted in nearly a quarter of the Apple Card accounts going to those with credit scores less than that. In an extraordinary and expanding economy, their ability to pay might be masked, but that's not what we have going on.  I realize this goes against the prevailing wisdom that Apple-using folks are inherently good money managers. Surely many are, but a good percentage have no business buying $1200 smartphones and $2500 computers because they can't keep up with the payments. 

So, with other companies unwilling to take on the Apple Card's risk, it is putting GS in a quandary of what to do to right the ship. Apple got their money when the sale occurred, and now Goldman Sachs is left to figure out how to get out of continuing to fund Apple stuff that's not being paid for. 

It took some digging (I didn't see it anywhere in the AI article or the ArsTechnica source) but the link to the study itself is:
https://www.scss.tcd.ie/doug.leith/apple_google.pdf

rob53 said:

gatorguy said:

omasou said:

 The only reason I can fathom for so much whining is maybe b/c Apple customers pay their bills and GS isn't making "as much" from interest and fees?

sunman42 said:

kelemor said:

All the billing is done electronically so how is hard to send it at the same time. Computers should be doing everything. 

I read the article as saying the issue with a single billing date was the impact on customer service: presumably, all the customers calling with billing issues call in the same, few days per month window, instead of spread out through the month. That leads to the conclusion that Goldman regrets having to hire more, low-wage, Tier 0 customer support people to keep us overprivileged Apple types happy.

For what it’s worth, I, too, have had zero problems with my Apple Card. Hope Apple can find a more competent, consumer-credit savvy home for it.

rob53 said:

omasou said:

Since when has airing your dissatisfaction publicly help to attract a company to take ownership of your problem child? /s

EDIT: Love the card, love the customer service, love the Apple Cash/Savings, love the first of the month billing. The only reason I can fathom for so much whining is maybe b/c Apple customers pay their bills and GS isn't making "as much" from interest and fees?

Last part is the key. Maybe, just maybe, people who buy Apple products are better at personal finances than non-Apple product users.

Reportedly, it's just the opposite.

Apple Card accounts have a higher write-off rate, which means the users aren't paying their bills, than the industry average which is 2.93%. That rate of card write-offs is worse than even sub-prime lenders experience. 

Now couple that with the fact a whole lotta' Apple users have credit scores under 660, which resulted in nearly a quarter of the Apple Card accounts going to those with credit scores less than that. I realize that goes against the prevailing wisdom that Apple-using folks are inherently good money managers. 

Other companies aren't willing to take on the risk the Apple Card represents, putting GS in a quandary of what to do now.

Not disputing but are you able to point to GS documentation?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/12/goldmans-gs-apple-card-business-has-a-surprising-subprime-problem.html
and beginning page 43 of this doc:
https://www.goldmansachs.com/investor-relations/financials/10q/2022/second-quarter-2022-10-q.pdf

It's a sad reflection on the fear-mongering negativity one side is using. Personally, I'm a huge fan of lifting us all up instead.

Above all: Don't believe whatever comes out of the mouth of a selfishly-guided politician just because he said it. Most are all too happy to promote half-truths, mostly lie, or outright lie in order to "win". I'm sorry, but it is no win for us to be misled, and only find out what we were buying after he's already in office; telling us what we can and can't do without being asked again. They don't care if we agreed. They will be the ones in the power chair and will tell us, dictator style, not ask. 

sbdude said:

gatorguy said:

I'm sorry, but it is no win for us to be misled.

You mean the last four years of a vegetable behind the Resolute Desk? I get it, Trump and Vance aren't anything close to beacons of honesty. But you're deluding yourself if you think the current administration and Kamala are somehow better, and deserving of the office.

I don't think I stipulated any particular party on that particular point. YOU should not believe what your parties chosen candidate says just because you seriously dislike the other party and anyone/anything connected to them, and thus want it to be taken as truth.

That said, 162 either outright lies or misleading statements in a single press conference by a Presidential candidate must be a near-record for modern American politics. 
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/11/nx-s1-5070566/trump-news-conference

So what's the takeaway? Do your own research.
“Whatever it takes to win”, “whaddabout those other guys”, and/or ignoring egregiously bad behavior does a disservice to every one of us. 

EDIT: It seriously scares me when one of the candidates openly threatens to approach the Presidency in the style of dictator, and SCOTUS, with one eye closed, gives him a broad stick to wield against his enemies, whether real or imagined. 
https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritarian-presidential-election-f27e7e9d7c13fabbe3ae7dd7f1235c72

"...According to new research by VPN provider SurfShark, the US government makes the most requests for user data from Big Tech companies than any other jurisdiction in the world. The company analyzed data requests to Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft by “government agencies of 177 countries between 2013 and 2021.”

The US came in first with 2,451,077 account requests, more than four times the number of Germany, the number two country on the list. In fact, the US made more requests than all of Europe, including the UK, which collectively came in under 2 million."

"The report also sheds light on which companies comply the most versus which ones push back against requests. For all of its privacy-oriented marketing — “what happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone” — Apple complies with data requests more than any other company, handing it over 82% of the time.

In contrast, Meta complies 72% of the time, and Google does 71% of the time. Microsoft, on the other hand, pushes back the most among Big Tech companies, only handing data over 68% of the time."

I bought this printer roughly 5 years ago for my side photo business and things started out really good, an added profitable service I could offer. It requires a bit of time and patience to dial in the color profiles but prints are 100% studio quality. The big issue is the same one as with my much larger 65" printers: Ya got to keep 'em busy, and stick to a strict maintenance schedule. 

That's no problem for my commercial printers which stay working 4-8 hours per workday. This Canon Pro-100 at home that started out producing prints at least once a week and oftimes more, and for several prints in a session, now sits idle most of the time. No one really expects prints today, or is at least willing to spend much for them. 90% of the time the images I sell are only for digital display and social sharing. I don't do art shows so the need for a professional grade printer for a side gig just isn't there anymore.

But unless I still do regularr maintenance on the Pro-100 I end up risking print heads drying out. Even doing weekly maintenance (most weeks) I still have to spend significant time recovering nozzles when I need to do prints because the machine isn't being used regularly. In addition ink is still being consumed with no prints being produced and that ink is in the tiny ink cartridges is approaching the same price as the 1/2 liter plus ink packs for my commercial machines! A full set of inks for the Canon will set you back $700 or more. 

If I had a do-over I'd choose to do the staging and photos and processing, but if a client wants physical prints let them source their own. There's no profit to be made doing them myself and in general clients aren't asking for them either. 

Breaking.... Beeper isn't going to continue fighting Apple's blockade

https://blog.beeper.com/p/beeper-moving-forward