AppleZulu

22july2013 said:

If everyone who writes a comment on this page will send a fee to Dr Seuss for learning from his books to read and speak, then I will pay attention to their views if they oppose AI learning from published sources. But if you aren't willing to pay everyone that you learn from, for every word that comes out of your mouth, then I don't see why AI should have to pay either. Next, are we going to charge aliens for learning English by reading the radio waves that are being sent into deep space?

Very few people have eidetic memory. Lots have read and learned from Dr. Seuss, but few, having read it once, could recite Green Eggs and Ham verbatim from memory. I once queried one of the popular LLM AI programs to write a story about green eggs and ham in the style of Dr. Seuss. The AI program then regurgitated the original, almost verbatim. 

These programs consist of all this accumulated information scraped from wherever it can be scraped, combined with sufficient computational power to brute force a most-probable sequence of words in response to a submitted query. There is no reasoning or thinking or even learning in the human sense involved. 

Had I submitted that green eggs and ham query to human writers, many would simply tell me Dr. Seuss had already written that. Some more creative people might think about it and do a mash-up, rewriting, say, Horton Hears a Who, but changing the story to be about green eggs and ham. Someone else might actually write an entirely original story about green eggs and ham, using a fresh helping of nonsense along with Seuss's characteristic rhyme and meter conventions. 

The LLM AI, however, doesn't think at all, but rather spits out collages made from other people's work. A middle school or high school student has absorbed a tiny fraction of the amount of information indexed by and LLM program, they have received a tiny fraction of the programming (e.g. classroom instruction) of a LLM program, and will then apply a tiny fraction of the computational power used by AI to produce a written paper in response to a written instruction or assignment, and yet, an average or better student will, without committing plagiarism, produce a better written, more accurate, less hallucinatory paper than AI will. 

Ai does not learn, it scrapes and indexes. AI does not think or create, regurgitates. 

VictorMortimer said:

Before you whine about the Mango Mussolini's DoJ, remember that this suit is something that was started during a sane administration to give US more rights to the products WE own.

It doesn't go far enough, we need the right to install whatever software we see fit on OUR devices without Apple's permission or interference.  And while some of the issues have already been resolved, they haven't all been, and they definitely need to be resolved in OUR favor, not Apple's favor.

You already have that right. You can buy an Android phone. Some of us don’t want to lose the choice we currently have to buy a phone that comes with a secure, bespoke operating system. Forcing Apple to be more like its competitors reduces consumer choice. 

greg.edwards69 said:

Whilst I welcome the changes that iPadOS 26 brings, finally freeing it from its iOS-based shackles, it does seem like they are trying to Mac-i-fy the iPad with the additions of a menu bar, pointer, beefed-up Files app, and Expose-style multitasking. At this point, it makes you wonder whether they should just stick MacOS on the damned thing.

Even as they add features to iPadOS that edge it closer to features in macOS, the reason for a line between the two remains. You have to remember that macOS also runs the Mac Pro workstation. The distance between what an iPad needs to be and what a Mac Pro needs to be is too great. An iPad needs to be a touchscreen tablet. A touch UI on a multiscreen workstation is a terrible idea, and so is some sort of bloatware hybrid. A Mac Pro needs to run the beefiest, most memory and processor-intensive programs for things like professional video editing, rendering animation, etc. The OS built for that is not something you should try putting on your iPad mini. 

Consider that iPadOS split off from iOS because the use cases and hardware capabilities of iPads and iPhones had diverged enough to warrant it. The same kind of reasoning is why macOS will likely never land on an iPad. Put another way, why not just have macOS run everything from an iPhone SE to the Mac Pro? The answer is because Apple doesn't usually opt for making everything a little (or a lot) worse just try to be all things to all people. 

That's a great review, but it failed to answer the biggest question: What is the use for this, beyond, "hey look, it folds"? Despite how nifty that might be, folding phones are apparently only 3% of the Chinese market, which, according to others here, is the only place that has the good ones. Also, while the review speaks to the thinness of this device as well as its water resistance, it doesn't address durability. Other reviews out there suggest it's fairly delicate. So why would Apple bother to make and sell one of these? FOMO doesn't seem justified, and would not be consistent with Apple's past behavior. A new phone model that's the most expensive and also much more prone to warranty claims? Why would Apple risk its customer satisfaction reputation just to provide a very expensive novelty?

Look for Cook to make flattering remarks about Trump, and watch as Trump's chest puffs up while it happens. EU leaders finally learned recently that flattery gets you everywhere with Trump. Cook can save his company millions or billions of dollars if Trump gets a good endorphin rush this afternoon. It's gross and profoundly unAmerican, but this is the world we're in right now. 

NYC362 said:

NickoTT said:

mikethemartian said:

It’s comical.

Tim Cook just needs to do what he needs to do to distract our pea brained president, regardless of where the money goes and what for. Trump is like a child. You have to give him candy so he'll sit still and shut the f#ck up.

You hit the nail on the head.   A little golden trophy is perfect for him.

Oh... AppleInsider, I really doubt that base is solid 24K gold.  First, it would weigh an absolute ton. Second, 24K gold is pretty much never used for anything big, it's too soft.  Third, my guess is that it is 24k gold leaf (that's what it looks like),   Even Olympic Gold Metals aren't all gold.. of any karat.  

The plaque was of course -by law- a gift to the American people. Don’t be surprised, however, when, like the “free” 747 we are about to pay $1bn to retrofit, it ends up going into Trump’s personal collection. 

snookie said:

The cost to license it is trivial yet Apple would rather screw over their customers than pay it.  While charging us premium prices for everything.

If Apple feels this is a truly bogus patent, caving to Masimo opens them up to more opportunist bogus claims. Paying off those endless claims would then screw over their customers who would foot the bill. 

avon b7 said:

Apple is beginning to have an 'image' problem in China in terms of technology.

Chinese brands have a complete suite of options that cover a very broad scope (truly smart homes, smart cars, folding phones of all kinds, folding tablets/PCs plus and endless list of wearables and home appliances etc). 

In the ultra-premium folding phone segment, it is not improbable that Apple is losing some top end customers who have the disposable income to be able to buy them. 

By not being able to offer a folding option Apple isn't in the game. The same can be said of the car situation and in wearables Apple has long had problems competing against what is available from Chinese brands. In battery life alone, if you only want to charge once a week, Apple is not an option. 

In that sense alone, an Apple folding phone offering would help a lot. 

iPhones are regularly discounted via  Chinese Apple authorised retailers (and have been for a few years now). 

All this without taking into account geopolitical issues which are undoubtedly spurring on sales of Chinese brands. On one side through patriotism towards China Champions and on the other through reluctance to buy American. 

Samsung may also be looking to step in on that last point as its rumoured tri-fold phone will only be released in China at first. 

Foldable phones are 3% of the Chinese market. Apple isn’t going to panic over a novelty that gets 3% of the market. 

M68000 said:

There is something just not right with the picture of the guy with the sunglasses.  If you zoom in and look at reflection in the sunglasses,  you would think the lady with the black hair would be there.  In addition, in one side of the sunglasses shows a face at the bottom, it kind of resembles somebody that we’ve seen?    Is this a staged pic?

Also look at the hand holding the “iPhone 17.” Those are either some odd-looking fingers, or this is an AI-generated image. 

Wesley_Hilliard said:

AppleZulu said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

macgui said:

winstoner71 said:

Some of you need to stop being such Karens. This is news. Good reporting. 

Some of "you" need to stop being such Dicks, calling people Karens for merely sharing an opinion. It is news in a limited context. Good reporting? Maybe. Besides, I like the idea of a surprise even if it's not that much "new" to unveil.

Stabitha_Christie said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing. 

Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.

Like I said in the piece, it's not something that's going to be a problem because these kinds of design changes are very rare. Nearly every other prototype iPhone has looked identical to its predecessor with the exception of iPhone X, which was prototyped in a literal brick-sized box IIRC.

I wouldn't worry about this becoming a common way to leak iPhone information.

...I clearly stated it wasn’t illegal but legality doesn’t make it right. People should be able to go out in public without someone photographing them. When you use the photos you are ultimately enabling the behavior. Cool that you didn’t break the law but did y’all make the right choice. 

I agree. Enabling bad behavior doesn't help. But that's another genie that will never be put back in the bottle. Paparazzi selling their pics to tabloids because the public believes in "their right to know" proves that. This and every other tech news/rumor site operates on much the same way. I doubt that many sites pay for this kind of "news" not that it matters much. So I agree in a better world this wouldn't have happened. We have to make peace the best we can and pick our battles.

Let's assume this is an actual pic and not AI. Sunglasses knew he'd be the subject of pics if the rumors of his security team are accurate. The whole situation gives me a "staged" feel. Who is he? An Apple employee doesn't seem probably. Why was he photographing the alleged 17 outdoors in what appears to be a public area? Who provided the phone? Is this an Official Apple Leak?

Then there's a question (of me at least) of whether or not as previously mentioned this is an AI generated rendering and not a photo. The third finger of the left hand looks to be obscured by some artifact. Sunglasses' reflection in the 17 looks to me to be at a wrong angle. Sunglasses' sunglasses reflect almost completely different images. That might be explained by a bend in a bridge. That whole situation gives me "fake" feel.

All speculation on my part. You're all free to move about the cabin.

This isn't AI generated. It's not really all that odd, we've discovered prototype devices and they look like this. It's not staged, the guy just got unlucky that some nerd spotted them and took a photo. They were clearly trying to at least be discrete.

Can't test real world devices without being in the real world. Stuff like this is bound to happen. It only doesn't, because again, most new iPhones look like the old ones. This is the exception.

The artifacts and grain suggest the photo was taken from far away. Anomalies were likely further enhanced by the image processing on iPhone, then the processing performed when we enlarged the photo to be usable on the web.

Let's not get into conspiracy territory. It's not that big a deal anyway. It's just a photo of an Apple employee testing an iPhone a few weeks before it is announced. It isn't that hard to believe.

And news sites don't pay for news. News is what happens, whether you like it or not. Paying for information can lead to charges of corporate espionage, and it's also highly unethical and against every form of journalistic integrity.

I really do think that the images are AI-generated. There are two images. As I noted above, the hand holding the "iPhone 17" is pretty weird, with a bizarrely long thumb. As someone else mentioned, the reflections in his sunglasses don't match. They should be virtually the same reflection, perhaps slightly offset. There also should probably be some reflection of the brunette standing right in front of him. Dude's right ear is also odd. I thought maybe that's the stem of a single AirPod Pro, but there's no such device in the other image, taken from over his right shoulder. Even more odd is the ear of the guy behind him in the first image, over his left shoulder. Human ears come with all kinds of weird folds and squiggles, but this one definitely looks like AI error, not human funky-ear. In the second image, the main dude has a strap over his left shoulder, making a notable indent in his puffy coat. There is no evidence of the strap or indentation in the first picture. Each thing taken by itself could probably be explained away as some normal aberration or distortion in the photo, but considered together, it becomes more likely this is an AI-generated image.

The best thing about it is you're free to believe it is AI generated if that makes you feel better. It doesn't have any of the hallmarks of AI generated images, but it is filled with odd artifacts created by the incredible noise and crunch caused by taking what was likely a max crop of a photo from far away. As for the strap, the second photo was clearly taken after the first where the person maneuvered across Union Square to get a different angle. The man could have easily picked up a bag in that time span. Also, the woman in the foreground may not actually be anywhere near the man with the iPhones. When zooming, things closer to the camera can appear closer to the background than they are. The glasses may not be perfectly flat either, which would explain why the images reflected are subtly different. Polarization of the glasses also distorts the image.

The best thing about conspiracy theories is they fall down with a little bit of simple logic. What purpose would it serve for this to be AI generated? Who benefits? And even if it were AI generated (it isn't) what does that change? Believe it's AI generated if you must, but I don't understand the need to try and convince others.

I get that we live in a world where we need to be more critical of information than ever. Fooling people with AI is only going to get more prevalent. But this isn't AI. And whatever the case, iPhone 17 Pro Max will have a camera bar and will launch in September. 

I am not a novice photographer, and the condescension is not necessary. The artifacts I noted are not consistent with noise or pixelation from cropping a tiny portion of an image taken from far away. In fact, in the first photo, look at the sharpness of the top edge of dude's puffy jacket on his left shoulder. That is not consistent with a "max crop of a photo from far away."  You actually have to zoom into this image to see the pixelation of that edge. If this were "max cropped" from a much larger photo, the pixels in that original photo would render that smooth edge blocky. In fact, while I'm looking at the pixel level of this image, there's a lot of inconsistency between what's more sharply rendered, and what seems to be blurry and lacking in detail. AI does that, too. 

Now, while you're there at the dude's shoulder, look at the freaky-ass ear of the dude behind the dude. That is not pixellation or noise. The little bump of cartilage that sits right in front of a person's ear canal is called a tragus. It looks like AI has rendered more traguses (tragii?) going all the way around the ear. That is exactly the sort of thing that AI does when it fails to properly render the odd folds and curves of human ears. 

I'm not offering a conspiracy theory here. I have no idea why someone would fake an image of an iPhone 17 "in the wild," other than as a prank to get attention. I am not among those here who would be offended if you had an actual picture of that, because I agree that out in public, it's fair game, both morally and under the law. I also don't think someone wearing a puffy jacket on a summer day in San Francisco is the least bit odd. My "need to convince others" that this is probably an AI generated photo is only about the need in general to call out fakery when I see it. If we're not critical and careful about that when it doesn't matter much, then we just open the doors for more of it when it does.