sagan_student

bloggerblog said:

When Jobs introduced Siri he said it’s going to be a conversational AI assistant. I know it could be hard to do, but it’s been 10 years! Siri had a huge head start, it should be better than the competition in every way. 

While Apple may have appeared to have a bit of a head start, Google had the advantage in most ways over Apple. The foundation that Google could build their assistant off of came from their work with predictive search, scanning the worlds books, digitizing and cataloging everything else, and all the work done with targeted, personalized ads. All Apple had as a potential base to build off of was, IMO, finder. Apple’s business model and all their learnings over the years are not very transferable to the creation of a voice assistant; Google’s (and Amazon’s and even Meta’s) are transferable. Using this as a potential predictive model; if one knew Microsoft’s business model, could they have predicted where they would fall in advancement of Cortana? I would say yes. Microsoft did try to pivot a bit with the release of Bing, but they were over a decade behind Google in Search. 

I use Siri daily, and while she has gotten better, the more proficient and comfortable I am becoming with speaking my thoughts instead of taking the slower time of typing them down, the more aggravating it is as I hit up against more boundaries of her abilities. I do hope that the work that they have been doing with Maps and Siri suggested search results starts to expand Siri’s portfolio. Luckily for Apple, I really don’t know what I am missing, yet, as I am invested in their ecosystem and most of my immediate and extended family and friend groups are too. Those that are using Android, are not using Okay Google in any meaningful way either. But for how much longer… I do hope Apple steps up their game in this area and soon too. Perhaps the release of a significant upgrade will be coincided with the release of their AR headset? 🤷‍♂️🤞

Cheers.

I just don't understand Microsoft's angle here. Especially since the Office app for iPad is surprisingly good. I'm a teacher and make use of Word a lot and have found it do the job I need done quite well.

I am also confused as to why an object requires a trackpad and ports to be classified as a computer. I just feel like Microsoft is floundering trying to find its place in this new world of Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon. 

GeorgeBMac said:

EXCELLENT analysis!   Thank You!

Essentially:  iPad could be a laptop replacement, but Apple has reversed their course (or stalled it?) and so far, chooses not to go there.   It's not a technical limitation but an administrative one.   I find that sad.

My personal experience last night with my 6th grade grandson doing his homework on his 3 year old HP:
Grandson:   "This laptop sucks!   It's not working!"   (It was running slowly)

Me:  "Use your new iPad that I just bought you."

Grandson:  "No way, i love it, but it sucks for homework"

Do I buy him an MBA or MBP?   Huh?  I just spent $700 on an iPad.  Now I'm supposed to spend $1,500-$2,000 on a tiny 13" MacBook to replace his 15" laptop?   I don't think so.

Likewise:  CNBC summarized it this way:
"I tested the new iPad Pro and it still can't replace my laptop like Apple says it can.
Despite what Apple has said time and time again, I can't actually do work on the iPad Pro, which means it didn't replace my work laptop at all.
I need to be able to write and chat in my corporate Slack chat app, draft up a story in the web browser, pop open the email app and edit photos, often all at once, or quickly switch between them without thinking. I can do all of this and switch between each app in seconds on a Mac or a Windows 10 computer mostly thanks to a mouse. But the lack of a mouse and a true multitasking environment makes all of this much more cumbersome on an iPad."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/15/apple-ipad-pro-review.html

I think Apple is painting themselves into a corner -- restricting MacBooks to THIS narrow niche (light, thin and expensive) and iPads to THAT narrow niche (content only).

I find that frustrating:  I want to give Apple my money.  But I need them to produce a product that meets my needs or the needs of my grandson.   If the absence of that product were due to a technical limitation I would understand.   But, because it is either an administrative limitation or an inept design team (maybe both?), I find that disturbing and worrisome.

While I appreciate your grandsons concerns, my experience has shown me different t. I am a high school science teacher and 3 years ago I decided to get the 12.9 pro with keyboard and pencil to be my primary (and only) computing device. (I do have a 2008 iMac that is really just an oversized backup sitting in a room rarely visited.) I chose to go that route as my iPad 2 was getting long in the tooth and so was my iMac. I opted for the iPad Pro instead of getting an iPad Air and a MacBook. The first year was a painful transition, I was constantly running into issues where doing something pretty simple, like copy and paste between programs (which I do a TON of), was ridiculously tedious. At times I would revert back and use a windows computer at work when I had a lot of things to move around. But as I problem solved these issues, I began to change my workflow. Then when iOS 11 came out, that changed everything for me, multitasking, drag and drop, folders app, multiple selections, etc. I can now count on one hand the instances in which I’ve HAD to use a PC at work to get something done in the past 8+ months. I honestly can’t provide an example what those instances were, I just know that I decided I would just jump over and do whatever it was on the PC.

I also started my masters in education 3 years ago and have done all my work and research using my iPad Pro. I am currently writing my thesis and doing all the “teacher” things I need using this device. I will never look back. I for one appreciate Apple’s stance at not merging the two. It’s a different interaction with producing and consuming information than on a desktop/laptop. Is everyone able to use an iPad as their primary device? Absolutely not; but most people could. It does however, require effort in rethinking how you handle your workflow.

On a separate note regarding your grandson saying that it sucks for homework, I’m thinking it’s more of the aggravation of having to make a change and the problem solving of how to do it differently, then it not being a device that is capable of meeting his needs as a middle school student. As for the CNBC comment, I’d argue that the reviewer was trying to fit the iPad into their workflow rather than figuring out the workflow that fits with the device (that’s if they truly wanted to make the switch). The best part of all of this for me is that now that I have made the transition, I know that iOS and iPad are only going to continue to improve and that will make me even more efficient. 

Hope you find a solution that works for you,

a hawkins said:

Pascalxx said:

I don’t understand the merit of having native apps for many of these when they run just as well in a browser, especially the streaming services and the Google apps.

Me too. We’re now saturated with apps. Can’t see any reason why we want a Facebook or Twitter app on Mac. (Unless they offer pro functionality like TweetDeck.)

I’m with Rob53 on this one. While the browser now has the capacity to be everything we want it to be, there is no layer of protection. To me, having an app provides that protection. Now I am in no way a computer scientist, but when I think of cookies and their multiple uses and how a website can limit what I see until I accept their use of cookies, apps become more important to me. It is highly unlikely that any person could possibly know how every website they access uses cookies. But when accessing an app, I at least know that they must follow the protocols put in place by apple and the App Store. I may be a bit naive here, so if anyone can shed more light on my thinking I would be grateful. 

Disclaimer: I didn’t read the article. I’m just commenting on the title. 

I would personally much rather be taking things slow with all of this new artificial intelligence than blindly following the race to the first without ever thinking about the potential consequences. 

That aside... whatever we we may say about who is first and who is best. Majority of people still don’t even talk to their assistants. 

cloudguy said:

Finally, of course Apple's 5nm M1 is going to outperform Intel's 14nm Core i5. But when Intel's Core i5 is also 14nm in about 3 years (if they hire TSMC to make the chips) or 5 years (if they make the chips themselves)? Then we will see whose performance will wash over whose. Apple will have some advantages, namely the inherent efficiency of RISC vs ISA as well as Apple's strategy of maximizing performance from each core as opposed to Intel's - and everyone else's - strategy of maximizing cores. But Intel also has a performance attribute of their own: the densest core design in the industry. Meaning that a 10nm Intel design is the equivalent of a 7nm Apple one. So when Intel does get to a 5nm design, it will be the equivalent of a 3nm Apple one. So, we shall see ... 

I think this is a huge leap you are making. Your entire argument is predicated on Intel making leaps in development like they did in the 90’s and at the same time requiring Apple’s development to slow down to Intel’s current development pace. I just don’t see that happening. 

I do think Apple’s need for control (which I do appreciate) over the entire user experience may play against them in the generative space. Choosing to pick benign objects, shapes, animals, etc it does a very good job of. But I can’t for the life of me get it to make an image of me giving an annoyed or disgruntled or angry or mad or sad or any other expression other than pure joy and jubilation. Even something like giving a thumbs down is apparently a faux pas in Apple’s generative AI world. I get one maybe two images with a thumbs down with a huge smile on my face and the rest are giving a thumbs up with a huge smile on my face. What’s the point of this if I can’t generate what I want. It’s one thing to be directed and coerced about how to manage files or how to interact with a UI but limiting the images created in my likeness to only ever being happy is something that I am finding very disconcerting. 

Is it native of me to see this as similar to the App Store policies? Society has built the structure through which Apple is benefiting from; so to play in this sandbox it is going to cost you 15%. 

dewme said:

Restructuring I understand. Companies change focus or decide to abandon products that under-perform, consolidate operations, etc.

But efficiencies and redundancies? Does anyone else wonder why a company would have kept personal around that it describes as being in those roles in the first place?

As a business, even when the money is flowing and the bottom line is looking fabulous, wouldn't you still want to focus on optimizing and reducing unnecessary work and waste? Isn't the tolerance of inefficiency and waste totally against the whole premise and principles of things like Lean and continuous improvement? 

I am in agreement with much of what you say and I just wanted to add that I find it dumbfounding that a quarter of their staff was redundant and inefficient. This is definitely not a hallmark of a well run business. Have they offered any reason other than these blanket statements of redundant and inefficiency? I find it difficult to believe that a company that has this much fat to cut, understands any other part of their business well. 🤷‍♂️ 

Nice comparison between the two watches. My only gripe is how the screen size is talked about. You mention in the display section that “Google's screen is circular, which will affect the amount of information it could show, versus a square one that has pixels in the corners.”. I feel this is a bit disingenuous, as the Pixel actually has 5% more pixels when compared to the 41 mm Apple Watch. While I agree that a rectangle screen COULD hold more information, the author should have included that the Pixel does have 5% more pixels.