avon b7
About
- Username
- avon b7
- Joined
- Visits
- 114
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 12,654
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 8,329
Reactions
-
Apple may need to acquire AI firms to boost Apple Intelligence
AppleZulu said:I agree that Apple’s early AI announcements were probably a misstep, a rushed effort to plant a flag amidst all the AI hype.I also think their course correction and current stance of waiting until they get it right is a return to core values. If they do acquire other AI firms, it’s not going to be out of hurried panic, but because an acquisition brings something that helps the goal of getting it right.I suspect this year is likely to bring pratfalls and face plants from some of the other leading purveyors of AI, because there is an AI bubble, including a huge real-world feedback loop of AI hallucinations and bad information that the current LLM AI models have created for themselves. Their AI is going to get worse, not better, and there will be a threshold where even regular consumers will realize it.If Apple then arrives with a more focused and reliable system, we’ll see history repeat itself once again.
It is important to remember that generative AI 'hallucinates' by design not only as some weird by-product.
Methods are being used to make hallucinating less of an issue. Not that it is, even now, for people who understand the limits of AI today.
We can still do things today that were unimaginable just a couple of years ago so it's key not to flag the moments AI 'fails' but to appreciate the benefits it brings most of the time.
If it weren't proving successful, people would have pulled away already. They haven't.
In 2023, Apple deliberately chose not to even utter the letters 'AI' at WWDC2023.
In hindsight that was a mistake as it brought more questions than answers.
In 2024, and amidst the start of the Gen AI boom, Apple chose to make a meal out of AI. In hindsight that was probably an error too but understandable at least.
In 2025, people are again asking questions and the answers aren't very convincing. The pressure is really on now (both internally and externally).
2026 looks like being a crunch year for a few reasons.
Acquisitions are fine but nothing they purchase today can just be patched into its systems in real time and major acquisitions are obviously going to make things look worse from a strategic perspective. That makes 2026 an important year.
However, things are moving so incredibly fast right now that it is hard to predict where things might be even at Christmas this year. That applies to everyone but if you have a shipping product to 'sell' at least you're on the train.
It's not hard to imagine Apple still struggling in 2026. We know (with some guesswork sprinkled in) that Apple has had important management issues that have led to delays. Siri (and everything that hangs off it) is a classic example.
I think Apple is just spread too thin at the moment. An acquisition might ease that situation. Just like the Intel modem acquisition brought in a thousand engineers and the project reached the market.
Apple is unlikely to arrive with a more reliable system because competing systems already exist and are moving ahead.
That said, I never put much into what financial analysts say. -
Craig Federighi says macOS would ruin what makes the iPad special
darbus69 said:avon b7 said:Those are extremely poor arguments IMO.
Tablets are tools like anything else in the digital sphere. They are also computers so they should be able to do anything a similarly sized standard laptop can do.
The days of tablets being incapable (in hardware terms) of achieving laptop-like productivity should be gone by now.
Deliberately holding them back is doing them and underservice. Especially at the top end.
There should be seamless integration between these devices and they should offer the same general functionality.
That, ideally (and possibly inevitably) would require a single OS running on multiple devices with it simply being paired down to each device's strengths/weaknesses.
Write once, run anywhere. One app with multiple deployment targets.
Apple is already inching (but agonisingly slowly) towards convergence in certain areas and my guess is that that is the real goal at some point (including touchscreen Macs of course).
If they want to keep tablets in a 'limited' role, just add a 'tablet' mode to the device.
Mac OS shipped with Simple Finder years ago. Tablets could have a similar mode and let users decide. Tablets already accommodate even more limited roles (with things like Kiosk Modes).
I can't see any decent reason why modern powerful tablets should be able to do far, far more than they currently do but they need the right apps and OS foundations.
I definitely see no good reason why they should not be fully multiuser for example.
Of course it would take a lot of engineering effort and probably require some serious reworking of the foundations but the competition isn't sitting still and is already moving in this direction. The foundations have been laid.
IMO, that is probably the real reason Apple wants to temper the desire for 'macOS tablet' at the moment. They don't have the foundations ready.
Are we really to believe these poor arguments and then see more and more 'macOS' features seep into 'iPadOS'?
I see convergence in spite of these claims that that isn't the goal.
An iPad is not and was not designed to be a MacOS product, plain and simple…
And a cursor?
Window management?
Multi-tasking?
As more desktop OS features bleed into iPadOS and competing systems move forward with even more complete OSes running seamlessly across a range of devices Apple might change its design. No matter what Federighi says today.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/harmonyos-huaweis-ambitious-operating-system-future-surenthiran-fscwf
Personally, I think Apple is already working on a unified system.
macOS wasn't designed for touch input but even in this article he says that can't be ruled out.
Like I said, he is tempering desires.
Everything will depend on how those competing systems do and if they do well, Apple might have to change it's design focus. Plain and simple.
Why do you think iOS has seen a veritable avalanche of Android features over the last few years?
Apple doubled down on customisation limits for years but has completely changed course on that.
Design goals can and do change. -
Apple's continued lack of native apps on Vision Pro isn't a good sign for the platform
Absolutely agree with this.
Apple should be maxing out its commitment to the platform to make sure things flow naturally down to future iterations of the product. It should be leading the way and filling in as any holes and shortcomings as possible before it reaches a wider audience (which I think is a given).
Where better to start than it's own apps?
The product is on the market (best place for it to be) and there is no real alternative to having it in users' hands to evaluate how it is used and where to take it forward (both hardware and software) so Apple should be bending over backwards to commit to those early adopters who bought into a Gen 1 product.
All I can think of is that Apple is a bit stretched at the moment on the software side and this has taken a bit of a backseat. -
Craig Federighi says macOS would ruin what makes the iPad special
danox said:The only thing I’ve wanted from Apple is to make the iPhone, iPad, Vision Pro and the Mac to work seamlessly together as only a vertical computer company can do despite the crying, none of the competition can do what Apple is doing today with their OS and Apple Silicon combination.
I do not want the OS on both the iPad and the Mac to be the same they are not the same device and at 2025 WWDC Apple took a nice step towards making that happen.
I was hoping that WWDC might give some more information on that side of things but it seems it didn't (no one has mentioned much in that vein AFAIK).
Where I totally disagree is with the notion that only Apple can do vertical integration with OS + silicon. That is demonstrably false.
I say this because everything I pointed to previously already exists elsewhere and goes far beyond what Apple is currently doing.
The competition isn't standing still either.
Those foundations have already been laid for the future and are being built upon.
The 'siloes' have been eliminated (by design and from the ground up) and the whole system (OS + silicon + formally verified kernel) is tied together tightly (from tiny IoT devices with less than 128K of memory up to PC level compute).
If you take into account only compute, then there is literally no limit (up to cloud based supercomputing with virtually unlimited scaling: CM384).
Currently, the PC side of the equation (OS) does need some time to mature (lack of apps especially) as it was only released this month but it was the last foundational piece of the puzzle to be put into place and is now shipping to customers on two consumer devices. Obviously more will follow.
One is a traditional 'PC laptop' but the other (Matebook Fold) is a tablet/PC hybrid which ties in perfectly with the debate here on macOS/iPadOS.
It will be the ideal point of observation/comparison going forward and Apple will be paying close attention as it could well be a major disruptor (especially in China).
Both devices use the same system and, with all the core foundational elements now in place, the advances in maturity will be fast.
That means you only write one app and then decide where to deploy it and the development environment handles a lot of the 'dirty work' in terms of GUI.
One of the core features from the outset (official launch 2019) was how to deploy on screens with totally different layouts (horizontal, vertical, strips...) without needing a lot of work. A longstanding design bottleneck.
As for verticality itself , Apple has nothing similar to what others are doing because it isn't operating in certain fields.
No EDA tools.
No Foundries.
Two major areas which themselves include massive sub branches into dozens of other specialised fields.
Apple doesn't design its own camera sensors.
It has not brought anything like Nearlink to market.
Obviously no car (with all the sub branches related to that, too - including charging).
No PV/Energy division.
No robotics division.
No super computing division.
No ICT networking division. Fibre is a key element to reducing compute bottlenecks when compared to copper (especially is AI training/inference scenarios).
No cloud fabric/industrial storage solutions (for example, autonomous cars need to run mini data centers and virtualised failsafe systems).
No market presence with AI, LLM's etc.
The list goes on but the main point is not so much 'verticality' but the foundational technologies to lead Apple into the future.
The lack of any mention of that anywhere, tells me that those 'siloes' could very well still be present and eliminating them might still be far off into the future.
So, I assume every year we will continue to see ideas from the competition implemented on the different Apple OSes but without the underlying architectural elements in place.
That can't go on indefinitely without running into issues somewhere along the line so my thinking (just an opinion based on current shipping ideas and implementations) is that at some point we will actually see a kind of unified OS for all Apple devices (maybe even called 'Apple OS') and it will be truly seamless (which is a very valid, if technologically challenging, goal) for the user. -
Craig Federighi says macOS would ruin what makes the iPad special
StrangeDays said:avon b7 said:Those are extremely poor arguments IMO.
…
Apple is already inching (but agonisingly slowly) towards convergence in certain areas and my guess is that that is the real goal at some point (including touchscreen Macs of course).
…
IMO, that is probably the real reason Apple wants to temper the desire for 'macOS tablet' at the moment. They don't have the foundations ready.
Reality: touch-enable laptops exist today and nobody cares because it sucks. EOS. It’s out there. I had one 10 years ago, it sucked, never used it, don’t miss it.
Giving a touch device optional shortcuts for mouse & pointer use is inherently different (and better for it) than giving a pointer device optional touch.
That you keep insisting its their secret plan just reaffirms that you still don’t understand Apple and its product lines very well. Sounds like you’re more happy with the chinese knockoffs and that’s fine.
Anyway. Once more, years later:
Imagine they throw out something called AppleOS. A unified system. Suddenly the merging 'iOS' with 'macOS' never happened. Except it did in that hypothetical scenario!
Why? Because such an OS would require major foundational changes and no doubt merit a completely new name. It would effectively be a new OS!
To all intents and purposes, it would be iOS merged with macOS (and every other OS Apple currently ships).
Why would that be necessary? Because we are entering the IoT age and the process of convergence is already happening. Year after year, more cross device functionality will be needed. More features will bleed through from one device to another. That is what we are seeing. That is happening. Now.
A 'siloed' system foundation is by definition not optimal for cross device interoperability.
The question is where you draw the line, but you only need to see all the Android ideas that have been landing on iOS in recent years to understand that the line is in fact moving.
Personalisation was a very restricted concept for iOS until not long ago. But now? What a change!
File management is another clear case of Apple having to implement changes.
Any hypothetical 'HomeOS' would be better with free flowing interaction within the ecosystem. Not having to punch holes into every 'silo' on every OS it needs too.
An iPad with a physical keyboard is basically a touch enabled computer!
That is my point. Moving between one device to another should be seamless. Touch on Macs. Cursor on tablets.
Anyone moving to a non-touchscreen after prolonged tablet use will inevitably 'touch' the screen even while knowing it isn't touch capable!
That isn't seamless.
What do you see as more probable? More siloes, or more convergence? Remember. That line is moving.