charlesn

designr said:

The sad thing is that this is one area where Apple is being remarkably short-sighted. A study of history—both in the recent tech world and in the longer scope of industry and technology—will show that closed (AKA "walled garden") systems eventually succumb to open ecosystems. Apple has a chance to get ahead of that and actually ride that if they were a bit more enlightened and less control-obsessed. Oh well.

You're so right. Stupid Apple with their idiotic "walled garden" that's doomed. You would think that becoming the world's most valuable company in the history of companies would have taught it a lesson. Or being named "World's Most Admired Company" for 17 straight years and counting. Or earning 85% of ALL global smartphone profits. Or launching retail stores that earn more per square foot than any other multi-store retailer in the world. Or launching a line of watches that, in less than a decade, now outsell all other watches combined. These Apple fools have been lurching from failure to failure for decades now, blissfully unaware of the cliff they'll walk off any day now, when they should have been listening to smart people like you! 

omasou said:

charlesn said:

Considering how badly Apple has fumbled voice assistant technology--Siri remains, as ever, the dumbest student in the class--I have concerns about how well it will deploy advanced AI capabilities. I am all-in on Apple devices EXCEPT when it comes smart speakers and voice-controlled lights and appliances. Part of the reason is because Siri continues to be frustratingly and profoundly stupid--but mainly, it's because Alexa and Google are in everything and Siri is not. Siri debuted as an iOS app 14 years ago this month. Then Apple bought the company that developed Siri just two months later. Meanwhile, Amazon wouldn't debut Alexa for another 4.5 years--but it totally blew away Siri capabilities when it hit the market. How Apple frittered away a years-long head start in voice assistant technology is beyond me, but they did and Alexa became ubiquitous.

I think Tim said what he had to say today for the benefit of Wall Street because Apple is simply not in the conversation when it comes to AI... except to ask, "Where is Apple in all of this?" which is not the question you want raised. The lack of specifics in what he said did not inspire confidence that there are specifics to tout--I guess he's hoping to have some by WWDC in June. And you can blah, blah, blah all you want about how much AI is already in Apple products, but it doesn't change the fact that, as a company, they are not in the AI conversation like MSFT, NVDA, GOOG, META, etc. 

As a creative professional--you know, a prime target market for Apple--AI is already having a profound and beneficial effect on my work flow. And none of the tools I'm currently using are connected to Apple in any way. 

Siri works fine for me.

Oh but Alexa is doing so well /s

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/amazon-lays-off-alexa-employees-as-2010s-voice-assistant-boom-gives-way-to-ai/

https://www.reuters.com/technology/amazoncom-cut-several-hundred-alexa-jobs-2023-11-17/

It really pays to look at the sources for what you read and not just the headlines. Since Amazon has never broken out Alexa separately in its quarterly reports, I was curious how anyone could possibly report accurately on the Alexa numbers. Well, there's an answer: they can't. What we know is that the division of which Alexa is a part has been losing money--the Worldwide Digital Services unit. At least, that's what "a person familiar with the division" told Business Inisder. Great source, huh? Not even an "Amazon employee who must remain anonymous." Know what else is in that unit? Prime Video. Now consider that streamers that charge $5-$20/month per subscriber have been losing money hand over fist on streaming... $1 billion per quarter in losses is not unusual with Netflix being the only exception. Amazon has made huge investments in Prime Video--half a BILLION on Lord of the Rings alone, which flopped--and they've been giving this streaming content away for free to Prime members. Gee, I can't imagine why that would be contributing to that division's financial problems. Know what else gets lumped in as an "Alexa" problem? The fact that Amazon loses a ton of money on its mediocre hardware line that it essentially sells at cost. This is because of Alexa? No, it's what happens when you try to sell "meh" hardware at unprofitable prices. No voice assistant can save you from that dumb strategy. 

Considering how badly Apple has fumbled voice assistant technology--Siri remains, as ever, the dumbest student in the class--I have concerns about how well it will deploy advanced AI capabilities. I am all-in on Apple devices EXCEPT when it comes smart speakers and voice-controlled lights and appliances. Part of the reason is because Siri continues to be frustratingly and profoundly stupid--but mainly, it's because Alexa and Google are in everything and Siri is not. Siri debuted as an iOS app 14 years ago this month. Then Apple bought the company that developed Siri just two months later. Meanwhile, Amazon wouldn't debut Alexa for another 4.5 years--but it totally blew away Siri capabilities when it hit the market. How Apple frittered away a years-long head start in voice assistant technology is beyond me, but they did and Alexa became ubiquitous.

I think Tim said what he had to say today for the benefit of Wall Street because Apple is simply not in the conversation when it comes to AI... except to ask, "Where is Apple in all of this?" which is not the question you want raised. The lack of specifics in what he said did not inspire confidence that there are specifics to tout--I guess he's hoping to have some by WWDC in June. And you can blah, blah, blah all you want about how much AI is already in Apple products, but it doesn't change the fact that, as a company, they are not in the AI conversation like MSFT, NVDA, GOOG, META, etc. 

As a creative professional--you know, a prime target market for Apple--AI is already having a profound and beneficial effect on my work flow. And none of the tools I'm currently using are connected to Apple in any way. 

hexclock said:

I can see both sides of the argument. On Macs, a great deal of useful and even vital (for certain professions) software is not available on the App Store. Yet, Apple allows the user to circumvent the gatekeeper of MacOS and install just about anything they want. If you install a faulty program or a piece of malware, that’s on you. In iOS, Apple does not allow that. 

Apple’s reasoning for this is sound. They don’t want millions of iPhones infected with malware, thus destroying the brand. The iPhone created a software marketplace that dwarfs that of the Mac, so it’s no wonder why there is more consternation regarding iOS. 

I understand though, why people want to install software that’s not on the store, and I see why some developers don’t want to pay a fee to access the user base. 

Time will tell how this is resolved. 

Also, in terms of Mac vs iOS: your phone is with you at all times, tracking your location, with a camera and microphone always at the ready. It is now also used, via Apple Wallet, for all kinds of financial transactions. Put all of this together and malware on your phone poses far greater risks to your privacy and security than your Mac. 

rax_mark said:

I understand that as an Apple fan you view the tech world through that lens. However, in doing so you misalign facts and brand lies as truth.
Actually, no, as I'll make clear in replies to your points below. 

You say that Android was an illegal ripoff of Java, well Sun (before it was bought by Oracle) gave permission to Google to use it, Google also made modifications which separated itself enough that even the Supreme court didn't find them guilty. Yet in ignorance or maybe malice you make these claims to solidify your lies and fool the uninformed.
Fair enough--Google ultimately won at SCOTUS after losing at the Court of Appeals. 

You say Android users are cheap pirates that want anarchy, maybe you have forgotten the jailbreak era of the iPhones.
Sorry, but Android users--as a group--ARE cheap. Google has trained people to expect "free" apps--and some damned good ones, too!--which are, of course, paid for by selling the consumer data harvested by those apps in every way possible. This makes convincing people to pay for apps much more challenging. 

You say everyone copies from Apple, but wasn't it Apple who copied the GUI from Xerox and what about the plethora of functions that Apple copied from Android, widgets, AOD etc. Are you oblivious to them or ignorant? or will you make up excuses to try to justify them while you blast others.
Apple is often not first to market with various devices and technologies--but when they do come to market it is, far more often than not, in a transformative way that is then copied. iMac, iPod, Macbook Air, iPhone, iPad, Airpods, Apple Watch, Apple Music, etc. If Apple were simply copying what already existed, then what's the explanation for each of these products becoming absolutely dominant in their niche? Especially since Apple pricing is generally much higher than competitors. 

You say others make 'me too' products, what about Apple Maps, Apple music, Apple TV+ are they also 'me too' products, just because they weren't first to a market. Also, going by that logic isn't the Apple Vision Pro a 'me too' product, a rip-off of Meta but with higher specs and 7 times the price.
First, see my answer above about "me too" vs. a transformative new execution of an existing device or technology. There's a huge difference. Vision Pro is Apple's latest swing in a transformative new execution. It's not about "virtual reality." And it sure ain't about Zuckerberg's godforsaken "metaverse." (Isn't it time to change the company's name back to Facebook?) Vision Pro is about spatial computing--computing capabilities brought into three dimensions and 360 degrees. Will Apple crack the code on apps to exploit those capabilities? hexclock said:

I can see both sides of the argument. On Macs, a great deal of useful and even vital (for certain professions) software is not available on the App Store. Yet, Apple allows the user to circumvent the gatekeeper of MacOS and install just about anything they want. If you install a faulty program or a piece of malware, that’s on you. In iOS, Apple does not allow that. 

Apple’s reasoning for this is sound. They don’t want millions of iPhones infected with malware, thus destroying the brand. The iPhone created a software marketplace that dwarfs that of the Mac, so it’s no wonder why there is more consternation regarding iOS. 

I understand though, why people want to install software that’s not on the store, and I see why some developers don’t want to pay a fee to access the user base. 

Time will tell how this is resolved. 

Can't tell yet, but if they do, in a big way, you'll be seeing the Google, Microsoft and Samsung knock-offs soon after. As for "features" on devices -- is there some back and forth between Apple, Android and Windows over features and who has what first? Sure. But different thing. 

You say that other systems are full of malware, well that is exaggerated and even what percentage exists is the tradeoff for having an open system which provides freedom. But what benefit did iOS provide with its walled garden? Was it not affected by Pegasus, has it not been affected by zero day exploits? The only thing it did was make Apple's wallet heavier by restricting third party services and promoting their own alternatives. 
Android is much more prone to malware for several reasons. First, a vastly bigger target than iOS since it runs on more than 75% of mobile devices. Second, Android source code gets released to developers, while iOS source code does not. Third, side-loading of apps bypasses any App Store-type screening of them for malware. Fourth, the vast majority of iOS users at any given time are running the latest version of iOS with the latest security updates--that's easier to do for a much smaller user base and when only one company controls hardware and software. Is iOS impenetrable? Of course not. Hackers never sleep as evidenced by the iOS security updates. But I've been using iPhone since the 4 and neither I nor anyone I know has ever had a malware issue on their iPhone. 

You say others destroy your privacy, yet Apple gives your Siri data to contractors for processing, and has been sued on multiple occasions for not upholding their promises regarding privacy. They have restricted other ad networks only to build their own and profit from it.
Oh please with the absolutism. Google's business model is really clear: free apps and subsidized hardware in exchange for monetizing your data. Apple's business model puts consumer privacy first, along with safety and security. It makes money from higher priced hardware, apps and services. That it isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not vastly better if the privacy of your data is a priority for you. For many it is not, as Google proves everyday, and there's nothing wrong with that choice. 

You seem to portray the app store as infallible yet one can read articles all the time of scam apps fooling people and taking their money. Has Apple ever come forward and refunded these people because they use Apple and their closed app store, No they couldn't care less.
Again with absolutism. No one claims the App Store is infallible. Name me anything that is. Scam apps, on occasion, have gotten through. Does it offer far better protection from scam apps than the wild west of Android? Absolutely. 

Developers are so fed up of Apple that they don't even want to make apps for the Vision Pro and yet you seem to be in the delusion that it is a benefit to society and to everyone.
Apple's target for sales of Vision Pro is a little under 400K units by end of year. That's a miniscule user base, while developing for the Vision Pro's capabilities will be a more expensive and time-consuming task for developers. So let's see: more time and money for very limited sales potential, and no assurance that this new computing platform will succeed. That many developers are taking a "wait and see" attitude before investing their time and money is about good business sense and not being "fed up with Apple." 

Apple went out of its way to cripple other web engines on iOS to stop PWAs from becoming a viable replacement to the App store and yet you say they are not anticompetitive.
It's Apple's App Store. If you don't like the way it's run, don't buy an Apple device. Buy another company's device and use their app store or side-load as much as you want. How can you claim it's "anticompetitive" when most buyers choose to buy from an Apple competitor? Apple is not under any obligation to run its App Store the way competitors or anyone else would like it run. 

Apple products sell so well because more than the technology, Apple has marketed itself as a premium product for rich people. That is why we have gold Apple watches and $19 handkerchiefs. There have been instances where people have sold their kidneys for an iPhone, have no food yet bought an iPhone on finance. Do you think that they did it because they thought it was a better phone? Don't kid yourself.
Are you okay? 'Cause what you've written here is just nuts. 

You believe Apple is being punished, No, the government has made laws equal to all companies including Microsoft and Google, yet Apple is the biggest whiner and seems to believe that it should get special treatment. Tough luck.
Yes, Apple is being punished. It is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination in how you define that word. It is a small minority player in the handset industry in terms of volume sold. It has become so successful because the minority of people who choose Apple iPhone are willing to pay a premium price because they like how Apple runs its business. If you don't like it, there are hundreds of other phones from which to choose that aren't made by Apple. So you have your freedom of choice, and I have mine--it's Apple, exactly as it is run. 

Maybe not insult other brands while making a fanboy esque article and even if you do at least state facts.
The article was very factual--that you don't see it that way doesn't make it not true.