dewme

avon b7 said:

radarthekat said:

avon b7 said:

rob53 said:

avon b7 said:

This:

"Specifically, we are concerned that the interoperability requirements of the DMA could force us to compromise the integrity of our products in ways that risk user privacy and data security," said Apple. "We are committed to collaborating with the European Commission in an attempt to find a solution that would enable us to deliver these features to our EU customers without compromising their safety."

And then this:

"From previous statements including ones to AppleInsider, it's known that Apple has been continually working with the EU on its responses to the DMA, so it's reasonable to assume that will continue.

Leads to the question: Why even bother putting the subject into the public domain if communication and clarification are ongoing? 

Far better to say as little as possible until things are clarified. All it takes is clarification and all for a roll out that isn't even planned for this year! 

Basically FUD on Apple's part and Vestager has a valid point in her response to a question that wouldn't have been asked if it weren't for Apple. 

Basically FUD on the part of EU-loving commenters. Apple has a right to provide whatever capabilities it wants to in whatever country/region it wants to. You're buying a product with certain features. There's nothing that says Apple has to provide the EU with everything it has the capability of including. The EU can demand Apple provide everything but that's not the way companies work. This is a brand new Apple capability and Apple has the right to provide it when they feel it's ready, not when a corrupt EU demands it. At this point, I feel Apple is well within its rights to start charging for features in countries it wants to. As far as I'm concerned, Apple should start charging for macOS, iOS, tvOS, iPadOS along with every Apple app and feature it wants to. I'd like to see the EU try and force Apple to provide everything for free. It isn't going to happen.

No one is disputing Apple's right to bring or not bring certain features to the EU. That is up to them and is irrelevant here. 

The point is 'making a meal out of something' and putting it down to the DMA even when Apple itself claims it's in contact with the EU on the subject and also claims not to know what is possible or not. 

It's all completely unnecessary on Apple's part. Why not simply ask the EU and wait for a reply? 

Maybe Apple feels a bit of obligation to both inform its EU customer base and to disclose to its investors information that might be material to its business.  

Hardly. We are talking about features that in all probability were never mapped to see the light of day in the EU until next year. They won't even fully reach the US until next year. 

It was completely unnecessary on Apple's part and if it were 'material to its business', much better to tread carefully and not speculate when they quite clearly haven't clarified with the relevant bodies what the requirements are. 

Two thumbs up! All this is getting rather silly.  The EU protagonist is shadow boxing with herself. Apple isn’t even engaged or present. If the EU wants to talk about this person to person I have no doubt that Apple will show up. Just remember that conversation is not one participant trying to shove their own ideas down the other one’s throat. That’s not how it works. 

danox said:

What I find interesting is that so much of the top talent in AI today came to the USA from Europe (EU). Not only will there be a fork in the road there also will be an even bigger time lapse and higher cost in getting the latest tech.

I agree with this sentiment entirely but I wouldn’t limit it to AI alone. The US has benefited immensely from the contributions from EU intellectuals, mathematicians, scientists, physicists, engineers, and technologists, just to name a few in areas that are closest to us. The fundamental architecture of the vast majority of all computers that currently exist, down to the Apple Watch and iPhone and up the latest supercomputers, are based on the work of John von Neumann, a Hungarian immigrant. Look at who the principal contributors to the Manhattan Project and the evolution of NASA were and where they came from.

Moving on from historical facts, even today the German dual system of vocational training is a proven template that lays out a very practical way for the US to vastly improve its technical and vocational strength across board. The US is far more focused on shoving ideological and political BS down students’ throats rather than making it a national priority to ensure students graduate from high schools and colleges with the education and skills that allow them to start to contribute to society immediately. 

I believe Apple and Tim Cook as its leader have no desire to engage in a tit-for-tat battle with anyone. They are always seeking solutions and compromises that do not fundamentally break Apple’s core values to its stakeholders and customers while keeping the business healthy and growing, both in product quality and meeting bottom line financial targets. As we’ve seen lately, Apple is trying to engage in preemptive actions to avoid a potential catastrophe from both foreign and domestic threats. There is a real risk associated with China and its current circle of “friends.” There is also a real risk of home grown fascism taking hold in the current cesspool of negativity and grievance that has engulfed a significant portion of the US population. 

Compromise and developing a shared focus on things that really matter are key to the path toward to reach a solution. Fighting will get us nowhere. Maybe Apple can serve as an example for others to follow.

My main issue with the way that the EU is operating under the DMA, based on my understanding, is that it seems full of holes, subject to personal whims, political, xenophobic, and massively ambiguous. I'm not just poking at it for personal reasons or to take up Apple's side in the ongoing conflict. I've actually followed, worked on, and directly contributed to "Standards" created or initiated in the EU, pre-EU member countries, or internationally. Standards and certification bodies like IEC, CE, TUV, ISO, UL, CSA, etc., add great value and are a lot more than just a set of requirements that have to be met. They are also highly prescriptive in nature so anyone hoping to sell products that meet these standards can build them to be compliant by following the recommendations and establishing quantifiable measures that can be used by producers to ensure that their products meet the standards. There should be no big surprises when the products in question are submitted for compliance testing.

The one thing in common with most of the standards that establish hard requirements is that they are run by NGOs, not politicians or state leaders. Companies like Apple who produce products for international markets need to be able to design products that meet all the standards where they are sold. The DMA from what I can tell provides no prescriptive guidance for product makers to avoid getting "surprised" when they try to sell a product into a location. It's hard to build something to meet requirements that are highly volatile and enforced at the whim of the enforcers.

I'm not saying the EU or DMA are wrong, because every other locale puts similar non-quantitative and highly subjective impediments in place. I'm just saying that it's a tough nut to crack and companies that sell into other markets need to protect themselves from impositions that they cannot predict. So Apple limiting what they sell into various markets is entirely defensible and a pragmatic decision, not a politically motivated one.

discountopinion said:

Ideally Apple will want to do a platform play and invest to also kick Alexa in the teeth. The Echo Dots of this world would then be painfully obsolete. If Apple can do a software only upgrade of AI capability through some magic then they will win the internet. There is a slight chance they can make it happen as current Siri models have a larger proportion of on device processing.

The Echo Dots are sub $50 USD devices that get heavily discounted during Amazon’s sales events. I don’t see Apple targeting anything in that price range and sales volume. They are ubiquitous, cheap, work well, have voice recognition that puts Siri to shame, and could probably be sold in the checkout line in grocery stores. I use mine for turning on/off smart lights and smart plugs, in-house intercom, getting weather updates, setting alarms and timers, monitoring interior temperature, and automation. None of these things require more horsepower than what’s already in them. Some of the other more advanced capabilities of the Echo Dot, including integration with alarm systems using sound recognition, serving as mesh points on certain brand WiFi systems, and in the larger models, halfway decent audio playback.

Even the cheapest and oldest Dots are more than enough for listening to radio quality music, sports broadcasts, talk shows, podcasts, etc., especially while working in the garage or shed. I wouldn’t dare put an HomePod in my garage due to living in a fairly challenging 4-season climate with snow, rain, cold, high humidity, and dust always present, regardless of the much higher price and lower functionality of Apple’s smart speakers.  Even older Echo Dot models have been updated to support Thread and Matter. How many older Apple devices are being backfitted with Thread and Matter support? 

There’s no doubt that a 20-ton excavator would kick in the teeth of a hand shovel. But what’s the point? The Echo Dot and pretty much every current Echo device is way too low of a bar for Apple to aim for. Apple also needs to figure out how to monetize AI on some of these devices. Unlike Amazon, Apple has far more options available to take advantage of, like its customer centric ecosystem. Apple has clearly set its targets appropriately and is executing on a plan that is at least a decade in process. 

This may be useful for educators and students at the high school level because it looks like it's a nicer and more approachable UI than many higher end graphing calculators. For college level engineering students and practicing engineers I think it will be far less intriguing. I'm not saying it's inadequate because I have not tried it yet. I would say that for current engineering students who plan to practice in industry or academia their time may be better spent becoming familiar with tools like MathCad and Matlab because they are defacto standards and most universities have those tools available. I would even say that becoming proficient with Excel (or equivalents) for analytical processing is a worthwhile skill to acquire. 

I can't wait to try this to see more of what it can do for practical problem solving.