danvm

danox said:

Security, Siri, the five Apple systems, Apple Silicon, Apple hardware in general, will always be works in progress. That’s just the way it goes for a vertical computer company hopefully we won’t see Apple listing at sea anytime soon like Intel or IBM. Do I wish Apple would do certain things differently yes, but once again in comparison to their competition, Apple is doing quite well across the board with their arsenal of software and hardware. 

Who is this other tech/computer company that has a better hand across software and hardware? It isn’t Google, Meta, Microsoft, Qualcomm, or Samsung.

loopless said:

All this whining from the tech writers about Siri not knowing , for example, Baseball scores is solved by "Hi Siri, Ask ChaGPT < insert stupid baseball question here>" 

Meanwhile Siri by itself works great for creating messages, reading messages , dictation , creating notes etc...   those useful things that people actually do.

MplsP said:

In general I agree with Federighi. The iPad generally works well at what it does but not so well when you push to do things outside of what it (or the OS) is designed to do. What people really want is a device with the strengths and ease if the iPad touch interface with the power and flexibility of a Mac. That's far easier said than done. 

The iPad is absolutely capable of running MacOS but Apple clearly doesn't want a Microsoft Surface cluster where you have something that doesn't work well in either capacity. That was part of the problem with many early touch devices - they tried to take the desktop interface and use it as a touch interface and it didn't work. Apple rethought things with the iPhone and iPad and make something that works well and has slowly evolved the interface.

The problem with 'writing one program for both devices' is that the interface is different between the two devices so you'd either having a poorly designed program that works on both or effectively writing two programs anyway. It would be far easier to have an iPad program work on a Mac but then people would complain that its functionality was crippled. 

Finally, for the people who say 'Apple should let us install MacOS on the iPad,' that would require some significant rewriting of the OS and if Apple were to do that then they would also be endorsing MacOS on the iPad with all the limitations, which is exactly what this entire thread is about.

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. 

It’s not their goal, or secret plan. You’re just not listening to what they clearly explain as their position, because you don’t want it to be. You’re using magical thinking. The notion that they don’t have the “foundations” ready despite years of answering this question over and over is simply absurd. 

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:

Maybe Apple will not make macOS optimized for touchscreens, but it seems that iPadOS is making the move to make it similar to a PC / Surface Pro device.  In every update they are making iPadOS the toaster / fridge device they criticize many years ago.  

Wesley_Hilliard said:

danvm said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

danvm said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

ChiIrishReed said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

ChiIrishReed said:

It’s time for Tim Cook to be fired. Steve Jobs would be and is rolling over in his grave. Nothing groundbreaking or innovative has happened under Cook’s watch. I’ve been an active apple fan since 2000. Apple intelligence last year (and Siri) was nothing but false promises and vaporware starting with WWDC 2024. Apple AI this year is still woefully behind any of its competitors. Apple’s tech is behind Android features that have been out for years on other phones (and yes I know those phones are less secure and have bloatware - but that doesn’t invalidate the point) and yet Apple is selling these as new and revolutionary software updates. Tim is too cautious and these promises of a new OS every year, except some features being available later in the year (just wait customer) in an  iOS update is nothing but lies and poor product development year after year. It’s not necessary. Gone are the days when Apple was innovative and the OS actually had every feature when it was released the first time, without promises for later. Same with the hardware. Incrementalism is not only boring, it’s costing Apple its edge. What is apple working on? 

Seven years ago, still evergreen.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/04/25/defending-tim-cook-why-apple-remains-in-good-hands

Let me pull a select quote.

"If Steve Jobs Was Still Alive"

"If Steve Jobs were alive today" are arguments are, by their very nature, specious and ridiculous. For one thing, they're based entirely on conjecture, as no one knows exactly how someone who has been dead for close to seven years would react to a unique situation arising today, much less the adherence to Moore's Law in iPhone processors that Intel has failed to deliver for the Mac. It's an argument that's impossible to prove and equally impossible to refute.

For another, these arguments implicitly invoke a fictitious, idealized version of Steve Jobs who always did everything right and never made mistakes or became embroiled in crises at Apple — one bearing virtually no resemblance to the actual Steve Jobs.

Ok. Delete the sentence about Steve Jobs and look at the rest of the comment. Where is the lie about Siri, about AI, about Apple being behind and promoting vaporware and not having anything complete issued at roll out time? 

Your comments read like a Samsung fan in a forum circa 2014. They're tired, old arguments that never prove true. Siri still works in its core competencies and sucks greatly at things outside of those, and Apple promised an update that didn't arrive. That's annoying, but it's one feature out of a dozen that shipped in 2024/2025. There was never vaporware, just hallucinating AI that had a higher-than-desired miss rate.

Google and OpenAI might be okay with 30% or greater fail rates, but not Apple. Apple's focus on incremental updates and products that actually enhance a user's life are what sets it apart. Cook's reluctance and ability to step back and rethink shows why he's an excellent CEO in a world where Humane and the Cybertruck exist.

I'd also love to know where Android is ahead, specifically. To my eye that OS has languished over the past six years or so in favor of announcing party tricks that never ship. Or is Google's graveyard of PR ploys a figment of my imagination?

And what was Apple doing in leaps and bounds before that it isn't doing now? Other than releasing a new product line twice a decade, where exactly has Apple ever moved fast, broke things, and came out ahead of the competition other than privacy and security? Apple is good because it is cautious. I don't understand people's drive to change that.

Could we say that Apple is also OK with the 30% fail rates of OpenAI, considering how they integrate ChatGPT with iOS 26? If it's so bad as you think, why Apple is integrating with it?  

Should Apple be concerned when Google tells you to put glue on pizza or when Amazon sells you a scam product? ChatGPT isn't an Apple product, it is a service heavily labeled as such that exists outside of Apple Intelligence. It is also siloed in a way that should keep hallucinations to a reasonable level. The chatbot isn't available when using ChatGPT via Siri; the session ends the second you close the active dialogue.

Though that doesn't mean the implementation is fool proof. Visual Intelligence via ChatGPT called Mario Kart World a fan-made game and didn't know what the Switch 2 was in the photo. 

Apple made an agreement to make Google Search the default engine in all Apple devices and also said Google Search was the best search engine.  

Apple CEO Tim Cook says this is the best search engine out there - Fast Company

I think they should be concerned when a service like Google Search, that they integrated in their devices, do not perform well. Apple also made partnership with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT in their devices becasue they think is the best AI service for their devices, even with the 30% failure rate you mentioned.  Are you saying that integrating ChatGPT was a mistake?

We all learn to discern between things at a young age. OpenAI is not Apple. Google is not Apple. Their mistakes are not Apple's problem.

If Google search was the least popular engine that never worked or ChatGPT was something no one ever heard of, your arguments would make sense. But their popularity is in spite of their mediocrity. Apple doesn't have to cut down to their level in order to ship a product.

No, Apple wasn't wrong to integrate with ChatGPT or Google. It provides users options and alternatives, and they can be turned off. That's the difference. If Apple released something this broken that was meant to persist across nearly every app and system on iOS and turning it off rendered buying the latest iPhone moot, then that's on Apple.

ChatGPT and Google can do what they like. Apple has a higher standard for failure rates and hallucinations. Apple says Google is the best search engine, they also said ChatGPT is the best chatbot. That endorsement doesn't mean they're going to copy their tactics and release half-baked products.