danvm

StrangeDays said:

omasou said:

I love how Cook had to keep explicitly mentioning AI, ML, etc. for all of the stupid ChatGPT enamored folks that don’t understand how much AI is baked into Apple products and software and how Apple Si has AI/ML supporting GPU and Neural Engine cores have been expanding year after year.

Right? When the folks say “But but but Apple is behind!” I’m always like…wut? Chat bots? Search engines? Letter writing wizards? Why do those things matter to anyone, let alone to Apple customers?

omasou said:

I love how Cook had to keep explicitly mentioning AI, ML, etc. for all of the stupid ChatGPT enamored folks that don’t understand how much AI is baked into Apple products and software and how Apple Si has AI/ML supporting GPU and Neural Engine cores have been expanding year after year.

You are right that Apple has AI integrated in some of their products, but at the same time, they missed some opportunities.  One example is Siri.  They had a chance to have the best assistant in the market and didn't happen.  Another example is Apple suite of apps.  Microsoft and Google have done an excellent job by integrating AI into their apps, and Apple has done nothing. I don't think that people don't know or understand how Apple has integrated AI into their products. Is just that other companies have done a better job with AI than Apple with some applications and services. 

Xed said:

danvm said:

Xed said:

danvm said:

nubus said:

tech_traveller said:

Does it really matter?

It hurts. M$ copied the Mac - it can never be #1. And then MS lost on mobile, on tablets (at least round one), on MP3 players (Zune), and AWS started eating into their server business. And now that company is worth more than Apple. And the main reason for that is Apple.

So, Mac and iPad sales are dropping big time, iPhone is static, R&D is going to an Apple Car that seems stuck, and then Microsoft understood AI, while we in 2023 had the same old Siri and the option to buy a new HomePod, which was exactly the same as... the old HomePod. Flatlining companies don't attract the best talents. We need for Apple to grow, add more users, and enter big markets (cars). Competing with Zuckerberg on doing the heaviest headset is taking away talent, and now MS is once again #1.

From what I know, both MS and Apple copied Xerox, so I suppose they are the one supposed to be hurt, right?

Apple asked for permission to tour Xerox PARC and there were some that, as I recall, were not too happy about both the touring and the slowed use of their concept being implemented legally by Apple. In an alternate reality Xerox would've had more people higher up that would've seen what brilliant inventors they had and it would be Xerox having to defend itself from having too many monopoles on the world's most popular tech. It's kinda sad to see Xerox fall so far in my lifetime.

I don't recall ever reading about MS getting such permission.

I just pointed out that MS and Apple copied from Xerox.  What this has to do with asking for permission?

You really don't understand what permission and licensing has to do with the ethically of using someone else's IP? 

Xed said:

danvm said:

nubus said:

tech_traveller said:

Does it really matter?

It hurts. M$ copied the Mac - it can never be #1. And then MS lost on mobile, on tablets (at least round one), on MP3 players (Zune), and AWS started eating into their server business. And now that company is worth more than Apple. And the main reason for that is Apple.

So, Mac and iPad sales are dropping big time, iPhone is static, R&D is going to an Apple Car that seems stuck, and then Microsoft understood AI, while we in 2023 had the same old Siri and the option to buy a new HomePod, which was exactly the same as... the old HomePod. Flatlining companies don't attract the best talents. We need for Apple to grow, add more users, and enter big markets (cars). Competing with Zuckerberg on doing the heaviest headset is taking away talent, and now MS is once again #1.

From what I know, both MS and Apple copied Xerox, so I suppose they are the one supposed to be hurt, right?

Apple asked for permission to tour Xerox PARC and there were some that, as I recall, were not too happy about both the touring and the slowed use of their concept being implemented legally by Apple. In an alternate reality Xerox would've had more people higher up that would've seen what brilliant inventors they had and it would be Xerox having to defend itself from having too many monopoles on the world's most popular tech. It's kinda sad to see Xerox fall so far in my lifetime.

I don't recall ever reading about MS getting such permission.

davidw said:

danvm said:

nubus said:

tech_traveller said:

Does it really matter?

It hurts. M$ copied the Mac - it can never be #1. And then MS lost on mobile, on tablets (at least round one), on MP3 players (Zune), and AWS started eating into their server business. And now that company is worth more than Apple. And the main reason for that is Apple.

So, Mac and iPad sales are dropping big time, iPhone is static, R&D is going to an Apple Car that seems stuck, and then Microsoft understood AI, while we in 2023 had the same old Siri and the option to buy a new HomePod, which was exactly the same as... the old HomePod. Flatlining companies don't attract the best talents. We need for Apple to grow, add more users, and enter big markets (cars). Competing with Zuckerberg on doing the heaviest headset is taking away talent, and now MS is once again #1.

From what I know, both MS and Apple copied Xerox, so I suppose they are the one supposed to be hurt, right?

This was Gates famous quote during the Apple vs Microsoft trial with Apple accusing Microsoft of stealing the Mac GUI .....

"I think it’s more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."

Gates admitted that he "stole" from Apple but felt he wasn't really "stealing" from Apple because he thought Apple "stole" from PARC. But Apple did not steal anything from PARC. Apple paid Xerox for licenses to use some of the features they saw on the Xerox Alto computer GUI, for their own Apple System 1 GUI, that Apple was already working on before the visit to PARC. Apple visit to PARC  was more about the Mac team trying to convince Jobs that a GUI was the way to go with the first Mac. Up until then, PARC had the first and only fully working computer that was based on a GUI. Many members of the Mac team came from PARC and knew about the GUI on the Xerox Alto and were working on one for the first Mac, before Jobs visit to PARC. It's a myth that Apple first got the idea for a GUI, after their visit to PARC.   

Plus the GUI that Microsoft developed from "copying" the Xerox Alto was the like of Windows 3.1. Which actually was more like the GUI on the Xerox Alto than the first Mac Apple System 1 GUI (which actually appeared first on the Apple Lisa computer). Only Windows 3.1 is just a shell on top of DOS. What most associate with Microsoft copying Apple GUI was Windows 95. Neither Mac OS System 7 (at the time) or Windows 95, were anywhere near similar to the GUI on the Xerox Alto. So Microsoft could not have copied the original GUI seen at PARC, for Windows 95. No one had any doubt that Microsoft Windows 95 copied heavily from Mac OS System 7, not even Microsoft. But Apple was in no condition to sue in 1995. Specially after soundly losing their first trial over Microsoft copying the first Mac Apple System 1 GUI, over the concept of "look and feel". Jobs wasn't even at Apple in 1995.

https://crm.org/articles/xerox-parc-and-the-origins-of-gui

https://www.cultofmac.com/386189/how-apple-responded-to-the-release-of-windows-95-twenty-years-ago-today/