danvm

About

Username
danvm
Joined
Visits
187
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,726
Badges
0
Posts
1,400
  • Apple could spend $5B on servers to catch up in AI race

    danox said:
    danvm said:
    danox said:
    igorsky said:
    But, please, tell me more about everyone else’s insurmountable lead. 
    No one has a insurmountable lead but in today’s climate you want to be a vertical computer company, software and hardware under one roof…
    Being a vertical company haven't made Pages / Number / Keynote better than MS Office or Google Workspace.  Neither made iCloud a better service than Google or MS services, neither made Siri a better assistant, even though Apple was ahead of the competition.  Apple has done an excellent work with hardware, but software is a different story.  They have their hits with macOS and iOS, but at the same time have iCloud, Pages / Numbers / Keynote and Siri, that are behind the competition.  We'll to wait and see what they do with AI.

    In the Microsoft menagerie of programs the only thing that’s any good is Microsoft Excel, I learned long time ago in college if I wanted a better looking functional document, just use Adobe InDesign, or Quark with their page layout/editor even Pages does a better job with word layout and graphics than Microsoft Word or Google Docs, and these days there are so many other great programs that deal with word manipulation, why would I use programs from Google a company that is mining data 24/7? Notability, Keynote, Pages, Canva, Goodnotes, Morpholio Trace, Notes, Procreate, CollaNote, OmniOutliner, anything from Adobe, Quark, and Affinity if you have to deal with graphics, layout, or web design.

    What’s gonna be fun next year is watching the release of the Apple Vision Pro and seeing native small to medium sized companies, releasing programs which will show what it means being a vertical computer company (Apple) that is able to create new ecosystems is all about, and Googles, or Microsoft only response, in that new Apple ecosystem is to flood the market with their existing parasitic reduced feature (in comparison to what’s on their platform) from their existing ecosystems.

    At the college level these days, it’s a new world if you use a Apple Mac computer or an iPad Pro the number of very good programs for taking notes, writing essays term, papers, or technical papers, and that vertical computer platform created by Apple allows many people to excel away from the plug and have long battery life in the process that’s what a vertical computer company does gives you the power to design beyond that barn burning must be plugged into a wall Microsoft computer. 

    Being a vertical computer company, also helps to include things like LiDAR into every iPhone and iPad Pro made in the last four years, and that inclusion of LiDAR will become all the more apparent with the release of the Apple Vision Pro only a vertical computer company can do that.

    P.S. Apple isn’t the company camping out in the ecosystems of Google and Microsoft they don’t need to, nor are they paying either of them $20 billion a year for a default position within their vertical computer ecosystem…. the benefits are all Apple I don’t think Apple is behind. They’re just on the different path that doesn’t involve burning down the barn, the ecosystem squatters in this game is Microsoft and Google.
    I agree that the lists of apps you mentioned are better options than MS Word when dealing with graphics or web design.  But at the end, MS Word was not designed for that type of content, neither all users deal with that type of content in a daily basis.  For example, an accountant or financial analyst will have a better experience with MS Word than any app you listed, especially when you consider the integration it has with other apps in the MS 365 ecosystem, like Excel and PowerBI.  And now MS Office got better with CoPilot, with is something the competition like Apple don't have (at least for now).  

    Regarding Google data mining, I suppose isn't that bad, considering Apple trust them and gave them access to all of their customer by making Google Search the default engine for all of their devices.  

    I agree that college students benefit from the efficiency of Apple devices.  At the same time, Windows devices have some advantages like better GPU's from Nvidia and AMD. Windows also have the best 2-in-1 device with the Surface Pro.  At the end, both companies have their strong and weak points.

    We'll have to wait and see how customers react to the Apple Vision Pro.  It could be as strong as the iPhone / iPad or below average as the HomePod.  What I'm sure is that customer expect "parasitic" apps from MS and Google to make it useful.  

    On your P.S., I agree that Apple have a very strong ecosystem, but they are not the only one with an ecosystem.  MS have a better ecosystem for business and enterprises. No other company, including Apple, are even close to them.  They also have a very strong presence in gaming.  Google have a very strong ecosystem with their cloud services and Android.  And from what I'm seeing, most Apple customers use Google and MS services over Apple services.  I think the same thing will happen with the Apple Vision Pro.  
    ctt_zh
  • Apple could spend $5B on servers to catch up in AI race

    danox said:
    igorsky said:
    But, please, tell me more about everyone else’s insurmountable lead. 
    No one has a insurmountable lead but in today’s climate you want to be a vertical computer company, software and hardware under one roof…
    Being a vertical company haven't made Pages / Number / Keynote better than MS Office or Google Workspace.  Neither made iCloud a better service than Google or MS services, neither made Siri a better assistant, even though Apple was ahead of the competition.  Apple has done an excellent work with hardware, but software is a different story.  They have their hits with macOS and iOS, but at the same time have iCloud, Pages / Numbers / Keynote and Siri, that are behind the competition.  We'll to wait and see what they do with AI.
    ctt_zhgatorguydesignr
  • Apple could spend $5B on servers to catch up in AI race

    danox said:
    clexman said:
    They can spend all they want, but they won’t be able to catch up until they change their privacy stance and tap into user’s information. 
    Apple sells hardware and services to their customers. Apple already gets more valuable quality information (at a good price) out of their customers than Google, and Meta does by their nefarious snooping methods.

    What can be better than having more than 500 stores around the world showing off the Apple Vision Pro with that new user interface call it Apple AI if you want, but to the public it’s not gonna matter, what will matter is how it works upfront and personal as if by magic, where you just simply rub/softly tap two fingers together and have a command executed on the screen, what can be better? Nvidia’s who? back room shenanigans won’t matter.
    You have to consider that Google already has access to that "valuable quality information", since Apple agree to make Google Search the default search engine for all Apple devices.  Also, most Apple customers have Google services for their personal use.  On the other side, MS has locked the enterprise with Windows, Office / MS 365 and Azure, and also have the benefit of the partnership with OpenAI. At the moment, I don't see Apple having an advantage over Google or MS regarding access to customer data.  

    I also think AI have more benefits for customers than the Apple Vision Pro does today.  We'll have to wait and see what happens.  And like it or not, Nvidia is miles ahead of Apple in AI, and today it matters.
    ctt_zhelijahg
  • Apple won't make a Google search rival, says Cue

    AppleZulu said:
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    danvm said:
    darelrex said:
    I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.

    Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.
    Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion.  For example,

    Apple Maps / Google Maps
    HomePod / Sonos Era
    AirTag / Tile
    Apple TV+ / Netflix
    Apple Arcade / MS GamePass
    Apple Music / Spotify

    I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".  
    I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”

    Apple Maps / Google Maps
    - Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data, which is kind of important. Also, they created it when they realized just how much ”location services” would become a core OS function. Maps is just the user-facing part of a much deeper program.
    This doesn't changes the fact that Apple Maps is a me-too copy of Google Maps, which still miles ahead.  And I know because I use both in a weekly basis.  
    HomePod / Sonos Era
    Haven’t heard the Sonos device so can’t compare, but HomePod is brilliant audio. Also, like maps, HomePod is the tip of a bigger functional iceberg. It’s needed for HomeKit functionality. See above for context on HomeKit’s approach to user privacy. 
    HomePod sounds very good compared to other smart speakers.  But again, we could say this is a me-too product, since the Sonos have been doing the same years before Apple.  The only advantage I see in the HomePod is the integration with other Apple products and services.  But I suppose we cannot blame Sonos for the lack of integration with the Apple ecosystem.
    AirTag / Tile
    AirTag has a vastly larger back end to support it, and thus superior functionality. See above for more on location services as a core function, as well as approaches to user privacy. That brings us to AirTag’s innovations in breaking the tracker’s utility for stalking. Tile skipped that part until Apple brought it up, then tried to copy it, then undermined those protections with a disingenuous “honor system” that allows tile users to stalk anyway. 

    Apple TV+ / Netflix
    Not the same thing. AppleTV+ isn’t a back catalog archive like Netflix. New content is brilliant. Try watching Ted Lasso. 

    Apple Music / Spotify
    Apple Music has always been subscription-based and ad-free. They pay musicians more. They changed the paradigm with lossless and spatial audio by offering them not as an expensive premium, but as an included feature for all subscribers, and it works on the hardware millions already have. Before that, multi-channel audio was a niche thing that -all the way back to quad records in the early 1970s- could never achieve  critical mass to become mainstream. Now, thanks to Apple, lots of new music and back-catalog remixes are coming out in Dolby Atmos every week. That’s not a me-too thing. That’s 100% because of Apple. 
    AirTag could be a better Tile, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple copied another product.  

    Netflix have a lot of new content, and isn't just a back catalog, as you said.  And while Apple Music have better sound quality, Spotify has a better app / interface, among other things.  And I speak as an Apple Music subscriber.  I went with Apple just for the sound quality.  A part from that, Spotify is better.  At the end, both can be considered me-too services.  

    But then, isn’t Google maps just a me-too of Mapquest, and heck, isn’t Google search just a me-too of Yahoo search?

    By this standard, the iPhone is a “me too” product. It wasn’t the first cell phone or even the first ‘smart’ phone. But then, by this standard, you’ve entirely missed what it is that Apple actually does. 
    The difference is that Google Maps, Google Search and the iPhone change the market, and were far better than the competition.  That didn't happen with Apple Maps, AirTags, Apple TV+, HomePod, Apple Arcade and Apple Music, so I can see them as "me-too".
    We can certainly agree to disagree, but I'd still argue that at least several of those items meet one or both of the criteria you've set out in that sentence. I'd argue that Apple Maps is better because it doesn't use your location data to inundate you with targeted advertising. Correct me if you have data to contradict, but I think AirTags are in far wider use, because Apple's back-end resources make them far more effective. Tile relies on other users who have the Tile App installed to encounter a tag and create a location data point. AirTags merely rely on another iPhone passing nearby. There are a lot more iPhones in circulation than there are phones with the Tile App installed and functioning in the background. AppleTV+ and Arcade arguably don't (yet) meet your criteria. HomePod introduced vastly superior audio quality into a IoT home control market dominated by cheap loss-leader Amazon and Google voice assistant pods. Just comparing it to Sonos is like comparing the OG iPhone to competing mp3 players.

    For Apple Music, I'll refer you back to my earlier comments. Making lossless and spatial audio available in the basic tier and functional on existing hardware is in fact a game changer, and vastly superior to the competition. Other providers had already introduced those formats a year or two before Apple, but they all made the same death-spiral mistake of limiting the market by charging a premium for it, which in turn served as a disincentive to produce much content in the formats, which in turn made the premium charge not worth it. Apple Music corrected that mistake and suddenly lossless and spatial audio are mainstream and everywhere.
    I use Google Maps is iOS / CarPlay, and I haven't been inundated with ads, as you said.  I use Apple Maps frequently because I prefer the UI.  Apart from that, Google Maps is far better than Apple Maps.  

    Airtags vs Tiles, it's clear that Apple has advantage with more iOS devices in the market.  At the end, both do the same, and I haven't seen one doing much better over the other.  Tiles was first, and Apple responded with a me-too product.  

    Apple TV+ / Apple Arcade - Again, there were services before these two, and Apple did nothing to improve over the competition. 

    Apple Music - Yes, Apple Music has the advantage of better sound quality.  At the same time, Spotify is a better app, and Spotify Connect works better than AirPlay.  I'm an Apple Music subscriber only for the sound quality.  Before that, I had Spotify and was a better experience. If you ask me, Apple Music still a me-too service.  

    Let's be clear, my response was to a post that mentioned that Google and MS were about me-too products. I don't think that's bad at all, since it encourages competition.  But if someone think negatively about me-too products, we can easily extend that to Apple.   At the end, Apple has its list of me-too products / services too.  That's my point.
    muthuk_vanalingamgatorguy
  • Microsoft entered negotiations to sell Bing to Apple in 2020

    davidw said:
    danvm said:
    davidw said:
    >Bing had been the default search engine on Apple products from 2013 to 2017, but Google took over from there. The revenue share deal with Apple eliminated Bing's ability to compete, even when Microsoft made drastic offers.<


    I don't know where they got that idea from. According to this ....



    Bing wasn't able to compete with Google even when they were the default search for Apple from 2013 to 2017.

    The way I look at it, the importance of the "default" position is now way over blown when it comes to market share. If the "default" was that as much of a factor with regards to gaining market share as some are saying, then MS Edge and Bing should have much more than low single digit market share because they are the defaults on about 70% of the World desktop computers. 



    The fact that users can now easily change their "defaults", being the original installed default is no longer as meaningful as it was when MS IE was the default browser on Windows computers (in the mid 90's and early 2000's) and changing the default wasn't always that easy (thanks to MS). 




    I still think defaults still important for Google, considering what they pay to Apple.  If not, they would pay nothing  to Apple and expect most customers to change to Google Search on their devices.  

    But if you read between the lines, Google revenue sharing deal with Apple, which includes Apple having Google as the default search on Safari, was really about discouraging Apple from developing their own search engine. Over 50% of Google search occurs on iOS. This is the reason why Google is willing to share a portion of their iOS search revenue with Apple. It's not about being the default but about their fear that Apple might develop their own search engine for iOS. Thus maybe taking away a significant portion of Google iOS search revenue. More than what Google is paying with their revenue sharing deal.  

    So long as there is no smoking gun that Google offered their revenue deal in exchange for Apple giving up any idea of developing their own search engine or that of Apple threatening to develop their own search engine unless Google pays them so much, there's not much of a case for anti-competition with the deal. There is no proof that Apple can develop a search engine that will compete with Google. Apple search could end up no better than MS Bing. But Google would rather not find out as Apple do have a much more loyal user base than MS.
    I don't think Google is worried about Apple developing a search engine,
    Apple won't make a Google search rival, says Eddy Cue (appleinsider.com)

    And I don't think Google would have issues with the "loyal" Apple user base.  If you noticed, Apple loyal users are more focused in hardware (Mac, iPad, Apple Watch, iPhone).  But software and services is a different story.  Most Apple users have Gmail accounts, and don't use iCloud accounts.  MS Office and Google Workspace usage in Apple devices is ahead compared to the Apple suite of apps, even though they are free.  And even mobile apps and TV services like Google Maps, Spotify, Netflix and Disney+ are more popular than Apple alternatives.  I don't think an Apple search engine will make any difference to Google.  
    gatorguy