phillyfanatic09

LLMs aren’t sentient. They look for patterns in the query and then apply algorithms to those patterns to identify details that then are used to search databases or perform functions. LLMs can’t learn. If the data they search contains errors, they will report wrong answers. Essentially they are speech recognition engines paired with limited data retrieval and language generation capabilities.

Apple is a for profit company that can enter or leave markets as they see fit. If they don’t want to deploy AI in Europe that’s a business decision. It may be good or bad but it’s their right.

I’m always amazed at the criticism around these events. I’m not sure what the critics actually want. A phone that wipes for you?

 Samsung is infamous for throwing out new features that are half-baked but make a splash only to have them disappear in a generation or two. Sometimes they get refined to be generally useful as well. That’s not Apple.

The Dynamic Island, Action Button and now the Capture Button are all useful, if not earthshaking innovations. Crash Detection, Satellite SOS and now messaging are invaluable if you need them. Hardware Ray Tracing. Even USB C on the Pro Phones is far more capable than just charging and simple data transfer. 

US tech companies are easy targets for EU regulators as there are few European competitors. While many of the regulations are meant to benefit European consumers, the EU has clearly put their thumb on the scale to benefit Apple’s competitors - particularly Spotify.

Apple was wise to withhold Apple Intelligence from the EU as that technology seems particularly likely to run afoul of the EU philosophy of forcing American tech companies to operate mainly as a hosting platform for their competitors.

Apple’s technology fee is an effort to counter this but probably won’t survive the EU Courts. Perhaps Apple will shift costs to EU consumers by charging for services and (non-security) OS updates. If they do, Google will likely follow suit. I suppose Europe could regulate this by specifying exactly what tech companies can charge and for what but eventually there will be retaliation from the US.

“What Apple is doing is like an automaker saying you can't put gas in your tank unless they get 30% of what you pay for every gallon, and if they don't approve the gas station you can't put the nozzle in the fill port.“

A poor analogy. The electricity you charge your devices battery is analogous to the gasoline. Apple doesn’t get a cut of that. But the bigger problem is that the whole car analogy doesn’t fit the phone market. Companies like Spotify want to place a free app in Apple’s App Store, pay nothing for access to Apple’s customer base and services while profiting off of the same.

A better car analogy would be for a company like SiriusXM to demand that Ford place it’s products in Ford’s showrooms for free, allow Ford’s customers to install their product in Ford’s cars without any compensation. Or that Coke should be able to put their machines in McDonalds for free and profit off McDonald’s customers.