auxio

danox said:

9secondkox2 said:

To appreciate the vision pro, it makes no sense to revisit the first Mac. Rather revisit the oculus or the quest. The only differences are Apple is housing the compute in the device and the VP is higher quality all around. But it’s in no way some fundamentally different thing. 

It is as different as the original iPhone was to the Blackberry, Nokia, Sony, Windows Phone, Palm anything from Motorola.

And just like back then, people had too much pride and/or vested interest to see the difference.

That said, I do see it as a much more limited market than that of a mobile computer/phone/music player. It's a great replacement for various home entertainment systems (makes me think of it as the Apple television which never came to be), and that is quite a large market, but it's certainly not a "carry and use everywhere" device.

avon b7 said:

auxio said:

avon b7 said:

As an aside, I'm slowly seeing more and more YouTube ads (and longer) and constant nagging to upgrade to a paid subscription. I won't. I will simply stop using the service. Amazon Prime is going the same way. An irritating (and loud) ad every time I use a Fire Stick. More paid content mingling in with Prime Video subscription content. Price hikes across the board. WhatApp is about to get its backups integrated into Google Drive user storage. 

I think we're not far off a tipping point and a potential unsubscription wave. 

And there's the expectation that advertising-driven products have set up: everything should be free.

The reality is that it costs money to produce content: movies, TV shows, music, news, etc. So how do the people creating that content get paid? Is what they're doing not valuable (especially good quality news IMO)?

Back when the internet was first becoming a feasible way to distribute content (1990s and early 2000s), you had clever college kids creating technology companies which mass distributed content for free (ala Napster). Essentially an online version of CD/DVD bootlegging which made them quite rich at the expense of the people who created that content. And people not connected with those industries were happy because they could get things for free.

Eventually law enforcement and legitimate digital storefronts (like iTunes) were set up to ensure that content creators could have a source of income from online distribution. However, flash forward to advertising-funded digital streaming (where content is no longer purchased) and you have a similar problem. Where content creators are being paid fractions of fractions of pennies per view. Essentially negotiated to be as little as possible by the streaming service companies, and propped up by early investors who were willing to take the short term hit to grow the services for the payoff of their shares afterwards. Now that industry has come of age and the share gains aren't as big, those investors are cashing out and all that money which was propping up those services needs to come from the content itself (or ads). Hence what we're seeing today.

And now there's a backlash because the expectations have been set. This is exactly what I've been saying about the problems with advertising funded products.

There is zero issue with getting something for 'free' in exchange for my 'data' and ads. 

The issue is the amount of forced ad content. 

Like I said, I'm fairly certain that "your data and limited amount of ad viewing" wasn't enough to pay for the licensing of that content. The extra cost was being subsidized by investors who wanted to see the platform grow. Now that those investors have started taking their gains and moving on, the companies have started to put more ads in to pay for the actual cost of licensing the content (same as traditional television).

And if they are indeed going overboard in an attempt to increase profits, then that needs to be investigated and brought in line with the same advertising standards traditional television has.

gatorguy said:

auxio said:

gatorguy said:

hexclock said:

Apple goes on and on about protecting our privacy, yet wants to deepen the ties to a company that completely disregards privacy. 

Or do they? The most obvious answer would be Google doesn't disregard privacy despite the FUDity. Otherwise Apple would be dishonest about privacy too, just sneakier about it, right? 

So now the second statement where Apple is doing it too. Really, the main connection Apple has with Google monetarily is the default search engine (which can be changed). So while I'm sure they've stayed out of Google's way in terms of preventing their apps and services from harvesting data on iOS (as they did with Meta), they do offer their own versions of most of those apps and services (browser, maps, mail, calendar, auto integration, etc). So I fail to see how, by proxy, Apple would be dishonest about privacy when they have an entirely different business model and offer alternatives which protect privacy

All good comments. But don't ignore that Google too offers privacy protections well beyond what used to be available to Google services users.

Google in 2007 was far different from the 2023 company. So was Apple for that matter.

Agreed. They've found their way more towards Apple's business model via creating technology that has value beyond just advertising revenue, which I'm glad for. And maybe advertising funded technology would have happened without them, but they certainly set the path and created the model for it which many have followed since.

You will note almost all of this is also done by Apple, a testament to the hugely improved privacy and security controls Google offers today, something rarely acknowledged in AI discussions.  
But we also shouldn't take things at face value, or being done purely for our benefit, as I'm sure you agree. 
https://www.wired.com/story/apple-googles-ai-wizardry-promises-privacy-cost
There's no black and white.

That's the reality of a traditional company which relies on the sales of products and services. I'm certainly not against using competitive tactics to retain customers. Unless we move to a society where we're no longer competing with each other and working towards a common good (which is only a dream right now), there is always going to be some level of this type of customer retainment behaviour (and society/governments working to keep it from becoming anti-competitive). But I'd prefer that to companies (and often governments connected to those companies) having so much information, influence, and control over people with data collection and behaviour analysis.

avon b7 said:

As an aside, I'm slowly seeing more and more YouTube ads (and longer) and constant nagging to upgrade to a paid subscription. I won't. I will simply stop using the service. Amazon Prime is going the same way. An irritating (and loud) ad every time I use a Fire Stick. More paid content mingling in with Prime Video subscription content. Price hikes across the board. WhatApp is about to get its backups integrated into Google Drive user storage. 

I think we're not far off a tipping point and a potential unsubscription wave. 

And there's the expectation that advertising-driven products have set up: everything should be free.

The reality is that it costs money to produce content: movies, TV shows, music, news, etc. So how do the people creating that content get paid? Is what they're doing not valuable (especially good quality news IMO)?

Back when the internet was first becoming a feasible way to distribute content (1990s and early 2000s), you had clever college kids creating technology companies which mass distributed content for free (ala Napster). Essentially an online version of CD/DVD bootlegging which made them quite rich at the expense of the people who created that content. And people not connected with those industries were happy because they could get things for free.

Eventually law enforcement and legitimate digital storefronts (like iTunes) were set up to ensure that content creators could have a source of income from online distribution. However, flash forward to advertising-funded digital streaming (where content is no longer purchased) and you have a similar problem. Where content creators are being paid fractions of fractions of pennies per view. Essentially negotiated to be as little as possible by the streaming service companies, and propped up by early investors who were willing to take the short term hit to grow the services for the payoff of their shares afterwards. Now that industry has come of age and the share gains aren't as big, those investors are cashing out and all that money which was propping up those services needs to come from the content itself (or ads). Hence what we're seeing today.

And now there's a backlash because the expectations have been set. This is exactly what I've been saying about the problems with advertising funded products.

gatorguy said:

hexclock said:

Apple goes on and on about protecting our privacy, yet wants to deepen the ties to a company that completely disregards privacy. 

Or do they? The most obvious answer would be Google doesn't disregard privacy despite the FUDity. Otherwise Apple would be dishonest about privacy too, just sneakier about it, right? 

Let's break that down: taking the extreme position where Google's founders sat in a room and said "let's try to find out everything we can about everybody and get super creepy about it" is obviously not the case. However, the world of business can lead one down a path paved with the best intentions.

When you create a business model, that sets the goals for your company. And there's certainly nothing illegal about Google's business model: television and radio had been using a similar model for decades already. However, internet connected mobile devices made it possible to do things that TV and radio companies could only dream about. Those capabilities, combined with the voracious appetite of shareholders for company growth, leads an advertising driven company down paths that perhaps even those founders might not feel comfortable with. Eric Schmidt was famous for giving details about the "creepiness" of that path. One can only imagine where it's gone since then.

So now the second statement where Apple is doing it too. Really, the main connection Apple has with Google monetarily is the default search engine (which can be changed). So while I'm sure they've stayed out of Google's way in terms of preventing their apps and services from harvesting data on iOS (as they did with Meta), they do offer their own versions of most of those apps and services (browser, maps, mail, calendar, auto integration, etc). So I fail to see how, by proxy, Apple would be dishonest about privacy when they have an entirely different business model and offer alternatives which protect privacy.

And yes, under-the-hood, Apple does use a fair bit of Google-developed technology for AI and similar. Which I believe is really what Cook was talking about: being technology partners. We all well understand that Apple and Google have some of the brightest engineers on the planet, and so it makes sense that they combine efforts to help move things forward. The key is that the paths of the companies are different. Apple is following the ideals of the people who were at the birth of digital technology to "enhance human abilities" (ala Vannevar Bush, Doug Engelbart, etc who Jobs admired) and make it possible to do things we couldn't before with their products. And while Google may too indeed aspire to those same ideals, the reality of their business model is that, when push comes to shove, they need to spend a fair bit of engineering effort figuring out ways to grow their advertising business. Which usually includes figuring out ways to gather more data about people, or better use the data they already have.

Sure one can spin it as, "well look at all the great advances in AI which has come out of that path". And perhaps all the data gathering and analysis technology has been accelerated by advertising. But I'd argue that it would have happened anyway since the ideas were already coming out of academia (AI and ML are not new) and simply waiting for the computing hardware to make them feasible (other companies were developing NPU technology too).

So really, there's a whole lot of spin being served up to gloss over the fact that the fundamental business models of Apple and Google are very different. And while Google fans try so hard to say that Apple is the same (and present things from all sorts of angles to do so), the reality is that the business model makes all the difference in the world.