Wesley Hilliard

robjn said:

The article comments “ It removes a potential revenue stream (one these companies seem to have no intention of pursing anyway)”

I for one pay a subscription to Nintendo just to be able to play all the old games. Software piracy costs Nintendo. It’s a crime, plain and simple.
 

It's a complicated topic. Yes, Nintendo has a small library of old titles available via a subscription. Sony and Xbox have similar efforts. But these are but a subset of the available games on the market. Of the 393 N64 games that were released, only a paltry dozen or so are on Nintendo's online services.

Emulators are about more than piracy, they are about preserving gaming history. These companies could place a financial interest in actually preserving this history rather than throwing their hands up at silly copyright battles. There's nothing stopping Sony and Nintendo from building their own emulators for iPhone and charging for the emulator and optimized versions of ROMs while keeping the door open for user-provided ROMs.

22july2013 said:

Apple's upcoming AI might not require a remote server to process its AI logic, but it will require an Internet connection to find many kinds of answers. Contrary to what many people seem to think, LLMs do not contain an entire copy of the Internet within them.

I think that is a misconception too. People hear "AI" and think "smart search engine." That isn't the case. A good local model can function entirely on device with no need to reference anything from the internet.

The idea is that the model will be able to perform actions and make decisions without internet connections or privacy violating calls. Instead, the user will be able to perform actions to analyze requests, data, or other input and rely entirely on the logic of the AI.

Now, if you want to ask a question or have an image generated, that's where server-based AI comes in. And it seems Apple has no interest in developing one, at least not yet.

robjn said:

i don’t see a link in this article to where Apple made these comments. perhaps someone can point it out to me.

Apple made the comments directly to AppleInsider and other publications.

dk49 said:

I find this low margin argument BS. Are you saying that Apple executives didn't knew about the existing low margins in the car industry when they started? Ofcourse they did. But like every category Apple enters, they must have thought of commanding a high premium based on some industry leading design, innovative features, and something not seen in the industry before. 

The auto industry is low margin, yes. Apple of course knew this. But the industry is trending to even lower margins in a race to the bottom. Apple has no interest participating in that. That's new. That's what changed.

Massiveattack87 said:

Just ridiculous and "doomed" actions by AAPL. 

It seems like you didn't read the proposals, Apple's responses to the proposals, and have no idea what Apple already does in terms of human rights, liberties, gender pay gaps, and other issues. Apple leads the way in most of these issues.

Apple isn't going to reveal internal secrets about what it is working on. It would endanger the products and shareholders know that.

I recommend reading up on these things. Apple publishes a lot of material that can tell you everything you need to know about how it conducts business.