Wesley_Hilliard

bulk001 said:

Wesley Hilliard said:

9secondkox2 said:

Tim’s ai, headset, and car haven’t panned out so far. 

Would love to see a return to the days of Apple not releasing something until it’s 100% ready and captivating. I’ll give Cook’s car a pass since it was never officially announced. 

Even the watch was closely guarded. And it was a success when it finally launched. A return to form in that regard would be most welcome. 

No more public experiments and betas please. 

I'll never understand what people mean when they say this other than "I don't like it so it didn't pan out." By what metrics are you measuring the panning? 

Other than delaying one feature, Apple Intelligence is doing fine. Apple didn't promise a sentient machine like others in the space did. Is that a bad thing? Them delaying something that isn't ready instead of releasing it anyway is exactly what you're asking Apple to do, yet you're criticizing them for it.

And unless you know something about how Apple Vision Pro has done so far and Apple's expectation for the product, there's no way of knowing "how it panned out." It's been pretty awesome from my perspective.

Right you are. Now back to making your emojis or whatever emoji related feature Apple brought to its “intelligence”

Ah you're so close you might actually realize that "AI" is overhyped nonsense that increases productivity in some respects. Genmoji is actually a great example of what Apple got right with its AI initiative in spite of your sad troll attempt. I also happen to get a lot of use out of the Writing Tools function, and summaries in email, messages, and notifications help greatly with triage.

9secondkox2 said:

Tim’s ai, headset, and car haven’t panned out so far. 

Would love to see a return to the days of Apple not releasing something until it’s 100% ready and captivating. I’ll give Cook’s car a pass since it was never officially announced. 

Even the watch was closely guarded. And it was a success when it finally launched. A return to form in that regard would be most welcome. 

No more public experiments and betas please. 

I'll never understand what people mean when they say this other than "I don't like it so it didn't pan out." By what metrics are you measuring the panning? 

Fred257 said:

Whoever wrote this article is in a delusional fantasy trip…Apple Intelligence hasn’t yet materialized in the form advertised. False advertising 101. Apple deserves to be sued 

Feel free to explain what was advertised and hasn't materialized beyond the single delayed feature. And even then, that single feature wasn't promised except "in the next year."

spice-boy said:

Apple TV's content for the most part is dull, safe, mainstream, and PG. That is what broadcast TV networks have perfected the past 60 years so.... The heads are too afraid of controversy, one push to close to the edge could cost them a billion dollars with a foreign market. Apple go back to what you do well, you are not artists, there I said it.

You've clearly watched almost nothing on Apple TV+ lmao

You are all talking past each other at this point. It's really quite simple. The EU has a right to pass regulations and have Apple follow them. However, when those regulations seek to dismantle Apple's ecosystem advantage because its competitors are sad they didn't invent iMessage or AirDrop, that's a step too far.

It's one thing to push Apple to allow something that is otherwise harmless and the result of old thinking, see emulators. It's another entirely to force Apple to allow companies access to sensitive data in the name of interoperability. Meta is asking the EU for this stuff so it can track users when they switch Wi-Fi networks. Creepy. Notification allowances enable third-parties to read every app and message notification that goes to your device.

I believe Apple should open up notifications and give users a choice, but warn them that they are exposing all of their notification data to third parties like Samsung or Google. There's a middle ground here, but the EU isn't interested in hearing about how the technology works or what compromises can be made. They write laws in a vacuum without understanding what they ask for and bend to the will of other's complaints outside of Apple.

It's just not how it should work. That's the problem. Regulation isn't an issue and can be useful to consumers. But it doesn't seem like that's what the interest of the DMA is.