Javert24601

sflocal said:

daven said:

Meanwhile, Apple CarPlay isn’t even allowed on Teslas.

This was the first thing I thought of when I started reading.  Tesla's cars are a closed system.  Just like the Apple iPhone.  Tesla controls all software that runs in their cars.  Just like Apple's App Store.

Yet somehow Musk believes that Apple should be forced to open its ecosystem more.  I say allow Apple Play in your cars and then let's talk.

You are making false equivalency.  Yes, Tesla's cars are a closed system.  The Apple iPhone, on the other hand, is a walled garden by the mere fact that it offers the App Store, where third party companies can write programs to run on the iPhone.  As such, Apple must treat all third party companies the same with identical rules.  If Apple isn't treating companies by the same rules and is actually showing preference to one company over another, then jilted companies have a legitimate complaint.  Teslas do not support both Android Auto nor Apple CarPlay, so you can say Tesla is treating all parties fairly.  I don't know enough about the App Store, e.g. if they offer developers different tiers of service, which may be extenuating circumstances.

Fred257 said:

All I would like is better dictation and a little more control over my apps using my voice.  I had a Pixel 6 and it did all of this flawlessly.  That was 4 years ago 

This is why the upgraded Siri debacle is so embarrassing and devastating.  It just shows how Apple cannot multitask but just cycle through a couple of products at a time.

What this Friday meeting missed is any discussion about the lack of accountability inside the company.  And, they couldn't help themselves and had to "brag" how upgraded Siri is a "bigger upgrade than envisioned".  <rolling eyes>  They are still trying to use it to push sales, but since it wasn't advertised at 2025 WWDC, they can't be sued over it.  People, don't fall for it and wait until it is actually released.  And, even then since there will be massive bugs in it, you might as well wait for the iPhone 18 with its 16Gb RAM, which will run AI much better anyways.

Tim Crook needs to be fired.

camber said:

Ah yes, enter the world of US lawyers where anyone can sue anyone else without so much as that little thing called evidence. With Moree lawyers per capita than any other country in the world it is little wonder that such law suits continue to plague the industry and thee courts.

I'm not a fan of lawyers, but they do serve a legitimate function in holding companies accountable.  The evidence is Apple's announcement at WWDC 2024 with upgraded Siiri "coming later in the year".  So, unless Apple delivers it before 09/16/25, then Apple lied to its customers and shareholders.  Everyone was led to believe that Apple was just putting the final touches on upgraded Siri, which is why they were pre-announcing it.  Instead, upgraded Siri didn't work or, more realistically, never existed.  Shame on Apple!  They were desperate to have something new for 2024, and they knew they were behind on AI, so they tried to pull this bait and switch.  Just like there is nothing major for 2025, so they are trying to rush out this GUI change.  The company is broken, and the responsibility lies at the top with Tim Crook.  He had the opportunity to hold Giannandrea accountable, but instead, he just changed job roles.  Have you noticed that Tim hasn't fired anyone at Apple?  How can the leader of a company not fire anyone during his tenure?  Weak leadership.  A true leader rewards people who excel but also holds people accountable for their massive fails.  And, Giannandrea did massively fail with Siri, which Apple has neglected for 15 years.  Furthermore, Apple's Board is refusing to hold Tim Crook responsible and is even considering giving him the title of Chairman.  <rolling eyes>  So, how else are shareholders and customer supposed to hold Apple accountable for lying about upgraded Siri.  Well, here comes the lawyers, and I am cheering for them.

Wesley's article is a wandering mess. and has the feel of an Apple fanboy, which we all are to some extent.

I would certainly differentiate Apple's previous "machine learning" with its neural chip vs. "Apple Intelligence".  I think the article conflates the two, and perhaps, I'm making more of a distinction than there really is.  The reason I differentiate between the two is that the former is really more behind the scenes, and Apple has been dedicating time, effort, and money to developing it.  However, the latter is what Apple came up when it realized how utterly behind it was on AI because Giannandrea was disconnected from the industry's emphasis on LLMs , which is why Siri never evolved.  So, the leadership scrambled and came up with "Apple Intelligence" to make a more overt attempt at pushing "AI" to users.  Mind you, the latter is what Apple sold the public on; pundits did not push their opinions or wishes; Apple advertised those Apple Intelligence features.  And, it delivered junk and even failed to deliver the debacle that is "smarter Siri".  Furthermore, "Apple's strategy in the space is to get out of the way and offer the technology in ways that enhance the user experience without always shouting that it is an AI feature" is exactly the former "machine learning" strategy.  However, again, the public is expecting the more overt AI interactions, which is why I believe there needs to be a distinction between "machine learning" and "Apple Intelligence".  Apple did well with the former but utterly failed to anticipate the latter.

blurpbleepbloop said:

Johar said:

In what bizarro universe are veteran operations guys responsible for design - particularly in a company built entirely on its reputation for groundbreaking design? Why is Apple seemingly so terrified of bringing in new blood? The stagnation and lack of forward looking design ideas is gradually eroding the Apple brand.

Agreed with you that Tim in charge of design is far from optimal. But, regarding bringing in new blood, I think it is extraordinarily difficult for companies like Apple, and maybe more so for Apple in particular, to bring in in effective new leadership. Look at their track record. People that, on paper, looked liked they had all the right checkboxes ticked just have not or did not deliver (and probably cost Apple a pretty penny. In strict monetary remuneration it’s been pretty big bucks but nothing compared to the opportunity costs of failed or stalled initiatives.
Apple does best when it’s able to promote from within, but that appears to be happening less and less as they seem to want to present leadership that looks the part over people that really are invested to making great products.

Which again goes to my conviction that Tim Cook must be fired.  He lacks leadership.  He continually fails to hold people accountable, which is integral to leadership and prevents him from taking risk.  He hired that former Google AI guy, who completely failed in modernizing Siri, but instead of firing him for his failure, he was "reshuffled".  Why?  That division head failed big time resulting in a huge embarrassment to the company and several class action lawsuits, and he only deserved to be "reshuffled"?  Hold people accountable!  

Apple has such a chronologically old leadership team.  I completely agree with the above two comments that Apple needs new blood to revitalize its design ideas.  The company also needs to be restructured, so it can focus on more than 3-5 products at one time.  Apple is rapidly becoming IBM of yore, resting on its laurels.  What was the innovation from this past year?  Apple Intelligence was a completely failure, delivering no tools useful in real life.  What's the innovation this year?  It's a GUI refresh.  <rolling eyes>  Do you know what company (relatively) recently did a GUI refresh with a "glass interface"? Microsoft.  So, Apple is trying to emulate Microsoft now? <rolling eyes>   Hire/promote younger people to bring a new perspective on project and more youthful energy to spur innovation.  A new orange color for the iPhone 17 Pro is hardly innovation.