mpantone

First of all Apple is not bringing back the iPhone mini. Let it go. I'm one of a very, Very, VERY small group of people who prefer smaller phones. Apple has sold smaller phones for years, they know exactly how many they sold and how the demand curve was trending before they canned the iPhone 13 mini.

As for the other iPhone models, I predict that any iPhone with only one rear camera will end up selling poorly. Poor sales of iPhone 16e in India shows that even price-conscious markets will lean toward an older iPhone with multiple rear cameras versus the current entry level 16e model.

That's because Joe Consumer all over the world prioritizes these features: camera, display, battery.

mikethemartian said:

Their playbook was to announce a bunch of features a year ago that they couldn't deliver on.

None of these features were really expected to move the needle in terms of Apple's fiscal performance. So while the fact that Apple fell off their timeline, it probably won't hurt them too much in the long run. And Apple does prioritize user privacy (which I appreciate) so they are always a step or two behind.

Most of the currently deployed Apple Intelligence features are pretty lackluster. Some of them work some of the time but there's no killer app or killer feature. In the end, most consumer AI functionality is smoke-and-mirrors.

But yes, they should have been more cautious about what they announced. My gut feeling is they really expected to deliver but belatedly discovered that getting these features to typical Apple polish was harder than they expected. We've seen periodic stumbles from Apple, after all, they are human.

Generally the better practice is: "under promise, over deliver" IMHO. But I'm not running the CEO of a Fortune 5 company.

Consumer use of AI chatbots and AI assistants is real otherwise no one would be downloading and using ChatGPT. There's something of a generational gap for usage. Zoomers are using AI heavily for school (and their teachers are quite aware of it and are using their own AI tools to detect AI usage). Boomers, Generation X, and early Millennials use AI tools far less frequently.

AI saves time for many tasks. It doesn't make anyone smarter, it just makes them more efficient. What someone does with their newly gained free time is something else. If you use it to read and learn new topics, yes, you can get smarter. If you just sink your extra free time just watching TikToks, well, I don't know about.

Having AI write your work e-mails doesn't make you understand your business any better. Nor does it help improve your language and communication skills. It might smooth things over with your colleagues but it won't help you come up with bright ideas on how to better the place you work.

Anyhow, yes, all of these companies are fighting over a limited pool of talent. Some top level AI engineer working on a model at Meta isn't helping Apple get their model improved. Yes, hiring the best people does matter which why these people are being paid more than minimum wage or even many other people in the same company.

It's also important to reiterate that consumer AI business is actually turning a profit right now. Everyone is running at a loss right now, including OpenAI (operators of ChatGPT, the most popular consumer AI service). All of these companies are trying to set a foundational framework for future success and profit. It's a marathon not a sprint and Apple's mission of protecting user privacy is always going to put them at a disadvantage compared to their competitors who make the lion's share of their profits by selling user activity data (Alphabet, Meta).

Apple's senior management knows how bad Siri is. Even the "improved" Siri they were developing wasn't good enough so it was postponed to some future release date. Apple's years of neglect of Siri is now utterly and completely crystal clear.

California is an at-will employment state. Employees are free to come and go as they please. Likewise, employers can RIF anyone with the simple words "Position X has been eliminated." Also, non-compete clauses in employment contracts are effectively unenforceable in California.

When there's a hot job market (like AI) it's easy for an employer to wave money and benefits at potential hires. These companies are all competing for the same limited pool of candidates. Ultimately people of this caliber are going to go where they can go to work on projects that they find interesting. Sure, the money is important but it's not the only thing. Getting paid a lot and being miserable in your position is not tolerable for very long when there are so many alternatives available in landscape that's moving at light speed.

The pictured John Giannandrea was formerly with Google before he joined Apple. Many of these people jump ship. In fact, it's a pretty well accepted understanding that an easy to advance your career is to go somewhere else. After all that's really how Silicon Valley came to be. Note that some people aren't joining the big players, they are going to startups, often in stealth mode. For fast moving technology like AI, a small, more nimble organization can make more adjustments, change course more rapidly than Fortune 50 company.

Apple -- like all high-tech companies -- has used "golden handcuffs" for decades (currently RSUs, previously stock option grants) to retain employees. But in the current AI employment market, leaving behind a bunch of unvested RSUs might be acceptable if there's the promise of more RSUs elsewhere at a place that is offering more interesting work (a reason to get up in the morning).

All of these companies are challenged to make these positions and assignments interesting for this highly prized talent. At some point, something else will step into the limelight and AI industry employment will normalize but right now, it's a true battle for top level talent.

Let's be clear that no one is profitably running a consumer AI business right now. It's also important to note that IRS regulation changes a few years ago have prompted many companies (not just high tech) to let go of some employees involved in R&D. So there are other forces in play beyond just paying someone a buck more than the competition.

The fact that Apple grew its AI group very rapidly shows how much they realized that they were caught off guard. Apple's hiring pace is typically extremely slow and deliberate compared to the competition. Note that they had basically no mass layoffs like others a few years ago because they did not hire like crazy.

anthogag said:

I am glad Apple is suing Prosser. Shut him up. 

What will sites like Macrumors do if loser leakers like Prosser are finally muzzled. They may go dark. 

ALL Apple news sites including AppleInsider -- not just MacRumors -- rely in part on publishing rumors. There's not enough Apple news volume to sustain a site if they just publish actual facts or discussed released hardware and software. If AppleInsider stopped publishing rumors my guess is that site traffic would fall off by three quarters.

Hell, this site posted a security warning about customer data privacy breaches at Qantas which had ZERO to do with Apple, iPhone, Mac, or anything tied to Apple. This site has repeatedly posted articles about security breaches that are written as though the problems are specific to Apple users even when they are NOT.

Note that the more absurd and farcical rumors seem to get more pageviews and reader engagement. There's a balance between publishing what everyone else is publishing and losing any modicum of journalistic integrity. That's why I have repeatedly suggested that AppleInsider and other news sites use a quantitative rumor scoring system like the StarMine system used for financial ANALysts. People who make money from predictions should be graded on their track record.

For many years this site used to slavishly report anything that ANALyst Gene Munster (often referring to him as "legendary analyst Gene Munster") used to spew until it became an SNL parody of itself.

News sites walk on a very narrow tightrope of driving pageviews and risking credibility.

Note that Prosser got the rumor right. He is accused of getting his information illegally. That's different than just making wild-arsed guesses and regurgitating it on the Internet. But for some of these rumor mongers, they don't have good inside sources so they just fabricate their "content".

AppleInsider is not immune from the same rumor-related factors that influence MacRumors, 9to5Mac, The Mac Observer, CNET, whatever.