4 ms·

There is only one way to win and that is to publish. Innovation in this field doesn't happen in a vacuum but by multiple simpler components combine in ever more

There is only one way to win and that is to publish. Innovation in this field doesn't happen in a vacuum but by multiple simpler components combine in ever more emerging complexity.

throwanem 10y ago
Perhaps they seek to win a game other than the one you have in mind.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  I don't think there are any other game to win for a company like Apple.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Is it possible that this thought does not accurately reflect the reality of the matter?
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      Sure but I doubt it. Any company who want to win in the long run will have to take control of machine learning as a central part of their culture.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        Which would appear to be what this article describes them doing.
c0g 10y ago
Apple can free ride on other people publishing and synthesise in house. The field might lose out (but there are always free riders) but does Apple?
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > The field might lose out (but there are always free riders) but does Apple? Yes - those in the field who prefer to publish will not be willing to join Apple. How much of an opportunity cost this is to Apple remains an open question.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    In the article, Apple spun that as an advantage. > “Our practices tend to reinforce a natural selection bias — those who are interested in working as a team to deliver a great product versus those whose primary motivation is publishing,” says Federighi. And I think they may be right. Researchers often aren't the best product creators.
    - Chronic9q 10y ago
      > Researchers often aren't the best product creators. You NEED researchers to build a robust autonomous vehicle or speech recognition system. Hell, you know how many electrical and materials scientists they have working on the iPhone? Physical products actually requires science and research. Designing a responsive landing page does not.
      - leereeves 10y ago
        You need people who understand the science but whose primary focus is developing the product, not developing new theory. Edison and Ford vs Einstein and Faraday.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > “Our practices tend to reinforce a natural selection bias — those who are interested in working as a team to deliver a great product versus those whose primary motivation is publishing,” This is a blatantly false dichotomy: there's nothing about publishing that precludes anyone from "working as a team to deliver a great product" > Researchers often aren't the best product creators. Tell that to Andrew Ng!

There is only one way to win and that is to publish. Innovation in this field doesn't happen in a vacuum but by multiple simpler components combine in ever more emerging complexity.

throwanem 10y ago

Perhaps they seek to win a game other than the one you have in mind.

ThomPete 10y ago
I don't think there are any other game to win for a company like Apple.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Is it possible that this thought does not accurately reflect the reality of the matter?
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Sure but I doubt it. Any company who want to win in the long run will have to take control of machine learning as a central part of their culture.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Which would appear to be what this article describes them doing.

c0g 10y ago

Apple can free ride on other people publishing and synthesise in house. The field might lose out (but there are always free riders) but does Apple?

sangnoir 10y ago
> The field might lose out (but there are always free riders) but does Apple? Yes - those in the field who prefer to publish will not be willing to join Apple. How much of an opportunity cost this is to Apple remains an open question.
- leereeves 10y ago
  In the article, Apple spun that as an advantage. > “Our practices tend to reinforce a natural selection bias — those who are interested in working as a team to deliver a great product versus those whose primary motivation is publishing,” says Federighi. And I think they may be right. Researchers often aren't the best product creators.
  - Chronic9q 10y ago
    > Researchers often aren't the best product creators. You NEED researchers to build a robust autonomous vehicle or speech recognition system. Hell, you know how many electrical and materials scientists they have working on the iPhone? Physical products actually requires science and research. Designing a responsive landing page does not.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      You need people who understand the science but whose primary focus is developing the product, not developing new theory. Edison and Ford vs Einstein and Faraday.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > “Our practices tend to reinforce a natural selection bias — those who are interested in working as a team to deliver a great product versus those whose primary motivation is publishing,” This is a blatantly false dichotomy: there's nothing about publishing that precludes anyone from "working as a team to deliver a great product" > Researchers often aren't the best product creators. Tell that to Andrew Ng!