> I just think it would be really neat if people would settle on one narrative or the other Let's start with Apple's narrative. Throughout the piece, there is

> I just think it would be really neat if people would settle on one narrative or the other Let's start with Apple's narrative. Throughout the piece, there is no direct quote mentioning any Apple innovation. The quotes are actually fairly weak: “We’ve been seeing over the last five years a growth of this inside Apple” “I loved [publishing at Microsoft Research] and published many papers. But when Siri came out I said this is a chance to make these deep neural networks all a reality” “Speech is an excellent example where we applied stuff available externally to get it off the ground.” What I get from it is that Apple has started following Google's, Microsoft's and Facebook's lead in the past five years, and has a few knowledgeable employees reusing and combining algorithms published in papers from other companies or academia. But fundamentally, the reason they perform this PR is to start being viewed as knowledgeable in the field, so that when they release self-driving cars in 2017 or 2018, the public trusts them. And to let us know that they're hiring: “Though today we certainly hire many machine learning people, we also look for people with the right core aptitudes and talents.” The hint is not subtle.