3 ms·

Sure; but I feel that its a bit unfair to poo poo Google's strategy when, at least, they have a strategy; and there are AI features Google has released that I'v

by 015a 2y ago

Sure; but I feel that its a bit unfair to poo poo Google's strategy when, at least, they have a strategy; and there are AI features Google has released that I've actually seen normal people mention once or twice. Their AI call handling thing and the "ask Gemini to summarize a youtube video" feature come to mind. Bringing up Google's imagegen features as something no one wants is reasonable: But Apple is releasing a copy-cat app under the Apple Intelligence banner. Is Genmoji a gimmick? That's an Apple feature, not Google. So, again: I think the assertion that "Apple is late but does it right" is totally invalid when applied to AI, because there is no way to do it right, because no one wants it. You can at least be first and capture some vaporware market hype, but Apple is going to have a come-to-jesus moment next year when they have little new to announce, because they're still releasing features they pre-announced in 2024.

39896880 2y ago
>So, again: I think the assertion that "Apple is late but does it right" is totally invalid when applied to AI, because there is no way to do it right, because no one wants it. No one wants "Artificial Intelligence," but it's unclear if they want the features that it will drive -- i.e., "Apple Intelligence." This is something that can't be known for sure until the features are released and the companies that make them get analytics on them. For now, the very conservative set of features that comprise "Apple Intelligence" are reasonable in that they easily slot into the workflow of users by enhancing or making easier things that people already do. The fact that they are not impressive like what Google or Meta is doing is only important to people who either live their life on the cutting edge of technology or are tech investors. For the people buying phones every 3-5 years (as opposed to every 1 or 2), the story is yet to be written. I think Apple has a hard line to walk here. They have project progress to investors so the stock will continue to rise, and they have to be the thoughtful curator of features that the customers demand -- that second impulse is what gave rise to the reputation that drove the stock originally. Apple Intelligence really should have been kept in the oven until WWDC '25, because it's not clear that any of them really require external developers to make happen. But Apple had to keep the impression that they are 'doing something with AI,' and now they're stuck doing what they typically haven't done: promising things that clearly aren't ready. This puts them in the same league as, i.e., Google. Google labelled Gmail as "Beta" for half a decade (April 1, 2004 to July 7, 2009), and now has a reputation for shipping quarter-baked, basically-Alpha projects and then killing the ones that don't catch on.

by 015a 2y ago

39896880 2y ago

>So, again: I think the assertion that "Apple is late but does it right" is totally invalid when applied to AI, because there is no way to do it right, because no one wants it. No one wants "Artificial Intelligence," but it's unclear if they want the features that it will drive -- i.e., "Apple Intelligence." This is something that can't be known for sure until the features are released and the companies that make them get analytics on them. For now, the very conservative set of features that comprise "Apple Intelligence" are reasonable in that they easily slot into the workflow of users by enhancing or making easier things that people already do. The fact that they are not impressive like what Google or Meta is doing is only important to people who either live their life on the cutting edge of technology or are tech investors. For the people buying phones every 3-5 years (as opposed to every 1 or 2), the story is yet to be written. I think Apple has a hard line to walk here. They have project progress to investors so the stock will continue to rise, and they have to be the thoughtful curator of features that the customers demand -- that second impulse is what gave rise to the reputation that drove the stock originally. Apple Intelligence really should have been kept in the oven until WWDC '25, because it's not clear that any of them really require external developers to make happen. But Apple had to keep the impression that they are 'doing something with AI,' and now they're stuck doing what they typically haven't done: promising things that clearly aren't ready. This puts them in the same league as, i.e., Google. Google labelled Gmail as "Beta" for half a decade (April 1, 2004 to July 7, 2009), and now has a reputation for shipping quarter-baked, basically-Alpha projects and then killing the ones that don't catch on.