>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

>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.