5 ms·

I'm not sure I follow: Both Apple and Amazon are working on AI as we speak. They're just not following the popular approach of releasing a chatbot in the wild.

I'm not sure I follow: Both Apple and Amazon are working on AI as we speak. They're just not following the popular approach of releasing a chatbot in the wild. Apple is focusing on a privacy-first approach with smaller models that run locally. Amazon is tying it's models to an AWS subscription and incentivizing use by offering discounts, making it cheaper to use their models over GPT, Opus, etc.

gmays 1y ago
Right, but remember Microsoft was 'working on' mobile also. The issue is that they're working on it the wrong way. Amazon is focused on price and treating it like a commodity. Apple trying to keep the iPhone at the center of everything. Thus neither are fully committing to the paradigm shift because they say it is, but not acting like it because their existing strategy/culture precludes them from doing so.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  Well no Alexa plus is the first LLM to integrate with the smart home in a big way. Aws is making strides but in a different area.
- glitchc 1y ago
  > Apple trying to keep iPhone at the centre of everything. Mac, iPad and iPhone, eventually Watch and Vision. Which makes sense since Apple is first and foremost a hardware company.
- fruitworks 1y ago
  it is a commodity. that's the paradigm shift. there is no moat
- 9rx 1y ago
  > The issue is that they're working on it the wrong way. So is everyone else, to be fair. Chat is a horrible way to interact with computers — and even if we accept worse is better its only viable future is to include ads in the responses. That isn't a game Apple is going to want to play. They are a hardware company. More likely someday we'll get the "iPhone moment" when we realize all previous efforts were misguided. Can Apple rise up then? That remains to be seen, but it will likely be someone unexpected. Look at any successful business venture and the eventual "winner" is usually someone who sat back and watched all the mistakes be made first.
  - nailer 1y ago
    > Chat is a horrible way to interact with computers Why? We interact with people via chat when possible. It seems pretty clear that's humanity's preferred ineraction model.
    - 9rx 1y ago
      We begrudgingly accept chat as the lowest common denominator when there is no better option, but it's clear we don't prefer it when better options are available. Just look in any fast food restaurant that has adopted those ordering terminals and see how many are still lining up at the counter to chat with the cashier... In fact, McDonalds found that their sales rose by 30% when they eliminated chatting from the process, so clearly people found it to be a hinderance. We don't know what is better for this technology yet, so it stands to reason that we reverted to the lowest common denominator again, but there is no reason why we will or will want to stay there. Someone is bound to figure out a better way. Maybe even Apple. That business was built on being late to the party. Although, granted, it remains to be seen if that is something it can continue with absent of Jobs.
      - nailer 1y ago
        > In fact, McDonalds found that their sales rose by 30% when they eliminated chatting from the process, so clearly people found it to be a hinderance. That's a good supporting argument, but I don't think McDonald's adequately represents more complex discussions.
        9rx 1y ago
        What is representative, though, is simple use: All you have to do is use chat to see how awful it is. It is better than nothing. It is arguably the best we have right now to make use of the technology. But, unless this is AI thing is all hype and goes nowhere, smart minds aren't going to sit idle as progression moves towards maturity.
        1y ago
twobitshifter 1y ago
Apple is not focusing on AI with any real emphasis. The engineers asked for $50B to train a model and Apple instead did stock buybacks. The stock kept underperforming and so they touted apple intelligence and a revamped Siri, only for it to fall flat. Siri was underinvested in for many years and should be at least as good as Claude or ChatGPT. ‘They’re not investing in a chatbot’ is a huge miss by apple who had a chatbot on everyone’s devices and a headstart on the whole concept.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > The engineers asked for $50B to train a model and Apple instead did stock buybacks. It is probably cheaper to simply integrate with OpenAI or Anthropic or whoever might unseat them in the future, than spend $50B on training a model. Not only is it cheaper, but it also gives them the flexibility to ride the wave of popularity, without ceding hardware or software sales.
  - zimpenfish 1y ago
    > Not only is it cheaper, but it also gives them the flexibility to ride the wave And also to hop off without any penalty if/when the wave collapses.
  - twobitshifter 1y ago
    And in that is the issue, Apple does not believe they could do better than Google, Meta, xAI, Anthropic, or OpenAI. They are paying Google rather than building out their own products. Pre-Tim, Apple was pouring profits back into R&D but now the priority is rewarding shareholders.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      > They are paying Google rather than building out their own products. This is the real death knell people should focus on. Apple buried their AI R&D to rush complete flops like Vision Pro out the door. Now that the dust has settled, the opportunity cost of these hardware ventures was clearly a mistake. Apple had more than a decade to sharpen their knives and prepare for war with Nvidia, and now they're missing out on Nvidia's share of the datacenter market. Adding insult to injury, they're probably also ~10 years behind SOTA in the industry unless they hire well-paid veterans at great expense. Apple's chronic disdain for unprofitable products, combined with boneheaded ambition, will be the death of them. They cannot obviate real innovation and competition while dropping nothingburger software and hardware products clearly intended to bilk an unconscious userbase.

gmays 1y ago

Right, but remember Microsoft was 'working on' mobile also. The issue is that they're working on it the wrong way. Amazon is focused on price and treating it like a commodity. Apple trying to keep the iPhone at the center of everything. Thus neither are fully committing to the paradigm shift because they say it is, but not acting like it because their existing strategy/culture precludes them from doing so.

ninetyninenine 1y ago
Well no Alexa plus is the first LLM to integrate with the smart home in a big way. Aws is making strides but in a different area.
glitchc 1y ago
> Apple trying to keep iPhone at the centre of everything. Mac, iPad and iPhone, eventually Watch and Vision. Which makes sense since Apple is first and foremost a hardware company.
fruitworks 1y ago
it is a commodity. that's the paradigm shift. there is no moat
9rx 1y ago
> The issue is that they're working on it the wrong way. So is everyone else, to be fair. Chat is a horrible way to interact with computers — and even if we accept worse is better its only viable future is to include ads in the responses. That isn't a game Apple is going to want to play. They are a hardware company. More likely someday we'll get the "iPhone moment" when we realize all previous efforts were misguided. Can Apple rise up then? That remains to be seen, but it will likely be someone unexpected. Look at any successful business venture and the eventual "winner" is usually someone who sat back and watched all the mistakes be made first.
- nailer 1y ago
  > Chat is a horrible way to interact with computers Why? We interact with people via chat when possible. It seems pretty clear that's humanity's preferred ineraction model.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    We begrudgingly accept chat as the lowest common denominator when there is no better option, but it's clear we don't prefer it when better options are available. Just look in any fast food restaurant that has adopted those ordering terminals and see how many are still lining up at the counter to chat with the cashier... In fact, McDonalds found that their sales rose by 30% when they eliminated chatting from the process, so clearly people found it to be a hinderance. We don't know what is better for this technology yet, so it stands to reason that we reverted to the lowest common denominator again, but there is no reason why we will or will want to stay there. Someone is bound to figure out a better way. Maybe even Apple. That business was built on being late to the party. Although, granted, it remains to be seen if that is something it can continue with absent of Jobs.
    - nailer 1y ago
      > In fact, McDonalds found that their sales rose by 30% when they eliminated chatting from the process, so clearly people found it to be a hinderance. That's a good supporting argument, but I don't think McDonald's adequately represents more complex discussions.
      - 9rx 1y ago
        What is representative, though, is simple use: All you have to do is use chat to see how awful it is. It is better than nothing. It is arguably the best we have right now to make use of the technology. But, unless this is AI thing is all hype and goes nowhere, smart minds aren't going to sit idle as progression moves towards maturity.
        1y ago

twobitshifter 1y ago

Apple is not focusing on AI with any real emphasis. The engineers asked for $50B to train a model and Apple instead did stock buybacks. The stock kept underperforming and so they touted apple intelligence and a revamped Siri, only for it to fall flat. Siri was underinvested in for many years and should be at least as good as Claude or ChatGPT. ‘They’re not investing in a chatbot’ is a huge miss by apple who had a chatbot on everyone’s devices and a headstart on the whole concept.

andsoitis 1y ago
> The engineers asked for $50B to train a model and Apple instead did stock buybacks. It is probably cheaper to simply integrate with OpenAI or Anthropic or whoever might unseat them in the future, than spend $50B on training a model. Not only is it cheaper, but it also gives them the flexibility to ride the wave of popularity, without ceding hardware or software sales.
- zimpenfish 1y ago
  > Not only is it cheaper, but it also gives them the flexibility to ride the wave And also to hop off without any penalty if/when the wave collapses.
- twobitshifter 1y ago
  And in that is the issue, Apple does not believe they could do better than Google, Meta, xAI, Anthropic, or OpenAI. They are paying Google rather than building out their own products. Pre-Tim, Apple was pouring profits back into R&D but now the priority is rewarding shareholders.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    > They are paying Google rather than building out their own products. This is the real death knell people should focus on. Apple buried their AI R&D to rush complete flops like Vision Pro out the door. Now that the dust has settled, the opportunity cost of these hardware ventures was clearly a mistake. Apple had more than a decade to sharpen their knives and prepare for war with Nvidia, and now they're missing out on Nvidia's share of the datacenter market. Adding insult to injury, they're probably also ~10 years behind SOTA in the industry unless they hire well-paid veterans at great expense. Apple's chronic disdain for unprofitable products, combined with boneheaded ambition, will be the death of them. They cannot obviate real innovation and competition while dropping nothingburger software and hardware products clearly intended to bilk an unconscious userbase.