It seems to me they refined someone else's ideas not innovated them. SJ was a self-confessed collector (cough cough) of other peoples work.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Culture of Secrecy Slowing its Artificial Intelligence Development
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It seems to me they refined someone else's ideas not innovated them. SJ was a self-confessed collector (cough cough) of other peoples work.
Because no technology company besides Apple acquires other companies? Google acquiring companies like Motorola, Waze, Boston Dynamics, Nest etc. doesn't count?How you people can defend a company that doesn't want to innovate is beyond me. Buying up companies in place of innovation is not the future but hey ho! I'm sure you business orientated Apple fans know what you are talking about.
I'm not into AI that much like Schmidt claim to be, like let machine do a music playlist for you. I don't think Apple is fully support such silliness either. I could be wrong but if ever Apple was behind in such program. All they have to do is start buying start-up companies like they did with SIRI, when they think they really need it.
If they are not behind as the article suggests and are instead well ahead as the majority of the comments suggest, when do the posters think they will release some of the magic? Siri, as many of us are painfully aware, is useless at even some of the most basic interactions. What are they saving their advancements for? iPhone 7? They may very well have all this amazing AI IP locked away but man are they good at fooling everyone based on what they are releasing.
Last edited:
But it's wealth accumulated primarily from Jobs-era legacy products and derivatives. It's almost like saying, a trust fund kid has business-sense because he's rich.
IF Apple was still pushing some fresh ideas based on the old "super secret" model you'd have a point, but innovation out of Apple Post-Jobs is muted and, frankly, on-par with the rest of the industry at best. It almost comes down to a GUI preference or the system one is locked into these days.
It irritated me when Apple cut us from using Siri on the i4 even though it worked fine until that "day" just after the 4S announcement.
This article is put together so poorly. Apple's stance on secrecy has nothing to do with Maps. Equally, to use Maps as a lagging product is so cliche because I'm pretty sure for most users, Apple Maps is on par with Google Maps. This notion that it lags stinks of lazy writing.
Based on their recent historical endeavors... I'm not buying that Apple is ahead of the AI game.
One of the "dreads" in new technology is the thought that a company, military, or government is going to "black box" your idea and hide it from the light of day. No external collaberation. Limited validation. The exclusion of name or achievement recognition.
I wish Apple all the luck. I just don't think they can pull this off in any successful meaningful way. I hope I am wrong.
- Apple Maps - oops
- Ping - oops
- Facetime - limited
- Apple Music - oops
- Siri - oops
One of the "dreads" in new technology is the thought that a company, military, or government is going to "black box" your idea and hide it from the light of day. No external collaberation. Limited validation. The exclusion of name or achievement recognition.
I wish Apple all the luck. I just don't think they can pull this off in any successful meaningful way. I hope I am wrong.
The problem is that Apple has largely always been an engineering company, taking the best existing technologies and expertly using them to create a product. Not a research company, and certaintly not a science-based company. It's hard to recruit the top researchers and scientists if they think they'll be cut off from publishing papers and maintaining their place in the academic community. And therefore it's hard to make actual technology advancements.
I have a PhD in Cognitive Science (from Carnegie Mellon, 1996). I've gone back and forth from industry jobs and academic jobs. When you are at the post-graduate level, being able to publish and share your ideas is a major thing. If I was looking at jobs, and I was told at Apple that I would not be able to publish, that would put a big damper on my enthusiasm for working there. I realize I probably won't be there for my entire career, and so you have to think about what comes next. If you have a 4-year gap (i.e., your tenure at Apple) on your resume where you cannot point to papers you wrote and the conferences you attended, your ability to transition from Apple to your next gig will be severely hampered. The top people coming out of the top AI places may not consider Apple for that reason.
Sounds like the problem is people who are judging you for being less than you are, simply because you haven't published something. It's only a "gap" if you allow them to convince you that it is...
Speak for yourself please.
I use Siri constantly and routinely find new uses and information I can pull up, little surprises here and there I was previously unaware of. I don't find Siri useless at all. Maybe if you're starting with the attitude that Siri is useless, you're not going to test things out enough and will just end up reinforcing your own bias. Who knows/cares? I have never understood the griping about Siri. It works great for me and I use it daily. I'm amazed anyone thinks it's useless.
Interviewer .... "John, I see you worked at Apple on cognitive AI from 2013-2017. What can you tell me about your work?"
John, "I can't talk about it - Apple NDA and secrecy agreements"
Interviewer .. "John, can you tell me about any papers, articles, or conferences from that period?"
John, "I can't talk about it - Apple NDA and secrecy agreements"
Interviewer .... "John, so what can you tell me about that period?"
John, "I like to hike when I have the time, eat sushi, and watch Dragnet reruns."
Gonna be a short interview ......
Hmm... I have no background in science but it sounds to me like you're mixing the research sciences with the applied/industry sciences. Pick one and stick with it and I suspect you'll do just fine, but obviously working for Apple and then worrying about recognition in academia and publishing seems a little schizophrenic. I think having Apple on your resume would do you just as much good with other applied/industry jobs as publishing would with research jobs. I've always understood those two to be distinctly different pursuits.
I do not plan to be in academia after I graduate but if I cant present my work to field colleagues and cant get feedback, then it would definitely be a a show stopper for new grads like me. On the other hand, other grads wont care they just want the money to pay the student loans.
Last edited:
Different yes. In an area that is cutting edge like AI, research would be the initial drawing pool for scientists/researchers/engineers. Once past that stage (and research is where the majority of papers, conferences, etc... originate) application and industry sort of "take over" relegating research to a more support / expand aspect.
The article is a variation on complaints made about Apple pretty much since the beginning of it all. Apple has never been an 'open source' sort of thing. Windows ran on anybody's computer, while Apple's OS would only run on those expensive Apple computers. iOS only runs on iPhones, while anyone can build an Android phone. Apple didn't invent home computers, notebooks, tablets or smartphones, but by going their own way, they created versions of each of those things that everyone else then seeks to emulate, but with more buggy widgets and features tacked on and rushed out to be "first." If Apple is not jumping into the AI public pool, it's probably because they're not interested in having AI do what everybody else is doing. They have a pretty solid track record of putting things out there that function differently or in some way better or more smoothly, while competitors scoff and say they did it "first."
Sure, Apple maps was a glaring exception at its introduction, but I think that was a factor of coming out with something that was less-than-ready specifically because they realized they had to get a divorce from Google maps in order to pursue future location-based functionality without handing their customers' data over to Google. Google maps was just an app on early iPhones. As it became apparent the future involved baking location services into the OS, it's pretty obvious that depending on the producer of a competing OS for that feature is probably not such a good idea. I think Apple Maps works pretty well these days, and I'm glad that using it probably doesn't mean that literally my every move is being sold off to advertisers. I think Android users have more to worry about in that regard.
Likewise, I am o.k. if Apple's AI development happens separately from everyone else, because Siri's resulting functionality will be designed to serve me, rather than as a manipulation to serve me up to advertisers. Apple's success is built on a fundamentally different business model from its competitors. Things like the secrecy noted in this article bug the crap out of others because they never quite seem to catch on to the fact that it is an artifact of that different business model that has thus far served Apple pretty well. Others see each new widget or feature stapled on to the latest release as an innovation. Apple sees building the new features into the whole as the innovation.
Sure, Apple maps was a glaring exception at its introduction, but I think that was a factor of coming out with something that was less-than-ready specifically because they realized they had to get a divorce from Google maps in order to pursue future location-based functionality without handing their customers' data over to Google. Google maps was just an app on early iPhones. As it became apparent the future involved baking location services into the OS, it's pretty obvious that depending on the producer of a competing OS for that feature is probably not such a good idea. I think Apple Maps works pretty well these days, and I'm glad that using it probably doesn't mean that literally my every move is being sold off to advertisers. I think Android users have more to worry about in that regard.
Likewise, I am o.k. if Apple's AI development happens separately from everyone else, because Siri's resulting functionality will be designed to serve me, rather than as a manipulation to serve me up to advertisers. Apple's success is built on a fundamentally different business model from its competitors. Things like the secrecy noted in this article bug the crap out of others because they never quite seem to catch on to the fact that it is an artifact of that different business model that has thus far served Apple pretty well. Others see each new widget or feature stapled on to the latest release as an innovation. Apple sees building the new features into the whole as the innovation.
There isn't even enough natural intelligence in this country, so why bother with artificial?
It seems like there can be a reasonable balance between sharing advances in AI and not sharing how those advances might be implemented into future products. I'm not sure Apple has found that balance yet.
I've never thought of Apple as a leader in AI development in any of their products. Siri I guess would be the closest thing to AI that Apple has, yet that technology was acquired and not developed in house. Perhaps that's Apple's logic: why share when you can just acquire smaller companies with the AI advances you need.
I've never thought of Apple as a leader in AI development in any of their products. Siri I guess would be the closest thing to AI that Apple has, yet that technology was acquired and not developed in house. Perhaps that's Apple's logic: why share when you can just acquire smaller companies with the AI advances you need.