Report Details Turmoil Behind Apple's AI Efforts, 'Siri X,' and Headset Voice Controls

[Lounge vibes 05]

Email providers (e.g, Google) already do that.

Of course they do, but not to the extent you are suggesting.

 

[Joe Dohn]

The actual reality is that Apple is going to continue to bring in billions and billions of dollars every year for the foreseeable future, even if they stay away from AI the same way they’ve stayed away from RCS or Nvidia.
At the moment, AI is not replacing AirPods. It’s not replacing Apple watches. It’s not replacing iMessage. It’s not replacing TV+, or Apple Music, or literally any other area where Apple generates revenue.

It's as you say. Apple will still make tons of cash even if they don't go all-in on AI like language models. But let me offer you a different take on what they might miss out on.

No, AI isn't a direct threat to Apple's products or services right now, but using advanced language models could seriously improve the user experience for loads of their stuff. Just think about a smarter Siri (which everyone here knows is an issue), better autocorrect or predictive text, and super personalized suggestions for Apple Music or TV+.

By not getting on the AI train, Apple could miss chances to make their whole ecosystem even more awesome and stay ahead of the competition. Happy customers mean more loyalty, and that's great for keeping Apple on top in the long run.

So yeah, they're still making a lot of money without going full AI, but they might not be pushing the boundaries as much as they could be in the fast-paced world of tech. And Apple used to be about "thinking differently".

Just some food for thought!

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Apple used to be about "thinking differently".

and your solution to them not thinking differently, is to… Act more like Microsoft and Google?
Oh yes,very out-of-the-box thinking right there, do exactly what all the other tech companies are doing.
Think Different, like Microsoft and Google do.
For the record, I agree that small usage of AI in Apple services to improve recommendations and experiences isn’t totally a bad thing.
But also… Apple is not going to make a chatGPT competitor, they just aren’t. Sorry to say, but what would be the benefit? For them especially.

 

[Joe Dohn]

and your solution to them not thinking differently, is to… Act more like Microsoft and Google?
Oh yes,very out-of-the-box thinking right there, do exactly what all the other tech companies are doing.
Think Different, like Microsoft and Google do.
For the record, I agree that small usage of AI in Apple services to improve recommendations and experiences isn’t totally a bad thing.
But also… Apple is not going to make a chatGPT competitor, they just aren’t. Sorry to say, but what would be the benefit? For them especially.

I totally get where you're coming from. I'm not trying to say Apple should just copy Microsoft and Google. That's definitely not thinking different, right? 😄

What I'm suggesting is more about finding a balance: using AI to enhance what makes Apple unique, without them losing their edge. They don't have to make a direct ChatGPT competitor, but embracing AI in their own Apple-y way could lead to some awesome innovations.

I'm with you on the idea that small AI usage in Apple services can be pretty cool. Can you imagine all the amazing things they could do if they put their own spin on it?

Just tossing out ideas for a fun chat. It's always great to hear different opinions, and I appreciate your perspective!

 

[rehkram]

I've reread Orwell's 1984 at various points in my fairly long life, usually when some form of "inflection point" is reached. Time to read it again with AI firmly in mind. I believe Orwell is spinning in his grave, the future looks dark.

Folks, it's not about trivial stuff like automation and convenience. It's about mind control.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I've reread Orwell's 1984 at various points in my fairly long life, usually when some form of "inflection point" is reached. Time to read it again with AI firmly in mind. I believe Orwell is spinning in his grave, the future looks dark.

Folks, it's not about trivial stuff like automation and convenience. It's about mind control.

What you are describing is what some people call "the singularity", which is when an AI will reach an inflection point when it is much smarter than us, and we would not be able to control it (at least in theory).

When we consider the singularity, we are considering this from a human point of view. We don't even know if machines can be conscious or have a will. I personally do believe that it is possible, but things are more complicated than they seem to be.

AIs may have completely different motivations than we do too, which could range from pleasing us, to seeing us as gods (after all, we created them), or a nuisance to the planet which must be eliminated. Or even something completely neutral, such as watching meme videos.

Right now, humans concern me more. You can 100% bet that some people will definitely want to use AI to manipulate people.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I might not have been super clear in my previous message. I totally agree that creators should get paid fairly for their work.

What I was trying to say is that generative AI systems often use data that's either free or comes with certain licenses. These licenses sometimes let people use the content without having to pay up front. It doesn't mean no one's getting paid, but it's just that the way they're paid might be different than what you're thinking.

AI systems use a whole bunch of different data types and sources. Some creators might ask for payment, while others might be cool with sharing their stuff for free or under some conditions. It's not all black and white.

It’s nice to shoot for the ideal, but we don’t live in the ideal. We live in the real.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I've reread Orwell's 1984 at various points in my fairly long life, usually when some form of "inflection point" is reached. Time to read it again with AI firmly in mind. I believe Orwell is spinning in his grave, the future looks dark.

Folks, it's not about trivial stuff like automation and convenience. It's about mind control.

“Who owns the truth.”

That’s the crux.

 

[gusmula]

The blackberry of what?
Apple’s four biggest markets are phones, iPads, macs and wearables.
ChatGPT isn’t replacing any of that.
Even with ChatGPT, there are still thousands of uses for iPhones, Apple watches, AirPods, MacBooks…
Apple could literally come out publicly and say “we’re going to leave all this AI stuff up to everyone else” and they’d be just fine.
Apple stays out of way more markets than they enter, and that’s how it has always been.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The what if game is pointless. For all we know he was so soured by Apple that the idea of getting involved with tech again was repugnant to him. It happens. People abandon their previous careers based on negative experiences all that time. Jobs? He stated NeXT out of spite and revenge, not a drive to innovate per se.

Right and if the idea of getting involved with tech was repugnant, then he didn’t have a passion for technology, exactly what I’m saying.

And, Steve Jobs DID have a drive to innovate by creating a computer focused on researchers and universities, though. He had a vision that he wanted to continue regardless of Apple, which is not something that can be said for Forstall.

 

[DeepIn2U]

No, Forstall does not have the passion, that internal spark for technology that drives some folks in the technology business to continue to create influential things in tech long after they’ve left their tech jobs (think Steve Jobs who left Apple and, rather than becoming a Producer, was driven to start another tech company, even pulling some folks from Apple in the process). Steve Jobs likely played the role of keeping Forstall focused on tech (to Steve Jobs’ benefit, of course) but, without someone around to tell him to “your job is to do cool things in tech” Forstall moved on to doing what he really enjoyed all along, what he truly has a passion for.

I wouldn’t doubt that he wonders how much FURTHER along his production path he’d have been if he had been friends with someone that wanted to start a Production company (instead of a tech company).

Actually ... Forstall had the passion he joined NeXT first not Apple.

Furthermore Acting, Stage and Plays was his wife's passion not his originally ... that he got into a few short years after being ousted by Apple. And to be frank with such a vile, public and nasty ousting from that environment I'd wager MANY that have the drive in tech would not stick around.

Proof: look at all the former employees that had terrible working relationships with Steve Jobs prior to his second coming to Apple ... absolutely NON of them had the passion for the tech industry or technology as a whole ... period.

 

[rehkram]

“Who owns the truth.”

That’s the crux.

I happened on this audio on NPR today. Me and the cat were on our way to the vet so we missed a chunk of it. It neatly frames what the real debate over AI is about, or should be about:

Beyond ChatGPT: Stuart Russell on the Risks and Rewards of A.I. | Commonwealth Club

www.commonwealthclub.org

The possibilities of automation, voice commands, creative possibilities and so on are just sideshow diversions. The real issues are, as you quoted above, "who owns the truth", tightly coupled with the fact that too many people are too easily fooled into agreeing with a bot.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Right and if the idea of getting involved with tech was repugnant, then he didn’t have a passion for technology, exactly what I’m saying.

I don’t think you can reach that conclusion based on the available evidence.

And, Steve Jobs DID have a drive to innovate by creating a computer focused on researchers and universities, though. He had a vision that he wanted to continue regardless of Apple, which is not something that can be said for Forstall.

Sure. Whatever you say.

 

[rehkram]

What you are describing is what some people call "the singularity", which is when an AI will reach an inflection point when it is much smarter than us, and we would not be able to control it (at least in theory).

That is absolutely not what I'm describing. AI is just a dumbass computer program and always will be. What I'm describing is the people who would attempt to use code to pervert truth. For example, the "alternative facts" brigade who, failing to get any traction with their alternative "facts", would just stick with pushing their downright lies regardless.

This would not be a problem if it were not for the fact that so many people at this point in time are unable to distinguish between truth and lies peddled on the internet.

That is the singularity, and it has already arrived.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Actually ... Forstall had the passion he joined NeXT first not Apple.

Forstall joined the company his FRIEND Steve Jobs worked for… if Steve Jobs had formed a flower delivery company, we’d be reading about Forstall the guy that stopped working in the flower delivery company shortly after Steve Jobs left the company to become a Producer.

Furthermore Acting, Stage and Plays was his wife's passion not his originally

Ah, soooooo, even Producing isn’t HIS passion. Which is fine, but points even more to “Scott Forstall would make a great CEO of a tech company like Apple” being, very likely, a false statement.

and nasty ousting from that environment I'd wager MANY that have the drive in tech would not stick around.

I know right? Though I DO know of at least one that had a QUITE nasty and QUITE visible ousting from their company… and they ended up becoming the CEO of that company. Some folks have the drive, some don’t.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Sure. Whatever you say.

No, that’s not what I say, that’s what the evidence available says.

 

[Surf Monkey]

No, that’s not what I say, that’s what the evidence available says.

Disagree.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Forstall joined the company his FRIEND Steve Jobs worked for… if Steve Jobs had formed a flower delivery company, we’d be reading about Forstall the guy that stopped working in the flower delivery company shortly after Steve Jobs left the company to become a Producer.


Ah, soooooo, even Producing isn’t HIS passion. Which is fine, but points even more to “Scott Forstall would make a great CEO of a tech company like Apple” being, very likely, a false statement.


I know right? Though I DO know of at least one that had a QUITE nasty and QUITE visible ousting from their company… and they ended up becoming the CEO of that company. Some folks have the drive, some don’t.

We get it. You dislike Forestall. So?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Disagree.

Agree!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

We get it. You dislike Forestall. So?

So what?

 

[Surf Monkey]

So what?

So maybe stop wasting everyone’s time?

 

[derek]

This type of dysfunction happens when corporations/organizations/governments become too big. Apple needs to diversify its corporate structure into smaller units. They are trying to do too many things under one "roof" and they end up running in circles at Apple Campus.

Apple in general has been suffering from the failure to scale its business since 2016. I've seen extremely little interest from the company to repair bugs it introduced specifically into macOS and its Mac software. Over recent years, I've sent Apple detailed bug reports via Feedback as well has had extensive conversations with Apple tech support over annoying persistent bugs. Not a one of them garnered enough attention to be repaired. As such, Mac users have to constantly contend with annoying bugs resulting from the bad business attitude known as 'good enough'. Embarrassing Apple in public appears to be the only way to get their attention.

 

[mxrider88]

Apple in general has been suffering from the failure to scale its business since 2016. I've seen extremely little interest from the company to repair bugs it introduced specifically into macOS and its Mac software. Over recent years, I've sent Apple detailed bug reports via Feedback as well has had extensive conversations with Apple tech support over annoying persistent bugs. Not a one of them garnered enough attention to be repaired. As such, Mac users have to constantly contend with annoying bugs resulting from the bad business attitude known as 'good enough'. Embarrassing Apple in public appears to be the only way to get their attention.

Same for me, endless conversations and emails with engineers and little to nothing done.
macOS is a complete disaster.

Totally agree on the fact that the only way to get their attention is to embarrass them publicly.
I wish YouTubers were jumping on that wagon, but they seem to just ignore certain topics.
I got in touch with several YouTubers years back to get them to talk about macOS irritating bugs and the few of them that got back to me said that they were not interested in doing so.
Better to kiss apple’s feet and get a review unit in for free i guess.

 

[StellarVixen]

I don’t think large language models are future of the AI, they are the present. If Apple is serious about AI, they can try developing something even better than LLMs. Of course that’s a risk, and it’s a question if Apple is ready to risk

But then again, what’s the use in all that money if they are just gonna sit on it forever?

 

[maxoakland]

This type of dysfunction happens when corporations/organizations/governments become too big. Apple needs to diversify its corporate structure into smaller units. They are trying to do too many things under one "roof" and they end up running in circles at Apple Campus.

This is why antitrust law and breaking up big corporations is good for everyone. The insane levels of conglomeration we see today hurt workers, the job market, the economy, and innovation

It's time for us to fix that