Apple has been quiet about ChatGPT. Now Tim Cook says its hefty $22.6 billion research spend is down to generative AI.::The company’s research and development spending hit $22.61 billion for the year so far, a figure $3.12 billion higher than this time last year.
Well, yeah, everyone else is, too. They’re not gonna let Siri become any more woefully outmatched than it already is, so it’s either adapt or die. Microsoft killed off Cortana recently in favor of their AI program.
This is just self-maintenance, basically.
Chatgpt is what they said Siri was.
I remember when it was “innovate, not imitate”.😔
It was never really all that innovative a company. What Apple has excelled at in the past is making an idea really polished and well-integrated into the Apple ecosystem in ways that feel a lot more natural than most other implementations, to the point that it comes off as innovative - even if it’s a feature everyone else has too.
The iPhone, for example, wasn’t the only smartphone around when it released, and not even the most capable one. It was missing a ton of features BlackBerry had. Heck, it wasn’t even the first touchscreen phone - that would be the IBM Simon, which came out in 1992.
But what the iPhone did was put it all into an attractive package that worked really well with Apple’s services.
So I don’t think the fact that they’re following on LLM development instead of leading will necessarily mean Apple’s version won’t end up in the lead.
(Disclaimer: I’m not an Apple fan at all and think LLMs are a terrible idea for most implementations they’re being put towards.)
Apple would be dead if it weren’t for the iPod, which was just a nice mp3 player with a ton of marketing.
To be fair, that marketing was backed up by the fact that at the time, it really was one of the nicest ones on the market.
It basically allowed them to re-brand RSS feeds with audio files as “podcasts,” too, and now everyone uses “podcasts” with no real notion what they actually are under the hood. That was something of a branding coup.
Apple created the first laptop with a backlit keyboard. The first laptop milled from a single piece of aluminum. I’m pretty sure MagSafe wasn’t used on laptops before Apple. I think the first anodized aluminum case as well.
Smart phones before the iPhone didn’t have Apps. And they weren’t all that good. Blackberry had bbm and the business world to make it slightly successful. Windows phone 6? It was fine. Not incredibly special but more useful than a flip phone.
They’ve consistently had the best notebook display resolutions.
Their eco system every one talks about not wanting to be locked in? Incredibly innovative. Go from one device to another with no transition. It’s actually a really big convenience feature.
They also have come up with innovative new ways to make awful desktop computers every couple of years. I guess the Mac mini is fine.
Innovation is making an invention into a successful product. Before iPhone there were no successful smartphones. Same with ipads.
Wait, what? I literally name-dropped the most successful smartphone in history prior to the iPhone. The BlackBerry predates the iPhone by almost a decade.
What you’re saying is technically true but the BlackBerry was mostly a business phone and the iPhone was successful with the consumer market. Also, the iPhones success has dwarfed the BlackBerry’s even at its height. And, calling the 2007 era BlackBerry a smartphone is a little bit of a stretch. It was smarter than the other phones of that era but it was not smart by today’s standards and when we talk about smartphones we’re usually referring to modern phones with touchscreen displays.
You said
But what the iPhone did was put it all into an attractive package that worked really well with Apple’s services.
And where is the BlackBerry design now. The iPhone design isn’t just an “attractive package.” Back then, there were phones with a stylus, clamshells/sliding designs, and full keyboards. Now any modern smartphone is based off the original iPhone design.
That’s a different subject. You said:
Before iPhone there were no successful smartphones.
I was responding to that. It’s factually incorrect. The BlackBerry existed first, it was a smartphone, and it was successful until competition from Apple (and eventually Android) rendered it obsolete.
I’m not arguing that the BlackBerry was particularly great. I’m not arguing that the iPhone wasn’t better in many ways. It’s just that claiming the iPhone was the first “successful smartphone” is just wrong.
The iPhone transformed the world. Blackberry still innovativated Business phones but did not have the impact the iPhone had.
Man, are you even listening to yourself, let alone reading what I wrote? You’ve confused me for someone who is claiming the iPhone didn’t have an impact on the world, and I never said that.
I said - please actually read this - that the BlackBerry was a successful smartphone before the iPhone. That’s it! That’s the entirety of my thesis on this topic. I’m not saying it was better (it wasn’t), I’m not saying the iPhone didn’t steal its lunch (it sure as heck did)… All I’m saying is that when you claimed there were no successful smartphones before the iPhone, that was inaccurate.
That’s it! That’s all there is to it!
Now, the appropriate thing to do here is to recognize the BlackBerry came first, recognize that it was profitable for years until better smartphones arrived, and say something like, “You’re right, that was an incorrect statement that I hadn’t fully thought through.”
Then we can put a pin in that particular topic, call it done, and discuss whatever other topics you’d like to discuss. I’m genuinely game for a debate on whether or not the iPhone was “innovative” or what the appropriate definition of the word even is. Seems like a really interesting discussion. But before I go down that path, I need to know that we have a shared understanding of what the history of these devices really was, because if we don’t we’ll just end up talking past each other.
A Nokia 3310 would like to have a word with you
I’m not sure Apple has every really been that much about innovation when it comes to core technologies. Their business is at the product level, and given that generative AI is a product market still in flux it makes sense for them to dive into some exploration … especially given that they’re already a natural language AI assistance company.
The cofounder is famously quoted as saying “Good artists copy, great artists steal”, lol
The cofounder is famously quoted as saying “Good artists copy, great artists steal”, lol
Which, appropriately, is a quote he stole from Picasso.
deleted by creator
