Remix.run Logo
the_mitsuhiko 2 hours ago

From the outside looking in it really feels like Apple focused so much on privacy and now has no strategy of how to make that work with AI right now.

People increasingly seem to forgo the idea of retaining the data for themselves because they find AI products so fascinating / useful that they're just not caring, at least for the moment. I think this might swing back in the favor of Apple at one point, but right now it is kind of fascinating how liberally people throw everything at hosted AI models.

npunt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Was the failure really driven by privacy policy? Long term a privacy play is the right move. But right now, Siri's capabilities even underwhelm vis-a-vis a model with no understanding of user context that is just interpreting commands.

drob518 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Agreed. I often have to verbally battle with Siri to do the most basic interaction. Siri recognizes all my words but misinterprets my intent and does something I didn’t want.

eurekin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, I'm not buying that either/or framing too

consumer451 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> From the outside looking in it really feels like Apple focused so much on privacy and now has no strategy of how to make that work with AI right now.

Are you referring to https://security.apple.com/com/blog/private-cloud-compute/?

The only way that AI will ever be able to replace each of us, is if it gathers our entire audio, text, etc history. PCC seemed like the only viable option for a pro-AI, yet pro-privacy person such as myself. I thought PCC was one of the most thoughtful things I had every seen a FAANG create. Seriously, whoever pushed that should get some kind of medal.

Are you saying that there is no technical solution for privacy and AI to coexist? Not only that, but that was the blocker?

I am genuinely interested if anyone can provide a technical answer.

xvector 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They are solving for privacy before solving for the UX.

They should actually make something useful first, and then work backwards to making it private before releasing it.

npunt an hour ago | parent | next [-]

With 1B+ users Apple isn't in the position to do the typical startup fast & loose order of operations. Apple has (rightly) given themselves the responsibility to protect people's privacy, and a lot of people rely on that. It'd be a really bad look if it turned out they made Siri really really useful but then hostile govt's all got access to the data and cracked down on a bunch of vulnerable people.

astafrig 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Making privacy some end-goal that PMs cut to meet targets is how you end up with Google redefining privacy to mean "only we have access to every aspect of your life, now and in the future".

If Apple takes the position that the UX has to fit in around the privacy requirements, so what? Privacy is a core pillar of their product identity—a built-in hallucinating compliments machine isn't.

sethops1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If total invasion of privacy is the only way to make AI useful, then maybe it isn't useful?

satvikpendem 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Don't invert the argument, something can be enormously useful while also having an equally big effect on one's privacy.

djohnston 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You'd have to expand on that because I don't see why one is related to the other. People get value out of giving their data to OpenAI. They don't care. So what?

syntaxing 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I find it hard to believe privacy is the issue. Chinese companies have no issue releasing great self hostable models (and some admittedly nearly impossible to self host due to the sheer size)

isodev an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Apple focused so much on privacy

Apple also doesn't have actual privacy since their focus was using the word strategically against their competitors, not actually protecting user data.

> Subramanya, who Apple describes as a "renowned AI researcher," spent 16 years at Google, where he was head of engineering for Gemini. He left Google earlier this year for Microsoft. In a press release, Apple said that Subramanya will report to Craig Federighi and will "be leading critical areas, including Apple Foundation Models, ML research, and AI Safety and Evaluation."

I don't see how Google + Copilot mindset even touches on privacy. I wouldn't be surprised if we users will be forced to pay even more personal data in the near future.

fidotron 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, I think the question here is not so much why the old is leaving, but if anyone seriously expects the new guy to succeed any more? ex-Microsoft too, not exactly a great start.

What does seem slightly odd is Apple have probably saved billions by failing to be dragged into the current model war.

drob518 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree that not falling for the hype and rushing in may have just saved them. Apple is typically not a first mover. They often hang back, rethink the problem, and deliver something really nice. But not in this case. They had Siri first and then squandered their lead, but may have avoided a huge write-down as a result.

bibimsz an hour ago | parent [-]

it's still early days. plenty of time to win with AI.

kace91 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If there's a company who could ever afford to be late to the party is apple though.

Not the first to bring mp3 players to the market, nor phones, nor tablets. Market leader every time.

They could have just stayed in a corner talking about privacy, offer a solid experience while everything else drowns in slop, researched UX for llms and come 5 years later with a killer product.

I don't get why they went for the rush. It's not like AI is killing their hardware sales either.

jacobgkau an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That's a great point and an easy way to visualize it as an outsider, but it's not necessarily that simple.

For one thing, the iPad (market-leading tablet) and the iPhone (market-leading pocket touchscreen device) were not their first attempt at doing that. That would be the Newton, which was an actual launched product and a commercial failure.

For another thing, even Apple can't just become the market leader by doing nothing. They need to enter late with a good product, and having a good product takes R&D, which takes time. With MP3 players, smartphones, and tablets, they didn't exactly wait until the industry was burnt through before they came in with their offering; they were just later (with the successful product) than some other people who did it worse. They were still doing R&D during those years when they were "waiting."

Apple could still "show up late" to AI in a few more years or a decade, using their current toe-dipping to inform something better, and it would still fit into the picture you have of how they "should've done it." Not to mention, Apple's also lost its way before with things like convoluted product lines (a dozen models of everything) and experimental products (the Newton then, Apple Vision now); messing up for a while also isn't exactly bucking history.

kace91 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

I see your point, but I see nothing to indicate they’re doing the “polish and wait”. No reason to believe they’re cooking behind the scenes or that this product was a learning exercise for them.

Most of their current products seem to be decaying in the dead march towards the next yearly release. ux and ui are becoming more and more poorly thought (see their last design language). They half pursue ideas and don’t manage to deliver (vr, apple car, etc).

I see cargo culting and fad chasing like any average leadership, only with a fatter stack of cash supporting the endeavour.

benoau 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because today they're racing against regulators for the privilege of setting their own service as the preinstalled, exclusive, default with APIs only they are allowed to use.

They already lost this superpower in the EU and I think Japan, India, Brazil too. Early next year they've got their US antitrust trial, and later in the year are some class actions challenging their control over app distribution, and at least two pieces of draft legislation are circulating that would require allowing competing apps to be defaults.

If they need another two years they might face an entrenched and perhaps even better competitor, while their own app needs to be downloaded from the App Store.

andrewmutz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People only want privacy if it doesn’t come at the cost of a good product. It’s not enough on its own.

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> it really feels like Apple focused so much on privacy and now has no strategy of how to make that work with AI right now

I see Apple dusting off its OG playbook.

We're in the minicomputing era of AI. If scaling continues to bear fruit, we'll stay there for some time. Potentially indefinitely. If, however, scaling plateaus, miniaturisation retakes precedence. At that point, Apple's hardware (and Google's mindshare) incumbency gains precedence.

In the meantime, Apple builds devices and writes the OS that commands how the richest consumers on Earth store and transmit their data. That gives them a default seat at every AI table, whether they bother to show up or not.

racl101 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It could benefit them if they remained an AI free or a NOT AI first alternative once enshitification has really taken hold with AI.

LtWorf an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the only department involved in privacy at apple is the marketing department. Nobody else has worked in anything related.

ares623 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I personally hope Apple doesn’t get too involved in the madness. If the sentiment changes they’ll be in a great position messaging wise. Microsoft and Google have thrown their reputations away.