| ▲ | inthebay 3 hours ago |
| Still an open question whether not investing in AI infrastructure was the right move. They did better than Alphabet, Amazon and Intel, but Apple renting its AI from Alphabet (Gemini with Siri) might be a long term risk, since they're building on someone else's platform. |
|
| ▲ | Grombobulous 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It’s not a long term risk at all. Long term, models are going to be running on local hardware. The AI data center is analogous to the mainframe. If I can run Qwen 3.8 Flash Next on my DDR4 closet server with a $500 16GB GPU at 50 tok/s (which I can) then I just about guarantee you that in 2-3 years a pretty acceptable AI model is going to be running off of iPhones and M7/M8 Macs. The other option that reduces Apple’s long-term risk is that they could just buy an AI company. |
| |
| ▲ | CrimsonCape an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah I can kinda see why Altman is out there trying to shame the public for having compute. The longer they carry those massive debt obligations, the more the models are going to economize. It would not be surprising that Apple just waits and snatches their compute up from insolvent companies sliding past. | |
| ▲ | paxy an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Models running locally doesn’t benefit Apple unless they have a competitive model of their own. Otherwise they’ll end up being dependent on Google, Meta etc the same way they are today for apps and services. And getting out of that hole won’t be as simple as building a maps app. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | In return for Google getting a discount on how much they pay Apple to be the default search engine in Safari, Apple currently has the right to distill Google's Gemini server models to create their own models that fit on-device. > Apple is cutting down Google Gemini's massive models into smaller and more secure parts through distillation, to create elements that are more suited to on-device Apple Intelligence processing. https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/03/25/apple-is-distilli... | |
| ▲ | Grombobulous an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think it does if their chips are the only ones that run the models well on phones and competitors need to charge customers more money or give away less functionality for free. | |
| ▲ | afavour an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or open models become competitive as a base? Apple have an entire OS based on OpenStep and FreeBSD after all. | | |
| ▲ | paxy 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | There is exactly zero chance Apple lets open, unconstrained models run on iPhones when they get powerful enough. We are talking about a company that doesn’t allow apps that contain bad words. People holding out hope for this are delusional. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | garrickvanburen 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I equate it to partnering with AT&T on the first iPhone. Very inconsistent with Apple’s preference of owning the entire stack, but if your bet is this a short term stop gap until the market is more “unlocked” - less of an issue, and better to get the direct market learnings along the way. |
| |
| ▲ | Shank 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I equate it to partnering with AT&T on the first iPhone. In terms of strategy, they picked the underdog carrier (Cingular) specifically to avoid having to bundle bloatware and carrier customization at the cost of exclusivity. Likewise, when Apple brought the iPhone to Japan, they did the same thing with the underdog carrier here, SoftBank. The strategic importance of this was as a bargaining chip with other carriers and fundamentally gave them a lot of control they would not have had if they had gone with Verizon or similar. | |
| ▲ | alwillis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I equate it to partnering with AT&T on the first iPhone. Very inconsistent with Apple’s preference of owning the entire stack They went to Verizon first but were turned down. Apple needed distribution, which meant partnering with an established carrier. Regarding "owning the entire stack" didn't make any sense in 2007, especially for a company that was new to the cell phone business. Three years later, the first iPhone with Apple's silicon was the iPhone 4 with the A4 processor. | |
| ▲ | kmeisthax an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Context for Europeans: the US mobile market was basically total vendor lock-in hell up until the mid-2010s. There were only two carriers (AT&T and T-Mobile[1]) you could bring-your-own-phone with, the other two (Verizon and Sprint[2]) only allowed the phones they sold on their network. Phone service and plans were bundled together. In fact, one of the critical arguments Apple made as to why they weren't a monopoly was "Sure, we demand 30% - but the phone company monopoly we made obsolete used to charge 70%!" Mobile app stores on other platforms were absolutely hell. One extra wrinkle of this is that Apple didn't actually partner with AT&T, they partnered with Cingular, the smallest national[0] carrier, who only agreed to let Apple ship an unmolested device because they got 5 year exclusivity. Then Cingular got bought out by AT&T. AFAIK AT&T didn't want the iPhone, they wanted the AT&T (insert terrible name here) Powered by AppleTM, with like 20 AT&T services preinstalled and unremovable. 'Cause that's literally what happened with the first Samsung Galaxy phone, every carrier gave it a different name and their own bloatware. And yes, this hatred was mutual: the 5 year exclusivity meant iPhones were shackled to a terrible network in the US, and there was a significant amount of effort put into baseband jailbreaking just so people could violate Apple's exclusivity agreement and use their iPhone with their choice of carrier - which, to be clear, meant "use it on T-Mobile". Also, while I'm giving a lot of credit to Apple, the thing that really broke the vendor lock-in was: 1. Google deliberately bidding up spectrum to trigger an FCC open-access pledge on LTE bands, which forced Verizon to allow third-party networks 2. Qualcomm giving up on UMB, forcing Verizon to adopt LTE, and by extension, SIM cards[3] 3. Clearwire / Sprint's WiMAX service totally failing, also forcing Sprint to adopt LTE and SIMs [0] The US has a few "regional" carriers like US Cellular that only operate towers in some markets and license spectrum outside of that area. [1] Yes, they were owned by Deutsche Telekom at one point [2] At one point owned by Softbank, now owned by T-Mobile [3] Strictly speaking, the SIM card spec includes CDMA/3GPP2[4] support, but the largest CDMA market was the US, and any carrier that wanted to support foreign phones used GSM/3GPP track standards [4] Yes, Qualcomm was really that petty that they named their 3G standards body "3G 2" |
|
|
| ▲ | sumoboy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What has apple really lost not investing billions in AI? IMO nothing. At any point they could just buy or partner with any missing piece. Google is the safe bet for Siri but this could be any number of providers in the future at which one of them might even pay apple like google does for search in safari. Apple needs to tackle component costs to increase revenue, especially memory which they have to start thinking about their own fab long term. |
|
| ▲ | nomel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They're not building on someone else's platform as much as leasing completely commoditized compute from whomever gave them the best deal. I wouldn't be surprised if this compute will actually be happening on xAI hardware [1]. [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/google... |
|
| ▲ | alwillis 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > but Apple renting its AI from Alphabet (Gemini with Siri) might be a long term risk, since they're building on someone else's platform. Apple isn't renting; they distilled Gemini to create their own model for "broad world knowledge". Some of this runs on Google's infrastructure because Apple didn't have enough compute. All of the personal context stuff is Apple's Foundation Models. |
| |
| ▲ | benoau 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Apple is always not-going to have enough compute of their own, they have billions of users and whatever they are investing in datacenters to service them is negligible. That said renting storage from Google for iCloud reportedly carries an ~80% profit margin, there's no reason they can't also put a 5x markup on what Google charges them for PCC and Siri since they can still prevent rivals from providing the same service in most markets. |
|
|
| ▲ | foobar1962 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > ... Apple renting its AI from Alphabet (Gemini with Siri) might be a long term risk... Similar to Apple (and everybody else) using Google maps. They survived. |
|
| ▲ | jshen 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think this will depend on the commoditization, or lack thereof, of the AI models. If they are more or less interchangeable, Apple will have made the right bet. |
|
| ▲ | thisIsFiner 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Apple's AI infrastructure is a hub device like AppleTV, Mac Mini, iMac, or MacBook connected to iPhone and Watch. They will be the first to benefit from cheaper to run, eventually embed in chip models, and are positioned to be a key player in offloading demand from data centers. They’re the bridge to the frontier models until iPhone 21 ships with then modern frontier model baked into Apple Silicon. |
| |
| ▲ | bigyabai 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > until iPhone 21 ships with then modern frontier model baked into Apple Silicon. Citation: It Came To Me In A Dream | | |
| ▲ | thisIsFiner 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Uh huh 20 years ago everyone denied the use case of the cloud ...grey beards that are all dead now would never allow their cherished benefactor small business owners private data be stored in a homogeneous data center... heard it all every decade when the state management semantics change with the generations of tech bro butt in seats I am sure this time the Ruby and Terraform script kiddies will hold back progress just like all those BSD admins staved off Linux like they promised to do on Slashdot 30 years ago Now that this site has no social moat to boast from the other side of, how out of touch yall are is ridiculously obvious Glad I went with applied physics, electronic and computer engineering degrees. Will take hands on skill setting up experimental research of propagation of information through various physical materials at various power levels over skill in copy paste of ultimately meaningless syntax. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | JKCalhoun an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I assume Apple is buying time. |
|
| ▲ | GeekyBear an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Apple doesn't pay Google. Google gets a small discount on how much they pay Apple to be the default search engine on Safari. |
|
| ▲ | btian 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But they could rent from any of the 200+ neo clouds right? |
|
| ▲ | iAMkenough 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Apple can pivot Siri pretty easily. |
|
| ▲ | mathisfun123 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Apple renting its AI from Alphabet (Gemini with Siri) this is not how it works. |