> So far, they have not yet delivered on any useful AI application.

Who has? Google, Anthropic, OpenAI and Microsoft have spent hundreds of billions and produced nothing but chat apps that Apple could build in a few days, they’re all just interfaces to models that are available to Apple via an API. Hard to imagine Apple as anything but the winner of this era unless OpenAI or Anthropic pull something out of the bag.

▲

ktallett a day ago | parent [-]

Apple have done nothing yet though so you can't be the winner without a product.

▲

reticulates 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Google have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on destroying their golden goose, Apple’s inaction is absolutely a winning move that they deserve credit for.

▲

whywhywhywhy 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Googles golden geese were already in wreck and ruin before GPT4.

None of that stuff has worked right for several years now apart from maybe Gmail.

▲

ktallett 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The issue being is Apple should be spending money in the right places. Just because Google's product is poor, we shouldn't pretend Apple is being inactive due to some genius move, they are being inactive because they don't have the skillsets to make the correct moves.

▲

GeekyBear 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[dead]

▲

runako 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is literally Apple's strategy, and has been for decades. They watch other players discover what works, then Apple makes a well-polished consumer product for the mass market. They have run this playbook to great success in at least music players, smartphones, smart watches, wireless headphones, tablets. Apple is literally never (since the '80s) among the first to market.

> they are being inactive because they don't have the skillsets

Rare to see an argument that Apple can't hire talent.

▲

ktallett 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Apple were regularly first to market with WiFi, USB, FireWire, etc. The Apple of late are not first to the market and also have mixed success regarding quality and usability. They sell plenty due to to name but I would say the watch has been greatly surpassed, Vision Pro is a clunky solution for a portable headset, and the airpods max are a rather poor product all told not being remotely usable in day to day life in the outdoors. Apple have had no success with Machine Learning, Siri getting worse as it goes on is one key example.

They need a significant team creating their own model, (the talent of which has already gone elsewhere) and they also need to be working towards the future of photonic computing for running those models with success long term, again which will require a huge hiring effort. Considering it's clear they are not putting in that hiring effort it's obvious what work they have been doing.

	▲	runako 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> first to market with WiFi, USB This is extremely revisionist. For ex with WiFi, ThinkPad + a Lucent WiFi card was standard issue for years before any Apple product had WiFi. Apple shipped integrated WiFi, which is wholly consistent with the notion of improving what the industry is doing. Connectors? Yes, Apple has a history of improving connectors. Other computers have had connectors since forever. In this case, Firewire was Apple's semi-proprietary alternative to USB. USB, which Apple put into their computers years after others had shipped it. > They need a significant team creating their own model Your judgement. It's entirely reasonable at this point to license other models and look for a better/cheaper entry point. Apple tends to enter markets when it is possible to make profit. It is not clear yet that the business of creating and running advanced models is a profitable venture. By which I mean no company has yet demonstrated the ability to earn a positive ROI by developing and running an advanced model. > working towards the future of photonic computing Again, nothing in Apple's history would suggest that they would even aim to do this.

▲

whywhywhywhy 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Apple have done nothing yet though

This isn’t true they’ve literally launched Apple Intelligence with multiple apps and surfaces three times now and it’s flopped each time so badly they regroup and pretend it wasn’t the real launch then launch it again at the next WWDC.

▲

ktallett 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Their intelligence was more of a support guru rather than a like for like. I would agree Siri was a failure even in comparison with Alexa etc but it's not a comparable service to what people are referring to. There is no Apple model to compete, there is no hiring of staff that could implement a long term strategy of using that model on alternative computing platforms such as photonic.

	▲	whywhywhywhy 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not even talking about Siri era I’m talking the last 2-3 years when they keep launching “Apple Intelligence” and not delivering on what they demo.

▲

whycombilater 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can if the competition is "who burnt the least money?".

▲

ktallett 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That shouldn't be the end goal of us as a society. Financial profit or loss.

	▲	whycombilater 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Which brings us back to "don't let AI companies burn all the money". You could spend it on free universal healthcare.

▲

nxobject 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And, hey, Apple has a sweet ~$52bil cash on hand, and has never been as gung-ho about stock buybacks as other companies.