They're limiting their growth by somehow missing the initial AI train (even after buying Siri, etc.) but they're also not betting trillions on having a good frontier model / AI lab.

If a new mobile device form-factor proves to be usable, they'll come out with one eventually like they always do- like the iPhone duo being years and years behind?

When the bubble pops they could still snap up an AI lab on the cheap later.

▲

aurareturn 19 hours ago | parent [-]

When the iPhone came out, did Blackberry have time to reinvent itself to compete against it?

▲

awongh 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I would say it was that there were structural reasons why they didn't want to expand to fit the new wider internet connected device category - not that they couldn't keep up.

They wanted to keep everyone on their proprietary platform instead of enabling their devices to be used on the wider internet / being a more open mobile platform.

As long as apple allows some AI integration, then I think they'll be fine- and in fact I trust their privacy and security model more than if I bought a Google device. (not to say I trust anyone's security model, but it's clear that Apple has a more vested interest in security and privacy than Google does)

▲

aurareturn 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm imagining a world where an AI-first phone is presented for the first time. Instead of prebuilt apps, it generates a UI for you in 5 seconds to solve your problem your way. And it works. It's fast. It's reliable.

It'll make the iPhone look like Blackberry.

And let's say that Apple wants to respond with their own AI-first phone. But wait, they don't have the model. They don't have the compute. Most of their employees only know the old way of doing things. It'll be like GM trying to compete against Tesla or BYD in EVs. Their whole workforce and skills are in ICE.

▲

awongh 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the idea of "everything being generated for you on the spot" is a bit overstated - no matter how intelligent the AI gets.

Just simply because interfaces need to be crafted, and they're a design language that you learn over time. And most likely everyone needs the same things 90% of the time anyways.

When I step into my car I don't need the heating button to move closer if it's cold. I just want to learn where it is once and use it when I need to for x number of months / time of day.

That also goes for things like films and music - most of the time we actually want to be seeing and hearing the same things as everyone else (for some different definitions of "everyone"), not something that's made for us.

	▲	waisbrot 13 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The Rabbit R1 experimented with AI-gen UI on the fly. It was fun as a toy (you could customize your UI theme to anything), but not useful as an actual user interface because it was inconsistent. Sometimes you'd get a progress bar, sometimes a percentage, sometimes a table of sub-tasks and their current status, etc.
	▲	aurareturn 17 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		An AI will decide to generate a UI for you on the spot if it thinks it's the best way to solve your problem. Or it will just do the task for you in the background instead. Generating a UI to solve a specific problem of yours is just an example. I can't be the only one who has ever used an app and thought, man I wish they added this or moved the button to this, or fixed this stupid UI bug.