this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023

134 points (95.3% liked)

Technology

58140 readers

4715 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

134

Apple has been quiet about ChatGPT. Now Tim Cook says its hefty $22.6 billion research spend is down to generative AI. (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

all 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Chatgpt is what they said Siri was.

[–] elskertesla -2 points 1 year ago

[–] Zerlyna 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I remember when it was “innovate, not imitate”.😔

[–] kescusay 55 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.)

[–] aDuckk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Apple would be dead if it weren't for the iPod, which was just a nice mp3 player with a ton of marketing.

[–] kescusay 8 points 1 year ago

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.

[+] silent2k -14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Innovation is making an invention into a successful product. Before iPhone there were no successful smartphones. Same with ipads.

[–] kescusay 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[+] An_Ugly_Bastard -15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] kescusay 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] silent2k -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The iPhone transformed the world. Blackberry still innovativated Business phones but did not have the impact the iPhone had.

[–] kescusay 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] silent2k -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People on this app get personal so quickly its not fun. Been here a week and more hate hit me than in 12 years of reddit. Calm tf down.

Blackberry was not a smartphone in my opinion. You are right with the rest and you can consider blackberry a smartphone if you want to. We can have different opinions.

[–] kescusay 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't hate you, and I'm not throwing hate your way. I'm just a little exasperated, that's all.

Look... A smartphone is defined as a device that combines mobile telephone functions and computing functions into one unit. By that definition, the BlackBerry definitely qualified. If you're using a different definition - for example, one that requires a full-body touchscreen and no physical keyboard - that's fine, it's just important that we agree on what we're talking about. I'm using the traditional definition and you're not, I guess.

That's OK, just as long as we both know.

So let's move on.

[–] silent2k 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok. What is the topic? Innovation vs invention?

[–] kescusay 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a good one. I think there's a lot that would be interesting to explore in both. For example, was the IBM Simon a smartphone? It had a touchscreen, apps, and network access way back in 1992. So what are the material vs. cosmetic differences between it and the iPhone? (Don't worry, I'm not arguing that the iPhone isn't both innovative and inventive in comparison, it's just that there's more gray area than people tend to realize.)

I guess what I'd most like to think about is three things:

The difference between invention and innovation.
The difference (if any) between innovation and cosmetics. (Not That I'm knocking cosmetics! They're an important part of UX!)
Where you perceive the original iPhone as being ahead in each area (innovations, inventions, and cosmetics)

Hey, also wanted to say I'm glad we've hammered this out.

[–] silent2k 1 points 1 year ago

A smartphone integrates a camera, a phone, a gps device and internet as well as being a phone and enabled communication by text, video and audio.

A device that combines all of this may have existed before but they failed in the fight for adoption by the masses. Innovation is theorized:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

What you need to make inventions into innovation is to make it accessible to people who expect products to just work. Innovation always faces resistance. The people who don’t want any change will always fight new stuff while early adopters will always try new things. The people in the middle are key. UX is a big part but also hardware and software that works without the need for tinkering is essential.

[–] A7thStone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The LG Prada predates the original iPhone. Apple still didn't "create" that design.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Owned an LG Prada. It was really only similar in photos.

[–] smajl 1 points 1 year ago

A Nokia 3310 would like to have a word with you

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The cofounder is famously quoted as saying "Good artists copy, great artists steal", lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The cofounder is famously quoted as saying "Good artists copy, great artists steal", lol

Which, appropriately, is a quote he stole from Picasso.