Hacker News Reader

Comment by behnamoh | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft and Google adding LLMs to their ecosystem makes sense. But I don't see Apple adding something similar to MS Copilot to Numbers, Pages, etc. In a way, Apple seems to signal lack of hope for getting into the AI game. Soon, Apple will just be a "commodity" producer[0]: the company that makes the machines in the background, while other pioneers actually provide cutting edge technologies for those machines (e.g., local LLMs). Something like the oil companies, chip industry, etc. Apple will be making the iPhones and Macs and that's about it. They're too conservative to get out of their comfort zone now.

In a weird way, it's actually still aligned with their "think different" motto: when everyone is thinking about getting on the AI bandwagon, think different and avoid doing that!

[0]: Which is fine—the world needs boring companies as much as pioneers who break things.

View on HN

The wild bit about this is this: Imagine reading this comment 6 months ago. A person would probably spit their drink out..but it is true. Apple will spend WWDC talking about XR like it is a 2021 Facebook Earnings Call.

Even wilder bit: imagine reading any of this 6 months ago. ChatGPT just came out. It was a fun toy with some potential, but mostly seen as another example of the copilot-y "might make some jobs somewhat different in the mid-term future" tech demo.

Who would've thought that in just four months, GPT-4 will completely transform people's perception of AI progress timeline and impact.

Or Apple will do what they always do, wait for the tech to mature then buy some big player like anthropic and integrate it into their products.

Their track record shows if they can't tightly control a technology, they won't touch it. LLMs can be bent in different ways and Apple wouldn't allow that. I own Apple devices, but I just don't see Apple play in the Google/MS/ClosedAI's field by saying "Our model is 20% larger than the best models out there...".

Also, Apple should first fix Siri, or get rid of it for good. It's a joke at this point.

I would argue that Siri is an example of a lightly controlled technology. My bet is that Apple will appear behind for 2-4 years and out of nowhere will launch a Spike Jonze's Her-style "Samantha" that was in R&D for years.

I don't think this is possible. There aren't that many AI researchers and they talk to each other. If Apple was making a serious AI push it would be obvious.

There actually have been rumors about this: https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/22/apple-ramps-up-hiring-o... (and I remember hearing more before April as well.)

I feel like any company which has chatbots as a "core" part of their systems (like Siri is often advertised to be) would be looking very heavily into generative AI. It makes way too much sense and would clearly make Siri way more useful. Imagine if Siri was current ChatGPT with plugins for interacting with the OS -- this immediately solves basically all the complaints about Siri. Plus Apple has efficient local AI acceleration already, which could make it even better.

It feels so obvious it'd be weird if they weren't trying to make a better Siri with gen AI! I have a feeling we'll hear about it either at WWDC or the iPhone event in the fall.

They will likely make Siri an LLM but not make a big deal about it. Just simply put it as a minor revision note, because that's effectively all it is.

The thing about these technologies is that you can't repeat the same recipe for iPhone. Even 6 months is too long a time for a company to stay behind. The rate of progress in this field, combined with the insane VC money driven up by the hype around LLMs, means that no company can afford "surprising" everyone by waiting just a bit longer. Google did that and see where they are now.

You're right, but we're talking about Apple. While they may not be able to introduce a ChatGPT competito, Siri basically has a captive audience. With OS-level integrations, you can easily imagine a much more powerful and interactive Siri which becomes popular just because it's available out of the box and offers OS level integrations which a 3rd party chatbot can't.

It's also not like AI tools are why people buy Apple products. So "waiting" probably doesn't cost them much money -- it doesn't impact their core hardware and service revenue. It's "just" a value add for now.

If MS offers Copilot for office only on Windows, I for one will have an incentive to switch from Mac. And if Bing AI gets integrated into Windows, I’ll most likely switch.

I don't think I agree. The rate of progress in the field, I think, makes waiting until the dust settles a very smart move.

Not convinced. The most useful feature of the first iPhone was it's web browser. Apple had/has very loose control over what people use it for.

True, but Apple still controls what web engine you use on iOS and what extensions you can install there.

Which, according to rumors, will change soon and be announced on WWDC, due to EU regulation.

Siri is great! The on device recognition makes it far more reliable

Hardly always their playbook, they rarely make big acquisitions like that. Siri back in the day, Beats, P.A. Semi, are the most notable acquisitions.

I was trying to say that they usually don't introduce bleeding edge tech to their products and lag on adoption till the tech is polished enough.

For acquisition yeah I was thinking along the lines of Siri.

It's strange to me that you think Apple will become a "commodity" producer when it has the largest profit margins in the industry. Which is the exact opposite of how commodities function in economics. Yes Apple's focus is hardware as opposed to software, but there is commodity hardware and non-commodity hardware. Apple is firmly in the non-commodity camp and shows no signs of changing. Things like M2 chips are not "commodity".

I have no idea what Apple will do with LLM's. But Apple is already leveraging ML in things like built-in local dictation and OCR, and we can probably expect that it will leverage things like LLM's at the OS level (iOS/macOS) rather than focusing on their iWork suite. (Honestly at this point I don't understand Apple's strategic purpose with iWork, or even Final Cut Pro.)

Do the high profits come from the hardware or from rent seeking behavior in the app store and elsewhere?

They definitely come from the hardware, I'm talking about profits from the sale of hardware alone.

In April 2023, Apple has a 30% market share of smartphones worldwide [1]. And in the first 3 months of 2023, Apple accounted for 50% of global smartphone revenue... and 80 percent of the industry's profits [2]. These is smartphone revenue, not services revenue. (Apple makes money from the App Store too but that's separate.)

80% of industry profit from 30% market share is certainly not a commodity. Cheap Android phones are a commodity. iPhones are the polar opposite.

[1] https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/smartphone-market-share#:~....

[2] https://www.statista.com/chart/29925/apples-share-of-the-glo....

Huh? The reality is "cutting edge" doesn't necessarily mean it's a great product for consumers.

Also frankly, productionalizing LLMs is very different from making research strides on them. Even inside Google researchers are realizing that a bulk of the improvements are now coming from the OSS community.

Apple will implement these technologies when it makes sense to do so.

cgpt is already a product that serves consumers very well. No need to “productionalize” it.

Apple has always been a consumer product-focused company. Even if computing continues to become more invisible and omnipresent, even if we no longer use laptops and phones, there will still be some kind of physical "product" at the end of the day, and thats where Apple will continue to exist. For LLMs, I don't see Apple opening up a general-purpose LLM or search engine like ChatGPT or Bing, its difficult to differentiate themselves in a meaningful way. I can see them developing a unique "personality" to Siri and integrating its behavior into existing devices and APIs. There's still a lot of room between where we are now and a personal AI-buddy like in "Her", so I imagine Apple is at least interested in moving in that direction.

> Apple will be making the iPhones and Macs and that's about it. They're too conservative to get out of their comfort zone now.

Why would Apple even pursue LLMs? They are building hardware: computers, phones, screens, accessories. In a sense, that’s what you said. Just phrasing a question to your thought.

To be fair, it often seems like they've forgotten about all of their office apps outside of Keynote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com