John Gruber, remarking on Mark Gurman’s latest newsletter about Apple’s apparent attempts to catch up in AI:
What I have heard from little birdies in Cupertino is not that there was a miss on this already. Apple is almost never at the forefront of stuff like this. They’re a deliberate company. Their goal, as with any new technology, is to integrate it into products in meaningful ways best, not first. That’s why there’s no internal anxiety that they’ve already missed anything related to AI.
People speak of Apple’s M.O. to wait for others to experiment in a market before they come in to make it (not always of course, but often enough that it’s — well, the most valuable company in the world). But most often, this is talking about hardware markets. The iPhone being the prime example, obviously. Not the first smartphone, but the first one that ended up mattering (sorry, BlackBerry).
Software, of course, is a different beast. But Apple runs the same general game plan just as often, if not more so. But in software, because of its nature, the stakes are just lower and thus, the entries less visible and remarked upon. But per Gruber’s point, given the above, is there any reason to think Apple would even want to be first in AI? And I would argue that given the nature of AI (or, at least, the current state of it), Apple may very well benefit more than usual by not being first. Let the others step on the landmines, as it were.
I think it’s very fair to say that AI is moving and iterating faster than any technology ever has in history. As a result, it’s messy and problematic and amazing all at once. Apple, as always, will happily sit back and just focus on the latter as it comes more into focus…
…but:
The anxiety inside Apple is that many people inside do not believe Apple’s own AI/ML team can deliver, and but that the company — if only for privacy reasons — is only going to use what comes from their own AI/ML team.
One interesting wrinkle in all this is that Apple was the first major player to move in the “AI” space, at least as it existed back in the day, with Siri. The problem is that rivals like Amazon and Google quickly lapped them with their voice assistants. Yes, it’s a bit subjective, but come on, this is a common refrain for a reason. Apple was the first mover here (thanks to an acquisition) and largely failed to capitalize on it, well over a decade on. Sure, it perhaps will end up not mattering that much given Amazon’s struggles to monetize Alexa despite “winning” the space, but it points to something problematic in this particular instance.
Does anyone think Apple can “win” here? If it’s just a matter of throwing money at the problem then sure, maybe. They have the most money. But again, that has not been the case with Siri, so will more general AI be different? Again, maybe! But maybe not. And interesting predicament.
Regardless, it’s fun to watch Apple apparently do a complete about-face when it comes to NVIDIA.
