Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

machinelearning.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 562 posts

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#441

Post by necovek »

theshrike79 wrote: post #242
necovek wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that everyone has different visual acuity and different distance they use the same devices at, and in the end, "retina" means nothing at all. But this is exactly the type of marketing Apple is good at, though "retina" is probably not the most successful example.

If your "visual acuity" is so good that you can see the pixels of a retina-branded display from the intended viewing distance, you might need to be studied for science.

If your visual acuity is 20/10, you'd roughly need 3600 pixels vertically to not notice any pixelation if Bill Otto did the calculations right at https://www.quora.com/What-resolution-does-20-10-vision-corr...

20/10 is rare but can easily be corrected to with glasses or contacts.

You also left that "intended viewing distance" hanging there, without at all acknowledging what that is at a minimum?

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#442

Post by vile_wretch »

caseyy wrote: post #416
lolinder wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For people interested in AI research, there's nothing new here. Was anyone expecting anything new? Apple has never been big on living at the cutting edge of technology exploring spaces that no one has explored before—from laptops to the iPhone to iPads to watches, every success they've had has come from taking tech that was already prototyped by many other companies and smoothing out the usability kinks to get it r…

> Apple has never been big on living at the cutting edge of technology There was such a time. Same as with Google. Interestingly, around 2015-2016 both companies significantly shifted to iterative products from big innovations. It's more visible with Google than Apple, but here's both. Apple: - Final Cut Pro - 1998: iMac - 1999: iBook G3 (father of all MacBooks) - 2000: Power Mac G4 Cube (the early grandparent of the…

Some of your choices and what you consider iterative/innovative are strange to me. For 2009, a chassis update for the iMac and a spec/camera bump for the iPhone doesn't seem particularly innovative especially in comparison to say the HomePod in 2017 or Satellite SOS in 2022.

Also small correction but iTunes (as Soundjam MP) was originally third-party software and Final Cut was acquired by Apple.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#443

Post by blihp »

bildung wrote: post #396
csvm wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prototyping tech is one thing; making it a widely adopted success is another. For instance, Apple was the first to bring WiFi to laptops in 1999. Everyone laughed at them at the time. Who needs a wireless network when you can have a physical LAN, ey?

Was that really the case? I remember they were mocked for e.g. offering wifi only , firewire only etc., while the respective removed alternatives were way more common.

In the consumer space at least, WiFi was nowhere to be seen on a typical PC when Apple adopted it. Same with USB. So while it technically originated and existed elsewhere, there was no serious traction on it prior to Apple adoption.

What you say is also true: many people weren't ready to ditch the old when Apple decide to deprecate it.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#444

Post by joshstrange »

Matl wrote: post #391
csvm wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prototyping tech is one thing; making it a widely adopted success is another. For instance, Apple was the first to bring WiFi to laptops in 1999. Everyone laughed at them at the time. Who needs a wireless network when you can have a physical LAN, ey?

On the other hand, people who laughed at them removing the 3.5mm jack can still safely laugh away.

This is such a tired talking point. Use a (lightning|USB-C)->3.5mm adapter or use bluetooth.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#445

Post by joshstrange »

manmal wrote: post #319
vishnugupta wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter what the baseline memory is as long as they have 16GB M4 as an option?

Some companies give their employees only base models.

Some companies are stupid, news at 6.

It's not Apple's (or any computer manufacturer's) responsibility to put out products that can solve every problem with the base model.

I'll never understand why companies pay high salaries then give employees sub-optimal computers to do their job.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#449

Post by Spooky23 »

rishabhjain1198 wrote: post #166

For people interested in AI research, there's nothing new here. IMO they should do a better job of referencing existing papers and techniques. The way they wrote about "adaptors" can make it seem like it's something novel, but it's actually just re-iterating vanilla LoRA. It was enough to convince one of the top-voted HackerNews comments that this was a "huge development". Benchmarks are nice though.

Those people aren’t looking at Apple.

They seem to have a good model for adding value to their products without the hold my beer, conquer the world bullshit that you get from OpenAI, et al.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#450

Post by realusername »

jitl wrote: post #425
realusername wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those cybersecurity experts are using GrapheneOS and certainly not an iPhone where they can't even check if all is going well...

I’ve worked with a few people from NCC Group, Matasano, security staff at Airbnb and OpenAI, all carry and recommend iPhones for security footing. Depending on threat model, “lockdown mode” on iOS has a lot of what is useful in Grapheme like turning off built in connectivity services & disabling JIT and other code paths in the webview.

To each their own, I certainly would not recommend an iPhone in this scenario, especially even more at a top tech company.
Post reply on HN