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

451–460 of 562 posts

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

#451

Post by spogbiper »

swyx wrote: post #392
worstspotgain wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> executed a fantastic strategy to reposition themselves in industry discussions Just the usual marketing angle, IMO. It's not TV, it's HBO. No one is reluctant to use the word smartphone to include iPhones. I don't think anyone is going to use the Apple Intelligence moniker except in the same cases where they'd say iCloud instead of cloud services. It's also a little clunky. Maybe they could have gone with... xI? To…

correct. last year instead of VR they went with Spatial Intelligence

"spatial computing"

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

#452

Post by hajile »

eek2121 wrote: post #430
hajile wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need the entire mac. Their cost per Max chip is probably $200-300 which beats the 4090 by a massive margin and each chip can do more than a 4090 because it also has a CPU onboard. 4090 peaks out at around 550w which means they can run 5+ of their Max chips in the same power budget. A 4090 is $2000. Apple can probably get 5 chips on a custom motherboard for that cost. They'll use the same amount of power, b…

The GPU in the M-series is much slower than a 4090. 4060-4070ish performance at best, and it varies quite a bit.

If they can get 5 4070s for the price and power of one 4090, that's a win for them as they'll get more performance per dollar and per watt.

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

#453

Post by lolinder »

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…

The iMac refined a form factor that dated back to at least Commodore. The iBook came after decades of iteration by other companies on laptops. The Cube was just a PC with a more compressed form factor. The iPod came a few years after other commercial digital media players. Etc, etc.

Note that I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with their approach or that they didn't make real improvements. I'm just saying that Apple has never produced any successful product that would count as "new" to someone interested in cutting-edge research. They've always looked around at things that exist but aren't yet huge successes and given them the final push to the mainstream.

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

#454

Post by talldayo »

andruby wrote: post #426
talldayo wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a consumer I really cannot be made to care why it's the case. This artificial price tiering is stupid and everyone has been calling it a scam for years. Apple clearly knows they're in the wrong, but continues because they know nobody can stop them.

From a business perspective it's not _stupid_. It sucks for us customers, but it's "smart" from a business point of view. Until they get serious competition, I doubt they'll change their practices. And while I hate the overpriced memory upgrades, I still prefer paying extra, rather than Apple switching to a Ad-based business model like Google (and potentially OpenAI in the future)

> From a business perspective it's not _stupid_. It sucks for us customers, but it's "smart" from a business point of view.

Well, I'm not a business. I appreciate smart consumer choices and I applaud any company that doesn't have to be forced into doing the right thing.

> I still prefer paying extra, rather than Apple switching to a Ad-based business model like Google (and potentially OpenAI in the future)

Oh you sweet summer child. You think Apple doesn't also have an ad-based business model on top of that?

I switched to Linux after MacOS Mojave, and I do not miss any of this brouhaha one bit. It's almost rich hearing people talk about how few ads MacOS has, when it's constantly begging you to try or pay for Apple software services. Even Android isn't as ad-ridden as MacOS, the only victory Apple can claim is relative to Windows (which is a grim reflection of MacOS's eventual service-dominated fate).

You should try out Linux, though. It's a culture shock, trying to get work done with no inbuilt advertisement whatsoever. I could never go back to Mac or Windows and be this productive.

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

#455

Post by grecy »

throwaway4good wrote: post #237
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.

I thought the news of them using Apple Silicon rather than NVIDIA in their data centers was significant. Perhaps there is still hope of a relaunch of xserve; with the widespread use of Apple computers amongst developers Apple has a real chance of challenging NVIDIA's CUDA moat.

I'm wondering how my electricity they will save just from moving from Intel to Apple Silicon in their data centers.

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

#456

Post by talldayo »

pjmlp wrote: post #255
talldayo wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a consumer I really cannot be made to care why it's the case. This artificial price tiering is stupid and everyone has been calling it a scam for years. Apple clearly knows they're in the wrong, but continues because they know nobody can stop them.

Yes they can, buy something else.

I've been doing that for six fucking years and not a single thing has changed. The base memory and storage has not changed in that time. During that same amount of time:

- Macs transitioned to Apple Silicon, got rid of dGPU memory

- Baseline Macbook Air models increased in price by $100

- AI became a realistic and usable technology

- Gaming is slightly feasible with GPTK

Of course we shouldn't be starting at 8 gigs of memory. This is highway robbery and the only thing you can say in defense is "buy something else then"

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

#457

Post by mholm »

glial wrote: post #229
wmf wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main LLM is only 1.5 GB so it should only take a half second to load. Or they could keep it loaded. The other models may be even smaller.

Maybe they use the "Siri is waking up and the screen wabbles" animation time for loading the model. That would be clever.

They'll have plenty of time to load the model; It still needs to wait for the user to actually voice/type their request. Invoking Siri happens well before the request is ready.

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

#458

Post by throwthrowuknow »

franzb wrote: post #314
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.

This isn't about AI research, it's about delivering AI at unimaginable scale.

180 million users for chatgpt isn’t unimaginable but it does exceed the number of iPhone users in the United States.

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

#459

Post by WanderPanda »

user_7832 wrote: post #431
barbecue_sauce wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the time I felt like Apple was getting rid of the 3.5mm jack as a potential bottleneck for future iPhone designs (as one of the limiting aspects of form factor), but there still doesn't seem to be anything design-wise to justify it, even several years later. It is very clear now that it was merely to encourage Air Pod adoption.

I would say this was obvious to the cynical of us from the very beginning. Unless you are trying to go portless (for water resistance perhaps?) or have a very thin phone, there’s very little benefits of removing the jack… except to drive airpod sales, of course.

I mean to go thinner than 6/6s I can see the 3.5mm causing trouble. Part of me is still sad they bounced they went the other direction when it comes to iPhone thickness

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

#460

Post by talldayo »

monooso wrote: post #440
tivert wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> On the other hand, people who laughed at them removing the 3.5mm jack can still safely laugh away. > Then laugh at Samsung and their flagship line of phones as well, since they haven't had headphone jacks for a while now. "After Note 10 dumps headphone jack, Samsung ads mocking iPhone dongles disappear" (2019): I totally do. One of the problems with Apple is the industry seems to mindlessly ape their good and bad…

> One of the problems with Apple is the industry seems to mindlessly ape their good and bad decisions... That's not a problem with Apple.

It's more of a regulatory problem, under a certain light.
Post reply on HN