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

Apple Foundation Models

platform.claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 244 posts

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#121

Post by post-it »

harrouet wrote: post #49

This is Apple commoditizing LLMs while keeping control of the UX. They are a hardware company and will keep selling the best machine for AI use. Well done.

> while keeping control of the UX.

Extremely tangential, but this is my favourite upshot of AI. For decades, companies have been walling off their services and forcing us into their fuckass UIs. Now over the course of the last twelve months, suddenly everything has an MCP and I can use it through my command line chat interface.

Any company that doesn't adapt gets so hammered by people's AI-DIY web scrapers that they have no choice but to cave.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#122

Post by klausa »

butlike wrote: post #105
klausa wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry, so your position now is that “being completely invisible to the users” is “controlling the UX”?

I can't reply to your child comment for whatever reason, but Siri is part of the Apple Foundation Models framework. The idea is that no matter what backend the developer uses, the end user will always say "Hey Siri." This is analogous to controlling the UX. Siri is independent of whichever model the app developer uses.

No, Siri is entirely separate from this framework.

Are you thinking about Intents? That lets Siri interact with data (and perform some actions in them) from your apps, but it is something completely different.

You can definitely expose things from your app via Intents that will end up calling an external arbitrary LLM somewhere, but it does not require using Foundation Models API whatsoever.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#123

Post by ac29 »

mft_ wrote: post #35
trvz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you guys not have phones (with at least 1TB of storage)?

I have a Mac with 4TB of storage but it’s still annoying when every new AI app I try installs its own virtual environment with a fresh copy of Python, PyTorch, other duplicate libraries, and then models on top of that.

If you use uv, python apps use a shared cache which helps a lot.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#124

Post by inickt »

post-it wrote: post #120

> a Swift package that makes Claude available as a server-side language model in Apple's Foundation Models framework Ahh I was hoping for the opposite: all of the existing features of Claude Code but somehow running locally on my laptop's neural engine. A pipe dream on an M2 with 8 GB of RAM, but I had a flicker of hope there.

Check out this WWDC session. Obviously not going to compete with the frontier models (and I think 8GB is too small anyways), but Apple did demo MLX + OpenCode.

https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2026/232/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wykPErJ8M-8

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#125

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

post-it wrote: post #120

> a Swift package that makes Claude available as a server-side language model in Apple's Foundation Models framework Ahh I was hoping for the opposite: all of the existing features of Claude Code but somehow running locally on my laptop's neural engine. A pipe dream on an M2 with 8 GB of RAM, but I had a flicker of hope there.

I've found most of the frontier coding models require somewhere between 300GB to 1TB to run with full capabilities.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#126

Post by naravara »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #99
tedggh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Benedict Evans may be right after all; frontier models look more and more like telecom companies in the 90s. Billions and billions of investment in infrastructure while others further up the stack captured all the value.

There will be frontier models that are non-commoditized, but they'll be kept guarded and hidden away, and you'll only get the final result, so that they can't be distilled and their harness can't be reverse engineered. They'll be billed like employees, rather than like a tool.

I think this will be isolated to highly specialized fields where training data will need to be selectively curated.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#127

Post by geodel »

klausa wrote: post #97
embedding-shape wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're taking the written words a bit too literally here. Read it with a more lax filter and less literal word-meaning, and I think the original comment will become a bit clearer.

You know what, I've been a bit too snipe-y in my previous comments, and it led to to discussion devolving in unproductive ways. I'd genuinely like to understand where you're coming from more. I think we're all in agreement that this framework is very much about letting developers swap the models easily, and treat them as commodities. That seems pretty obvious. I do however still don't see how this has anything to do…

I don't know if it helps. One way to look at it is branding product. Apple is branding the product. So they supposedly have more value to customers as it stands for quality, awareness, trust etc. As oppose to 100 little components in computer which maybe from different brands, and Apple may switch brand year to year without user noticing. So those components makers have little power over Apple.

Same is happening to Claude software package as it would stand behind branded Apple foundation models. From pure software developer thinking this is exactly what Claude offered here so where is the issue? Issue is in larger space where Apple could take steps to block Claude out of their ecosystem if they so wish at some point and there is little Claude / Anthropic would do if Apple Foundation is the only thing that Apple consumers would know about.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#128

Post by otter0 »

First Microsoft has broken keyfabe by putting "Copilot is for entertainment purposes only" in the Copilot terms of use and putting warnings in copilot for excel "avoid using COPILOT for ... any task requiring accuracy or reproducibility ... Tasks with legal, regulatory or compliance implications".

Then Apple quietly refuses to participate by not investing tens or hundreds of billions in creating a competing LLM. Sure, they resell Claude for the marks or utilize Gemini to placate the gullible fools but they know what's up.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-copilot/for-indivi...

https://support.microsoft.com/en-US/Excel/copilot-function

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#129

Post by hedora »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #99
tedggh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Benedict Evans may be right after all; frontier models look more and more like telecom companies in the 90s. Billions and billions of investment in infrastructure while others further up the stack captured all the value.

There will be frontier models that are non-commoditized, but they'll be kept guarded and hidden away, and you'll only get the final result, so that they can't be distilled and their harness can't be reverse engineered. They'll be billed like employees, rather than like a tool.

The non-commodity network services of the early 1990’s and the non-commodity 3d graphics hardware of the mid-1990s made the same argument.
Post reply on HN