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

161–170 of 244 posts

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#161

Post by jayd16 »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #132
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If only we could buy 1TB of unified memory in a Mac for $1k-$2k in total hardware costs. Apple would basically be able to extinguish the entirety of the market cap for Nvidia, OpenAI, Anthropic, and others all at once. In 10 years, I hope my MacBook Pro can run today's frontier models and has 1TB of unified Memory.

They want you to buy four 256GB Studios and link them with ThunderBolt.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#164

Post by jubilanti »

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.

> all of the existing features of Claude Code but somehow running locally on my laptop's neural engine

You can use environment variables to have claude code query literally any endpoint you choose as long as it has a compatible API.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#165

Post by cush »

oefrha wrote: post #18
NorwegianDude wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A dark, but not totally unfair take: It makes it easier for Apple to take payment for the models others provide, and even allows Apple, if they want to, to use the data to build a dataset for training their own models based on how users use third party models. It's only on Apple devices this API is used, so they split up the market by not letting developers use the same system if they want things to work on iOS, lock…

Call it Intelligence Store and charge… wait for it… 30%.

This is genuinely the only way Apple will make it out of the intelligence era alive and not become the next IBM

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#166

Post by axus »

tedggh wrote: post #72
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.

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.

Last I checked the telcos made plenty of money in the 90s. Should Verizon be getting a cut of my Claude Pro subscription, since I use FIOS to access it?

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#167

Post by cush »

VadimPR wrote: post #45

How can you practically use this in software if you're to deploy this to users? Asking a user to create and enter their own API key is a bar too high for good UX.

Users don’t give a API key. The docs show how to set up your backend proxy.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#168

Post by JumpCrisscross »

embedding-shape wrote: post #159
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's very difficult to separate "the model is bad" from "the model works differently" At which point it’s fair to reject the commoditization label. Also missing from these discussions are e.g. Qwen, which is at least as good as one back from OpenAI or Anthropic’s frontiers.

> Also missing from these discussions are e.g. Qwen, which is at least as good as one back from OpenAI or Anthropic’s frontiers. They're missing in the discussion because the ones you can run locally, aren't actually "one step away from other closed-source labs" in practice when you use them. They might benchmark as such, but they're sadly far away from measuring up to those scores except for very specific use cases,…

> the ones you can run locally, aren't actually "one step away from other closed-source labs"

And they probably won’t be for at least another decade. Comparing like with like, flagship model running on the best hardware it can run on, Qwen is close.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#169

Post by GeekyBear »

This isn't Claude specific. Developers can also write apps that call Google's server based Gemini models.

> At WWDC, Apple announced that it's opening its Foundation Models framework to third-party cloud model providers. Starting with iOS 27, macOS 27, iPadOS 27, visionOS 27 and watchOS 27, model providers can implement the new public LanguageModel protocol to provide a common interface for model inference. We've made Gemini models available to the Foundation Models framework through the Firebase Apple SDK.

This provides a fully native development experience — cloud-hosted Gemini models can plug directly into the Foundation Models framework using the same API. That means the on-device Apple model and cloud-hosted Gemini models sit behind a shared API surface, so you can easily swap between local and cloud inference to fit your use case.

https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/developers-...

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#170

Post by thewebguyd »

wolttam wrote: post #137
alecco wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In spite of their deeper pockets, massive datacenters, colosal amounts of user data, and hundreds of thousands of top developers, even Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Google are well behind. I think Evans is completely wrong. There are only 2 truly frontier models. (at least for now). And Anthropic seems to be leaving OpenAI behind so there might be only 1 in the near future. (which is scary/dangerous)

I think it's highly likely that there will remain one or two companies on the very bleeding edge of AI development for the foreseeable future. But what I think a lot of people miss is that the market for the truly bleeding edge (developing bio-tech, building the most sophisticated software stacks (probably with a tilt towards simulation, GPU kernel optimization, etc)) is not the whole market. There's a plethora of us…

Anecdotal case in point, but writing mostly enterprise CRUD in C#, I've gotten plenty of mileage out of Sonnet, very rarely do I need to use Opus.

Its somewhat of a myth that you need the most advanced, expensive model for software development.

Post reply on HN