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

151–160 of 244 posts

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#151

Post by klausa »

geodel wrote: post #127
klausa wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 C…

That framing would make sense to me if the thing being discussed was Apple letting _end users_ somehow access Claude models white-labeled as "Apple Foundation Model", sure? Or even letting _developers_ access Apple-hosted Claude or something?

But this is very much _not_ what this is.

Apple showed a bunch of new APIs at WWDC last week. One of this is a way for a developers to interact with LLM's in a way that let's you easily swap out models (with a bunch of other niceties around it), including swapping between on-device and remote models.

This is _Anthropic_ (not Apple!) shipping their support for that framework, so you can also switch between different Anthropic models using the same APIs you'd use to swap between a local or PCC model.

I expect OpenAI will probably ship their shims in the next couple of weeks too? (You can probably vibe-code one in half an hour if you point Codex at the Anthropic one, tbh).

(Apple also doesn't use "Apple Foundation Model" anywhere in the user-facing marketing materials AFAICT, this is strictly developer facing terminology, but I could be wrong?)

My impression is that people are _wildly_ misunderstanding what this _actually_ is, and running wild with speculation/interpretation.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#152

Post by manoDev »

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.

I’m bullish on Apple because of that. Tech waves always oscillate between mainframe/thin-client models at first, then commodity hardware catches up. Apple is well positioned to deliver that with the M series, all it takes is for the current AI bubble to pop a bit and memory costs go down.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#153

Post by dboreham »

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.

The people who train the frontier models want to recover their costs, so they're not going to let you do that.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#154

Post by geodel »

alecco wrote: post #150
ksec wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think Evans is completely wrong. I wish there was a case where I find Evans is wrong. As far as my memory served me, I failed to record a single one. I disagree that Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Google are " well " behind. If anything the frontier model advantage seems to be at best 6 - 9 months. And that the Chinese model are all doing well. One of Steve Jobs's line, "It is a feature, not a product." Even if Appl…

Even their own employees get frustrated if they can't use Claude or Codex. 6-9 months is a big difference and I think it's closer to 9 than 6. And never mind the harness etc are also many months behind.

This is just wishful thinking. I am sure someone from gossip media will also find Apple employees who are ready to leave job if Apple disallows Claude usage.

If anything Apple should notice it is Anthropic has got a really good marketing team and it would be no shame if they pick a trick or two from them.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#155

Post by shadowpho »

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.

Why can’t Apple launch a $50k product for $1k? Everyone would buy it!

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#156

Post by satvikpendem »

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.

You can use OpenCode or Pi with SSD streaming so it technically will have all the features, just unbearably slow.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#157

Post by satvikpendem »

rock_artist wrote: post #16

While I'm happy with Apple introducing this abstraction. my main concern was with local models. I'd love using Gemma4 as an example. but thinking of a user. if 10 Apps each uses same model and downloads it, the phone will be bloated. I still didn't understand if Apple provided a way for multiple apps uses same on-device model (without tricky namespaces and permissions). I didn't see anything suggesting that's the cas…

That is exactly what foundation models are, yes. Same in Android with AICore which uses Gemma underneath, apps can query the LLM and receive responses back rather than bundling in their own model.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#158

Post by ABS »

pstuart wrote: post #149
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.

The work on LLM in a Flash will probably help, and Apple's NVMe architecture is well suited to maximize throughput could allow their devices to work better on larger models than other vendors.

[flagged]

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#159

Post by embedding-shape »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #133
WarmWash wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People use a model as their daily driver, get very familiar with it and it's behavior, and then go and use another model and have a hard time. It's very difficult to separate "the model is bad" from "the model works differently".

> 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, even when you have say 96GB of VRAM available to run the bigger models even most (at home) consumers won't be able to run.

Re: Apple Foundation Models

#160

Post by mohamedkoubaa »

rock_artist wrote: post #16

While I'm happy with Apple introducing this abstraction. my main concern was with local models. I'd love using Gemma4 as an example. but thinking of a user. if 10 Apps each uses same model and downloads it, the phone will be bloated. I still didn't understand if Apple provided a way for multiple apps uses same on-device model (without tricky namespaces and permissions). I didn't see anything suggesting that's the cas…

Ok but don't expect Anthropic to help with local models, that'll be something apple rolls out themselves if at all
Post reply on HN