21–30 of 121 posts
and what would it be? ... What have Apple developed that goes beyond currently available peer-reviewed work, done by Deep Mind?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And of course, Microsoft has been in business 41 years where as Google has been 18. I'm guessing publication rates between the two are comparable. I wouldn't be surprised if IBM were similar. All three are highly committed to research.
Regardless, comparing the number of papers is meaningless. A better metric is comparing how many significant advances resulted from research funded by the company. Using the second metric, the winner in all cases - without negotiation - would be AT&T Bell Labs.
Of course! What researcher would want to work for a company that prohibits scientific publications? I've always been amazed by their attitude. Look at Microsoft Research, and their enormous scientific output over the years. IBM and Google look bleak by comparison, and Apple is not even on the chart.
“Our practices tend to reinforce a natural selection bias — those who are interested in working as a team to deliver a great product versus those whose primary motivation is publishing,” says Federighi.
https://backchannel.com/an-exclusive-look-at-how-ai-and-mach...
Of course! What researcher would want to work for a company that prohibits scientific publications? I've always been amazed by their attitude. Look at Microsoft Research, and their enormous scientific output over the years. IBM and Google look bleak by comparison, and Apple is not even on the chart.
Of course! What researcher would want to work for a company that prohibits scientific publications? I've always been amazed by their attitude. Look at Microsoft Research, and their enormous scientific output over the years. IBM and Google look bleak by comparison, and Apple is not even on the chart.
According to Craig Federighi, senior VP of software engineering, only losers who want to pad their resumes at the expense of their company care about publishing: “Our practices tend to reinforce a natural selection bias — those who are interested in working as a team to deliver a great product versus those whose primary motivation is publishing,” says Federighi. https://backchannel.com/an-exclusive-look-at-how-ai-and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure how this stacks up against MS, but Google's research is posted here: https://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html
From that page, it looks like Google has published 4359 papers. From this page, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/about/ Microsoft claims to have published over 10000 papers.
Of course! What researcher would want to work for a company that prohibits scientific publications? I've always been amazed by their attitude. Look at Microsoft Research, and their enormous scientific output over the years. IBM and Google look bleak by comparison, and Apple is not even on the chart.
If you consider the number of papers published over the lifetime of IBM, and the fact that IBM Research does work in all levels of computing (materials science -> software), Microsoft's research output looks minuscule in comparison. But if you're considering only CS research, then you might be right. Here is a nice snapshot of the major contributions that came out of IBM Research over the past 60 years: http://www.re…
Class of their own IMO.
Story broke 6 hours ago: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-is-finally-going-to-sta... Mac site picks it up 5 hours ago and it gets reported on HN: https://9to5mac.com/2016/12/06/apple-ai-researchers-can-publ... Bloomberg writes the same story an hour ago and it finally gets huge traction on HN. My guess is that many people ignore the "new" page and it's all a matter of luck that 3 or 4 people get it to the front p…