231–240 of 674 posts
given that gemini 3 pro is presumably a relatively small model it wouldn't be too surprising to see an even more optimized model fit into latest iphones. I wish we knew the data behind gemini 3 flash because if my estimation that it's <50b is true, holy shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if it mirrors something they were already accused of (like you're saying), my questioning should be pretty easy to map onto that issue as well? It's the line of thinking that I'm trying to dig into more, not the specifics of this case. Now it feels like you're saying "this is anti-trust because someone accused them of anti-trust before". If that case was prosecuted and Apple was found guilty, I suppose you can poi…
> Now it feels like you're saying "this is anti-trust because someone accused them of anti-trust before". No it's antitrust because they have a failed product, but purely by virtue of shutting out competitors from their platform they have been able to turn three years of flailing around into a win-by-outsourcing. What would Siri's position be like today if they hadn't blocked default voice assistants? Would they be a…
"it's antitrust because they have a failed product" is objectively hilarious
> What would Siri's position be like today if they hadn't blocked default voice assistants?
Probably pretty much the same. What would Gemini's position be like today if they hadn't blocked out default voice assistants? You only get Gemini when you use Gemini, just like you only got Siri when you use Siri (up until this deal takes effect). Also Siri has used ChatGPT already, so I'm not even convinced this is a valid criticism. They already didn't block OpenAI from being part of Siri.
> Would they be able to recover from their plight to dominate the market just by adopting Google's technology?
This is relevant how?
> How would that measure against OpenAI, Anthropic or just using Google directly?
How would what measure against other ai models? How would their ability to recover from a lack of investing in a better "homemade" AI model differ if they used OpenAI instead of Gemini? How does that have anything to do with antitrust? That's a business case study type of question. Also, shouldn't they be allowed to recover from their own lack of developing a model by using the best tool available to them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were Goodle, I'd offer Apple a very significant discount to have visible branding of "powered by Gemini".
I'm sure Apple is more than happy to pay the premium for cleanness.
If they do refer to it as "Gemini" then this is a huge win for Google, and huge loss for OpenAI, since it really seems that the "ChatGPT" brand is the only real "moat" that OpenAI have, although recently there has been about a 20% shift in traffic from ChatGPT to Gemini, so the moat already seems to be running dry.
In September, a judge ruled against a worst-case scenario outcome that could have forced Google to divest its Chrome browser business.
The decision also allowed Google to continue to make deals such as the one with Apple."
How much is Google paying Apple now
If these anti-competitive agreements^1 were public,^2 headlines could be something like,
(A) "Apple agrees to use Google's Gemini for AI-powered Siri for $[payment amount]"
Instead, headlines are something like,
(B) "Apple picks Google's Gemini to run Ai-powered Siri"
1. In other words, they are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects
2. Neither CNBC nor I are suggesting that there is any requirement for the parties to make these agreements public. I am presenting a hypothetical relating to headlilnes, (A) versus (B), as indicated by the words "If" and "could"
"Google already pays Apple billions each year to be the default search engine on iPhones. But that lucrative partnership briefly came into question after Google was found to hold an illegal internet search monopoly. In September, a judge ruled against a worst-case scenario outcome that could have forced Google to divest its Chrome browser business. The decision also allowed Google to continue to make deals such as th…
The writing was on the wall the moment Apple stopped trying to buy their way into the server-side training game like what three years ago? Apple has the best edge inference silicon in the world (neural engine), but they have effectively zero presence in a training datacenter. They simply do not have the TPU pods or the H100 clusters to train a frontier model like Gemini 2.5 or 3.0 from scratch without burning 10 year…
Is the training cost really that high, though? The Allen Institute (a non-profit) just released the Molmo 2 and Olmo 3 models. They trained these from scratch using public datasets, and they are performance-competitive with Gemini in several benchmarks [0] [1]. AMD was also able to successfully train an older version of OLMo on their hardware using the published code, data, and recipe [2]. If a non-profit and a chip…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the training cost really that high, though? The Allen Institute (a non-profit) just released the Molmo 2 and Olmo 3 models. They trained these from scratch using public datasets, and they are performance-competitive with Gemini in several benchmarks [0] [1]. AMD was also able to successfully train an older version of OLMo on their hardware using the published code, data, and recipe [2]. If a non-profit and a chip…
No, of course the training costs aren't that high. Apple's ten years of future free cash flow is greater than a trillion dollars (they are above $100b per year). Obviously, the training costs are a trivial amount compared to that figure.
This is a bit of a layer cake: 1. The first issue is that there is significant momentum in calling Siri bad, so even if Apple released a higher quality version it will still be labelled bad. It can enhance the user's life and make their device easier to use, but the overall press will be cherrypicked examples where it did something silly. 2. Basing Siri on Google's Gemini can help to alleviate some of that bad press,…
re 3: I doubt Google is going to hand over the weights to Apple to put on device.