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

Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 609 posts

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#231

Post by ok123456 »

J_Shelby_J wrote: post #110
dejawu wrote: post #7

It's strange to me that Apple would choose to disadvantage themselves by selecting Google as their provider as opposed to, say, Anthropic or even OpenAI. Doesn't this mean they'll struggle more to differentiate themselves from the assistant on Android phones? Thinking more cynically, couldn't Google, if they wanted, feed Apple an inferior version of Gemini, ensuring they stay ahead? As the consumer, this just sucks b…

Anthropic and OpenAI are stuck on slower and more expensive nvidia hardware. It doesn’t scale like googles TPUs.

Google's TPU and Groq's LPU are the only real, commercially viable ways to provide all the compute required for the inference people want.

Just having an ungodly amount of capex by blanketing the Midwest with datacenters full of GPUs is a disaster in slow motion.

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#232

Post by elzbardico »

dejawu wrote: post #7

It's strange to me that Apple would choose to disadvantage themselves by selecting Google as their provider as opposed to, say, Anthropic or even OpenAI. Doesn't this mean they'll struggle more to differentiate themselves from the assistant on Android phones? Thinking more cynically, couldn't Google, if they wanted, feed Apple an inferior version of Gemini, ensuring they stay ahead? As the consumer, this just sucks b…

You can be pretty sure that Google will be around us in a two year timeframe. Can't say the same neither about Anthropic or OpenAI.

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#233

Post by wewewedxfgdf »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #216
wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #151

It is weird and disturbing that Apple has no native AI capability. This is one of the most cash rich companies in the world and it has failed to have any position in the most critical technology development perhaps ever. It's a clear signal that Apple became the most incredible operational/execution company under Tim Cook, but lost its innovation leadership.

They are a hardware company at heart, the do software as software is needed. For building a competitive AI they'd have to hire the talent, which is expensive and then do a massive investment, which may still end up far behind the competition. (See there attempts with Siri) Now they can pick the model they want and if time is right they can still build their own. In the end they still want to sell devices. They aren't…

>> They are a hardware company at heart, the do software as software is needed.

This has never been true, not since Steve Jobs returned.

The heart of Apple is software and hardware integration.

Hardware companies that do software just to prop up the hardware business do terrible software, and (no doubt the Apple haters gonna hate this) but Apple does - for the most part - amazing software.

>> which is expensive and then do a massive investment

Apple has $145 billion in cash.

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#234

Post by bloppe »

quentindanjou wrote: post #176
progbits wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EU regulators’ extreme interpretation of the DMA It's not extreme interpretation, it's the intent. Just say it would break your vendor lock-in.

I don't want my apps that have AI implemented to be able to read my messages because Europe mandates feature parity. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. For Apple it means building all the APIs that probably already exist but this time to be requested by apps, which would be a huge attack surface, even Apple's own apps suffers from security breaches (like Message before the switch to closed container execution).…

The law does not require Apple to grant all permissions to all apps for all users. It just requires Apple to ask users if the user wants to grant elevated permissions to specific apps that they download. The user can always say "no", which should obviously be the default.

The situation is that Apple won't even allow users to grant elevated permissions to any 3rd party app, even if the user wants to.

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#235

Post by janalsncm »

dofm wrote: post #223
luk212 wrote: post #21

Very Apple-ish approach to AI catch up: wrap an external tool in a privacy architecture, embed into the OS and productize the orchestration layer. It will be interesting to see if the Private Cloud Compute + on-device routing can make third-party model capabilities feel like a first-party system without leaking user context to the model provider. If Apple handles the Google-Apple boundary right, this will be an elega…

Is there a meaningful Google-Apple boundary in operation? They are buying the right to distill their own Gemini models and run them in their data centres (or at least data centres they control); unless I am missing something, this isn't going to be infrastructure that Google has operational control over.

If Apple is running the inference from Apple iPhones and Apple data centers then Apple has operational control. Google’s influence ends the moment they hand the weights over to Apple.

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#236

Post by dofm »

janalsncm wrote: post #235
dofm wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a meaningful Google-Apple boundary in operation? They are buying the right to distill their own Gemini models and run them in their data centres (or at least data centres they control); unless I am missing something, this isn't going to be infrastructure that Google has operational control over.

If Apple is running the inference from Apple iPhones and Apple data centers then Apple has operational control. Google’s influence ends the moment they hand the weights over to Apple.

Right — I suppose I mis-phrased my first sentence a bit, because I guess it can be interpreted as me saying the boundary is blurred, when what I was trying to write is: in operation there is nothing crossing any boundary; Google are not in the picture.

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#237

Post by nsagent »

bensyverson wrote: post #2

I would love to learn more about what's actually powering Apple Intelligence now. Are they using flagship Gemini models behind their own prompts? Fine-tuning? Pre-training their own models based on Gemini? Is there a meaningful distinction between the Gemini-powered models and Apple Foundation Models? Does that distinction vary for on-device vs hosted models? Are some models running on Apple's Private Cloud Compute a…

Am I reading this correctly? Their chosen cloud providers run the PCC stack on their hardware, so the compute provider is responsible for ensuring the privacy guarantees? I assume that would add to the potential security surface area.

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#238

Post by dwaite »

troupo wrote: post #89
peterspath wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the DMA regulation that forces Apple to give the same access as they have to other AI chat apps. Once it leaves the device Apple does not know what those other ai chat apps will do with the gathered data. > Siri AI is private by design and deeply integrated across Apple’s platforms using on-device processing and Private Cloud Compute, which extends the privacy and security of iPhone into the cloud. However, unde…

Translation: Since it's the user 's device, not Apple's, EU correctly "interprets" this as the user has the right to do whatever they please, including installing third-party chat apps. Apple are just bulshitters when it comes to actual users, and not their corporate definition of a user. BTW, did you know that in Japan, and in Japan only, you can change the Siri shortcut button to start other voice assistants? https…

> Or that they wouldn't let you set default maps app outside of the EU

They were mandated to create a scheme in isolation on a deadline, without having input either from navigation apps or from consumers, and without any requirement that web browsers or other operating systems would need to support the same scheme.

As another comment pointed out - it doesn't work. Websites and apps still integrate with a navigation product directly, rather than use this scheme. And why wouldn't they? Even if it was launched worldwide on iOS, it still is just a defined subset of any particular navigation product functionality. It also is just yet another navigation option to integrate into your platform, since the feature still wouldn't be available on desktops/Android.

Until everyone is sitting at the table wanting to work towards interoperability, the feature simply can't work. So why perpetuate a broken chooser into other markets?

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#239

Post by [deleted] »

dejawu wrote: post #7

It's strange to me that Apple would choose to disadvantage themselves by selecting Google as their provider as opposed to, say, Anthropic or even OpenAI. Doesn't this mean they'll struggle more to differentiate themselves from the assistant on Android phones? Thinking more cynically, couldn't Google, if they wanted, feed Apple an inferior version of Gemini, ensuring they stay ahead? As the consumer, this just sucks b…

[deleted]

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#240

Post by bigfudge »

yreg wrote: post #211
bigfudge wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing in the law requires the pop up. It definitely doesn’t require the obnoxious bullshit that most companies put up (aka the dark pattern to get you to agree to every unreasonable part of their terms just to read the page). The alternative would be to just stop invasive tracking and add the cookie when it’s actually needed.

Yet somehow all the government/EU-institution pages I visit also choose to track and throw the popup.

Yes, there's a lot of cargo culting in web development.

Many US based companies also do this for US visitors, which is absolutely not required by the GDPR and related regulations, because they don't apply there.

The law states:

> Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies.

Strictly necessary:

> These cookies are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies.

https://gdpr.eu/cookies/

You don't need consent for MOST reasonable uses of cookies. If compliance theatre wasn't such an industry the web would be a lot tidier and we could stop blaming the EU for implementing important privacy and data controls.

Post reply on HN