Using the author’s logic, it is Google then that will lead. Unlike Apple, they have even more devices in the field PLUS they have strong models PLUS Apple uses Google models.
> Apple uses Google models Source?
The article itself? lol
Apple's accidental moat: How the "AI Loser" may end up winning
251–260 of 402 posts
Re: Apple's accidental moat: How the "AI Loser" may end up winning
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consumers don't necessarily want iPhone. They don't want to be excluded from iMessage, which is a completely different motivation.
That is a very US centric opinion. In other part of the globe iphone users are mostly using whatsapp or Line and couldn't care less about imessage.
And in those countries, iOS has a much smaller market share. You're proving my point.
Re: Apple's accidental moat: How the "AI Loser" may end up winning
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simple fact is that a 16 GB RAM stick costs much less than the development time to make the app run on less.
> The simple fact is that a 16 GB RAM stick costs much less than the development time to make the app run on less. The costs are borne by different people: development by the company, RAM sticks by the customer. A company is potentially (silently?) adding to the cost of the product/service that the customer has to bear by needed to have more RAM (or have the same amount, but can't do as much with it).
Yep, and since companies care about TCO, they reward the software with the lower TCO, which happens to be the one that uses more RAM but is cheaper to produce.
Re: Apple's accidental moat: How the "AI Loser" may end up winning
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do you know Gemini is losing money on inference? It's not. People make this claim with zero evidence. But Google made around $20B profit on Google search in 2025 Q4, and that includes AI search.
Until the day comes that they properly break out the financials you, nor the other poster have any idea as to what the numbers are.
And if AI was making lots of money they’d break it out and proudly display it in their financials on its own.
Re: Apple's accidental moat: How the "AI Loser" may end up winning
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s even more superpowered than previous implementations of this strategy. When they made the iPhone, iPod, and Apple Watch they had no specific hardware advantage over competitors. Especially with early iPhone and iPod: no moat at all, make a better product with better marketing and you’ll beat Apple. Now? Good luck getting any kind of reasonably priced laptop or phone that can run local AI as well as the iPhone/Ma…
How do you know Gemini is losing money on inference?
Is there any evidence of any company making money in inference?
Re: Apple's accidental moat: How the "AI Loser" may end up winning
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's also literally years behind the competition. https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/05/09/android-ps-new-rece...
Remember when Google added Car Crash Detection to Pixel in early 2020? Nobody does. But when Apple added it in iPhone 14 (2022)...
In french we talk about "le savoir-faire" vs "le faire-savoir" (Know-how vs making it known") and the importance of good communication. Apple are the bestest at it. Remember the iPod shuffle and the lack of screen marketed as a feature to spice up your life.
Re: Apple's accidental moat: How the "AI Loser" may end up winning
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean to me even difference between Opus and Sonnet is as clear as day and night, and even Opus and the best GPT model. Opus 4.6 just seems much more reliable in terms of me asking it to do something, and that to actually happen.
You're quick to say "to me" in your comparison. My experience is very different than yours. Codex and CC yield very differenty result both because of the harness differencess and the model differences, but niether is noticeably better than the other. Personally, I like Codex better just because I don't have to mess with any sort of planning mode. If I imply that it shouldn't change code yet, it doesn't. CC is too imp…
I guess yes, that's a harness difference, and you can also configure CC as a harness to behave very differently, but still with same harness and guidance, "to me" there's still a difference in terms of Opus 4.6 and e.g. GPT 5.4 or which GPT model do you use? I've been using Claude Code, Codex and OpenCode as harnesses presently, but for serious long running implementation I feel like I can only really rely on CC + Opus 4.6.
Re: Apple's accidental moat: How the "AI Loser" may end up winning
#258Gemma4 in my view is good enough to do things similar to Gemini 2.5 flash, meaning if I point it code and ask for help and there is a problem with the code it’ll answer correctly in terms of suggestions but it’s not great at using all tools or one shooting things that require a lot of context or “expert knowledge” If a couple more iterations of this, say gemma6 is as good as current opus and runs completely locally o…
I agree. At first I was really turned off by the Gemma 4 line of models because they didn’t function with coding agents as well as the qwen3.5 line of models. However, I found that for other use cases Gemma 4 was very good.
EDIT: I just saw this: “”Ollama 0.20.6 is here with improved Gemma 4 tool calling!”” I will rerun my tests after breakfast.
Re: Apple's accidental moat: How the "AI Loser" may end up winning
#259The best part is that it’ll all run on your device, instead of siphoning off your data to the provider. Local first AI. I think the creatives will also turn around their seething hatred of AI for Apple AI because they use more ethical training data and it feels more like they own their AI, no one’s charging them a subscription fee to use it and then using their private data for training.
Why do you think "creatives" have a "seething hatred of AI"?
Re: Apple's accidental moat: How the "AI Loser" may end up winning
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until the day comes that they properly break out the financials you, nor the other poster have any idea as to what the numbers are.
And if AI was making lots of money they’d break it out and proudly display it in their financials on its own.
They can't break it out because it is embedded in other services.
But to quote:
> Overall, we’re seeing our AI investments and infrastructure drive revenue and growth across the board.
and
> Revenue from AI solutions built by our partners increased nearly 300% year-over-year, and commitments from our top 15 software partners grew more than 16X year-over-year.
https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/message-ceo/a...