291–300 of 609 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to select Mistral over Google Gemini.
> I'd love to select Mistral over Google Gemini Apple doesn’t want to configure its private cloud to run every model. This seems fine.
I'm really not looking forward to Gemini models on my devices. Gemini models clearly gaslight the user and hallucinate, they're also SUPER verbose, as shown in the demos from the keynote. Plus, if they're not charging a subscription for this, you know we're getting the dumbest models...
I also pay for Proton's Lumo+ private chat and for what it is it is also good.
The free plans from all the providers are bad, which is fare enough.
I use Apple devices and I expect to be paying for Gemini tokens after the integration.
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.
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…
> 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? Is it really all that difference…
Not really, because the business model isn't there (at least not in this iteration.
1. The models are Apple models, co-developed with Google. They are not white-label Gemini.
2. There's not currently a Google failover or UX
3. Because of that, there's no user monetization to share.
Apple does have a ChatGPT integration, with failover UX, and with a suspected revenue share deal. However, one could see this deal in a precarious situation, since at the time it started it was expected Apple would not focus much at all on a model capable with world knowledge.
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…
I see it differently… Apple has chosen to treat the model as a commodity. By making Gemini an implementation detail, they leave the door open to swap it out for Anthropic or OpenAI without end-users even knowing or caring. So I think they're creating leverage in any future negotiation.
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…
Didn’t Apple talked to Anthropic as their first choice, but they couldn’t agree on an amount, almost similar to BeOS and Next remember them?
Another one bites the dust What a blunder, they resisted AI for like 2 years when it was all the buzz, and now when the bubble is about to bust and every user has AI fatigue they decide to finally dip into the fad? Before it was as if avoiding AI was a conscious design decision, and if there was an AI crash, Apple would be the only survivor left. Now it feels like they weren't in on the meme out of incompetence and a…
I can recommend my own layered approach, using the lowest capability models that get stuff done:
1. I maximally use local models like gemma4:26b-a4b-it-qat for everything that works with this free option.
2. I like paying for inexpensive APIs for mid-tier models like deepseek v4 flash, gcp-5-mini, gemini-2-flash for things that option 1. fails at. This option is almost free.
3. Pay for more expensive APIs like deepseek v4 pro, gemini 3.5 flash, etc. This option is not too expensive.
4. If all else fails on a class of tasks, then pay for awesomeness of Claude Opus. $$ expensive, I try not to use unless absolutely necessary.
I think developers and companies that just cram everything into Claude Opus are unprofessional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do too, but in this case the choice isn't between apple and the EU. It's between apple and the your non-technical friends foolishly trust, without much understanding of the implications for them or society as a whole. Ultimately I think it's important for the EU to regulate companies like apple to ensure competition. But in this instance, it doesn't seem like we have all the other pieces in place that would be nece…
what's the missing piece exactly? In every other situation where a company wants to launch an iphone app to hoover your data, Apple gives a clear message telling you what types of data you're giving access to. Why is this situation different?
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…
Maybe they're looking for stability and trust Google to be around longer than Antrophic or OpenAI when the storm starts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a shallow take. There are obvious privacy and security tradeoffs here. The EU competition framework is good in many ways, but this is actually something I don’t think we have the regulatory frameworks in place to handle yet , or social norms and understanding about why giving any Tom dick and Harry root on all your data is a bad idea. It’s paternalistic, but I agree with Apple that free for all access to…
There's nothing shallow about my take. Apple uses "privacy and security" as a cudgel to prevent anyone from breaking into the vendor lock in. To the point that EU actually had to explicitly tell Apple what to do [1], as Apple delayed features, made them extremely hard or convoluted for third-parties to use, and pulled every trick out of the malicious compliance manual. This whole virtual assistants thing will drag on…
Apples incentives are not, currently, as strongly misaligned with their user interests as many other tech firms (meta, google, random startups, etc). Going slowly might not be a bad idea for most people here.
That said, I hadn't seen the demo you mention. If they do do that (bank passwords etc) they are stupider than I thought they would be.