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

Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

machinelearning.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 562 posts

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#461

Post by hbn »

swyx wrote: post #392
worstspotgain wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> executed a fantastic strategy to reposition themselves in industry discussions Just the usual marketing angle, IMO. It's not TV, it's HBO. No one is reluctant to use the word smartphone to include iPhones. I don't think anyone is going to use the Apple Intelligence moniker except in the same cases where they'd say iCloud instead of cloud services. It's also a little clunky. Maybe they could have gone with... xI? To…

correct. last year instead of VR they went with Spatial Intelligence

Vision Pro isn't really designed to be a VR device first and foremost. The primary usecase is the passthrough mode whereas VR usually describes the software putting you in a different place.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#462

Post by cush »

zer00eyz wrote: post #106
cush wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Data, implies factual information. You can not copyright factual information Where on Earth did you get that from?

> "data implies factual information" They used the word DATA, not content, DATA... The argument that is going to be made, that your copy right work stands. That the model doesn't care about your document it cares that "the" was used N number of times and its relationships to other words. That information isnt your work, and it is factual. That "data" only has value is when it's weighted against all the "data" put int…

I honestly can’t tell if this is satire

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#463

Post by cush »

llamaimperative wrote: post #372
cush wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think there are two purposes: personal expression and enjoyment for others. This is exactly what non-artists assume artists do art for. The reality is that most professional visual artists work in publishing, marketing, entertainment and the like. It’s a regular job. The incentive is money. Similarly for theatre, music, video, dance, etc etc. Artists can’t feed their families off exposure and expressing themselve…

It is absolutely wild trying to make this point on HN. Art is for funsies while writing code for targeting ads is a Serious Job.

Painfully out of touch

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#464

Post by theshrike79 »

XajniN wrote: post #409
d1sxeyes wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but not evenly distributed, BeNeLux, Germany, Austria, and Nordic countries have a lot of iPhone users, while moving further east (or south) you see lower market share. Maybe it’s “two handfuls” of wealthy western countries rather than just one, but I think OPs point holds true.

One average American user is probably worth 5-10 average European users.

(I've dabbled in mobile games)

Yes. Americans are THE most valuable customer base, y'all use insane amounts of money on mobile crap.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#465

Post by skeaker »

throw0101d wrote: post #394
Matl wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, people who laughed at them removing the 3.5mm jack can still safely laugh away.

> On the other hand, people who laughed at them removing the 3.5mm jack can still safely laugh away. Then laugh at Samsung and their flagship line of phones as well, since they haven't had headphone jacks for a while now. "After Note 10 dumps headphone jack, Samsung ads mocking iPhone dongles disappear" (2019): * https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/after-removing-headphone-ja... "Samsung is hiding its ads that made fun…

We absolutely do laugh at both already.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#466

Post by Jayakumark »

The model is not opensource. Also now we are stuck with walled garden for models thats deeply integrated at OS or Browser level. 1. Apple Models not open - so we cannot run Android, also not on Desktop Chrome or Edge. 2. Microsoft Phi3 - Can run inside iOS ,but on Android only as an APP but not on OS level or no supported APIs. Can run on Desktop Edge not chrome. 3. Google GEmini nano - Can only run inside Android and Desktop Chrome not Edge, not on iOS as weights are not open.

So we cannot get a similar answer from LLM as its different models, you cannot across ecosystem.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#467

Post by caseyy »

vile_wretch wrote: post #442
caseyy wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple has never been big on living at the cutting edge of technology There was such a time. Same as with Google. Interestingly, around 2015-2016 both companies significantly shifted to iterative products from big innovations. It's more visible with Google than Apple, but here's both. Apple: - Final Cut Pro - 1998: iMac - 1999: iBook G3 (father of all MacBooks) - 2000: Power Mac G4 Cube (the early grandparent of the…

Some of your choices and what you consider iterative/innovative are strange to me. For 2009, a chassis update for the iMac and a spec/camera bump for the iPhone doesn't seem particularly innovative especially in comparison to say the HomePod in 2017 or Satellite SOS in 2022. Also small correction but iTunes (as Soundjam MP) was originally third-party software and Final Cut was acquired by Apple.

Yes, it's not perfect.

About iTunes: I did not know that! Thank you.

About iterative/innovative: I considered hardware and software that became household names or general knowledge to be significant innovations. It is not rigorous, I tried to include more rather than less. Still, on some years these companies mostly did version increases for their hardware and software, like new iOS and macOS versions, and that was it. Those years I marked as iterative.

I included a few too many iPhones, although when I wrote that, my thought process was that these phones were pivotal to how iPhones developed. I should have included the original iPhone, and iPhone 3G — the first iPhone developed around the concept of an app platform and with an App Store. This has undoubtedly been a big innovation. iPhone 4 and 3Gs, perhaps, should not have been included.

It's loose and just to illustrate a general trend, individual items are less important, we could all pick slightly different ones. But I believe the trend would remain.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#468

Post by [deleted] »

rishabhjain1198 wrote: post #166

For people interested in AI research, there's nothing new here. IMO they should do a better job of referencing existing papers and techniques. The way they wrote about "adaptors" can make it seem like it's something novel, but it's actually just re-iterating vanilla LoRA. It was enough to convince one of the top-voted HackerNews comments that this was a "huge development". Benchmarks are nice though.

[deleted]

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#469

Post by caseyy »

barbecue_sauce wrote: post #424
caseyy wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple has never been big on living at the cutting edge of technology There was such a time. Same as with Google. Interestingly, around 2015-2016 both companies significantly shifted to iterative products from big innovations. It's more visible with Google than Apple, but here's both. Apple: - Final Cut Pro - 1998: iMac - 1999: iBook G3 (father of all MacBooks) - 2000: Power Mac G4 Cube (the early grandparent of the…

No Newton?

Missed it, but should have been included for 1998. A very good example.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#470

Post by w10-1 »

avidphantasm wrote: post #377
rishabhjain1198 wrote: post #166

For people interested in AI research, there's nothing new here. IMO they should do a better job of referencing existing papers and techniques. The way they wrote about "adaptors" can make it seem like it's something novel, but it's actually just re-iterating vanilla LoRA. It was enough to convince one of the top-voted HackerNews comments that this was a "huge development". Benchmarks are nice though.

Very little of the “AI” boom has been novel, most has been iterative elaborations (though innovative nonetheless). Academics have been using neural network statistical models for decades. What’s new is the combination of compute capability and data volume available for training. It’s iterative all the way down though, that’s how all technologies are developed.

> What’s new is the combination of compute capability and data volume available for training

This is the important part.

My advisor said new means old method applied to new data or new method on old data.

Commercially, that means price points, i.e., discrete points where something becomes viable.

Maybe that's iterative, but maybe not. Either way, once the opportunity presents, time is of the essence.

Post reply on HN