461–470 of 674 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, I can't answer that right now. Would you like to click this button which takes what you said and executes it as a Google search in Safari?
Now playing You're Missing, by Bruce Springsteen on Apple Music
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that once Siri is switched to a Gemini-based model, the baseline presumably won't be low anymore.
I’m not so sure. Just think about coding assistants with MCP based tools. I can use multiple different models in GitHub Copilot and get good results with similarly capable models. Siri’s functionality and OS integration could be exposed in a similar, industry-standard way via tools provided to the model. Then any other model can be swapped in quite easily. Of course, they may still want to do fine tuning, quantizatio…
That’s not the issue. The issue is that once Gemini is in place as the intelligence behind Siri, the bar is now much higher than today and so you have to be more careful if you consider replacing Gemini, because you’re as likely as not to make Siri worse. Maybe more likely to make it worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if there wasn’t a forcing function then “Apple Picks Gemini to Power Siri” wouldn’t be the headline A pair four-trillion dollar companies striking a deal in the hottest technology space since the internet getting headline treatment is not evidence of a forcing function.
I mean, maybe if the headline was “For no particular reason whatsoever, under absolutely no pressure from their millions of customers to deliver on the promises they paid for nearly two years ago, Apple picks Gemini to Power Siri” Or maybe you’re arguing that Apple never did intend to commit to those promises and it was all intentional and part of a well orchestrated plan from the outset? Seems like an odd strategy
Which is not how headlines work.
You may have an argument that Apple is under pressure. But your headline argument is bananas.
> maybe you’re arguing that Apple never did intend to commit to those promises
Where did you get that?
The attitude I called "fucked up" is precisely rushing to make promises and then meet them. Apple's sales don't suggest customers are putting material pressure on Cupertino. Apple's share price doesn't suggest investors are panicking. The promises have already been broken. If Apple is pushing something out, again, because they feel they have to on the basis of those promises, it's–again-a fuckup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither Apple's nor Google's announcement says Siri will use Gemini models. Both announcements say, word for word, "Google’s technology provides the most capable foundation for Apple Foundation Models". I don't know what that means, but Apple and Google's marketing teams must have crafted that awkward wording carefully to satisfy some contractual nuance.
Direct quote from Google themselves: "Apple Intelligence will continue to run on Apple devices and Private Cloud Compute , while maintaining Apple's industry-leading privacy standards."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's clear they don't have the in-house expertise to do it themselves. They aren't an AI player. So it's not a mistake, just a necessity. Maybe someday they'll build their own, the way they eventually replaced Google Maps with Apple Maps. But I think they recognize that that will be years away.
Apple has surprisingly good quality AI papers, a lot of work on bridging research and product.
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…
Personally also think it's very smart move - Google has TPUs and will do it more efficiently than anyone else. It also lets Apple stand by while the dust settles on who will out innovate in the AI war - they could easily enter the game on a big way much later on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't both of those companies also both at the whims of Microsoft for the actual compute hardware? I'm not good at keeping track of who has actual hardware vs. who runs in one of the big clouds
don’t forget oracle!
Does anyone know what Apple's "Private Cloud Compute" servers actually are? I recall murmurings about racked M chips or some custom datacenter-only variant? I'm really curious how Apple is bridging the gap between consumer silicon and the datacenter scale stack they must have to run a customized Gemini model for millions of users. RDMA over Thunderbolt is cool for small lab clusters but they must be using something e…
Last I heard most of their e2e storage for iCloud was on GCP.
They also use AWS.
I think this is a good move for Apple. It avoids tying them directly to internalised beliefs in their own AI model, it avoids all the capex around building out an AI engine and associated DC, it reduces risk, and it keeps google in a relationship under contract which google will value, and probably value enough to think hard about stupid legal games regarding Playstore and walled gardens. Apple plainly doesn't believ…
> they will ultimately take ownership. How? People have been saying this since CoreML dropped nine years ago. Apple is no closer to revamping Siri or rebuking CUDA than they were back then.
Apple private relay runs in cloudflare and fastly and I believe one other major. They certainly can and do run services for a long time with partners.