> It’s now clear that Apple knows how to train frontier model-quality models, but it’s simply choosing to lay low. Apple’s server-side models running in the Private Cloud Compute are apparently quite near the GPT-4o in terms of quality
I really don't see where this comes from. Apple has been deploying Siri for a decade. Despite this, Siri is still a steaming pile of cow dung. In few months, OpenAI built a working Siri, something that no-one at Apple was remotely close to achiving.
The fact that Apple signed a deal with OpenAI and includes GPT-4o as an alternative option is a clear sign that Apple server-side models are really not anywhere near GPT-4o. If they were, Apple wouldn't have signed this deal which is so unlike them.
To me, it really looks like Apple is late to the party in terms of LLM. They are betting that within a few years, high quality models will be commoditised and that having an ecosystem that leverages them properly will be the differentiator. Until then they are reluctantly incorporating the market leader in order not mis the train.
Yup, this was the second thing I thought that's happening. Also, I wasn't sure whether to upgrade from 13 to 16. However, the AI angle tends everything towards buying a new phone.
Am I crazy to think that the claim of private cloud compute running M chips is marketing fluff? Is their ARM based SoC really as performant as a GPU at the scale they need?
No one said they are M chips. These would be custom made for servers and AI inferencing. Also note their "ARM based SoC" has a GPU with 800 GB/sec bandwidth in the M2 Ultra.
The larger context is that Apple gets most of its revenue from iPhone sales and use which have seen tepid growth. This strongly indicates reductions in valuation.
The article mentions that Apple can use OpenAI responses for further training their own models. I don’t want to say that’s impossible but that means they really screwed OpenAI in this deal. OpenAI terms don’t allow training on responses
>But Apple can also collect data on how users utilize GPT-4o versus Apple’s models, and perform gap assessment. This becomes valuable training data for Apple.
I’d read that as: they know what queries users choose to route to OpenAI, so they can identify where their models are being perceived as less capable.
I don’t think the author is revealing non-public knowledge of the contracts.
Because these days a lot of the money a developer makes isn’t made up-front, it’s made through interactions in the app. Siri isn’t going to read you the ads in the apps it’s using behind the scenes.
Maybe this will cause a shift back towards up-front pricing, which personally I would welcome.
Apple has been laying the foundation for “agentic” use of apps for a long time. All of the functions that apps make available to Shortcuts today will be usable by Apple Intelligence. I wonder if they already had that use case in mind when they came out with Shortcuts?
> I wonder if they already had that use case in mind when they came out with Shortcuts?
They didn't come out with shortcuts. They bought an app called Workflow that was leagues ahead of anything Apple was providing on the automation front in iOS.
And Apple never knew what to do with Shortcuts. They bought the app in 2017 and didn't integrate Siri with it until 2022. And Shortcuts still remain limited, and barely usable.
"Also, Siri’s agentic features - if they work as advertised - can increase Apple’s leverage over App Publishers, because now the AI - not the user - is the entity opening and clicking on the apps."
This was really interesting to me. How does one develop an app for Siri (or an AI agent in general). Is there a standard way to communicate and expose the functionality of your app?
Readit News
I really don't see where this comes from. Apple has been deploying Siri for a decade. Despite this, Siri is still a steaming pile of cow dung. In few months, OpenAI built a working Siri, something that no-one at Apple was remotely close to achiving.
The fact that Apple signed a deal with OpenAI and includes GPT-4o as an alternative option is a clear sign that Apple server-side models are really not anywhere near GPT-4o. If they were, Apple wouldn't have signed this deal which is so unlike them.
To me, it really looks like Apple is late to the party in terms of LLM. They are betting that within a few years, high quality models will be commoditised and that having an ecosystem that leverages them properly will be the differentiator. Until then they are reluctantly incorporating the market leader in order not mis the train.
Probably due to internal political wars. Apparently they had an internal lightweight version outperforming existing Siri, but the team never got anywhere with it: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2024/06/06/how-the-wall-st...
Sell more devices by using privacy and security as an argument for making new features available only on new iPhones.
A very smart move from Apple.
Indeed. Very smart.
Deleted Comment
I fixed that for you in the parent. Thanks for pointing it out.
So it only needs to be so efficient that it will still cost less than those other options.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/apple-is-developing-ai-chips-for...
No real details.
>These data centers will also run completely on Apple’s M chips
Why does the latter follow from the former? I guess the author has Apple stock.
Dead Comment
I’d read that as: they know what queries users choose to route to OpenAI, so they can identify where their models are being perceived as less capable.
I don’t think the author is revealing non-public knowledge of the contracts.
Maybe this will cause a shift back towards up-front pricing, which personally I would welcome.
They didn't come out with shortcuts. They bought an app called Workflow that was leagues ahead of anything Apple was providing on the automation front in iOS.
And Apple never knew what to do with Shortcuts. They bought the app in 2017 and didn't integrate Siri with it until 2022. And Shortcuts still remain limited, and barely usable.
This was really interesting to me. How does one develop an app for Siri (or an AI agent in general). Is there a standard way to communicate and expose the functionality of your app?