Hacker News Reader

Comment by gavman | Hacker News Reader

>>"As of today’s launch, companies like Apple, Twitter, Intel and Baidu are missing from the group. Though Apple is said to be enthusiastic about the project, their absence is still notable because the company has fallen behind in artificial intelligence when compared to its rivals — many of which are part of this new group."

It seems Apple's lack of engagement in the community [1] is really starting to hurt it. Did anyone else take away from this that the other big players are not including them at the table/considering them real competition?

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-29/apple-s-se...

View on HN

I see a list of companies which are ethically compromised. Apple has publicly taken the opposite side of the fence on this one. I'm not sure they want to be associated with Facebook, Google, Amazon or Microsoft using AI to strip apart user's private behavior and reassemble it as advertising data. Would we trust a cooperative of tobacco companies funding scientific research and ethics surrounding the use and promotion of cigarettes?

Does anyone contest that Facebook's AI is going to pull apart their user's public social feeds and private FB conversations to advance their own business model?

A unification of a large group of tech companies could even be seen as an anti-OpenAI. A singleton could certainly emerge as a co-operation between multiple large corporations and/or a government. An Amazon & Google partnership is particularly terrifying considering how much computing power could be rolled over to a unified AI almost instantaneously.

We do not need an organization engaged in PR for for-profit companies attempting to placate the public while lobbying regulators while unleashing their AI on the public at large. That is what this looks like. We've seen their business ethics already. It isn't a good template moving forward.

I would be less cynical if I heard anyone else besides Apple taking a public stand on keeping personal data private and AI contained in boxes. There does need to be AI ethics and safety leaders, but Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon should be following not in the lead.

I think that you sir, are right on the money. An apt analogy with the tobacco industry too.

Whether right or wrong, I think it's good to keep in mind that Apple has, by far the highest quarterly profit and total asset value, compared to any of these companies - it really is a giant among giants. Alphabet certainly has an excellent future outlook (reflected in the markets), but its current financial state still pales in comparison to Apple.

Taking this into account, I figure Apple thinks twice and thrice before joining industry consortiums and partnerships that they didn't initiate themselves. This would be straightforward posturing/strategizing on their part, and probably doesn't reveal too much about the current state of their R&D in Machine Learning. It's unfortunate that things are this way, but nothing unusual from a "game theory" perspective.

I also don't think of them as a straight technology company, but more of a best of breed product company focused on a great user experience. In that sense, high risk, long term investments that don't have an immediate application don't fit their profile.

> best of breed product company focused on a great user experience

somehow i put them in the same category as LG, Samsung and Sony, albeit 100x better at what they do.

Apple's fastest growing revenue stream is services. It's already a 20 billion a year profit machine.

Can you give more information on this? I had no idea they had such a potent revenue stream in the services sector.

When Apple reported Q3 earnings this year, Tim Cook said that the services revenue would be "the size of a Fortune 100 company by next year."[0] Revenue was ~6 billion in Q3, up 19% from a year prior. That comes out to roughly 20 billion a year.

When I saw everyone playing Pokemon Go and buying coins and what have you, I thought of Apple taking a 30% cut of every transaction...

The service revenue really is the strongest case for being a bull. Of course this is just my own personal opinion. I own the stock and I'm long on the prospects. I also love the products. Also so much cash!

[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ceo-tim-cook-services-q...

Apple has its own OS, compilers, IDE, 2+ languages, various frameworks etc. This is more than what Google, more importantly used a lot by people. But yeah it just a hardware company.

Android, ChromeOS, Go, Dart

Yea but Samsung has Bada, Knox, Tizen (partially), JerryScript, Kies, etc

Not really. Google has Android OS, Chrome OS, Brillo OS, Andromeda OS, Fuchsia OS, Android Studio, Go, Dart, Angular JS, etc...

Technology is broader than just software (though I'm not implying you said it is just software). Apple is a phenomenal technology company - their hardware + software integration is unmatched and they have made advances in everything from software to hardware to supply chain optimization to manufacturing technology.

Also, they are ( or at least were) a prime example of a company that can bet on high risk, longish term investments that don't have an immediate application : e.g. their investment in chips, touch technology etc. It may not be as long term as some of the Google X stuff but I don't think it is fair to call them averse to making high risk long term investments.

'it really is a giant among giants.'

You're confused. That would be Alphabet, not Apple. To put it in perspective for you, Google has:

~90% of the search market (https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-...)

~90% of the smartphone market (https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/18/gartner-androids-smartphon...)

~50% of the online advertisement market (http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Google-Still-Dominates-Worl...)

Hell, Google's staff meets with/at the White House more than once a week! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3554953/Google-staff...)

I can think you can see the point I'm making: yes, Apple has a big pile of cash, a fat amount of profit and high stock value. However, Alphabet its influence and reach is far, far beyond that of Apple. Its just not as flashy & visible.

Don't agree? Let's imagine(!) two scenarios.

Scenario 1 - the US Government somehow figures out a way to force Apple to pay all its evaded taxes. Apple doesn't agree, and to make a point how important they are, killswitch everything. Results:

10% of the developed world can't use their phone anymore 10% of the developed world can't use their computer anymore An even smaller subset can't access their e-mail

Scenario 2 - the US Government somehow figures out a way to force Google to pay all its evaded taxes. Google doesn't agree, and to make a point how important they are, killswitch everything. Results:

90% of the developed world can't use their phone anymore 90%+ (Android owners + Gmail, Gcal etc. users) of the developed world can't access their e-mail, calendars, contacts etc. anymore ??% (decently high) of companies/universities can't access their e-mail, calendars etc., because Google Apps is down ??% has trouble navigating because Google Maps goes down (Other maps are still inaccurate and incomplete outside of the US) ??% of companies experience issues by Google Maps+API being down (Uber springs to mind)

Advertising also stops working and paying out (can be switched easily though, so not as critical)

Besides that, Alphabet is also involved in a number of moonshot projects. (Level 4) Self-driving cars. immortality research, AI research, LTE balloons, etc. etc.

The funny part is that I'm typing this on a 13" Retina MBP, with a iPhone 5S in my pocket. I'm by no means a Google fanboy. I love Apple's vertical integration, the amount of synergy and seamlessness their devices have, and that they're championing individual privacy. Also doesn't hurt that compared to Linux, OS X is a godsend to dev on.

I've done enough inebriated rambling so I'm gonna shut up now..

Still gave KAT owner's IP address and all his .icloud e-mails to the FBI without any resistance. WTF?

I am sorry for the broken formatting of the scenario part but Hacker News its editing refuses to save my changes. Peace y'all!

>* I can think you can see the point I'm making: yes, Apple has a big pile of cash, a fat amount of profit and high stock value. However, Alphabet its influence and reach is far, far beyond that of Apple. Its just not as flashy & visible.*

Yeah, Alphabet is bigger in every way that counts except those two inconsequential things for companies: revenue and profit.

The iPhone exploited a rift in the space-time fabric.

The right features at the right time, everybody had to have one and the margins are totally insane.

That can't last. The market is nearing saturation, and competitive pressures will erode margins.

It seems unlikely they will have another product that generates as much cash as the iPhone.

They will still be a very profitable company, but perhaps not the cash printing machine that we have seen over the last 5 years.

The exact same thing holds for Google Search. They have not generated any product that brings as much cash as search ads (not even close) -- and that's since 1998 or so.

Google Docs, Google +, Google Glass (lol) etc never went anywhere much, revenue wise, and even Android is mostly a loss as far as Google is concerned, even including licenses and mobile ads (makes a good buck for Samsung though).

> The market is nearing saturation, and competitive pressures will erode margins.

They serve the top end of the market (neither feature phones, not "just give me some smartphone free with the contract") where there are not much competitive pressures and they've been milking more profit than all Android shops combined at that. Besides, that we have been kept hearing since 2008 when Android appeared, and it hasn't even happened in the desktop/laptop space (the sell 5-10% of PCs and get 45% of the PC profits).

Google has not made anything that generates the profit, but they still can pull some levers to make their search even more difficult (remove verbatim for example) so you'd spend more time on it (thus generate more ad money).

Also they've got those cute/silly moonshots that just might pan out.

Actually only profit matters. If I offered to sell you $2 billion worth of anything for $1 billion, voila, billion dollars in revenue.

Let's assume all these assertions are correct i.e. the disappearance of every Google product would hurt more than the same scenario but sub Google -> Apple. That doesn't actually imply that Google > Apple (in terms of general influence) in the world in which they both do exist.

My interpretation of your post is that Google might be more _important_ than Apple. And my counterargument is that importance is not equivalent to influence.

> However, Alphabet its influence and reach is far, far beyond that of Apple. Its just not as flashy & visible.

You just gave some very "flashy & visible" examples of Alphabet's influence while citing only a "big pile of cash" as Apple's flashy & visible trait.

Apple have always been the most secretive and they almost NEVER announce something before they're ready to advertise it.

Did anybody see the New Mac Pro redesign coming? What about the fact that they were developing a whole new language for 4 years before anybody suspected it, Swift? Now it's one of their biggest things ever (one of fastest growing languages on GitHub by some metrics.)

Hell, even the PowerPC to Intel jump could be considered a surprise, even though they had been working on it for 5 years. [1]

Now, just recently they revealed a bunch of stuff powered by offline machine learning in iOS 10 and the macOS Photos — all without sending your info to Apple — and frankly I'm more impressed by this and the differential privacy thing than with Google's efforts towards centralized AI.

If one were to make any guesses, I'd say Apple is in a unique position to build an AI network distributed across all their devices, without leaking privacy to Apple or anyone. This is very attractive to me as a user, even if I have "nothing to hide." There are over a billion iPhones and iPads and Macs combined, with beefier processors on average compared to the majority of Androids. Android's fragmentation may also make it harder for Google to pull off the same, even if they were to make a commitment to user privacy.

I think the winds of the world are changing direction; people are becoming increasingly aware about privacy concerns, and these issues keep making the headlines. EVEN if Apple is just using it as PR ammo, Google and Facebooks are objectively the worst offenders in this area and they don't look so nice and shiny a People's Champion in a privacy-focused future. It may take just one good open-sourced and distributed search engine, or a newer and more hip social platform (Snapchat looks like a good contender there), to unravel all their prospects.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY_ABCZJcpc

I agree with almost everything you said, except this part.

> I think the winds of the world are changing direction; people are becoming increasingly aware about privacy concerns, and these issues keep making the headlines.

It seems like only a minority cares about privacy concerns to even understand them well and take some action. Even when privacy issues make the headlines, billions of people just shrug their shoulders (and perhaps a few thousand say a curse word or two) but still go back to the same old ways they've been using Facebook, Google, etc.

I feel sad that the winds aren't changing direction, or at least not fast enough to be a force to reckon with.

> billions of people just shrug their shoulders

As they have been doing from the beginning. The masses only act contrary to top level input when desperately hungry. Even their righteous anger is scripted and handed down.

What has been the problem is that the critical non-elite core (say 10%) of society was ignorant of the consequences of these technologies and they are now getting a better sense.

We only have to educate the 10% and only need to provide secure software for these same 10%. Societies change when the 10% no longer accepts the rule of the 1%. This is the primary critique against geek efforts to get "grandma" using crypto. If grandma is part of the 10%, she'll be able to follow step by step instructions.

Yeah, I should've said "I'd like to think/hope the winds are changing" but still, things like all the new messaging apps that make end-to-end encryption a selling point, and services like Skype losing active users at a rapid rate, do point to an undeniable if yet-miniscule effect.

Even during casual conversations with some of my friends who wouldn't be expected to care about these issues, they occasionally let out a glib "Sorry NSA!" whenever they say something that's known to be picked up by their monitoring.

So there is change. There is a chilling effect. And a big player like Apple making a big deal out of it, does help.

Both Google and Apple are extremely important, valuable companies that have had a very significant impact on the world and culture.

Google created Google - they more or less are the internet (that and Facebook) for the world. To 'Google' something is a phrase that entered into the vocabulary a very long time ago. Both their enormous presence in Internet/search, plus more cultural things like Youtube makes it unable to imagine a world without them.

Apple created iPhone. Holy shit, the iPhone. More or less, they invented the smartphone and the ecosystem around it. I really do wonder whether things like Uber would exist if Apple never made iPhone. I doubt Twitter would be as popular. Entire industries have been created now because Apple made iPhone[1].

They're both world-changing companies that have had an enormous impact. This pissing competition of who's bigger and better is so unimportant and just misses the point entirely.

[1] This is actually an interesting thought exercise, for me at least. What would have actually happened if Apple didn't make the iPhone? It's been shown that before release Android pivoted from a Blackberry device (btw, Blackberry just announced they're going to stop making hardware) to a more 'iPhone-like' device once iPhone was announced.

The most favourable approach is that it would have taken Android and Microsoft longer to get to the stage that iPhone was to create the type of influence things like the App Store has.

What would have actually happened if Apple didn't make the iPhone?

Maybe Maemo wouldn't have been botched so badly?

"What would have actually happened if Apple didn't make the iPhone?"

I bet that nothing much different, another company would have made one in 1-2 years timeframe. The idea of "hand phone-computer" was very old (decades in sci-fi and real products in nineties called "PDA"). It just happened that around the time when Apple made the first iPhone, tech was advanced and cheap enough for the mass market. To sum up, it was perfect timing, not revolutionary idea.

You're forgetting the massive impact the iPhone had on the mobile web.

Before the iPhone was released, the mobile web was a mixture of rudimentary WAP/WML, or if you were lucky awful browsers that tried to render HTML. Everybody hated it.

Then the iPhone was released and it had a web browser in the same ballpark as real desktop browsers. What's more, WebKit was open-source. In next to no time, all the major phone vendors had a WebKit-based browser of their own and the mobile web took off.

Yes, if Apple didn't release the iPhone, eventually we would have gotten decent mobile web browsers. But phone vendors were doing an awful job of it up until Apple moved the whole industry forward. The only other possibility would have been Opera, but that would have required unrealistic licensing deals to have the same impact as the iPhone, and Opera ended up switching to WebKit too.

You're also forgetting about the effect the App Store had on the mobile marketplace. Before the iPhone, buying a mobile application tended to be something that nobody did. Every app had to roll their own payment infrastructure – it was painful for developers to charge and it was painful for customers to pay. Then the App Store came along and made it easy. There was little movement on centralising this beforehand from any other vendor, but as soon as Apple did it, everybody else hopped on the bandwagon.

I'm not arguing that smartphone was a huge step forward, just saying that it was only a matter of "when" and "who" not "if". Also, as for mobile web boom, I think the introduction of 3g was the key factor, there was only so much you could do with GPRS/WAP..

Sure, it would have happened eventually, but not in the 1–2 year timeframe you mentioned. Not even close, judging by the lack of progress from other vendors.

3G wasn't the deciding factor, the first iPhone didn't have it but responsive sites started popping up right away. There's also no point in 3G for web browsing unless you have a decent rendering engine – WML and XHTML Basic sites were hardly data hogs.

> only a matter of "when" and "who" not "if"

Yeah, that was my thought exactly. However, iPhone software was so radically different from everything else at the time that I still wonder "what" it would have been and what the App Store revolution would have looked like.

Of course, in this alternate universe it's just as likely that other amazing advancements happened because Apple didn't do iPhone.

You probably have very short memory, since when iphone 1 came out, everybody was shocked from how much better it was above anything else, and how different and better the whole experience was. Touch screen, gyroscope, sleek design compared to pen-based ridiculous slow boxy windows CE machines.

I am far from Apple fan boy and never actually owned any of their products, but boy they really brought mobile revolution to this world. It took competition many years to catch up with that, with great help of Google and their Android. Main reason why their share price skyrocketed during that time.

Blackberries predate iphone. But, you couldn't get one cheap with a phone contract. Also, it leveraged everyone's ipod song list. Not to mention the cool factor of the iphone.

> I can think you can see the point I'm making: yes, Apple has a big pile of cash, a fat amount of profit and high stock value. However, Alphabet its influence and reach is far, far beyond that of Apple. Its just not as flashy & visible.

Yes, I agree essentially with the above line (though Apple & Alphabet have comparable market values, which is why I said Alphabet has an excellent outlook). I didn't intend to start a minor flame war, as I meant "giant among giants" in the financial sense only, which of course is hugely important.

In terms of influence/clout (measured in eyeballs, political heft, economic clout via product ecosystems, etc.) Alphabet likely does edge out even Apple (perhaps not "far, far beyond"). However & without going into too much detail, I think my point still stands: from a "game theory" angle, there would likely be no strategic reason for Apple to join a partnership in this case.

I think of this as Google is great at creating value, and Apple is great at capturing value.

Google captures a lot of value in search ads.

This is total speculation but I imagine that Google captures less of the value it creates than Apple does.

If Android makes up 90% of the market share and is half as valuable as an iPhone and Google was capturing the same % of value created Google would have revenue numbers from android that are larger than Apples from the iPhone. But it's not even comparable.

If they shut down services, they slit their own throat and cut off their revenues as well.

Apple and Google are not the only players in this game, but Microsoft as well as others.

Rather than shut stuff off, Google or Apple if forced to pay taxes will just lawyer up and appeal it in some way.

Yeah developing on OSX/MacOS is better than GNU/Linux, but if you find a good IDE with the programming language you use on GNU/Linux it gets better. Plus GNU/Linux runs on the PC Clones out there as well as ported cross platform for ARM, PowerPC, SPARC, Etc.

A reason why I use GNU/Linux is that it is free and respects my rights as a consumer with no DRM, and if I don't like one version of GNU/Linux there are hundreds of others out there. GNU/Linux is not locked to just one brand of computers as MacOS/OSX is, nor does it have DRM and Telemetry in it like Windows 10.

Then it shall finally be the year of windows on mobiles.

You forgot to mention that without them 100% of the world won't be able to "google" anything.

It's just FUD. This whole thing is a boorish marketing exercise about throwing money about and which will go nowhere.

That's why Apple is out. It doesn't waste it's money.

Really?

http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6251220/guy-osear...

Those are pocket change.

Why are you surprised that Apple isn't involved in a field that has no material impact on their business? Outside of Siri and related projects, I don't see where AI/machine learning has any immediate benefits.

Twitter and Intel missing seems like something to take note of, but I didn't even think twice about Apple. I'm more surprised GE is missing than Apple.

I use Android, but Apple are doing some good personal assistant stuff like tagging friends in photos, -without- uploading them to the cloud. A true personal assistant that can use machine learning locally and with discretion sounds pretty great

I'm really starting to appreciate this kind of thing about Apple. They seem to be concerned about keeping data in the hands of their users as much as possible, when the rest of the industry defaults to a cloud-hosted solution that requires the user to completely give up control.

That's a nifty feature, but I am sceptical that Apple can offer the same kind of experience when compared to cloud-based solutions that leverage massive amounts of aggregated data and backend processing.

Apple has made a pretty big deal about privacy, but they do collect user data (see the interview a few weeks ago with Apple's mapping lead -saying they are collecting user data to improve maps).

Ultimately if users want ultra smart AI assistants (Siri, Google Now, Cortana, etc.) they will need to give up some of their data.

That may be very unpopular with the HN crowd, but I suspect the vast majority of consumers will be OK with that tradeoff.

Apple also works on technology that is meant to help users give up less of their privacy. They talked about this at WWDC 2016 under the headline 'Differential Privacy'. They're trying to use statistics to make it harder to attribute data points to individuals while still providing a workable data set on the collective of users.

Here's an article about that: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/apples-differential-privacy-co...

I use Google translate offline on Android when in China and it is great. Seems uploading the trained NN to a phone when online and then using it privately/offline is a great way to go.

At WWDC they talked about how they put AI all throughout the system. It's not just when talking to Siri. It's things like suggested apps, photo tagging, deciding when to refresh apps in the background, text prediction, and probably lots of other stuff that I can't even think of because Apple's approach to AI is to make AI largely an implementation detail of the experience rather than a user-visible component.

>> Apple's approach to AI is to make AI largely an implementation detail of the experience rather than a user-visible component.

That sums it up nicely, I'm a bit embarrassed those features didn't cross my mind when thinking about Apple/AI. Reinforces your point - its use in invisible, much like their presence in this consortium.

Apple makes great stuff (typing this on a Mac), but I really don't get the adoration / mystic that surrounds them.

Those features have been on Android forever, but people don't call it "AI".

Right, which begs the question "What is AI?"

In this context, "AI" means "using techniques that come from the field of AI research", such as convolutional neural networks and whatnot.

Because machine learning is one of the most important tricks they're going to be able to use to make their devices even more intuitively usable. There should be entire teams at Apple salivating at new ways to extend powerful functionality to users _without_ making the interface to do so gross and complicated. And they probably are -- they've acquired several ML startups lately. (Hi, Turi friends!)

I'm surprised at this "Apple not AI" narrative. I've had Google Maps & Waze on my iPhone for years and neither of them seamlessly turned on "where did I park my car" feature. I just turned my iPhone on one morning and it just told me. Now, mind you, this may not be a fancy deep learning model. It could be some simple linear model, maybe a tree model, hell, maybe it's hardcoded rules? But despite these things Apple delivered a great feature which is in the realm of what I would consider "AI enabled feature".

Mind you, I don't have an Android device, so maybe Google Maps does this automatically for you on Andriod. It doesn't do it on the iPhone, at least not automatically (aka. I don't bother to look it up, which is kind of the point).

It's not Google Maps, but rather Google Now that has the "where did I park my car" for quite awhile (2.5 years) now:

https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/6015842?hl=en

Google Now generally seems to be where all that automated stuff goes, so if you don't use it that would explain why you don't see any of it.

Google Now does this automaticly for a very long time. They don't have enough permissions on iOS, I suppose.

Cross referenced it, because Cortana can't do it in iOS for that reason

Well, not surprised of course! Anyway, perhaps I'm just a simple man, ... besides searching the web, I think that's the best AI type feature for the consumer yet!

It uses a combination of Bluetooth (if you're near/connected to your car's stereo), motion sensor and GPS.

If you started moving at 70KM/h nowhere near a train or bus station, and then suddenly stopped moving at that speed and shortly after started moving at 5KM/h, you've clearly just got out of your car. Use bluetooth for extra verification if possible. When certain, get location (or load location) from GPS and mark spot. Tadaa, no fancy learning model needed.

Those sound like features that would be perfect for a learning model, otherwise you're stuck hardcoding the conditions and thresholds, no?

edit: anyway, besides the point.. I just love that feature haha

Yeah didn't mean to sound that abrasive.. damn booze.

It is a nice feature indeed

Acutally not neccessarily. You can as well end up in a traffic jam. In fact that's how they display traffic info on maps: many phone users doing what you just described.

The new version of the Photos app does image recognition. It seems to work fairly well, and unlike Google Photos, happens locally on the device and doesn't require cloud uploads.

The big area for AI is to replace a human being with an AI program and not have the customer notice it.

Then those webchat and help desk jobs will be gone and replaced with AI doing robocalls and acting like a chatbot.

I'm getting Robocalls that ask for a Chris or something and as soon as I say there is nobody here by that name (so they can take me off their list) the bot cuts in saying "Maybe you can help?" and then tries to sell me something. Most of the time the Caller ID is spoofed and it calls back with a different Caller ID and number, etc. I'm on the Dot not call list, but Robocallers just war dial numbers until it reaches someone and then tries to hook them in.

Not only that but AI can take the jobs of writers, programmers, managers, legal assistants, and in robot form burger flippers and checkout kiosks.

As we reach 2020-2030 the AI is trying to get as smart as a human being. As long as it has electricity it can work 24/7 without getting tired or hungry like a human being would.

Likely this is part of why this group was created. They were probably getting tired of Apple trying to ride on everyone's hard work without giving anything back.

What's the basis of this argument?

As for AI, Apple is a small and outsider player which will hurt in the long term.

> As for AI, Apple is a small and outsider player which will hurt in the long term.

Since you didn't explicitly state whom it will hurt, the devil in me reads this sentence as Apple's involvement (or lack of it) will hurt all people. :)

There's no conspiracy here. Apple is just not involved in the machine learning community in the same way as these others. Look at NIPS and you'll see activity from all of the other participants in this announcement. Apple isn't present in the same way.

apple isn't hurt by this at all. they likely don't want to commit any resources beyond a spokesperson mentioning that their enthusiastic about it.

this partnership thing is a pr move that makes all involved look good. investors and shareholders alike thinkin "cool they're working on ai, that's good"

what will come of the partnership? nothing other than a place journalists can ping for questions about ai.

As tradition, Apple will come in mid-hype and do it "right"

AI is by nature abstract. Once it's not abstract, there is typically a more useful term for it: classification, recognition, search, etc etc. What do you mean by doing AI right? Apple's track record with doing something right applies to product lines, not their technology.

Hurt it how ?

No.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com