The guy this post is about just came from Google, where he lead on the stuff you're praising. He can push these efforts in the right direction, and help make other strategic hires..
Isn't this exactly what you want?
More people can work on more/different things in the same period of time, thereby increasing total work done. (Parallel vs sequential and all that..)
If you take 9 people and give them each one part it will take ~9 months to complete.
If you take one person it will take ~81 months as they need to finish each part before they can go onto the next one.
^ Sticking to the analogy when it comes to integrating into business; competing products, and which one actually maintains adoption.
9 babies in 9 months is basically what Google has done with its messaging apps.
Something to describe arguing about the issue at hand completely through the metaphor and not directly referring to the issue at hand.
See this wikipedia article that discusses it in the context of logic.
Just wanted to clarify an irrelevant point to this discussion - Length of the pregnancy isn't 9 months.
Let me know when you find sophisticated collaboration technologies working beyond a team of say, 5-10.
Apple is a 40 year old company, and they're still raking in the dough from their original product category.
And you also have to make a bet that Apple won't come to dominate that area as well (even if they aren't first to it). AR glasses have some promise to be a new general purpose computing platform, but even then I'm skeptical that it will be able to mount a serious challenge to the smartphone.
They've only happened every decade so far: 1960 (IC), 1970 (DARPA), 1980 (PC), 1990 (GUI), 2000 (Internet), 2010 (smartphone).
Why not? The PC (and I’d include things like the Apple ][ and C64) was a legitimate success before GUIs took off. The GUI was a separate step, also hugely important.
And ~1980 and ~1990 are reasonable dates for when personal computers and Windows took off, give or take a few years.
No, it just devastated the market for native PC applications.
That’s 3 computing paradigm shifts in 60 years.
Text-based computing -> GUIs was a shift. Broadly speaking, there is no market today for consumer-facing computers where text is the only input capability.
The most profitable company in the PC era also has the most profitable PC unit today. The Internet runs on top of the GUI layer. The smartphone is (in much of the world) an "also" not an "instead."
(One could argue that the original MSFT goal of being on every desktop was centered on work. By that metric, most smartphone usage falls into a separate category of consumer computing that largely is distinct from business computing, where desktops & laptops still rule.)
A grandparent(-ish) post compares the iPhone to the Google Home. Much like the iPhone did not replace my laptop (which did not replace the server in the datacenter), voice-driven devices will not replace mobile phones. All Excel (ahem) at different use cases.
We're replacing the keyboard and GUI to one that is far more ubiquitous and backgrounded, and computing experiences are based on all data that is available and economical to process rather than having things be the more traditional user giving an input and then getting an output.
I was AMAZED that a show that recent had a lot of office workers with desks with no computer.
In 20 years, I don't think it's crazy to think the next generation will look back at our time and think... I can't believe you sat there staring at a rectangle and pushing buttons all day.
I'm not betting on it, but it seems plausible to me that in 20 years Hololens / Google Glasses combined with voice recognition and some type of gesture control could be good enough and desirable for most people.
On the mobile side, imagine the hellscape of privacy intrusion that would result if people all used voice to message each other (instead of text/email/etc).
GUIs are sticking around because they are the best available option for many use cases. Portable GUIs are likewise going to stick around for a long time. Fashionable nerds may decide to stop calling these "PCs" or "mobile phones" at some point, but the form factors will prove resilient.
I'm not sure how long it will take, but it honestly seems inevitable.
Maybe it won't be glasses, but it will almost certainly be something we wear instead of a thing that we carry around forever.
It's notable that a combination of Apple Watch + Airpods can fulfill most of these needs, with the exception of being a high quality camera and a few other things that require a larger screen. But that just shows you that if anyone is going to disrupt Apple, it's going to be Apple.
And that comes down to the culture and mindset of the company. Which given that they have Apple University and have an executive team which very much encapsulates the “Apple Way” isn’t going to change.
Yes there are plenty of failed companies but very few aggressively defend their culture like Apple does. And culture rot for me is such a big part of failure.
I'm sure someone asked a similar question about personal computers in the early 80's. They didn't go away when smartphones became prevalent, they became computational work-horses and in the same way an AR system will never be able to pack the computing punch and battery life of a smartphone.
But similar to how a smart-phone complements a PC, AR tech will simplify how we interact with specific parts of the world around us like navigation, notifications, and merge with existing tech like wireless earphones with noise cancellation and conversation/audio-enhancement to provide minimum necessary utility.
More features will bleed down the chain from PC to phone to AR, but with size comes certain advantages and disadvantages, and a large object can always hold more juice and computational power.
I think the biggest disruption will come from global low latency wireless internet - suddenly computational power can be uncoupled from the device and AR would be able to offload the power-hungry CPU/GPU's and large batteries needed for fluid and powerful interaction. But I'm not sure Elon Musk's satellite internet project will be that disruptor - so it might be another long wait until that next big thing happens.
The PC can be dated back 1975. But even in 2000, only 51% of US households had a personal computer. Not even 20 years later, it sure looks like the PC is going the way of the calculator and typewriter.
The first modern smartphone can be dated back to 1996, but it wasn't until 2013 that 50% of US adults had one.
Two year later, in late 2015, mobile web traffic had already overtaken desktop.
By 2033, I would be surprised if we don't have something challenging the smartphone. And the technology is probably around already.
These technologies seem to have about a 40-50 year life cycle. The first half of the life-cycle is the stage it takes to get to 50% saturation. Then the next third of the stage they dominate. The final third of the stage, they phase out to a niche market.
Sure, the smartphone is the bees knees today. But, really, is it? You've got to carry it with you everywhere you go. What if you just had a contact you kept over your eye at all times? What if you just had something you kept tucked behind your ear at all times?
How often do you REALLY need that screen? Remember, when the iPhone came out -- most people were thinking -- who's going to buy a smartphone without a freaking keyboard? Within literally 2 years, Blackberry's stock had dropped like 70%. Within 5 years, it was on the brink of bankruptcy.
And before that, when the first Palm came out in 1996 -- how many people do you think REALLY envisioned the smartphones we have today dominating web traffic and starting to encroach on the work station?
How? The improvements to the iPhone are less compelling every year, while the prices are going up. The company recently stopped reporting iPhone sales numbers.
> Apple is a 40 year old company, and they're still raking in the dough from their original product category.
Are they, though? Aren't Mac sales insignificant compared to iPhone sales? Haven't the latest Macbooks suffered from significant feature regressions?
[citation needed]
> Haven't the latest Macbooks suffered from significant feature regressions?
No.
Unreliable keyboards and security chips that frequently crash the computer are feature regressions.
And there is no systemic issues with the security chips. We have entire floors of developers using MacBook Pros and no one has had “frequent crashes” from the T2 chip.
Well, let me rephrase that: sure, I get that dongles are annoying, and there are capital-I Issues with USB-C that need to be worked out. But the alternative to dongles is "never change hardware connectors." Unless you make the leap to USB-C by replacing every single peripheral and cable you own, you will probably need an adapter. And you may say that now is not the right time, and you might be right, but again: unless the entire market shifts virtually overnight, there is going to be a period where using a new connector is annoying, and is going to require dongles.
tl;dr: I'm happy to be a homesteader in Dongletown, baby.
So no, both were significant improvements from my perspective.
You're saying that having two successful products is only good when they have equal sales figures?
I don't know of a single company on the planet that would turn its nose up at a product doing $25 BILLION in sales.
iPhone sales are down, which is why Apple stock is down about 30% from its highs.
I'm not sure which you mean The Apple II product line, or desktop computing in general?
Either way, pretty sure neither would be considered their cash cow.
We've been going 16 years at this point, and we have bets out to 2150: http://longbets.org/11/
Is it? Is the $30 puck better than the Home assistant or does it just suck that much more in French than it does in English? (Not being snarky, genuinely asking)
It doesn't understand followup commands, the Hue integration is rotten bad, and the commands definitely have to be rigid. Things like "What were my meetings on the 12th of December" aren't understood.
Also having to say "OK google" and not being able to change that is so bad. At least "Hey Siri" is natural.
Absolutely it is. In general, my Siri usage is limited to opening Google Assistant, that's how bad it is. Also, "Hey Google" works as a command on most devices.
At least I know it's not listening to me all the time.
Do you really though?
Google admits its new smart speaker was eavesdropping on users https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/11/technology/google-home-mini...
And while Google responded quickly:
Google just permanently killed the feature that made some Home Minis eavesdrop https://www.the-ambient.com/news/google-home-mini-spy-proble...
who is to say what the next update brings?
The software fix pushed out simply disables the "push-to-talk" feature entirely.
Unless you think Google has some kind of motive to listen to completely randomly-triggered recording (and they don't; the data would be garbage from almost any standpoint I can imagine), your post is incredibly misleading at best and malicious fearmongering at worst.
Xerox PARC is a great example - PARC invented everything, but very little of it was immediately commercially applicable - Good management, is what turns "people producing great things", to "people producing great things regular people can use"
They are just as significant as individuals in the team.
I don't know why you would say he's "not a DL/ML guy per se" -- he's a programmer, not an MBA type. You consider MetaWeb and TellMe inadequate?
My problem is not with Giannandrea's new position, it's with the lack of urgency on Apple's part. My patience has been wearing thin as of late.
Apple has an institutional memory of almost dying, so they can be a very 'cheap' company under the hood when they can get away with it. It reflects in their pay.
I.e. {'Pay' AND 'Publishing' > 'Pay'} not {Apple 'Pay' < Other 'Pay'}
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/12/6/13858354/app...
Names are there. Check the arxiv link.
Learning from Simulated and Unsupervised Images through Adversarial Training by Ashish Shrivastava, Tomas Pfister, Oncel Tuzel, Joshua Susskind, Wenda Wang, & Russell Webb.
Apple could probably become as good as Google at its own game, but it would take a lot of effort and I don't think Tim Cook et al have the vision to move in that direction like Microsoft did.
I feel Apple will become more and more irrelevant as years pass. With a bandwidth singularity end user hardware will be irrelevant in 10-20 years from now and other companies like Google and Microsoft are slowly catching up in making great end user experiences.
Their current B people do hire the best of the best ... of B people. It like my current BigCo (we are straight C people) feels no talent shortage even right now in the Bay Area while also supposedly hiring only the best people - there is no shortage of C people. We enjoy our work/life balance while of course we can't even dream of producing anything even just slightly resembling Siri.
Even their Maps are late, 7 years later since the first apology of Apple Maps they still aren't anywhere close to Google Map.