Is it really that unique a position? Doesn't Google's pixel phones have a neural core and similar architecture as well?
> In a world dominated by iPhones and Samsung phones, Google isn't a contender. Since the first Pixel launched in 2016, the entire series has sold 27.6 million units, according to data by analyst firm IDC -- a number that's one-tenth of the 272 million phones Samsung shipped in 2021 alone. Apple's no slouch, having shipped 235 million phones in the same period. [1]
[1] https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/why-google-pixels-arent-as-...
The number of phones Google has sold is completely irrelevant to the fact that they too do local ai and have hardware on device for processing it.
How will they make money? For Apple, device purchases make local processing worth it. For Google, who distribute software to varied hardware, subscription is the only way. For reasons from updating to piracy, subscription software tends to be SaaS.
If the answer is no, then does it make sense for them to allocate those resources for such a small segment, and potentially alienate its users that choose non-Pixel devices?
Also, if the answer is no, this is where Apple would have the upper-hand, given that ALL iOS devices run on hardware created by Apple, giving some guarantees.
(I don't know this answer, it's a legitimate ask)
Part of that unique position is already being a popular product. Google adding a bunch of local ML features isn't going to move the needle for Google if people aren't buying Pixels in the first place for reasons that have nothing to do with ML.
If Google's trying to roll out local ML features but 90% of Android phones can't support them, it's not benefiting Google that much. Hence, Apple's unique position to benefit in a way that Google won't.
I've wanted to buy a Pixel for years but Google doesn't distribute it here. It's not like I'm living in some remote area, I live in Mexico, right next door.
The first couple of years I assumed Google was just testing the waters, but after so many Pixel models I suspect it's really just more of a marketing thing for Android. They don't seem to have any interest in distributing the Pixel worldwide, ramping up production, etc.
So while pixel phones may be possible, they don’t want to.
Take image processing for example. iPhones will tag faces and create theme sets all locally. Google could too, but they don’t. They send every picture to their cloud to tag and annotate.
I like this because Apple the corp doesn’t know the individuals in photos and processing happens locally.
Personally, I don't trust corporations. Their motive is always money.
How do you eat?
If anyone were to write a chronological history of regulations imposed by different authorities throughoug history I think that it is a fair assumption to make that regulations related to making bread would already show up in the first chapters of the book.
And some companies, like Apple, forego short term profits from e.g. selling customer data, because it would undermine customers’ trust in them.
I would never, for instance, rely on Apple's "Translate" when Google is available.