I think people feel this is the begining of the end.
Meta is part of the reason Signals E2EE spread and E2EE became ubiquitous in general.
Many governments have also turned against E2EE and I suspect it's gone from a shield where you can say we can't really help you get that data, to a constant pressure.
Yea fine I see that, but their entire business model revolves around exposing people’s otherwise private lives, and they are making a lot of money doing so.
It’s like using a web browser distributed by a an ad company whose business model is all about tracking folks
If you're old enough you might remember the Zenith Space Commander (I'm not old enough to have seen one in use).
It was an early TV remote that used spring loaded strikers controlled by buttons on the remote. The strikers hit tuned metal bars that rang out at ultrasonic frequencies the TV detected.
A links below but honestly it's the kind of topic that seems to never be covered well by a single resource. There are YouTube videos showing the inside of the controller and the striker.
Okay, but why is the Siri team sitting out transformers. I really wanna move past the „Dragon Naturally Speaking“ experience with a bolted on decision tree.
Who’s doing it better? I have yet to hear from a Google or Amazon user who has a transformatively better experience, and I think that’s why they haven’t jumped so far because they have hundreds of millions of users who have daily habits that they don’t want to lightly disturb.
> I think that’s why they haven’t jumped so far because they have hundreds of millions of users who have daily habits that they don’t want to lightly disturb.
I don't think that's part of their decision making, Liquid Glass moved most things around for seemingly not much else than novelty and that's not the first time.
They have done this before, release something large early in anticipation of a major shift and iron out issues before the shift happens. Liquid Glass started off a little janky but they appear to have been ironing out initial issues with each update.
From what I understand (which might be wrong), Liquid Glass was at least partially inspired by visionOS and "spatial computing". And I guess on that platform it might make sense for some use cases.
That doesn't change the fact that I can hardly read some of the user interface in Apple Music for example.
It's not that the idea is bad, but it's badly executed.
Toyota's philosophy is polishing mature technology and small gradual iteration that supports that goal. That is not "skating to where the puck is going to be". With that philosophy Apple would never have developed the iPhone. Instead just iterating the iPod until someone else put them out of business.
It was famously explained in the original iPhone unveiling. They talked about developing new paradigms in computing and jumping towards those new paradigms with both feet.
Also, Steve Jobs once argued with Woz early on that users don't have a say in the product. The author creates a piece of work and does not stop to ask the audience what the next paragraph should be. At the end either the audience likes it or they don't and they go somewhere else. All the "toyotas" of the tech world are competing to 0 margins and will eventually die off. When Apple tried this in the 90s they ended up nearly bankrupt.
Really? None of my issues are fixed. The settings panel still has a massive gray empty chunk hanging off the bottom which makes it look like a 13 year old coded it...
Is Liquid Glass not just a means to slowly force old phones to be obsolete? - My iPhone 11 is fairly slow now and they’ve probably bought forward my next phone purchase by a year
Agreed. I vaguely remember another HN link that said Apple tried a competing-team approach to building a better siri, but it fell apart due to internal politics reasons?
Liquid Glass was also noteworthy for being the first macOS release since 10.1 which was worse across the board in a deliberate manner. They have shipped bugs before but this time it got such poor reception because all of the regressions were intentional and there wasn’t an expectation that they’d be patched.
I don’t think that cavalier attitude is universal at Apple and I don’t think the Siri PM wanted to break with their past respect for UX.
Right now Alexa+ and Gemini are objectively better.
The best is ChatGPT voice mode. It understands non English words and accents amazingly well, and even though the LLM model isn’t the full fledged one, I can have deep conversations with it for an hour without it missing a beat.
Speech to text should work. I regularly have to manually edit the transcribed input. The more special words the more frequent. Completely disregards the context of the current input, for example, on Hacker news might involve special technical and IT vocabulary.
Any of the LLM-based ones should pull this* off - so that's to say.. none of the popular commercially available ones, yet?
Alexa+ does, but I don't use it for anything except kitchen timers and home automation triggers, so I can't speak to how well it works in a longer conversation.
Zoom's meeting notes excels at this, Google Meet is terrible at it. Meet mishears our company name about 90% of the time; various attendee names are a coin toss.
* "this" being: context consideration in speech-to-text/transcription.
The iOS equivalent would be Shortcuts, which, while not as powerful as Tasker depending on the context, is an official Apple feature that most apps support. Claude and ChatGPT both have various Shortcuts hooks, including voice conversation.
The experience of having to tell Siri to "Ask ChatGPT <about something>" really sucks, though. It doesn't consistently do it, the handoff frequently just stalls out and you never get a response, the transcription that gets passed to ChatGPT is low quality, etc.
And though I have the feature enabled that should cause it to ask ChatGPT about things it can't answer, that works even less frequently.
But even if all of these things were true, the stuff on your phone you would expect to be exposed to the model as available tool calls, are not. So their efficacy is very limited.
Oh I was just thinking creating a shortcut that you'd tap on your Home Screen/control shade (whatever it's called) to activate ChatGPT, or wire up to the action button. I forgot you can have Siri do the "ask ChatGPT xyz" thing – I agree, that integration sucks.
I'd definitely do the former. I don't even think this is specific to ChatGPT or Claude's apps.
There seems to be something about how intents get triggered by Shortcuts on iOS that feels flaky to me. Whenever some app suggests a shortcut (most recently Starbucks promoted a shortcut that orders your "usual"), the success rate when I tap it is <50%.
It's possible it's uniquely worse on my device, since I haven't done a "clean install" (vs letting the device upgrade flow copy over) in like a decade. But I'm also not up for dealing with the pain of setting up from scratch just to find out it's bad on a fresh profile, either.
Alexa+ has been a massive downgrade for me. It's extremely laggy and constantly misunderstands me, whereas the old one never did. "Set a timer for 20 minutes" used to be instant and just work, I did this the other day and it took 10 seconds to respond and set a timer for 10 minutes.
Same here. I can see why LLM-driven voice assistants makes sense to product people in the abstract, but introducing non-deterministic behavior into a device I primarily use to help with timekeeping and control lights is nothing but a regression.
I concur that the ChatGPT voice mode is excellent. I can't even think of anything to knock it for other than for whatever reason it never 'hears' my kids, but that's probably because it's not intended to be used in multi-participant chats?
But for one-on-one, it is a really outstanding experience. Especially since they tamped down the way over-the-top humanisms.
My preference, however, is for a voice-control UX just like I get with my Amazon Echo and "classic" Alexa like I have been for the past 10 years I've been using it: I think I can best describe it as a "voice-driven command-line" just like your OS' CLI shell, which makes its interactions predictable, even if it means I need to "know" what commands are valid in a given context. We all need predictability and reliability when it comes to my home-automation integrations.
...but computer interaction with a LLM / transformer-driven / "AI agent" is anything but predictable. When Amazon opted everyone into Alexa+ I agreed to give it a go and see if it really made things better or not - and it did not. I opted-out of Alexa+ and went back to something actually reliable.
Here's a question: I don't understand the gap between these LLM powered voice agents vs CLI coding agents, the latter of which are obviously useful and quite resourceful at getting something done when asked in plain English.
Seems like an agent given 20-30 tool calls like "read_sms" "matter_command", and "send_email" would be able to work out what to do for things like "set the house to 72° and text Laura that I did it."
> Seems like an agent given 20-30 tool calls like "read_sms" "matter_command", and "send_email" would be able to work out what to do for things like "set the house to 72° and text Laura that I did it."
Incidentally, a major headline in the news this past week was about a coding-agent that wiped its company's entire system, including backups; which the company's staffers were confident was utterly impossible (as it didn't have any access to that system), and yet somehow, it did[1] (the TL;DR is the agent randomly came across an unprotected God-tier admin API-key/token saved to a personal text-file in a filesystem it had read-access to). If an agent can do that with only read-only access to a company's routine/everyday storage area then there's no way I'm giving it the ability to deactivate my house's fire-alarms and security-cameras via Google Home/Matter/Thread/HomeKit/X10/OhFfsNotAnotherCloudBasedAutomationScheme.
If you are really worried about that, the agent already has that access since itll go find that key anyways.
the HN thread about that case was much more of a "why are you putting your prod keys in random text files" and "the sota in prompt engineering is that putting DONT FUCKING DO THE BAD THING" makes the agent more desperate to get stuff done
putting limits at the harness level would do just fine. one LLM call, one tool call per voice message.
Siri's one job I care about is doing exactly what I want while I'm driving. I need it to check my text messages, take dictation, start phone calls and deal with music. I don't need to have conversations with it, I need deterministic responses to known commands.
Whenever I see one of these comments, it's always from someone that tried it at the start and then gave up because of a bad experience. And many times there are more people commenting back that this was essentially the 1.0 version and that the current 2.0 version is much better. So as someone that uses none of these products (old voice assistants vs. ai ones) it's really hard to evaluate if any of these anecdotes mean anything.
You could have tried Alexa+ at the start when it was shitty compared to plain Alexa, and maybe it's better now. But equally none of the people that comment that it is "amazing" in its current iteration qualify their statements with their experiences comparing and contrasting the old version vs. the new version making them seem either unqualified to make statements based on how much "better" it is than the old version or at worse they are shills (paid or not). The best take is that they are comparing (e.g.) day-one Alexa+ vs. the current Alexa+ without a comparison to the original Alexa.
... which is to say that it really feels like there are no clear conclusions that could be drawn from all of this.
No matter how good the LLM features are, I just want to turn my lights on and off and check the time. A perfect LLM could maybe perform on par with a simple deterministic command system for these tasks, but not better. All an LLM does is introduce the possibility that a command that worked fine yesterday will randomly not work
Also, one of my first interactions with this Alexa+ thing was “how long is it until 8:45am”, one of only a few commands I use it for to work out how much sleep I’m getting, and it proceeded to ask me what the current time was… I immediately turned it off after that
> All an LLM does is introduce the possibility that a command that worked fine yesterday will randomly not work
Aren't hallucinations part of GenAI? I would assume that "AI" voice recognition doesn't have that baked in, but I'm not working in either of those spaces so maybe I'm missing the details. So many things are being looped into the "AI" umbrella that would have just been called machine learning or pattern recognition a decade ago (e.g. "facial recognition" vs "AI" at a time when "AI" also means chatbots like ChatGPT).
The point is Amazon is adding an “Alexa+” mode that uses LLMs. The plain voice recognition + keyword matching or however the old version works is more reliable (I assume, I didn’t use the new mode much because it immediately failed at what I wanted)
> that tried it at the start and then gave up because of a bad experience
I've had enough bad experiences with products that never got better, or just got worse (Exhibit A: Windows 11). Like most primates, I am capable of learning, and I've learned that once a consumer product/service goes bad there's little hope of a turn-around. I accept that you're telling me that it's gotten better, but of the people I know IRL who also use an Echo, none of them have told me that Alexa+ is worth trying, let alone committing to.
Yes, it's on me for not giving Alexa+ a second chance, but I'm not willing to give Alexa+ a second chance because, as a technology product/service customer, I just don't feel respected by the industry I work for (...lol); if Amazon, Microsoft, Google, et al won't respect me, why should I venture outside my comfort-zone for... what benefit, exactly?
> I accept that you're telling me that it's gotten better,
I'm not telling you this. I'm basically saying that with Alexa/Alexa+ and with Google's Gemini vs Goole Now(?) I've seen many posts like this. Where someone complains about the AI version, but then there are other posts that come in and claim how much better it is. Even for things like Claude Code you get people complaining about how many mistakes it makes, and then people coming in and saying that it's because they are "doing it wrong". Either "Claude has improved by 10x in the last 6 months. It's so amazing! If you used it a year or so ago it doesn't even compare!" or "You aren't using the most expensive tier of Claude which increases context and thinking abilities that are hobbled in the cheaper versions!"
I never really see a comparison on the same level and it sounds like people talking past each other or some people having legitimate complaints and then others coming in to shill for a product.
I'm not in anyway implying that "You should totally try this out now that they fixed everything" or anything of the sort. I even stated that I don't use any of these tools, and I was commenting as something more akin to an "outsider."
I don't run Windows 11 so I haven't taken a look, but I speculate it's because it contains a bunch of ML blobs for Windows Photo's image-classification and photo subject/contents keyword search.
On Windows 10, the Photos app package is about ~140MB on my computer. A good chunk of that is because the package includes a lot of dependencies - including platform deps that I'd expect would be part of the UWP runtime in the OS - kinda like how since the introduction of Swift/UIKit/etc in iOS the IPA packages all bundle their platform dependencies, even though they're demonstrably redundant, because UIKit isn't an OS-provided framework anymore... I'm not up-to-date in the iOS dev scene so I'm unsure why Apple went with that approach.
I'm not an Alexa user myself but I have watched my wife interact with it for around 5years now.
The new Alexa powered by an LLM is objectively better that previous Alexa in a few ways. This much was apparently from day one and has only gotten smoother.
1. It can reliably execute direct or vague-ish commands "play X movie in app Y" or "play x show" and can infer X movie is only available in app Z so use that.
> It can reliably execute direct or vague-ish commands "play X movie in app Y" or "play x show" and can infer X movie is only available in app Z so use that.
...how does that work, exactly? (or rather: what's the context here?); there's no possible way for an Alexa+-powered Amazon Echo to control my AppleTV or interface with VLC on my desktop.
It's not the early 2000s where just messing around and wasting time on this stuff is cool in itself. None of that time wasted turned into much long term apps that stuck with me. Maybe a banking app and a trail running app.
I ruined multiple dinners with timers that didn't work (with a time/labor cost).
I had to get out of bed in the freezing to turn the lights out. It's easy to hit the lights when I go to bed but annoying having the tool fail and getting back out.
Music stuff didn't work well because I used Youtube Music not Spotify.
Those were my 3 use cases for Google voice, and it failed them all enough I just stopped using it all together. Who cares if it works today if in another month they just change something and break it again? They've shown it's not a tool to use for tool things, it's a 'gee wow' thing. I don't need to be impressed. I need not burnt food.
Alexa+ is terrible compared to Alexa. It's so bad that I've dusted off my v1 echos cuz they're too old to run Alexa+. Complete shit show that is.
I do like Gemini better than Assistant, even though it's not quite there yet. But that's just a matter of time because they actually designed it from the ground up to be a drop in replacement for Assistant.
Oh man. I made the mistake of converting my Google Home devices to Gemini.
The first problem is that it's just slow. If I want it to turn off some light, it takes a long time before responding.
But yeah, the failure to do basic tasks. I have a routine that I used to have it run (controls several devices at once). Now:
10-20% of the time it runs it.
60% of the time it says it's running it but it doesn't do anything.
20-30% of the time it says it can't do it unless I opt in to invasive permissions. And when I opted into them, it still failed about a third of the time. So I opted out again.
I don't know if it's related to Gemini, but sometimes the Android Auto tells me "I don't have permission to do that" simultaneously with actually doing the thing that is allegedly lacking permission. Sometimes I want to move off the grid.
Man, I hate touch screens. And I hate Android Auto. My previous car had an aftermarket Bluetooth system (radio, etc). It was way, way better than Android Auto or any entertainment system I've seen in any car.
Strong disagree. The upgrade was a little bit rough at first (mostly because of slow response) but now it's a million times better than the old assistant. The old assistant basically just repeated "I don't know how to do that" over and over.
I have never had trouble setting timers with either.
The new one was 100% failure to do anything with timers for me. I never saw it work once. If I had ever gotten that to work at all, I may not have uninstalled it, and might have a different impression now. I cannot account for why our experiences are so different.
Your experience is valid of course, but I never once have had the inclination to have a conversation with my phone. I'm not sure which of our experiences is more common.
It’s not a conversation like you’d have with a friend, it’s the type of interaction you’d have with a chatbot, just hands-free.
To give you an example, I was having coffee the other morning while unloading the dishwasher and asked the speaker if today was a good day to apply weed and feed on my lawn. This was not possible with the old assistant and was useful to me.
I hate it too.. the old assistant is pretty smart, obviously it has some language processing, but not "AI", but it's very fast for things like "Set alarm for ... ", "Remind me at X about Y", "Add calendar event on x at y about z", or "Navigate home".
And now if I want to use Gemini on my phone I have to replace Assistant. Nah, I'll keep Assistant thanks, and just have a shortcut to load the Gemini in the browser.
Except the browser experience is so fucking buggy, constant reloads needed..
Claude.. I switched my phone assistent to claude and it does everything that google (used to) do like set alarms and timers, but also does everything claude can do.
The only thing I haven't been able to get it to do is read from my phone's local calendar. The claude app can but the voice assistant cannot (Why? No idea). Perplexity has no issue doing it so I actually use them for my rare needs to do voice commands with my phone.
WhisprFlow produces much better speech-to-text for long text messaging-by-voice (dictation / transcription) than apple's speech-to-text does. Whisper models in general seem to do a lot better than most built-into-OS/app models. Which is interesting, because there's nothing stopping them from just using Whisper models.
I love MacWhisper personally. Also, Gumroad is a fantastic app distribution platform for my personal values.
As far the "decision tree" side ... there's not much that can be done about that now. Agentic agents still go too "off-the-rails" to be productionized out to the billions of smartphones of the world. I'm working on voice-controlled agentic-with-rails AI features for my HomeAssistant, because Alexa / Google Home suck. But that's a hobby project and rogue AI actions only affect me, not billions of customers.
It’s not “transformatively better” but it definitely involves fewer frustrations to interact with. That’s always been Apple’s main value proposition, you’re not getting the most cutting-edge stuff but you’re supposed to have something that “just works” not something that makes you go “GODDAMN IT!” when it inexplicably seems to fumble normal things.
So if you buy Apple products based on that value proposition it’s a big problem for Apple if they can’t seem to keep their brand-promise in this area.
My android phone was so much better for voice-to-everything. Whether it was transcribing my voice for text messages, or doing looks on the internet. Siri is just so bad.
Still love not having google's paws all over my data, though, so not going back.
Actually, could you recommend one? The ones I've found all seem to want subscriptions. I'm okay paying a few dollars for a well done frontend, but an ongoing sub to run an open weights model locally is nuts...
Feeling #blessed that I apparently have the exact same upper midwest accent they must've trained Siri on, because I've literally never had an issue with dictation or being misheard. And I use it a lot!
(It misunderstands my wife from California all the time, though.)
Plus, if someone else does it better (or different), I bet they've got a team and technology at a 90% done state waiting to jump on it, pick it apart and make it better. I don't think they're not doing anything.
Wasn’t planning on it, but Show HN: JoinIn.AI?! We’re working on making a better audio interface to LLMs that is socially adroit enough to handle even multi-party conversation.
Yesterday my google home mini gave me the current temperature in farenheit. I live in Canada and use a pixel. Dumbest fucking AI going. May as well give it to me in coulombs per hectare.
Not sure "sitting out" is the right way to put it. They've been publicly trying to ship a next-gen Siri for years and haven't been able to get something good enough to release. The latest plan is to base it on Gemini so we should be seeing progress on that next month at WWDC.
The experience of using LLMs as digital assistants so far is not great. Gemini on Android sucks so bad it's hard to describe. It can't tell what its own capabilities are, it can't inspect the states of the apps it manipulates, it hallucinates constantly, and it needs more handholding than the crappy old decision tree to do the right thing. I much more often have to pull over to make sure Google Maps is doing the right thing than I ever used to before, because trusting the LLM to be "smarter" so often fails for me.
I think they could never make it good enough at the right price.
You have to remember all of the AI companies are making cash bonfires. People aren't going to stop buying iPhones because Siri can only do what it does now.
If Apple focuses on hardware and skips the pay-for-inference bubble they'll come out the other side with the best consumer hardware everybody already has for local inference which is going to eat the whole industry's lunch.
nvidia is going to have a hard time convincing people they need to buy $1000 LLM inference hardware. Apple isn't going to have a hard time convincing people to buy the next generation of phone/tablet/laptop.
Because the competitor voice models sound good but are dumb upon any scrutiny
ChatGPT’s voice model has a great user experience and seems like it is seamlessly integrated into the chat, but its actually a far smaller and dumber model. @husk.irl on instagram has videos displaying how dumb and undiscerning it is
People were wowed by the magic at one point, but its faded. Apple avoids those things and the limitations havent been solved
in my experience voice recognition on Claude (using the iPhone app) isn't that great -- maybe even worse than Siri (I'm referring to voice transcription specifically, not the inference of course)
I think it's the same reason why MacOS and iOS degraded a lot in terms of UX the past decade. The focus of Apple shifted towards hardware independence.
The 2010s was marked by Intel's lazy product lineup, year after year pumping rehashes of older products, iterating on top of their 14nm lithography with increasingly minor improvements on its architecture until AMD overcame them. In the process, Apple's partnership with Intel became a liability it had to solve, and a push for the unified ARM architecture was no small feat.
If you ask me I don't think it's justified to degrade the user experience for the sake of focusing on this. It's a trillion dollar company, and has been for a while. Sure it could have tackled both, but what do I know.
In any case I think it explains really well why Siri feels so abandoned.
I dunno, Apple has always had a pretty high level of hardware independence, and one could imagine even if Intel did produce great chips for longer the ARM architecture would replace it eventually. Certainly the timeline got shifted (and I'm glad for it) but I don't know if that really impacted Siri. If anything it seems like it got pushed to the bottom of the pile in favor of projects like the Apple Car and Vision Pro OS one on side and the demand to increase services revenue on the other.
Also: Before, Apple was dependent on Intel (whose "product" is an integrated chip design and the fab to make it). Now they're dependent on TSMC (whose "product" is a fab). I'm... not really sure they've reduced their dependence? If TSMC starts falling behind Intel--which doesn't seem likely, but what happened to Intel didn't seem likely two decades ago--Apple will be stuck.
Sure, and Apple very successfully competed with Intel when it came to chip design.
With fabs, other companies can still compete, but you absolutely require a partner with deep pockets to place big orders, since the costs have grown exponentially.
It's one of the biggest and wealthiest companies in the world, but your comment seems to imply they have to pick and choose what they pursue. They really don't, especially if it's hard- vs software.
> seems to imply they have to pick and choose what they pursue. They really don't, especially if it's hard- vs software.
Money can often just be one part of the equation.
To do things well you also need - available & capable technical resource, suitable facilities, available & capable leadership and management (with engaging at the right level in the business) and a clear vision of what you're trying to achieve/working towards.
Given how Apple appears to operate, I wonder if a strong desire for senior management control/oversight over major developments means they (artificially) limit how many concurrent large-scale things they can work on at any given time?
> It's a trillion dollar company, and has been for a while. Sure it could have tackled both, but what do I know.
I didn't imply, it's explicit in my comment. it's what their actions show. Their updates make their systems worse and worse, Tim Cook is out and Siri is in shambles. It might have been something else, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, because the alternative is just sheer stupidity.
I only partly agree with this. The answer is maddeningly more complicated.
Some parts of their software stack -- higher up than the kernel -- are actually pretty great. There's a lot of realy brilliant stuff in their system frameworks, and in SwiftUI, Cocoa, and UIKit. I've been using Linux at home recently, and I find myself missing some of it.
But, on the flip side, suddenly you hid maddening bugs, crashes, or terrible developer-experience papercuts. And, of course, there's the App Store, which is just evil. For my next app I'm just going to go Notarization only, and see how that goes...
The comment above is on to something. I find CarPlay to much more valuable and much more of a lock in to the iPhone than Siri. I do not think I could ever go back to using the infotainment systems that ship with cars. So makes sense why they might prioritize over Siri. And in the context of CarPlay, the simplicity of Siri is nice. I really only need it to execute a few simple commands like looking up directions, making calls, reading / sending texts, playing a podcast, etc.
I don't dispute that, but Apple made its business on the premise of being the best in the business in terms of UX. Note though that you can have great UX powered by mediocre software, so those aren't mutually exclusive.
Apple’s Mac software in the 90s had great UX and very underwhelming and old fashioned kernel software which they struggled to replace. Jobs knew this and did the work externally with NeXT.
They're valued at $4T, they have hundreds of billions hoarded. They could run 50 billion dollar startup projects and not feel it. Imagine a startup getting handed a billion dollars ... and the vast knowledge that Apple has access to already.
There's no way they couldn't do a better Siri. For some reason, they just ... won't.
here is a clue delivered -- money does not make software better, and lots of money often results in worse.. it makes no sense? actual experience begs to differ.
Classical homework assignment -- the Mythical Man Month and related essays
Money is a means to an end, so that's true. Just because you have a screwdriver does not mean you will drive screws. You have to have someone who can use the screwdriver, knows righty-tighty, wants to drive the screws, etc. Stupidly throwing money at a problem can get you places, but the efficiency can also drop to near zero. The problem is we're talking about a quantity of money where you don't need to be highly efficient. Savants can do pioneering work in a cave with a box of scraps, but you don't have to strive for that kind of austere efficiency. Nobody is expecting that.
If Apple can't harness the potential of the currently overfilled labor pool, that indicates a systemic issue within Apple. The entire raison d'etre of management structures within a business is to increase efficiency of capital to drive productive forces. If they cannot do that, then that would indicate an extremely problematic competency crisis within Apple's management organ.
This kind of failure when you are a company with the valuation of a first world country's GDP should be raising alarm bells in any rational person's mind.
Heavily funded startups have terrible track records in reality. The only cases where it seems to have worked is when the money was used to undermine the market dynamics by nuking competition via severe underpricing.
They fast-follow then market so aggressively with just enough proprietary tweaks so they can trademark it that people think that Apple invented the technology.
People end up thinking Apple invented something because they tend to make the first usable version of something that could appeal to the general population.
...are we going to pretend smartphones didn't exist before iPhone was launched? I think I was on my 3rd one when the iPhone came out and even then it was a luxury toy for the rich, I didn't know anyone who actually had an iPhone for a good few years after they came out.
> People end up thinking Apple invented something because they tend to make the first usable version
I think we can all agree that the original iPhone is the conceptual progenitor of virtually every phone that’s mattered in the market since it was released.
Smartphones prior to it have essentially zero descendants. For all intents and purposes they effectively did invent the smartphone. Hell “smartphones” as a distinct market all but don’t even exist any more. They’re barely even “phones” at this point. And this entire arc of development points directly back to the original iPhone release.
...because you said so? I'm assuming you will say Palms also don't count? Blackberries neither? Phones running Windows Mobile weren't really smartphones? Let me guess - nothing that wasn't an iPhone counts?
True, I would never argue the iPhone wasn't a transformational step-up in usability that made smartphones a mainstream device category thanks to the App Store and slab screen with multi-touch.
But at the same time.... I had been doing nearly everything the iPhone could do in terms of raw functionality (plus plenty of stuff that took 1+ years to land on iPhones) on multiple different Windows Mobile and Palm smartphones pre-iPhone.
Saying pre-iPhone smartphones don't count because "ugly nerdphone with gross keyboard" is just as ridiculous as a "iPhone was overhyped and no better than existing smartphones" claim.
Apple created a device category within smartphones that then consumed and became what we now think of as a "smartphone" after iPhone and Android together strangled the first movers.
Like, the famous Steve Jobs "an iPod, a phone, an internet communicator" line was just listing standard smartphone features by that point. More or less the definition of a smartphone in fact.
Agreed. To add to this - saying that iPhones were the first version of smartphones that people actually wanted is silly - there was clearly a huge demand for these kinds of devices by the time iPhone came out.
None of these were more than a blip in the market. Nothing today even remotely resembles these devices, inherits design language from them, or points back in any way to them. They are historical dead ends and nearly irrelevant.
Meanwhile the majority of people on earth own one or multiple devices that are more or less clones of the original iPhone, only faster, larger, thinner, and exponentially more capable.
Honest question - were you actually an adult using smartphones when the first iPhone came out? Or are you basing your opinion on what you read on the internet?
Because by the time of the iPhone coming out everyone j knew had a Blackberry or some internet connected Nokia slider - the iPhone was significantly less capable than either of those. And yeah, both Nokia and Blackberry screwed the pooch. But again, pretending like smartphones didn't exist or that they were a "blip in the market" is intellectually dishonest, or like I said - based on what you read not based on actual lived experience. Unless you live in the US iPhones were a curiosity for years, a status symbol.
BlackBerrys were popular amongst business users, but there were 85 million of those devices in circulation across the globe at their absolute peak. There are currently 8 billion smartphones worldwide, and virtually all of them are descendants of the iPhone form factor and multitouch input paradigm. BlackBerrys were barely Internet devices as we know them today; they did technically have a browser, but it was minimally functional and they were mostly considered email machines. Unlike the original iPhone, they would be virtually unrecognizable to someone today as equivalent to what we carry around in our pockets.
In less time than it took RIM to develop the BlackBerry and reach 85 million users, Apple took a niche device category and completely transformed it into something that spread to the overwhelming majority of the human population on the planet.
Your position is like saying well actually the modern bicycle was actually invented by whomever created the penny farthing. Yes it had two wheels, yes it existed before the safety bicycle. But they were a novelty until the safety bicycle was invented, and every bicycle in circulation today owes its design to that very first one.
Wonder how much of it is raw compute constrain. Adding additional 1billion LLM users is near impossible. I spend a lot on tokens and still get throttled.
It seems to be Blu-ray vs HD-DVD again. Luckily for me, I made the right decision and got out of the shiny round disc business as that battle was raging all around me having been in the DVD programming business for 8 years or so. This battle of LLMs is interesting to watch from the sidelines as I have nothing to do with them. Not sure this will end with one LLM to rule them all while the others fade away. People can use the one they prefer and not really impact others.
>Not participating in the war is the only true way to win the war, nothing new.
Really not true both in real wars and in tech wars. There's no evidence to support this claim.
Android only exists as the dominant mobile platform because it went to full scale war with Apple when the iPhone launched. Those that didn't take part and came after the battle have like <1% market share and Apple and Google are printing money from the cut to their app stores.
Apple doesn't take part in the AI race because whichever AI wins the war in the end, they'll have to be on their Appstore to reach the users, so Apple wins regardless due to their Appstore monopoly. AIs are no threat to their phone, laptops and Appstore business.
But Google can't afford not to take part in this race because AIs are a threat to their search and ads business.
Same with real wars, US is the world superpower because it got involved in WW2 even though it didn't have to be. Same with Russia and Ukraine, provided they don't wipe each other out scorched earth, their militaries will be the most advanced on the planet on modern drone warfare they invented after the war is over, and every other military on the planet will be paying them for their gear and expertise, which they already are.
No need to bother maintainers, just package it up and upload it to the KDE store as a Plasma extension. Then it can appear for download in "Get New Widgets" in Plasma edit mode. Plenty of "lazy" widgets in there.
It would require abject incompetence on the part of jellybean stephoscope manufactorers for this to make sense.
On the other hand the reason Litmann stephoscopes are expensive is target market (doctors), build quality and amortization of cost over probably a decade of use.
Stephoscopes are a metanym for doctor, and doctors don't want cheap stephoscopes.
It reminds me of the product to make budget incubators for developing markets. I can't find a link but it failed for two reasons, if you can't afford medical grade systems. You probably don't have the highly trained teams needed anyways.
Medicine is in large part a trust based endeavour you need to trust the system you are putting your life at the hands of.
Long story short, this solves an imagined problem. When you consider why X doesn't have Y medical system. It's not because of the price of the kit. It's the entire system that is too expensive. If you can't afford a brand incubator you probably can't afford the it intense cleaning regime needed for the room to put that incubator in!
I normally wouldn't comment just to correct a misspelling, but it's pretty consistent and it's an entirely different sound, as well as being what the thread is about.
It isn't always exactly the same sound even when th-fronted, the manner of doing so is regionally distinct and in many cases, to a sensitive ear, a th-fronted 'th' can be clearly discerned from an 'f' based on sound alone. Some accents will make a stronger distinction by softening the 'th' and/or extending it into the subsequent vowel.
There is something about using quality tools that goes beyond practical.
For example, I like coding on a nice keyboard, and I think I am not the only one here. But realistically, the cheap keyboards that litter offices everywhere work just as well. Simply, I don't enjoy using them, and when it is something you work with every day on a job that pays well, you can afford a few hundred dollars worth of luxury once in a decade.
As someone said, there is also the question of image. If you are a professional, your customers (/patients if you are a doctor) expect you to have professional tools. For example, a contractor arriving with that $10 Ikea toolbox may rise a few eyebrows. Maybe that's all he needs and he can do a terrific job with it, but he may not be taken seriously.
That is also my productivity hack. It reminds me of video games that gives you reward cues for doing something. Psychological tricks to massage your brain and get you hooked. That's why also like to buy nice stationary. I always look forward to use my notebooks and pens.
And the $10 toolbox needs to only be insufficient once or twice and suddenly the $200 packout makes sense.
For you or I who use the box once a year? The savings are worth the minor hassle - but if you’re using it everyday it only takes once or twice to outweigh the costs.
Yes, if you're going to be using it for the next 10 years, it is worth going for the more expensive Littman if you can. However, I've heard that there are decent Chinese clones, and honestly I've used those $1 stethoscopes in isolation units and they're not terrible for basic pulmonary auscultation.
They are a nicer product to use, by people who are relatively well off and will use them repeatedly throughout the day for a decade. $50 (basic stethoscope) vs $200 (premium stethoscope) is simply not that expensive for a doctor or a family buying a graduation gift, even in poorer countries, given the lifetime of the device (easily 10 years of daily use).
Within that space you get things like soft-seal eartips , where as most cheaper models came with hard rubber, a stiffer spring that holds its shape better, and great acoustics (though most users will know what to listen for by the time they pick one up). You also get less tube noise from movement, less rubbing and scratching under the head, and longer listening time without having to fiddle.
The diaphragm on expensive stethoscopes is more complex, often "floating" — not under tension at rest, but when you press down, a ring tightens it. This gives you both bell (low frequency) and diaphragm (high frequency) response from a single side, so you modulate pressure rather than rotating the head.
Why do expensive stethoscopes fail?
1. You lose them.
2. Wear and tear many parts are replaceable, but repairing the whole head often isn't worth it. Rotating heads can become a failure point, growing lax over time, with grit accelerating the damage.
3. Neck oils degrade the PVC tubing.
4. Alcohol/cleaning wipes also degrade the PVC tubing.
Surprisingly, Littmann hasn't released a dedicated long-term care wipe for occasional use.
Yeah, that comment also sent off internal alarms for me also. It would be a great blog post (or YouTube video) for someone to buy a bunch of stethoscopes and objectively test them. I would bet that there is a 10 USD model that is 98% as good as 200 USD models from 3M Littmann. And similar to the neverending arguments about "premium high-fidelity stereo equipment", I bet most doctors cannot tell the difference between the two when the logo/brand is hidden.
> someone to buy a bunch of stethoscopes and objectively test them. I would bet that there is a 10 USD model that is 98% as good as 200 USD models from 3M Littmann.
It's the same as every other field, cars, phones, or computer cases, you name it. Something can be artificially expensive, but it can also be because it uses better materials, has more features, is built to higher standards. And some things can't be tested properly in a small scale review. Longevity, for example.
But there are factors that influence the premium price. The build construction - quality of the construction, quality and feel of materials, flexibility/rigidity of components, comfort of the ear tips and why not, even color options or the logo that shows you don't cheap out on equipment. Functionality - amplification, frequency response, double sided, 2 diaphragms can be used on children and adults. And then you have nice features like tunable diaphragms, or warm rims/sleeves for making it more comfortable for the patient.
Like for any other product, you'll save on the things you don't care about. The neck is stiff, the earpiece is uncomfortable, the tubing degrades, it's ice-cold, not great for kids or thin patients, but the sounds come in loud and clear enough and it's half the price.
Not wild when you consider the industry. Although those prices seem high perhaps by 20% compared to international markets.
IIRC in 2010 a Litmann Classic II was $60 today it's $100. That's what most medical students and doctors might use early in their career and it's probably nearly all the benefits of the premium lines.
But even ~$200 for their top tier lines are not expensive given their the tool of the industry.
That's a single year of JetBrains subscription? Or a single month of Claude? For something they could use for 10+ years.
The ~$500-700 electronic with recording stethoscopes always seemed gimmicky to me. But are legitimately useful for people with a hearing impairment.
> I would bet that there is a 10 USD model that is 98% as good as 200 USD models from 3M Littmann
I'd take this in a different direction, a common adage is that diagnosis is 80% history 15% examination, 5% investigation. In this case too the stethoscope performance is a slice of that 15%, and is dominated by the knowledge and experience of the user. If you don't know what to listen for and why (and many doctors won't compared to say a experienced cardiologist) they won't be able to hear it from a perfectly recorded FLAC file.
Check "An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes" [0]. There's a $8 stethoscope - Mabis Spectrum, with great performance, according to this study.
metonymy
(rhetoric) The use of a single characteristic or part of an object, concept or phenomenon to identify the entire object, concept, phenomenon or a related object.
I think we'll see a lot more of this (and it's a good thing).
Automation doesn't usually replace humans it just hikes up the floor.
I.e. nearly all of these (most in general?) bugs will be spotted quickly by a train eye. But it's hard to get trained eyes on code all the time. AI will catch all the low hanging fruit.
What's great about this it seems mostly low hanging I.e. even basic AI will help people patch holes.
LLMs are decent at finding bugs and are actually usually able to patch.
Humanity's history is a long series of,
1. WOw looks what this person can do,
2a. Huh this technology can do it too,
2b. OMG it can do it well!
3. Lol can't believe we did that by hand back the day.
4. Wow looks what that guy can do!
....
You can probably trace to cavemen and pointy rocks.