On 7/22/24 11:06 AM, Andrew wrote:
> -hh wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:46:05 -0400 :
>
>> nds more on R&D than all but three companies.
>>
>> Plus Apple clearly does a lot of "Make or Buy" business assessments to
>> decide on where to prioritize their R&D investments. This leads us back
>> to his belief that no one company can be successful unless they
>> personally invent and make every last component totally in-house, which
>> is totally absurd and followed by literally no one. Likewise, his
>> apparent belief (also quite absurd) that every S&T project is always and
>> immediately fully successful as originally envisioned.
>>
>> Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs, which is why even
>> his attempts to worship Android fall far short of this vision, as
>> illustrated by how Android handset manufacturers *also* have had to
>> outsource their modem chips to Qualcomm rather than to invent & fab them
>> in-house like he's trying to ask of Apple. Yeah, hypocritical.
>>
>> As I said, it shows that "Andrew" has never professionally worked on any
>> technological development efforts ... except perhaps as their janitor.
>
> An adult would prove me wrong - but a child acts like hh just did above.
>
> The fact remains that nobody in high tech spends less than Apple on R&D as
> a percentage of revenue ...

Oh, look, "as a percentage of revenue..": its a goalpost move attempt!

> - and - plenty of phone companies spend more even
> though none are anywhere near the size of Apple in terms of total revenue.

And of course you can clearly explain why that's relevant...right?

> Alan Baker cannot dispute that fact because it's a well known fact.

Really? I was under the impression that the Android fanboys keep on
harping that the total worldwide Android sales is bigger than Apple.
Better go check your revenue numbers again...

....and especially not get them confused with net profits.

> It's that lack of R&D that explains why Apple is five to ten years behind
> Android technology - which - if you want to disprove - all you have to do
> is list what iPhone technology is better than similar Android technology.

*Yawn* others have already done so

>
> HINT: It's just as absurd to claim that AirTags are exclusively iPhone
> technology as it would be to claim that Tiles are exclusively Android.

Because that's invalid because Tile isn't exclusively Android.

> Name a *single* exclusively iPhone technology that Apple has innovated upon
> in the past five or ten years that is better than the equivalent Android.
>
> Hint: You can't.

Well, there is Apple Vision Pro's EyeSight Feature: its innovative
enough that Meta has tried to file a patent clone/derivative of it:

<https://www.patentlyapple.com/2024/07/monkey-see-monkey-do-meta-files-patent-designed-to-mimic-apple-vision-pros-eyesight-feature.html>

>
> Why not?
> Because Apple doesn't invest in R&D; Apple is all about marketing.
>
> Prove me wrong.
> That's what an adult would do.

Already done, repeatedly. Now "adult up" and accept being wrong.

-hh

On 2024-07-22 12:16, -hh wrote:
> On 7/22/24 11:06 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> -hh wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:46:05 -0400 :
>>
>>> nds more on R&D than all but three companies.
>>>
>>> Plus Apple clearly does a lot of "Make or Buy" business assessments to
>>> decide on where to prioritize their R&D investments.  This leads us back
>>> to his belief that no one company can be successful unless they
>>> personally invent and make every last component totally in-house, which
>>> is totally absurd and followed by literally no one.  Likewise, his
>>> apparent belief (also quite absurd) that every S&T project is always and
>>> immediately fully successful as originally envisioned.
>>>
>>> Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs, which is why even
>>> his attempts to worship Android fall far short of this vision, as
>>> illustrated by how Android handset manufacturers *also* have had to
>>> outsource their modem chips to Qualcomm rather than to invent & fab them
>>> in-house like he's trying to ask of Apple.  Yeah, hypocritical.
>>>
>>> As I said, it shows that "Andrew" has never professionally worked on any
>>> technological development efforts ... except perhaps as their janitor.
>>
>> An adult would prove me wrong - but a child acts like hh just did above.
>>
>> The fact remains that nobody in high tech spends less than Apple on
>> R&D as
>> a percentage of revenue ...
>
> Oh, look, "as a percentage of revenue..": its a goalpost move attempt!
>
>
>> - and - plenty of phone companies spend more even
>> though none are anywhere near the size of Apple in terms of total
>> revenue.
>
> And of course you can clearly explain why that's relevant...right?
>
>
>> Alan Baker cannot dispute that fact because it's a well known fact.
>
> Really?  I was under the impression that the Android fanboys keep on
> harping that the total worldwide Android sales is bigger than Apple.
> Better go check your revenue numbers again...
>
> ...and especially not get them confused with net profits.
>
>
>
>> It's that lack of R&D that explains why Apple is five to ten years behind
>> Android technology - which - if you want to disprove - all you have to do
>> is list what iPhone technology is better than similar Android technology.
>
> *Yawn* others have already done so
>
>>
>> HINT: It's just as absurd to claim that AirTags are exclusively iPhone
>> technology as it would be to claim that Tiles are exclusively Android.
>
> Because that's invalid because Tile isn't exclusively Android.
>
>
>
>> Name a *single* exclusively iPhone technology that Apple has innovated
>> upon
>> in the past five or ten years that is better than the equivalent Android.
>>
>> Hint: You can't.
>
> Well, there is Apple Vision Pro's EyeSight Feature:  its innovative
> enough that Meta has tried to file a patent clone/derivative of it:
>
>
> <https://www.patentlyapple.com/2024/07/monkey-see-monkey-do-meta-files-patent-designed-to-mimic-apple-vision-pros-eyesight-feature.html>
>
>>
>> Why not?
>> Because Apple doesn't invest in R&D; Apple is all about marketing.
>>
>> Prove me wrong.
>> That's what an adult would do.
>
> Already done, repeatedly.  Now "adult up" and accept being wrong.

Good luck with that.

Chris wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:31:21 -0000 (UTC) :

>> However, I also note that AirTags are NOT an iPhone feature; so we're still
>> waiting for even a single iPhone feature that leapfrogged that of Android.
>
> badgolfernan has already convinced of your misconception so I'll refer you
> to him.

While I don't have to dumb down the messaging when I converse with
badgolferman, for you I'll summarize we badgolferman & I currently stand:
1. Apple UWB trackers (Android has them also)
2. Apple Wallet/Pay systems (Android has them also)
3. Apple Emergency Satellite messaging (not yet available on Android)
4. In-person store one-on-one free customer support

Of those four items where Apple is clearly more successful, only the latter
two are missing on Android, although Google is planning on shipping the
satellite phone feature (free for two years, just like Apple has done).

However, the point isn't whether or not Apple is slightly more successful
because if we wanted to go that route, we'd start comparing Siri to Google
Assistant or Apple Maps to Google Maps or Or Apple's App Store to Google's
App Store. Or Apple's CarPlay to Android Auto. Or we could even dive deeper
into the weeds comparing any number of millions of apps such as NewsTap to
GroundHog newsreaders - so we need to be careful to not just compare stuff
we like better but which is on both platforms.

What we want to find is something that is on Apple that is NOT on Android.
>> Q: Name a single iPhone feature that you believe "leapfrogged" Android.
>> A: ?
>
> To repeat as you ignored it last time: AirPods (+ Pros) and FaceID. Android
> equivalents for the airpods have since caught up, mostly, but not FaceID.

Unfortunately for you, for you to claim FaceID is anything but a (rather
brilliant) mere marketing gimmick is not going to sit well with me, since I
am well aware why Apple customers *need* such a gimmick which is not secure
but which is easy - which is because the iPhone is designed as a dumb
terminal which is always logged into Cupertino servers such that Apple
needs you to lock your phone more than you need to lock your phone.

I realize most Apple owners live in the slums, and that most Apple owners
alive in abject fear of the people around them - and they quake with fear
when their wives or children or friends or neighbors are anywhere near
their iPhone, but a "normal" person does not live in abject fear.

For example, I don't have a lock on my phone and my data is far more secure
than if it were on any iPhone ever designed - so just be advised that
telling me you fell for the oldest marketing gimmick in the book doesn't
bode well for you in that FaceID is a garbage gimmick for gullible iSheep.

Besides, even Android has the same garbage gimmick.

> There's also the Automation/ShortCuts feature which doesn't have an
> equivalent in android and includes the Geofencing functionality which you
> lauded didn't exist.

This is absurd. The automation on Android far surpasses anything on Apple.
I'm not even going to go there as you're desperate at this point.

> Plus iphone security is currently uncrackable by the popular cracking tool
> used by both law enforcement and others willing to pay the high fees:
> https://www.techspot.com/news/103880-cellebrite-tools-cant-crack-iphones-running-ios-174.html

Jesus Christ. You fall for every marketing gimmick in the book, Chris.
Do you know the iPhone is far more exploited than Android, Chris?
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

Do you realize that Android security for dozens of core modules is updated
monthly for every Android 10 device on the Internet while iOS is not?

Do you even realize that Pegasus often infects the iOS kernel and yet it
has NEVER been able to infect the Android kernel, Chris.

C'mon. You're grasping at straws by throwing marketing bullshit at us.
The fact is no phone is less secure than an Apple iPhone, Chris.

> Android doesn't fare quite so well. For example, the Trump shooter had his
> Samsung phone cracked:
> https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/techandscience/the-fbi-got-into-the-trump-rally-shooter-s-phone-in-just-40-minutes/ar-BB1qhMgY

The iPhone is the most exploited smartphone in history, Chris.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

There are three times as many zero-day holes in iOS than in Android too.

The fact you take a single case and try to make your entire point about
that one case shows how desperate you are to make a point that isn't valid.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:31:21 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> Q: Name a single iPhone feature that you believe "leapfrogged" Android.
>>> A: ?
>>
>> To repeat as you ignored it last time: AirPods (+ Pros) and FaceID. Android
>> equivalents for the airpods have since caught up, mostly, but not FaceID.
>
> Unfortunately for you, for you to claim FaceID is anything but a (rather
> brilliant) mere marketing gimmick is not going to sit well with me, since I
> am well aware why Apple customers *need* such a gimmick

I *knew* you would go down this rabbit hole.

Need is utterly irrelevant to your question. The fact is biometrics are
commonly used by mobile phone users and FaceID is easily more advanced than
other facial recognition methods available.

> Besides, even Android has the same garbage gimmick.

I agree that the android version is garbage.

>> There's also the Automation/ShortCuts feature which doesn't have an
>> equivalent in android and includes the Geofencing functionality which you
>> lauded didn't exist.
>
> This is absurd. The automation on Android far surpasses anything on Apple.
> I'm not even going to go there as you're desperate at this point.

Because you can't. You didn't even know it existed on ios so you don't know
what you're talking about. Again.

>> Plus iphone security is currently uncrackable by the popular cracking tool
>> used by both law enforcement and others willing to pay the high fees:
>> https://www.techspot.com/news/103880-cellebrite-tools-cant-crack-iphones-running-ios-174.html
>
> Jesus Christ. You fall for every marketing gimmick in the book, Chris.
> Do you know the iPhone is far more exploited than Android, Chris?
> <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

That link doesn't confirm what you think it does. As was demonstrated to
you.

> Do you realize that Android security for dozens of core modules is updated
> monthly for every Android 10 device on the Internet while iOS is not?

It's not all of them, though, is it? The rest of the os is completely
vulnerable. To the joy of the likes of cellebrite.

> Do you even realize that Pegasus often infects the iOS kernel and yet it
> has NEVER been able to infect the Android kernel, Chris.

Pegasus targets high value individuals. *That's* why it doesn't target
android ;)

On 2024-07-23, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you even realize that Pegasus often infects the iOS kernel and yet
>> it has NEVER been able to infect the Android kernel, Chris.
>
> Pegasus targets high value individuals. *That's* why it doesn't target
> android ;)

He's lying anyway. Pegasus absolutely does get into Android devices:

https://www.androidauthority.com/pegasus-spyware-1646458/
---
Once it has secretly infected a smartphone (Android or iOS), it can turn
the device into a fully-fledged surveillance device. SMS messages,
emails, WhatsApp messages, iMessages, and more, are all open for reading
and copying. It can record incoming and outgoing calls, as well as steal
all the photos on the device. Plus it can activate the microphone and/or
the camera and record what is being said. When you combine that with the
potential to access past and present location data, it is clear that
those listening at the other end know almost everything there is to know
about anyone that is targeted.
---

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote on 24 Jul 2024 00:04:05 GMT :

>> Pegasus targets high value individuals. *That's* why it doesn't target
>> android ;)
>
> He's lying anyway. Pegasus absolutely does get into Android devices:
>
> https://www.androidauthority.com/pegasus-spyware-1646458/
> ---
> Once it has secretly infected a smartphone (Android or iOS), it can turn
> the device into a fully-fledged surveillance device. SMS messages,
> emails, WhatsApp messages, iMessages, and more, are all open for reading
> and copying. It can record incoming and outgoing calls, as well as steal
> all the photos on the device. Plus it can activate the microphone and/or
> the camera and record what is being said. When you combine that with the
> potential to access past and present location data, it is clear that
> those listening at the other end know almost everything there is to know
> about anyone that is targeted.

There's a reason I assess the iKooks as low-IQ, uneducated & ignorant.

It's no longer surprising Apple's zealots don't know what a kernel is.
<https://info.lookout.com/rs/051-ESQ-475/images/pegasus-exploits-technical-details.pdf>

Pegasus constantly infects the (sophomorically written) iOS kernel.
Pegasus has *never* even once infected the well-written Android kernel.

On 2024-07-24 04:15, Andrew wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote on 24 Jul 2024 00:04:05 GMT :
>
>>> Pegasus targets high value individuals. *That's* why it doesn't target
>>> android ;)
>>
>> He's lying anyway. Pegasus absolutely does get into Android devices:
>>
>> https://www.androidauthority.com/pegasus-spyware-1646458/
>> ---
>> Once it has secretly infected a smartphone (Android or iOS), it can turn
>> the device into a fully-fledged surveillance device. SMS messages,
>> emails, WhatsApp messages, iMessages, and more, are all open for reading
>> and copying. It can record incoming and outgoing calls, as well as steal
>> all the photos on the device. Plus it can activate the microphone and/or
>> the camera and record what is being said. When you combine that with the
>> potential to access past and present location data, it is clear that
>> those listening at the other end know almost everything there is to know
>> about anyone that is targeted.
>
> There's a reason I assess the iKooks as low-IQ, uneducated & ignorant.

You're a giant dick?

On 7/22/2024 10:19 AM, Andrew wrote:
> Chris wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 07:27:32 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>>> It's interesting how biased the ignorant uneducated low-IQ Apple religious
>>>> zealots are; but let's simply ask them to back up their claims by stating
>>>> even a *single* factual technological accomplishment Apple has had for the
>>>> iPhone in the past five years that they consider "leapfrogged" Android.
>>>>
>>>> Name just one.
>>>> We'll wait...
>>>>
>>>> HINT: These uneducated low-IQ religious zealots just make this stuff up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> AirTags?
>>
>> Yup. Nothing comes close.
>>
>> Not in the last five years, that's quite short period of time in such a
>> mature industry, but also AirPods (& Pros) and FaceID.
>
> *You do realize you've proven my point that Apple can't innovate*, right?
> Even ignoring that all Apple can ever possibly do is copy existing Tiles...
>
> Ask yourself this question:
> Q: What has Apple done for the iPhone in the past five years
> that you feel has leapfrogged Android phones in technology?
> A: ?
>
> Notice that none of you strange religious zealots can come up with even a
> *single* technical improvement of the iPhone over Android phones.
>
> Even if I grant you AirTags are well marketed - even as they're a silly
> gimmick, they're not an iPhone technology - and even if they were - your
> entire strongly held belief system would be based on only 1 fact.
>
> Do you even realize you nutcases prove me right every time?
> (The reason is simply that I'm right - but you need to understand that.)
>
> You've proven my point that Apple can't innovate due to its lack of R&D.
>
>

You ignore the effect that the Apple M series CPU has had on the laptop
space. The race to convert to Snapdragon is well underway. The A series
phone CPU is no slouch either. Then there is that whole Apple support
network. In my extensive Android experience there was NOTHING like that.

Tom Elam wrote on Sun, 28 Jul 2024 20:29:35 -0400 :

> You ignore the effect that the Apple M series CPU has had on the laptop
> space. The race to convert to Snapdragon is well underway. The A series
> phone CPU is no slouch either. Then there is that whole Apple support
> network. In my extensive Android experience there was NOTHING like that.

Bear in mind I use iPhones and iPads and Android phones every day where
you'll never hear me disagree with any sensibly logical stated viewpoint.

The main difference between me and most of the people who post to the Apple
newsgroups is I don't believe every word that Apple claims in
advertisements - and - in fact - I see how much Apple lies in its
marketing.

To your points though...

What I like about the highly flawed (unpatchable) M-series CPUs is that it
put Intel on notice that they'd better improve their chip design output.

In that sense, I completely agree with you, and I agree with Apple's
strategy (as they tried with Qualcomm) to divorce themselves from others.

It's a crapshoot as to what Apple's strategy is with smartphone CPUs as
there are plenty of indications it's purely a (brilliant) marketing ploy.

Suffice to say that Android phones leapfrog Apple iPhones regularly, just
as Apple iPhones leapfrog Android phones regularly - where I strongly
suspect it would be the case no matter which CPU Apple/Android used.

CPU technology increases along with all other chip-design technology.

As for "that whole Apple support network" statement, you ignore that Apple
has the worst operating system support in the industry (e.g., every other
common consumer operating system vendor fully supports multiple releases
simultaneously - except Apple - who only supports one).
<https://screenrant.com/apple-product-security-update-lifespan/>
<https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/about-software-updates-depc4c80847a/>
<https://hothardware.com/news/apple-admits-only-fully-patches-security-flaws-in-latest-os-releases>
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/>

In addition, you ignore that Windows is supported for a decade per version,
while Samsung and Google support their new phones for seven years lately,
while Apple is, again, the worst support in the industry, at five years.
<https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/samsung-extends-android-and-security-updates-to-7-years/>
<https://www.tomsguide.com/opinion/google-pixel-8-software-updates>
<https://www.androidauthority.com/iphone-software-support-commitment-3449135/>
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/06/06/apple-iphone-security-updates-five-year-minimum/>
<https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/6/24172843/apple-iphone-minimum-five-years-security-updates>
<https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-reveals-its-iphone-gets-at-least-five-years-of-security-updates/>
<https://mashable.com/article/apple-iphone-security-updates-5-years>
<https://www.imore.com/iphone/apple-says-your-new-iphone-will-get-at-least-five-years-of-security-updates-but-history-suggests-itll-be-significantly-longer>
<https://appleworld.today/apple-commits-to-minimum-of-five-years-of-iphone-security-software-updates-from-the-date-a-device-is-launched/>

While the Apple religious zealots will hope to dear God that Apple
will fully support their devices longer than that, Apple still only
fully supports a single release - such that here's are reasons iPhones
always have more zero day holes and there are reasons why the iPhone
is (and always was!) the most actively exploited phone in history.
*End of Life? End of Support? End of Security Updates?*
<https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8415153>

Having said that, the one thing Apple does do better than anyone else is
the sophomoric support at the Apple Store Genius Bar for clueless people.

My mom uses that Genius Bar all the time - but every time I used it, I was
appalled at what they didn't know (e.g., they didn't know what a decibel is
when I was complaining about poor cellular reception).

They're free.
They're friendly.
They're in every town.

But they can only show you where the settings app is on your iPhone.

On 2024-07-28 18:56, Andrew wrote:
> Tom Elam wrote on Sun, 28 Jul 2024 20:29:35 -0400 :
>
>> You ignore the effect that the Apple M series CPU has had on the laptop
>> space. The race to convert to Snapdragon is well underway. The A series
>> phone CPU is no slouch either. Then there is that whole Apple support
>> network. In my extensive Android experience there was NOTHING like that.
>
> Bear in mind I use iPhones and iPads and Android phones every day where
> you'll never hear me disagree with any sensibly logical stated viewpoint.
>
> The main difference between me and most of the people who post to the Apple
> newsgroups is I don't believe every word that Apple claims in
> advertisements - and - in fact - I see how much Apple lies in its
> marketing.
>
> To your points though...
>
> What I like about the highly flawed (unpatchable) M-series CPUs is that it
> put Intel on notice that they'd better improve their chip design output.

What I like is that you ignore your claim that Apple doesn't really
design it's CPUs.

>
> In that sense, I completely agree with you, and I agree with Apple's
> strategy (as they tried with Qualcomm) to divorce themselves from others.
>
> It's a crapshoot as to what Apple's strategy is with smartphone CPUs as
> there are plenty of indications it's purely a (brilliant) marketing ploy.

Other than the fact that they are among the fastest outright and
definitely the fastest per watt.

>
> Suffice to say that Android phones leapfrog Apple iPhones regularly, just
> as Apple iPhones leapfrog Android phones regularly - where I strongly
> suspect it would be the case no matter which CPU Apple/Android used.

A fact you regularly ignored when you would carefully point out DXOMark
scores for smartphone cameras...

....always shortly before Apple's latest phones were released.

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote at 02:01 this Sunday (GMT):
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-07-20 11:07:59 +0000, -hh said:
>>
>>> On 7/19/24 11:09 PM, Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Meanwhile, all of those benefits are available on Android and have been
>>>> since Google introduced the idea of an AI-first smartphone in October 2024
>>>> during the Pixel 8 launch. With Google's Pixel 9 family due to be announced
>>>> in August, Apple's iPhone will be two generations behind Android's AI
>>>> efforts before it has even left the Cupertino stage."
>>>>
>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2024/07/18/apple-iphone-16-pro-max-apple-intelligence-ai-sales-demand-new-iphone/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you expect from a company whose advertising budget dwarfs R&D.
>>>
>>> But how does it actually matter how far someone is "behind" when the
>>> shiny new widget still isn't all that great, and doesn't actually
>>> reliably provide meaningful productivity gains?
>>> uttinf
>>> Case in point, AI asked to render salmon swimming upstream:
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/yijd3c/they_asked_an_ai_engine_to_recreate_a_salmon/>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ignoring the fact that AI is utterly useless and nothing more than
>> another fad gimmick ...
>
> Well, it may be a fad .. or perhaps not (at least for certain niches).
> Real point is that it is still formative and immature today.
[snip]

Yeah, I personally dislike AI.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote at 14:49 this Saturday (GMT):
> On 2024-07-20 07:07, -hh wrote:
>
>>
>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/yijd3c/they_asked_an_ai_engine_to_recreate_a_salmon/>
>
> Perfect.
>
> In early AI experiments (80's) they asked a computer to come up with a
> description of the suburbs.
>
> It spat out: "... a place where grass is grown."

To be fair, suburb people do like their grass :D
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2024-07-31 05:50:03 +0000, candycanearter07 said:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote at 02:01 this Sunday (GMT):
>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-20 11:07:59 +0000, -hh said:
>>>> On 7/19/24 11:09 PM, Andrew wrote:
>>>>> "Meanwhile, all of those benefits are available on Android and have been
>>>>> since Google introduced the idea of an AI-first smartphone in October 2024
>>>>> during the Pixel 8 launch. With Google's Pixel 9 family due to be announced
>>>>> in August, Apple's iPhone will be two generations behind Android's AI
>>>>> efforts before it has even left the Cupertino stage."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2024/07/18/apple-iphone-16-pro-max-apple-intelligence-ai-sales-demand-new-iphone/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you expect from a company whose advertising budget dwarfs R&D.
>>>>
>>>> But how does it actually matter how far someone is "behind" when the
>>>> shiny new widget still isn't all that great, and doesn't actually
>>>> reliably provide meaningful productivity gains?
>>>> uttinf
>>>> Case in point, AI asked to render salmon swimming upstream:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/yijd3c/they_asked_an_ai_engine_to_recreate_a_salmon/>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ignoring the fact that AI is utterly useless and nothing more than
>>> another fad gimmick ...
>>
>> Well, it may be a fad .. or perhaps not (at least for certain niches).
>> Real point is that it is still formative and immature today.
> [snip]
>
> Yeah, I personally dislike AI.

As far as I can find, the only people who actually like AI are those
making money from creating it or pointlessly adding it to every product
they sell to get gullible to upgrade yet again. :-\

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> On 2024-07-31 05:50:03 +0000, candycanearter07 said:
>>
>> Yeah, I personally dislike AI.
>
> As far as I can find, the only people who actually like AI are those
> making money from creating it or pointlessly adding it to every product
> they sell to get gullible to upgrade yet again. :-\
>

In the chess and backgammon worlds, AI or the neural net as it used to be
called, has long since overtaken any human player and are looked upon as
the standard when it comes to analyzing moves.

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> On 2024-07-31 05:50:03 +0000, candycanearter07 said:
>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote at 02:01 this Sunday (GMT):
>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-20 11:07:59 +0000, -hh said:
>>>>> On 7/19/24 11:09 PM, Andrew wrote:
>>>>>> "Meanwhile, all of those benefits are available on Android and have been
>>>>>> since Google introduced the idea of an AI-first smartphone in October 2024
>>>>>> during the Pixel 8 launch. With Google's Pixel 9 family due to be announced
>>>>>> in August, Apple's iPhone will be two generations behind Android's AI
>>>>>> efforts before it has even left the Cupertino stage."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2024/07/18/apple-iphone-16-pro-max-apple-intelligence-ai-sales-demand-new-iphone/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you expect from a company whose advertising budget dwarfs R&D.
>>>>>
>>>>> But how does it actually matter how far someone is "behind" when the
>>>>> shiny new widget still isn't all that great, and doesn't actually
>>>>> reliably provide meaningful productivity gains?
>>>>> uttinf
>>>>> Case in point, AI asked to render salmon swimming upstream:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/yijd3c/they_asked_an_ai_engine_to_recreate_a_salmon/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ignoring the fact that AI is utterly useless and nothing more than
>>>> another fad gimmick ...
>>>
>>> Well, it may be a fad .. or perhaps not (at least for certain niches).
>>> Real point is that it is still formative and immature today.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Yeah, I personally dislike AI.
>
> As far as I can find, the only people who actually like AI are those
> making money from creating it or pointlessly adding it to every product
> they sell to get gullible to upgrade yet again. :-\

"AI" has so many different meanings that it depends on who you ask.

Most "AI" is some form of statistical modelling - ML, ANN, DL, CNN - which
has been around for decades and is very powerful & useful. In the right
context.

Trying to disentangle real AI - oxymoron? - versus snakeoil "AI" is tricky.
Even in the scientific community there's little distinction by the funders,
propagating the uncertainty.

On 2024-07-31 03:20, badgolferman wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-07-31 05:50:03 +0000, candycanearter07 said:
>>>
>>> Yeah, I personally dislike AI.
>>
>> As far as I can find, the only people who actually like AI are those
>> making money from creating it or pointlessly adding it to every product
>> they sell to get gullible to upgrade yet again. :-\
>>
>
> In the chess and backgammon worlds, AI or the neural net as it used to be
> called, has long since overtaken any human player and are looked upon as
> the standard when it comes to analyzing moves.
>

I wouldn't consider building a program/thing to do play well against one
set of rules to be "AI" in any sense.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote at 15:24 this Wednesday (GMT):
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-07-31 05:50:03 +0000, candycanearter07 said:
>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote at 02:01 this Sunday (GMT):
>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-20 11:07:59 +0000, -hh said:
>>>>>> On 7/19/24 11:09 PM, Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>> "Meanwhile, all of those benefits are available on Android and have been
>>>>>>> since Google introduced the idea of an AI-first smartphone in October 2024
>>>>>>> during the Pixel 8 launch. With Google's Pixel 9 family due to be announced
>>>>>>> in August, Apple's iPhone will be two generations behind Android's AI
>>>>>>> efforts before it has even left the Cupertino stage."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2024/07/18/apple-iphone-16-pro-max-apple-intelligence-ai-sales-demand-new-iphone/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you expect from a company whose advertising budget dwarfs R&D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But how does it actually matter how far someone is "behind" when the
>>>>>> shiny new widget still isn't all that great, and doesn't actually
>>>>>> reliably provide meaningful productivity gains?
>>>>>> uttinf
>>>>>> Case in point, AI asked to render salmon swimming upstream:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/yijd3c/they_asked_an_ai_engine_to_recreate_a_salmon/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignoring the fact that AI is utterly useless and nothing more than
>>>>> another fad gimmick ...
>>>>
>>>> Well, it may be a fad .. or perhaps not (at least for certain niches).
>>>> Real point is that it is still formative and immature today.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Yeah, I personally dislike AI.
>>
>> As far as I can find, the only people who actually like AI are those
>> making money from creating it or pointlessly adding it to every product
>> they sell to get gullible to upgrade yet again. :-\
>
> "AI" has so many different meanings that it depends on who you ask.
>
> Most "AI" is some form of statistical modelling - ML, ANN, DL, CNN - which
> has been around for decades and is very powerful & useful. In the right
> context.
>
> Trying to disentangle real AI - oxymoron? - versus snakeoil "AI" is tricky.
> Even in the scientific community there's little distinction by the funders,
> propagating the uncertainty.

Yeah, I wish companies would just say like "algorithm" or "learning
model".
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom