I feel Microsoft's desperation to put LLM's into every product suggests mismanagement. Same as Microsoft's past efforts to Bing everything.

Adobe seems to be the only one with an empowered product team that's consistently finding sensible and profitable uses for machine learning.

I agree. The only two examples I've seen of embedded AI that "works" is Bard in search results, and generative AI in Adobe's. Everything else feels tacked on.

Edit: And on my iPhone, the offline photo categorization and image OCR

Microsoft haven't really taken any deep interest into the (say) Office suite in decades so now they have no intuition at all for where its value is, thus the "umm copilot?"-ing everywhere.

It is hilarious that people are trying to portray MSFT's moves in AI as "desperate" lol

MS got the score of the century. They're selling the shovels and access to the mines.

This is true, but most big AI companies are the ones selling shovels, and tons of money is pouring into the field because everyone wants to get in on shovel selling... but I don't know if it's yet determined that there are enough motivated shovel buyers.

The GPUs that Nvidia is selling to Microsoft, Google, Meta and the venture-backed AI bandwagon are arguably the shovels.

MSFT's main benefit their chokehold on corporate software. They can provide high priced software, deals etc. due to sheer force of Office and Azure. Even Amazon does not have that.

They are oversaturating their products with internet-based LLMs. It is a desperate attempt to milk all possible potential value from their smart investment.

A careful plan for a product would be less hamfisted and include more flexibility to deal with the backlash.

The issue here, although easier due to moving second, is that Apple don't seem to really have a software culture, and this is pure software in multiple limits.

And so we'll be back to Apple vs Microsoft? Nostalgia from the aughts.

> we'll be back to Apple vs Microsoft?

Possibly. On the consumer side, they’re in their own niches. What will get interesting is how Apple lets developers hook into the on-device AI, or one that’s running on its own metal.

And '90s. And '80s.

Yeah its kind of insane how many times Apple can pull this trick yet we still get people saying "they're late, they look like morons, Apple is finished".

Apple can arrive last to a product market. They can take six years of iterative releases to refine their vision on a product market. They will still dominate that market. Cue the "they can't keep getting away with this" meme, because this happens with EVERY PRODUCT THEY RELEASE and these people still keep thinking this time will be different.

The whole "Siri sucks" thing is also hilarious, because you have to ask: So? So what? Apple, Google, and Amazon invested billions upon billions into these systems (Amazon especially). Then LLMs came around and are absolutely eating their same lunch ten times faster. Apple, again, looks like a genius (intentionally, or far more likely, not). They didn't over-invest. They're not laying off a thousand people from the Alexa division [1], or removing a ton of Google Assistant features [2], or releasing hardware no one is buying. They built exactly enough of a voice assistant to be competitive throughout the 2010s, and now its time for the next generation of all these things anyway.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/amazon-alexa-job-cuts-generative-...

[2] https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/11/24034262/google-assistant...

> Apple is a best-in-class second mover.

Apple's biggest successes have come from being the first mover in a brand new space.

Apple II, Macintosh, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Airpods, Watch were all category defining rather than "me too" products.

In fact Apple is terrible at throwing its hat into an already crowded space, and doubly so when it comes to software.

> Apple's biggest successes have come from being the first mover in a brand new space.

I would say that only one of the examples you gave was unambiguously the first mover in a brand new space. I will give you "category defining", though.

For example, the iPod had tons of competitors already in the field when it launched.

Airpods were not even close to the first wireless earbuds.

One of the Apple Watch's major competitors (fitbit) launched 8 years prior. The first smartwatch that could sync with a computer came out in the 80s.

The iPad came like a decade after Microsoft's first major tablet push. ATT and Sony/Magicap and Apple all released "smart tablets" in the early 90s.

The iPhone was not the first capacitive touch screen smartphone, and certainly not the first smartphone - over a decade late to that game.

The Macintosh was (sort of) a sequel to Apple's own Lisa, which itself was also not a first mover. The Mac was incredibly innovative and successful, but was preceded by the LISA, PERQ, Alto, various Lisp Machines.

> In fact Apple is terrible at throwing its hat into an already crowded space, and doubly so when it comes to software.

Couldn't be farther from the truth.

iPhone has basically defined a category of mutli-touch screen devices. It essentially created the whole foundation how all the mobile phones went. It was a completely new consumer category of devices.

Apple Watch was a success because it used iPhone as a moat. iPad was built upon iPhone's foundation.

Apple is - by and large - "an iPhone company".

> It essentially created the whole foundation how all the mobile phones went. It was a completely new consumer category of devices.

I was already using smart phones, handhelds, tablets, etc, for years before the iPhone. Apple entered an existing category.

The iPhone wasn't even the first capacitive touchscreen phone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada

Back in 2007 it was not seen as a completely new category or truly original. It was a variation within an existing category. At the time we did not think it was revolutionary, but of course it became the new standard.

Before they became an "iPhone company" they were an "iPod company", and that was also an existing category when it launched.

> The iPad came like a decade after Microsoft's first major tablet push.

Wow, you really got their asses. Who could forget Microsoft's first major tablet push.

You're right, it was closer to two decades prior. My bad.

These are all classes of device where existing options hashed out many of the growing pains before Apple released something more polished or attractive to buyers - the definition of second-mover.

You just described second movers.

Welcome to History Revisionism.

Literally EVERY single example you listed were markets that already existed before Apple entered them (except maybe the Mac but that was so long ago who cares). MP3 players existed before the iPod. Smartphones existed before the iPhone. Wireless earbuds existed before Airpods. Tablets existed before the iPad. Smartwatches existed before the Apple Watch. VR goggles existed before Vision. Smartrings existed before the Apple Ring (just wait, its coming).

Their skill isn't in being a first mover. Their skill is being a second, or even last, mover into a space that has untapped potential, and unlocking that potential (for both their benefit and competitors).

Really? really?

you think when the iPhone came out the space was not crowded? You think they defined the category? Jobs himself have put up a number of smartphones in his 2007 presentation. Yes, the iPhone was far, very far better but it was definitely not a first.

Same thing with the iPod vs Diamond Rio MP3 layers.

As for the Watch, gosh, I do not even know where to start. Pebble Kickstarter two years before that? Two generations of the Samsung Galaxy Gear came out well before the Apple Watch.

Look at a picture of what the top 10 smartphones looked like the day before iPhone launched and then again a few years later. That is what category defining means.

They didn't take whatever was out there in the market and copy it/make it incrementally better. They started from scratch and built something drastically different and better than the rest. Same for iPod (yes there were plenty of cheap MP3 players out there, but none of them were comparable), Airpods and all the rest.

The Apple watch was only incrementally better than the existing options. The original one was probably worse than the Pebble in some aspects.

> the iPhone was far, very far better

It wasn't that far ahead when it first launched. Very basic functionality. But a few versions later it was the end of Nokia and Blackberry.

https://www.mobilegazette.com/2007-review-07x12x12.htm

"No handset polarised opinions during 2007 more than the Apple iPhone. Although it has many good points, the list of bad points is equally impressive. The iPhone lacks 3G, the camera is only two megapixels and lacks autofocus and flash, you cannot send MMS messages, third party applications are not allowed, the battery is not replaceable and it is absurdly expensive."

People seem to forget that on launch, the iPhone was basically a feature phone.

I owned a Blackberry in 2007 and thought the new iPhone was trash.

iPhone was category defining for sure, but it was far from the first smartphone.

Second mover in every example except maybe the Apple II where the competitors released in the same year.

iPod was released in 2001. Portable MP3 players were released in the late 90s.

MS is putting all its eggs in one basket at the moment, AI everywhere.

That's not savvy that's desperate.