The article buries the lede on the only point that matters with these "AI" hardware devices. They need to solve a problem their customers have, and all the devices these companies have released so far don't do anything that a smartphone can't easily do.
An "AI Hardware" device that needs a network connection, and makes API calls to the mother ship, in order to accomplish anything, is not interesting. It's a Raspberry Pi.
On the other hand, a device that could work offline is interesting. One that could work in a zombie apocalypse is even more interesting. Especially if it was solar powered and contained the knowledge needed to rebuild society.
> An "AI Hardware" device that needs a network connection, and makes API calls to the mother ship, in order to accomplish anything, is not interesting. It's a Raspberry Pi.
Kind of an unnecessary dig at the Raspberry Pi, no? Modern Pis and SBCs in general are good at lots of things. I use mine for self-hosting some apps I use, and I've definitely seen them used in little compute clusters for AI inference.
> On the other hand, a device that could work offline is interesting. One that could work in a zombie apocalypse is even more interesting. Especially if it was solar powered and contained the knowledge needed to rebuild society.
This is kind of interesting in an abstract sense; it's fun to imagine burying a solar-powered oracle in a hardshell case in a bunker somewhere so that some hypothetical person can use it to bootstrap civilization after the end, but that's all it really is: hypothetical. Fun to imagine. A project for hackers or maybe a non-profit. It certainly fails the "toothbrush test" mentioned in the article; no one will be consulting their doomsday box once or twice a day (absent a doomsday, anyway).
If I can be really reductionist for a second, I think there's a lot of AI cart-before-horse happening with these hardware products. Smartphones changed the world a decade and a half ago because they took something that people wanted--the internet, but mobile--and finally made it work. Since then they've dramatically changed the landscape of the internet and social media etc, but the idea--that people already had the internet but wanted to interact with it in a different way--should probably be the foundation for how we think about AI hardware products. What can they do for people better than what they already have? We should not need the benefit of hindsight to see why something like the Human AI pin, that doesn't really do anything and does it badly, failed.
RPis just aren't interesting. It's a full fat computer on a small board that does everything a normal computer does, just small.
PCs just aren't interesting because they're all fundamentally the same thing and are capable of the same set of tasks.
RPis aren't interesting because 99.9999% of projects they're put in are better served by a microcontroller and not an entire linux system. If not just a 555. It's boring to throw an entire linux computer into a project. You've utterly given up on the hardware and have assumed you can do everything with software.
Well, I wouldn't put it past that. It could literally feed Android into an llm context window and probably redesign it to be even better and it already is.
Android still has weird laggy jumps and just is not that smooth. Even on the new pixel devices.
Just wait until we can just feed a serialization of our "coworker's" mind into the context and get an improved coworker who has more practical skill in applying LLMs!
> The iPhone wasn't successful because of its beautiful design. It was because it packed everything we needed every day—phone calls, music, internet, photos, maps—into a single device.
Have to disagree here. There were many devices before (and after) the iPhone that offered this package but it stands above the rest because of its design and polish.
I don't recall if the iPhone actually even had internet and maps at launch. I think the first time I saw an iPhone in person was in France maybe around 2007/2008 or something, and at that point it didn't even have the AppStore I'm fairly sure, just had the apps it came with.
And most of the discussion I had with the owner wasn't about how it was "all-in-one package", but rather how much smoother the UI was compared to other touch devices at the time, how accurate it was and how it felt in the hand.
I had the OG iPod Touch, which had the same software (minus the phone, camera, and GPS parts).
It did web browsing very well.
And it came with Maps (which, at that time, used Google's data).
It was initially amusing back then when the world was commonly filled with wide-open 802.11 networks to pull out that little pocket computer, connect to a nearby network (if it hadn't already connected to "Linksys"), and browse an online map -- from about anywhere with a building nearby.
Wifi-based geolocation was also spooky-good at that time.
Anyway, it didn't do much else that I found useful. It was generally lacking features that I'd been using for years with a Handspring Visor (which itself ran on a pair of alkaline batteries for months).
Early IOS didn't even have a clipboard to cut and paste with.
So I jailbroke it. I added multitasking, an app "store," a clipboard and a bunch of other fun stuff long before Apple allowed those functions.
I think I even had a good bit of the Debian userland installed at one point.
After that, I used it all the time for stuff (until the OG Motorola Droid replaced it in 2009, which was easy as pie to root: just dump a special su on there and run it).
When Jobs first announced the iPhone, he really sold the idea that it was running a real web browser like on a desktop. Up to that point, there was a special mobile internet that really sucked.
I remember WAP, GPRS and the newly invented 2G all too well :) But seems my memory wasn't perfect regarding a browser being on the iPhone initially or not, thanks for the correction.
I miss WAP browsing. By necessity, it stripped out all the "advanced" design bullshit that made web pages suck. Just a couple links and buttons is fast and reliable.
Yeah, me to in a way, browsing pages where every link is centered, shit quality porn ads everywhere and deep down in the pages you could finally find that .jar link to the cracked game you were out after. Trying to remember any of the WAP websites I frequented at the time, but seem to recall any by name or address...
The problem wasn't the special mobile internet but the operating systems. Most phone OS before iOS just couldn't run full Gecko/Trident/WebKit/what-have-you. The phones could reach any external IPv4 addresses, but there weren't much to do with neither browser nor an app store.
You could run things like IRC clients, dedicated text chat apps, and server rendered browsers on live Internet. But downloading full webpages was too much for the hardware.
> Building on Openwave's HDML, Nokia's "Tagged Text Markup Language" (TTML) and Ericsson's proprietary markup language for mobile content, the WAP Forum created the WML 1.1 standard in 1998. WML 2.0 was specified in 2001, but has not been widely adopted. It was an attempt at bridging WML and XHTML Basic before the WAP 2.0 spec was finalized. In the end, XHTML Mobile Profile became the markup language used in WAP 2.0.
It had internet, back then one of the big bits of news tangential to the iphone releasing was how Jobs decided on no Flash player on their mobile devices, which was the mortal wound to official support of that format. More generally though, I think the iphone (or smartphones in general) work as a good example of bundling capabilities and doing it well. Phones before then could do many of the things smartphones could, some could play games, could play music, some had cameras, and there were separate devices that specialized in those and did them better, but smartphones collected them all up and started an arms race in doing them great.
> things smartphones could, some could play games, could play music, some had cameras, and there were separate devices that specialized in those and did them better
But even Sony Ericsson phones way before the iPhone could all do those things in one phone too, some of them really good for their time. Yet they never kind of changed the technology scene as much as the iPhone.
> I don't recall if the iPhone actually even had internet and maps at launch
It did. Jobs famously said on stage [0] "An iPod, a Phone, and an Internet Communicator. An iPod, a Phone... are you getting it? These are not 3 seperate devices, this is one device, and we are calling it iPhone" at the launch. It also did come with maps that used Google Maps.
Case in point, Safari. I used Blackberry before the iPhone as well as multiple other "mobile browsers" on PocketPC, Palm, and even WAP browsers on flip phones (maybe also Opera Mini? My memory is fuzzy on when that came out).
Nothing, and I mean nothing, compared to Safari on the iPhone. It was in a league of its own. It was dog-slow over Edge but it was a _real_ browser instead of what had come before.
agree. as a heavy user of smartphones pre-iPhone, the actually usable browser was the biggest advantage the iPhone had at introduction. I'd even put it above the capacitive/multi touch capabilities, as these did not enable new functionality but merely made it a nicer experience.
When I first saw the iPhone I remember thinking how silly it was that a device calling itself a "phone" only had the phone function as of many apps. Other phones had internet and other features, sure, but their "home" screen, so to speak, was a phone UI. You had to hit "Menu" or something else to see the other apps, which were clearly secondary to the primary phone function.
The iPhone felt more like a general portable computing device that happened to also function as a phone.
Even the Blackberry up to that point still felt more like an "email/phone device" primarily (though funny enough, I never had a Blackberry myself until after the iPhone came out).
The irony now, and I suspect many people are like this, is my "phone" is barely ever used as an actual phone. It's a computer with a data plan. I am way more likely to use some kind of internet-based voice/video chat than make or take a phone call.
My phone icon is still on my home screen, but only because it is something I want to be able to get at quickly in an emergency. I'm certain it's the least-used icon on the screen, though.
> Other phones had internet and other features, sure, but their "home" screen, so to speak, was a phone UI. You had to hit "Menu" or something else to see the other apps, which were clearly secondary to the primary phone function.
There were also other “phones” that only had the phone function as one of many apps.
Imho the iphone could have been a literal stinking 1kg brick and as long as it kept the same UI people would carry them around on a carrying handle and it would still have been a success.
Its the screen (size) that mattered. While screens make terrible input devices, for content consumption they are king. And that is the dividing line between blackberry/iphones. An argument can also be made for "boring business blackberry" vs "fun" iphone.
The apps were worse, but you had that HUGE screen to look at. And compared to other non-blackberry phones where you were limited to T9 text input, it was a game changer.
I've seen this argument thrown around but I'm not sure I understand how it holds up. Why didn't android just completely copy apple's marketing, then? What did apple do differently,marketing wise, that android couldn't emulate?
Their whole marketing campaign was basically "You've never seen anything like this before, no one has made a phone capable of all this". You can't really copy that marketing if you're the second company making such a product unless you want to be laughed at.
There is some value to the idea as Apple was a single manufacture with a somewhat high end image vs Android being on every random company, some who were decidedly budget/low end. So we seem some real tacky advertising for Android devices vs more polished ads for iPhone. But there is more to the story than just this factor
> iPhone wasn't successful because of its beautiful design
Relatively speaking I think that gave it an edge which helped make it successful.
I don't think Apple products in general have the best most usable designs, but they do have the most beautiful, most stylish most sophisticated-looking designs. People want that because a device like phone is part of their identity.
yeah, the Macbook for example, looks pretty, but its sharp aluminum edge cuts into my palm when I use the track pad, so I have black electrical tape on it so that it is functional. Which destroys its beauty. I'd take an aluminum router to it if I could, but it is a work laptop (on lease). And unfortunately I can't use a Linux laptop here otherwise I would...
Totally. In a world of pretty ugly flip phones and Blackberries, the minimalist early iPhone designs definitely looked cool at the time, and were attention grabbing to a degree. I think it definitely kept that edge for some time against early Android phones, which weren't necessarily as attractive.
Hardware companies treat software as if it were just another line item on the BOM: Like a screw or gasket. Just source this "software thing" from the cheapest bidder, and spoon it into the product on the assembly line somewhere towards the end. That's all hardware companies see. They don't see a software as an ecosystem, as an enabler, as a future way to deliver more and more value. It's just a costly part number that you assemble onto the product.
Nvidia would like a word. If a hardware manufacturer releases software and creates a strong bedrock for others to build on their work then its clearly a strong asset. Granted, this is not at all easy to do, and initial investment into it may be large, but when it works it pays off immensely.
I would love to know if Ives was truly foundation to the iPhone, or if he was more given the overall idea and polished it with the final look/feel (which is also important).
Who was the exact individual that had the vision for glass multi-touch screens and sick gesture like effects (scroll).
Perhaps the team just sat around a table and came up with the vision. Or maybe it was Jobs, but clearly there were some good visionaries in the company.
I think the proof of Ive's excellence will come out of this next OpenAI project. If it's something lame, then I will assume his impact at Apple was overrated. If it's a jaw-dropper, then maybe he really is the cat's meow.
> Who was the exact individual that had the vision for glass multi-touch screens and sick gesture like effects (scroll).
Like almost all new products later thought of as 'visionary' innovations, the first iPhone built on pre-existing ideas but integrated them particularly well and added some excellent new refinements. It's easy to forget that the prior five years had been a crucible of in-market experimentation between companies like Nokia, Palm, HP, Sony, Ericsson and Blackberry with platforms like Pocket PC, Palm OS, Windows CE and Windows Mobile.
The iPhone was announced in Jan 2007 at MacWorld (and shipped in July), I was there and played with it extensively in the Apple booth. I remember thinking it had some especially clever ideas and was a very nice implementation. It advanced the "premium pocket phone" bar up to a new level but I didn't see it as unusually visionary. It was definitely significant but still a (large) step in an ongoing progression of refinement, integration and search for product/market fit. There were already large color touchscreen devices which integrated a phone, messaging, camera, music player, Wifi, Bluetooth and GPS. Here's an article looking at a few pre-iPhone devices: https://www.phonearena.com/news/6-great-smartphones-from-10-....
The iPhone 1's design was uniquely simple and svelte but I was immediately concerned about it having enough battery to support that screen. The choice to go with just "One Big Button" and no physical keyboard or navigation keys was bold, weird and also a bit concerning. The on-screen keyboard-only and gesture nav-only choices did feel a bit like two steps forward, one back in iOS 1. It felt like they made a 'purist' design decision and had to make it work as well as it could. That worked out to be "well enough" but sometimes similarly bold but risky choices can fail when they sacrifice too much. However, the battery life did become a very serious issue for active users when the first iPhone shipped and limited the success of the device. It's also worth remembering the usability of iOS 1 was pretty clunky. I played with most of these early phone devices and owned several but didn't adopt an iPhone as my primary device until the iPhone 3G shipped 18 months after the iPhone launch. The 3G was significantly better, different and more refined than the iPhone 1.
The iPhone was the first really well done general purpose computing phone. It had a real web browser, a real music player, apps that didn't suck. Adoption was huge because the design was great, but we would have just seen the same thing transpire over a number of years if iPhone hadn't been created.
I know a lot of people basically who were basically saying "finally"
> but we would have just seen the same thing transpire over a number of years if iPhone hadn't been created.
Maybe, but I’m not certain we would have converged on a single form factor. Only Apple had the retail, marketing, software, hardware capabilities, discipline, and incentives to throw everything behind the minimalistic design and single form factor and turn it into a hit.
Everyone else was splitting their efforts across multiple form factors and relying on carrier stores to sell their phones, and I don’t think that was going to revolutionize anything.
Advanced capabilities were truly depressing. Better hardware would have helped a lot, but given how poor Android trundled(s?) along, I'm inclined to agree that only someone with a strong vision was going to execute it as well as Steve did.
It's strange to think it was only 4 years after the initial release that he died.
Nokia had a touch-screen based phone, with a real browser and a real music player in 2005. They didn't make an effort to sell it around here, though, but I don't think it's that either.
I remember the first application that people were hyped about was Google Maps. The Nokia phone couldn't run that, and any map available there was much harder to use. But the iPhone only really took off after people could install any kind of application there.
I'm not comfortable with the word 'visionary' because it's ill-defined and unscoped. So I don't use that word because I don't think in those terms. This may be because most of my later career was spent leading teams conceiving and shipping cutting-edge tech products in new categories - sometimes launching those categories - occasionally with historically notable success, usually with middling success and sometimes with abject failure. After a couple decades this track-record resulted in several years leading innovation globally at a top ten valley tech giant.
So I've thought a lot about new tech product innovation including speaking, writing and teaching about it. When people have been kind enough to use 'visionary' in relation to a product I led, I thank them but reject the term and then try to turn it into a teachable moment about the thought processes, systems and relentless execution necessary to create results someone might someday describe as 'visionary'. I'm generally opposed to the trend in media and pop-biz-lit to deify outstanding new product development as somehow ineffably mystical. At best, it helps no one get better at doing this hard thing, and at worst, it's pulling up the ladder after we've climbed it.
The novel insights and intuitions which some people call 'visionary', in my experience, always seem to come after intensive research, deep study of prior work in the field and constant hands-on, practical experimentation. So I credit them as the indirect (but expected) result of the rigorous process of making and shipping cool new stuff. That said, I do think of Steve Jobs himself as one of the best natural tech product innovators I've ever met. Another example I cite as a significantly notable step change was SpaceX's understanding that the way to engineer exponentially more mass to orbit per dollar was pioneering a substantially different process of rocket development. That's more a process than a product - but that's kind of my whole meta-point.
If your question was basically to try to call out "guy who didn't think iPhone 1 was unusually visionary at the 2007 launch, doesn't think anything is visionary". Well... you win. But it's more because I think most new products in new categories are 'visionary' in some ways. It's just that the majority of new visions fail commercially. Semantically, 'visionary' probably best parses to a synonym for novelty and 'newly different' doesn't necessarily equate to good, so it's not useful as a threshold metric for product success. However, I do think the iPhone business overall is certainly one of the ten most innovative and successful new product businesses our industry has ever seen. But that doesn't change the fact that many knowledgeable observers at the original launch didn't see it that way - because it wasn't that yet. Twenty years of incredible success and constant iteration tends to obscure that the original product - as innovative as it was - wasn't what its descendants became. And the victors tend to rewrite history and our collective memories obscuring the context the 1.0 was created in. Standing there in the Apple booth, I DID think it was really good, bold and different. I told someone that night I expected it would probably be my personal "product of the year" - and recall this was in early January. My comment above was because just being a fanboy exclaiming how visionary a product is informs nothing and helps no one.
Although not many people use the word 'visionary' for business model innovation, I agree it was a crucial element in the iPhone's viability. It's clear the earlier 2005 collaboration with Motorola on the ROKR (aka the "iTunes Phone") is where Apple learned a lot about the broader ecosystem gaps which would need to be addressed for a phone to succeed.
Jobs and Ive were at the core of all the product design.
There were multiple articles about Jobs spending most of his day with Jony looking at prototypes Jony's team had devised and giving critiques and feedback. Then they would iterate on what Jobs said.
Of course the engineering team had to figure out how to make Jobs suggestions real within the physical and technological constraints they were working with.
> I think the proof of Ive's excellence will come out of this next OpenAI project.
I think Ive's lack of high profile success since Jobs passed away shows Jobs true talent. He was a taste savant. A genius for figuring out what people would like and building a team capable of building those things at scale.
Ive could take Jobs ideas and come up with a concrete design for making them real. But he doesn't have that instinct for figuring out what kinds of products people want in the first place.
I would love to know what Jobs would have done with AI to make it into something people want to use, instead of being terrified it's just going to put them out of work.
Maybe Altman will serve that taste savant role, and they will be a good combo. I'm optimistic they will produce something that:
* doesn't have ads, (we are the customer, not the product)
* makes our lives more fluid and easy
* delivers on the vision for what computers always could be
This won't only be in the free tier. Altman says they don't even break even on the paid tiers. They will use whatever money is available to fill that gap, and advertising money is available. https://x.com/sama/status/1876104315296968813
Soon we will live in a world where people don't make purchasing decisions for themselves, they ask an AI which will suggest the product that pays the most for ads. Payola World.
I dont think jobs was necessary a taste savant as he was notorious for claiming other peoples ideas as his own. But he was willing to walk over anyone if he thought it would make a better product be they another company, his board, or subordinates. Nothing was sacred.
I think he could have been instrumental to the iphone (not saying he was or wasn't) and whatever he tries next is a complete flop. The ability to be successful is contextual, and great artists can produce mediocre art.
Excellent point. I think most great creative work is due to a uniquely 'right' combination of people, problem, experience and environment being together at an opportune moment.
Back in 2006 I saw this demo video from Jeff Han https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY so when the iPhone came out I really wasn't surprised by the multi-touch part.
And, as others have pointed out, scroll inertia wasn't a new concept - I also remember a Flash website (or demo) from yugop (Yugo Nakamura) or Tokyo Flash (I really don't remember whom) that had it in the interface, all very fluid.
Was the iPhone revolutionary? Absolutely!
But, imho, it was built on evolutionary advancements.
Touchscreen scrolling has been in consumer products since at least the early 1980s and inertial scrolling on a touchscreen has been around since at least the early 1990s with Sun's Star7[1].
(And I wouldn't be surprised if there are academic papers that predate the consumer products by a decade or more.)
I love the delightfully 90's/global village icons they used in the UI here. So few pixels but they still incorporated popular aesthetics from the time.
Practically, though, the UX in that demo was terrible. The frame rate was entirely insufficient. The latency between tapping and action taking place was too long. The idea was absolutely great and way ahead of its time, but it was also way ahead of the hardware's capabilities.
We saw a lot of great ideas in the 90s, but either the hardware performance wasn't ready, or the software effort fell short of the polish needed for mass adoption. We had to wait for the iPhone to be one of those rare products where they used capable hardware AND actually finished the software.
The breakthrough aspect of the iPhone was enabling gestures and a very usable UI without having to use a stylus. This is despite the much lower precision of the capacitive touchscreen tech available in that era.
Other smartphones and PDAs back then used more precise resistive touchscreens that required an annoying pressure stylus because it was a way to get more usability out of the very small screens that devices were limited to.
Not necessarily the first, but the earliest that I can remember:
Decades ago (before they were sold/bought/sold), Opera (web browser/suite) used gestures as a navigation tool with your mouse. I never could figure out how to get it to work, but it was a thing.
I know mouse gestures existed previously because I remember someone on /. talking about them circa 2000 and I had to look up what they were. But I don't remember what they were being used for.
Kind of weird that nobody's talking about getting rid of the hardware? An ESP32 that streams compressed audio over a mobile connection is all you should need to replace the "smarts" in a cellphone. Have a remote server do it all, and the local device is just a glorified mic and earbud. Give me a clickwheel and an audible user interface and I can do 90% of what I use a computer for.
Because that sounds terrible? What would I use this for? Reading email or browsing the internet? I can read faster than an AI can dictate to me. Though I'm sure I could adapt somewhat, as I understand that people using screen-readers are already able to use them quite quickly, I don't really want to. I can't play my favorite games via an audio interface, I can't watch a movie, and just about any attempt at using such a device for work would be compromised by the knowledge that I'd be able to do the same thing more efficiently with a keyboard. Heck, just the idea of verbalizing commands means I probably can't use it for work outside of an office, because I can't exactly go around in public verbalizing company information every time I need to get something done on the go.
To me, the wild part is the Vision Pro has the hardware to be something people could potentially use daily, especially with the new M4 update. Someone might prefer working in a virtual space rather than on a physical display depending on their situation.
But it seems high cost, the walled garden, and inability to compute directly on the headset limits its appeal. It needs a Mac tethered to it despite its powerful SoC.
> Ultimately, the answer is simple: reinventing AI is essentially reinventing the smartphone.
I don’t think this is true at all. The smartphone is not some kind of endgame device after which there is no future. No more so than the train was the endgame of transportation. Why are we limiting our imagination about the future to only include what is true today?
AI obviously doesn't need a dedicated hardware device to succeed. It's having massive success already as people access it from any of the devices they already own.
Smart phone, laptop, headsets, VR goggles, AI can work with all of these just fine.
I think part of Apple's struggles with AI is they can't find a way to tie it to their hardware in a differentiating way. Since it's so cloud based and there are few compelling use cases for running worse models locally, "AI" works just as well on any device.
I don’t agree with that. I see people carrying around iPads, clipboards, physical books, sheets of paper, paper notebooks, dedicated cameras, even walkie talkies. All of those people have smartphones in their pockets as well.
I don't wear glasses but that's the primary form factor I can imagine. Already socially and legally acceptable, non-audible communication channel plus low-volume audio, points in a direction that generally matches attention. And pre-AI investment in augmented reality has given it a head start.
What's happened between the failure of Google Glass and now? People not wanting to be creep shotted in public was one of the major reasons it got pulled, as far as I recall. Have people just gotten over it or what?
It was early. Social acceptance will happen like it did for phones (although I still get weirded out looking at a bus full of people all staring at a device).
... why? I imagine most of them are doing the same activity as a bus full of people reading the newspaper or a magazine, just with new forms of media...
As an older person, I have to say that it feels palpably different to me.
Old time buses with people reading felt a little more like some 80s buses full of people with Walkman headphones. The material was a bit of a performance of "I'm minding my own business".
A modern environment with people grafted to their phone apps feels more than that. It sometimes feels more like the movie cliche of an opium den.
Here, people aren't just signalling the idea that they are minding their own business. They really are lost in their own world of addiction. A circus clown could ride down the aisle juggling flaming bowling pins and these phone users would not even know.
Maybe, but plenty of people are prepared to poke their fingers in their eyes every morning in order to avoid wearing glasses, so it can't be all that popular a form factor.
Plenty, but not most. More and more people have accepted glasses now that they've become more fashionable. In fact, anywhere you go, the majority of people are likely wearing glasses if you take the time to notice. They pretty much blend right in anymore, so it's much less noticeable unless you're looking for it.
That's so wild. Why on earth would anyone want worse eyes? It's a complete pain in the ass. Glasses make people look uglier, you have to keep track of them, they make stuff like 3D movies a pain (cause the glasses don't fit especially well over your normal glasses). I have had glasses since I was a kid and I would love to have been born with healthy eyesight.
Kids see strange things as fashionable. A lot of my kid's (12 year old) friends want braces even though their teeth are straight and healthy. When my kid had to get them, she was the envy of her friend group. -shrug-
Probably because wearing eye glasses signals a handicap whereas this instead could signal being part of an in-group.
Kind of like torn jeans. Before the mid sixties torn clothing would signify economic disadvantage and you’d avoid it if possible but afterwards it signified rebellion and people wanted to signal rebelliousness with torn jeans or at least signal being part of an in-group however large and diluted it be.
> Before the mid sixties torn clothing would signify economic disadvantage
It still does. Absolutely insane to me that people are willing to put on the appearance of being poor, and they think it's cool. You will never catch me wearing ripped jeans, but maybe that's because I grew up poor enough that I had to wear ripped jeans when we couldn't afford new ones.
See, the elites can tell the provenance of the rips at a glance.
Whether it is a high fashion rip of the season, made by artisans, versus some counterfeit rip made at home or in an unlicensed sweat shop versus the unimaginable actual wear and tear of old clothes.
Could be a plot device, nanites that only certain people's genetic lineage can control, they wave their hands and the swarms of nanites move like waves as if they were a mage casting a spell
I can't identify your voice spellcaster,try retraining your voice model in the Home app, checking that your correct account is linked, and ensuring the app and device firmware are updated
The article buries the lede on the only point that matters with these "AI" hardware devices. They need to solve a problem their customers have, and all the devices these companies have released so far don't do anything that a smartphone can't easily do.
What problem? All these AI devices seem like a solution in search of a problem.
The problem is that consumers aren't paying enough for AI nor are they providing enough sweet, sweet monetizable data to mine.
An "AI Hardware" device that needs a network connection, and makes API calls to the mother ship, in order to accomplish anything, is not interesting. It's a Raspberry Pi.
On the other hand, a device that could work offline is interesting. One that could work in a zombie apocalypse is even more interesting. Especially if it was solar powered and contained the knowledge needed to rebuild society.
I don't think that passes the toothbrush test. I don't need to survive a zombie apocalypse every morning.
> An "AI Hardware" device that needs a network connection, and makes API calls to the mother ship, in order to accomplish anything, is not interesting. It's a Raspberry Pi.
Kind of an unnecessary dig at the Raspberry Pi, no? Modern Pis and SBCs in general are good at lots of things. I use mine for self-hosting some apps I use, and I've definitely seen them used in little compute clusters for AI inference.
> On the other hand, a device that could work offline is interesting. One that could work in a zombie apocalypse is even more interesting. Especially if it was solar powered and contained the knowledge needed to rebuild society.
This is kind of interesting in an abstract sense; it's fun to imagine burying a solar-powered oracle in a hardshell case in a bunker somewhere so that some hypothetical person can use it to bootstrap civilization after the end, but that's all it really is: hypothetical. Fun to imagine. A project for hackers or maybe a non-profit. It certainly fails the "toothbrush test" mentioned in the article; no one will be consulting their doomsday box once or twice a day (absent a doomsday, anyway).
If I can be really reductionist for a second, I think there's a lot of AI cart-before-horse happening with these hardware products. Smartphones changed the world a decade and a half ago because they took something that people wanted--the internet, but mobile--and finally made it work. Since then they've dramatically changed the landscape of the internet and social media etc, but the idea--that people already had the internet but wanted to interact with it in a different way--should probably be the foundation for how we think about AI hardware products. What can they do for people better than what they already have? We should not need the benefit of hindsight to see why something like the Human AI pin, that doesn't really do anything and does it badly, failed.
RPis just aren't interesting. It's a full fat computer on a small board that does everything a normal computer does, just small.
PCs just aren't interesting because they're all fundamentally the same thing and are capable of the same set of tasks.
RPis aren't interesting because 99.9999% of projects they're put in are better served by a microcontroller and not an entire linux system. If not just a 555. It's boring to throw an entire linux computer into a project. You've utterly given up on the hardware and have assumed you can do everything with software.
For me the interesting part was that OpenAI's only viable option for a mobile OS is Android, while Google is their main competitor.
Why is that interesting in why would it matter. Many competitors to Google use Android on their devices. Why would this be different?
Yeah, that's the kind of things monopolies create.
Well, I wouldn't put it past that. It could literally feed Android into an llm context window and probably redesign it to be even better and it already is.
Android still has weird laggy jumps and just is not that smooth. Even on the new pixel devices.
Is this... a joke?
Which part are you referring to? Creating a new OS from an LLM or that Android still isn't smooth in 2025?
Feeding the 250M lines of Android source code into an LLM's context window. From your response, though, I'm guessing you were serious about that.
Just wait until we can just feed a serialization of our "coworker's" mind into the context and get an improved coworker who has more practical skill in applying LLMs!
> The iPhone wasn't successful because of its beautiful design. It was because it packed everything we needed every day—phone calls, music, internet, photos, maps—into a single device.
Have to disagree here. There were many devices before (and after) the iPhone that offered this package but it stands above the rest because of its design and polish.
I don't recall if the iPhone actually even had internet and maps at launch. I think the first time I saw an iPhone in person was in France maybe around 2007/2008 or something, and at that point it didn't even have the AppStore I'm fairly sure, just had the apps it came with.
And most of the discussion I had with the owner wasn't about how it was "all-in-one package", but rather how much smoother the UI was compared to other touch devices at the time, how accurate it was and how it felt in the hand.
I had the OG iPod Touch, which had the same software (minus the phone, camera, and GPS parts).
It did web browsing very well.
And it came with Maps (which, at that time, used Google's data).
It was initially amusing back then when the world was commonly filled with wide-open 802.11 networks to pull out that little pocket computer, connect to a nearby network (if it hadn't already connected to "Linksys"), and browse an online map -- from about anywhere with a building nearby.
Wifi-based geolocation was also spooky-good at that time.
Anyway, it didn't do much else that I found useful. It was generally lacking features that I'd been using for years with a Handspring Visor (which itself ran on a pair of alkaline batteries for months).
Early IOS didn't even have a clipboard to cut and paste with.
So I jailbroke it. I added multitasking, an app "store," a clipboard and a bunch of other fun stuff long before Apple allowed those functions.
I think I even had a good bit of the Debian userland installed at one point.
After that, I used it all the time for stuff (until the OG Motorola Droid replaced it in 2009, which was easy as pie to root: just dump a special su on there and run it).
When Jobs first announced the iPhone, he really sold the idea that it was running a real web browser like on a desktop. Up to that point, there was a special mobile internet that really sucked.
I remember WAP, GPRS and the newly invented 2G all too well :) But seems my memory wasn't perfect regarding a browser being on the iPhone initially or not, thanks for the correction.
I miss WAP browsing. By necessity, it stripped out all the "advanced" design bullshit that made web pages suck. Just a couple links and buttons is fast and reliable.
Yeah, me to in a way, browsing pages where every link is centered, shit quality porn ads everywhere and deep down in the pages you could finally find that .jar link to the cracked game you were out after. Trying to remember any of the WAP websites I frequented at the time, but seem to recall any by name or address...
The problem wasn't the special mobile internet but the operating systems. Most phone OS before iOS just couldn't run full Gecko/Trident/WebKit/what-have-you. The phones could reach any external IPv4 addresses, but there weren't much to do with neither browser nor an app store.
You could run things like IRC clients, dedicated text chat apps, and server rendered browsers on live Internet. But downloading full webpages was too much for the hardware.
Yeah, everybody dropped WAP like a cobalt-60 source the very moment phones became capable of rendering usual HTML
For anyone else who is unfamiliar with Wireless Markup Language:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Markup_Language
> Building on Openwave's HDML, Nokia's "Tagged Text Markup Language" (TTML) and Ericsson's proprietary markup language for mobile content, the WAP Forum created the WML 1.1 standard in 1998. WML 2.0 was specified in 2001, but has not been widely adopted. It was an attempt at bridging WML and XHTML Basic before the WAP 2.0 spec was finalized. In the end, XHTML Mobile Profile became the markup language used in WAP 2.0.
there were also previous mobile devices with "regular" http/s browsers that also really sucked
It had internet, back then one of the big bits of news tangential to the iphone releasing was how Jobs decided on no Flash player on their mobile devices, which was the mortal wound to official support of that format. More generally though, I think the iphone (or smartphones in general) work as a good example of bundling capabilities and doing it well. Phones before then could do many of the things smartphones could, some could play games, could play music, some had cameras, and there were separate devices that specialized in those and did them better, but smartphones collected them all up and started an arms race in doing them great.
> things smartphones could, some could play games, could play music, some had cameras, and there were separate devices that specialized in those and did them better
But even Sony Ericsson phones way before the iPhone could all do those things in one phone too, some of them really good for their time. Yet they never kind of changed the technology scene as much as the iPhone.
> I don't recall if the iPhone actually even had internet and maps at launch
It did. Jobs famously said on stage [0] "An iPod, a Phone, and an Internet Communicator. An iPod, a Phone... are you getting it? These are not 3 seperate devices, this is one device, and we are calling it iPhone" at the launch. It also did come with maps that used Google Maps.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK55ElsVzxM
Case in point, Safari. I used Blackberry before the iPhone as well as multiple other "mobile browsers" on PocketPC, Palm, and even WAP browsers on flip phones (maybe also Opera Mini? My memory is fuzzy on when that came out).
Nothing, and I mean nothing, compared to Safari on the iPhone. It was in a league of its own. It was dog-slow over Edge but it was a _real_ browser instead of what had come before.
agree. as a heavy user of smartphones pre-iPhone, the actually usable browser was the biggest advantage the iPhone had at introduction. I'd even put it above the capacitive/multi touch capabilities, as these did not enable new functionality but merely made it a nicer experience.
When I first saw the iPhone I remember thinking how silly it was that a device calling itself a "phone" only had the phone function as of many apps. Other phones had internet and other features, sure, but their "home" screen, so to speak, was a phone UI. You had to hit "Menu" or something else to see the other apps, which were clearly secondary to the primary phone function.
The iPhone felt more like a general portable computing device that happened to also function as a phone.
Even the Blackberry up to that point still felt more like an "email/phone device" primarily (though funny enough, I never had a Blackberry myself until after the iPhone came out).
The irony now, and I suspect many people are like this, is my "phone" is barely ever used as an actual phone. It's a computer with a data plan. I am way more likely to use some kind of internet-based voice/video chat than make or take a phone call.
My phone icon is still on my home screen, but only because it is something I want to be able to get at quickly in an emergency. I'm certain it's the least-used icon on the screen, though.
> Other phones had internet and other features, sure, but their "home" screen, so to speak, was a phone UI. You had to hit "Menu" or something else to see the other apps, which were clearly secondary to the primary phone function.
There were also other “phones” that only had the phone function as one of many apps.
Imho the iphone could have been a literal stinking 1kg brick and as long as it kept the same UI people would carry them around on a carrying handle and it would still have been a success.
It's the usefullness, not the hardware.
Its the screen (size) that mattered. While screens make terrible input devices, for content consumption they are king. And that is the dividing line between blackberry/iphones. An argument can also be made for "boring business blackberry" vs "fun" iphone.
The apps were worse, but you had that HUGE screen to look at. And compared to other non-blackberry phones where you were limited to T9 text input, it was a game changer.
I think it was mostly the marketing.
I've seen this argument thrown around but I'm not sure I understand how it holds up. Why didn't android just completely copy apple's marketing, then? What did apple do differently,marketing wise, that android couldn't emulate?
They had a deal with AT&T with a data plan that no one else could get. It made every other what phone useless in comparison.
Their whole marketing campaign was basically "You've never seen anything like this before, no one has made a phone capable of all this". You can't really copy that marketing if you're the second company making such a product unless you want to be laughed at.
There is some value to the idea as Apple was a single manufacture with a somewhat high end image vs Android being on every random company, some who were decidedly budget/low end. So we seem some real tacky advertising for Android devices vs more polished ads for iPhone. But there is more to the story than just this factor
> iPhone wasn't successful because of its beautiful design
Relatively speaking I think that gave it an edge which helped make it successful.
I don't think Apple products in general have the best most usable designs, but they do have the most beautiful, most stylish most sophisticated-looking designs. People want that because a device like phone is part of their identity.
yeah, the Macbook for example, looks pretty, but its sharp aluminum edge cuts into my palm when I use the track pad, so I have black electrical tape on it so that it is functional. Which destroys its beauty. I'd take an aluminum router to it if I could, but it is a work laptop (on lease). And unfortunately I can't use a Linux laptop here otherwise I would...
Totally. In a world of pretty ugly flip phones and Blackberries, the minimalist early iPhone designs definitely looked cool at the time, and were attention grabbing to a degree. I think it definitely kept that edge for some time against early Android phones, which weren't necessarily as attractive.
> No matter how beautiful its design, it's meaningless without the software to back it up.
Word.
I worked as a software developer, for hardware companies, most of my career.
Most of the upper management came from hardware, and consistently treated software as an afterthought.
That may change, this time. Different breed of top managers.
Apple's success is largely a function of being a hardware company that put software first.
It’s weird because in a hardware company the software becomes a cost.
In a software company the software is a magical money printer with zero unit costs.
Hardware companies treat software as if it were just another line item on the BOM: Like a screw or gasket. Just source this "software thing" from the cheapest bidder, and spoon it into the product on the assembly line somewhere towards the end. That's all hardware companies see. They don't see a software as an ecosystem, as an enabler, as a future way to deliver more and more value. It's just a costly part number that you assemble onto the product.
Nvidia would like a word. If a hardware manufacturer releases software and creates a strong bedrock for others to build on their work then its clearly a strong asset. Granted, this is not at all easy to do, and initial investment into it may be large, but when it works it pays off immensely.
I would love to know if Ives was truly foundation to the iPhone, or if he was more given the overall idea and polished it with the final look/feel (which is also important).
Who was the exact individual that had the vision for glass multi-touch screens and sick gesture like effects (scroll).
Perhaps the team just sat around a table and came up with the vision. Or maybe it was Jobs, but clearly there were some good visionaries in the company.
I think the proof of Ive's excellence will come out of this next OpenAI project. If it's something lame, then I will assume his impact at Apple was overrated. If it's a jaw-dropper, then maybe he really is the cat's meow.
> Who was the exact individual that had the vision for glass multi-touch screens and sick gesture like effects (scroll).
Like almost all new products later thought of as 'visionary' innovations, the first iPhone built on pre-existing ideas but integrated them particularly well and added some excellent new refinements. It's easy to forget that the prior five years had been a crucible of in-market experimentation between companies like Nokia, Palm, HP, Sony, Ericsson and Blackberry with platforms like Pocket PC, Palm OS, Windows CE and Windows Mobile.
The iPhone was announced in Jan 2007 at MacWorld (and shipped in July), I was there and played with it extensively in the Apple booth. I remember thinking it had some especially clever ideas and was a very nice implementation. It advanced the "premium pocket phone" bar up to a new level but I didn't see it as unusually visionary. It was definitely significant but still a (large) step in an ongoing progression of refinement, integration and search for product/market fit. There were already large color touchscreen devices which integrated a phone, messaging, camera, music player, Wifi, Bluetooth and GPS. Here's an article looking at a few pre-iPhone devices: https://www.phonearena.com/news/6-great-smartphones-from-10-....
The iPhone 1's design was uniquely simple and svelte but I was immediately concerned about it having enough battery to support that screen. The choice to go with just "One Big Button" and no physical keyboard or navigation keys was bold, weird and also a bit concerning. The on-screen keyboard-only and gesture nav-only choices did feel a bit like two steps forward, one back in iOS 1. It felt like they made a 'purist' design decision and had to make it work as well as it could. That worked out to be "well enough" but sometimes similarly bold but risky choices can fail when they sacrifice too much. However, the battery life did become a very serious issue for active users when the first iPhone shipped and limited the success of the device. It's also worth remembering the usability of iOS 1 was pretty clunky. I played with most of these early phone devices and owned several but didn't adopt an iPhone as my primary device until the iPhone 3G shipped 18 months after the iPhone launch. The 3G was significantly better, different and more refined than the iPhone 1.
The iPhone was the first really well done general purpose computing phone. It had a real web browser, a real music player, apps that didn't suck. Adoption was huge because the design was great, but we would have just seen the same thing transpire over a number of years if iPhone hadn't been created.
I know a lot of people basically who were basically saying "finally"
> but we would have just seen the same thing transpire over a number of years if iPhone hadn't been created.
Maybe, but I’m not certain we would have converged on a single form factor. Only Apple had the retail, marketing, software, hardware capabilities, discipline, and incentives to throw everything behind the minimalistic design and single form factor and turn it into a hit.
Everyone else was splitting their efforts across multiple form factors and relying on carrier stores to sell their phones, and I don’t think that was going to revolutionize anything.
Advanced capabilities were truly depressing. Better hardware would have helped a lot, but given how poor Android trundled(s?) along, I'm inclined to agree that only someone with a strong vision was going to execute it as well as Steve did.
It's strange to think it was only 4 years after the initial release that he died.
Nokia had a touch-screen based phone, with a real browser and a real music player in 2005. They didn't make an effort to sell it around here, though, but I don't think it's that either.
I remember the first application that people were hyped about was Google Maps. The Nokia phone couldn't run that, and any map available there was much harder to use. But the iPhone only really took off after people could install any kind of application there.
> It advanced the "premium pocket phone" bar up to a new level but I didn't see it as unusually visionary.
Have you ever encountered a product you saw as "unusually visionary"?
I'm not comfortable with the word 'visionary' because it's ill-defined and unscoped. So I don't use that word because I don't think in those terms. This may be because most of my later career was spent leading teams conceiving and shipping cutting-edge tech products in new categories - sometimes launching those categories - occasionally with historically notable success, usually with middling success and sometimes with abject failure. After a couple decades this track-record resulted in several years leading innovation globally at a top ten valley tech giant.
So I've thought a lot about new tech product innovation including speaking, writing and teaching about it. When people have been kind enough to use 'visionary' in relation to a product I led, I thank them but reject the term and then try to turn it into a teachable moment about the thought processes, systems and relentless execution necessary to create results someone might someday describe as 'visionary'. I'm generally opposed to the trend in media and pop-biz-lit to deify outstanding new product development as somehow ineffably mystical. At best, it helps no one get better at doing this hard thing, and at worst, it's pulling up the ladder after we've climbed it.
The novel insights and intuitions which some people call 'visionary', in my experience, always seem to come after intensive research, deep study of prior work in the field and constant hands-on, practical experimentation. So I credit them as the indirect (but expected) result of the rigorous process of making and shipping cool new stuff. That said, I do think of Steve Jobs himself as one of the best natural tech product innovators I've ever met. Another example I cite as a significantly notable step change was SpaceX's understanding that the way to engineer exponentially more mass to orbit per dollar was pioneering a substantially different process of rocket development. That's more a process than a product - but that's kind of my whole meta-point.
If your question was basically to try to call out "guy who didn't think iPhone 1 was unusually visionary at the 2007 launch, doesn't think anything is visionary". Well... you win. But it's more because I think most new products in new categories are 'visionary' in some ways. It's just that the majority of new visions fail commercially. Semantically, 'visionary' probably best parses to a synonym for novelty and 'newly different' doesn't necessarily equate to good, so it's not useful as a threshold metric for product success. However, I do think the iPhone business overall is certainly one of the ten most innovative and successful new product businesses our industry has ever seen. But that doesn't change the fact that many knowledgeable observers at the original launch didn't see it that way - because it wasn't that yet. Twenty years of incredible success and constant iteration tends to obscure that the original product - as innovative as it was - wasn't what its descendants became. And the victors tend to rewrite history and our collective memories obscuring the context the 1.0 was created in. Standing there in the Apple booth, I DID think it was really good, bold and different. I told someone that night I expected it would probably be my personal "product of the year" - and recall this was in early January. My comment above was because just being a fanboy exclaiming how visionary a product is informs nothing and helps no one.
I had been working with similar hardware and software at the time.
The visionary bit for me was Jobs getting a US phone company to agree to a data plan that made financial sense to potential users.
Although not many people use the word 'visionary' for business model innovation, I agree it was a crucial element in the iPhone's viability. It's clear the earlier 2005 collaboration with Motorola on the ROKR (aka the "iTunes Phone") is where Apple learned a lot about the broader ecosystem gaps which would need to be addressed for a phone to succeed.
Jobs and Ive were at the core of all the product design.
There were multiple articles about Jobs spending most of his day with Jony looking at prototypes Jony's team had devised and giving critiques and feedback. Then they would iterate on what Jobs said.
Of course the engineering team had to figure out how to make Jobs suggestions real within the physical and technological constraints they were working with.
> I think the proof of Ive's excellence will come out of this next OpenAI project.
I think Ive's lack of high profile success since Jobs passed away shows Jobs true talent. He was a taste savant. A genius for figuring out what people would like and building a team capable of building those things at scale.
Ive could take Jobs ideas and come up with a concrete design for making them real. But he doesn't have that instinct for figuring out what kinds of products people want in the first place.
I would love to know what Jobs would have done with AI to make it into something people want to use, instead of being terrified it's just going to put them out of work.
Maybe Altman will serve that taste savant role, and they will be a good combo. I'm optimistic they will produce something that: * doesn't have ads, (we are the customer, not the product) * makes our lives more fluid and easy * delivers on the vision for what computers always could be
Jarvis, please make me a sandwich.
Its too late for that, they're already working on putting ads in ChatGPT. https://www.seo.com/blog/chatgpt-advertising/
This won't only be in the free tier. Altman says they don't even break even on the paid tiers. They will use whatever money is available to fill that gap, and advertising money is available. https://x.com/sama/status/1876104315296968813
Soon we will live in a world where people don't make purchasing decisions for themselves, they ask an AI which will suggest the product that pays the most for ads. Payola World.
I don't see the reason for optimism.
I dont think jobs was necessary a taste savant as he was notorious for claiming other peoples ideas as his own. But he was willing to walk over anyone if he thought it would make a better product be they another company, his board, or subordinates. Nothing was sacred.
Ives is not that person he is too nice.
I think he could have been instrumental to the iphone (not saying he was or wasn't) and whatever he tries next is a complete flop. The ability to be successful is contextual, and great artists can produce mediocre art.
> The ability to be successful is contextual
Excellent point. I think most great creative work is due to a uniquely 'right' combination of people, problem, experience and environment being together at an opportune moment.
Yes, he could be a one-hit-wonder artist.
Back in 2006 I saw this demo video from Jeff Han https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY so when the iPhone came out I really wasn't surprised by the multi-touch part. And, as others have pointed out, scroll inertia wasn't a new concept - I also remember a Flash website (or demo) from yugop (Yugo Nakamura) or Tokyo Flash (I really don't remember whom) that had it in the interface, all very fluid.
Was the iPhone revolutionary? Absolutely!
But, imho, it was built on evolutionary advancements.
Did iOS actually invent the idea of scrolling with a gesture? I could have sworn it already existed at the time. Like panning over a map on a GPS…
The momentum on iOS is nicely tuned though.
Touchscreen scrolling has been in consumer products since at least the early 1980s and inertial scrolling on a touchscreen has been around since at least the early 1990s with Sun's Star7[1].
(And I wouldn't be surprised if there are academic papers that predate the consumer products by a decade or more.)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CsTH9S79qI&t=266s
I love the delightfully 90's/global village icons they used in the UI here. So few pixels but they still incorporated popular aesthetics from the time.
That is a seriously sick demo. I had no idea such capability existed back then. Way ahead of its time.
Practically, though, the UX in that demo was terrible. The frame rate was entirely insufficient. The latency between tapping and action taking place was too long. The idea was absolutely great and way ahead of its time, but it was also way ahead of the hardware's capabilities.
We saw a lot of great ideas in the 90s, but either the hardware performance wasn't ready, or the software effort fell short of the polish needed for mass adoption. We had to wait for the iPhone to be one of those rare products where they used capable hardware AND actually finished the software.
The breakthrough aspect of the iPhone was enabling gestures and a very usable UI without having to use a stylus. This is despite the much lower precision of the capacitive touchscreen tech available in that era.
Other smartphones and PDAs back then used more precise resistive touchscreens that required an annoying pressure stylus because it was a way to get more usability out of the very small screens that devices were limited to.
Not necessarily the first, but the earliest that I can remember: Decades ago (before they were sold/bought/sold), Opera (web browser/suite) used gestures as a navigation tool with your mouse. I never could figure out how to get it to work, but it was a thing.
Adobe Illustator had a Hand tool already in 1987 that let you pan the canvas by dragging the mouse. Probably it’s older than that.
But adding the physical feel of momentum and inertia was Apple’s invention, AFAIK.
I know mouse gestures existed previously because I remember someone on /. talking about them circa 2000 and I had to look up what they were. But I don't remember what they were being used for.
Kind of weird that nobody's talking about getting rid of the hardware? An ESP32 that streams compressed audio over a mobile connection is all you should need to replace the "smarts" in a cellphone. Have a remote server do it all, and the local device is just a glorified mic and earbud. Give me a clickwheel and an audible user interface and I can do 90% of what I use a computer for.
Because that sounds terrible? What would I use this for? Reading email or browsing the internet? I can read faster than an AI can dictate to me. Though I'm sure I could adapt somewhat, as I understand that people using screen-readers are already able to use them quite quickly, I don't really want to. I can't play my favorite games via an audio interface, I can't watch a movie, and just about any attempt at using such a device for work would be compromised by the knowledge that I'd be able to do the same thing more efficiently with a keyboard. Heck, just the idea of verbalizing commands means I probably can't use it for work outside of an office, because I can't exactly go around in public verbalizing company information every time I need to get something done on the go.
I wish more people pointed out the obvious when the Vision Pro hype was everywhere on HN.
> The crux of the problem was clear: these devices were captivated by "technical possibilities," but failed to address "user problems."
Hmm.
To me, the wild part is the Vision Pro has the hardware to be something people could potentially use daily, especially with the new M4 update. Someone might prefer working in a virtual space rather than on a physical display depending on their situation.
But it seems high cost, the walled garden, and inability to compute directly on the headset limits its appeal. It needs a Mac tethered to it despite its powerful SoC.
M5. And it’s still uncomfortable to wear for most people.
> Ultimately, the answer is simple: reinventing AI is essentially reinventing the smartphone.
I don’t think this is true at all. The smartphone is not some kind of endgame device after which there is no future. No more so than the train was the endgame of transportation. Why are we limiting our imagination about the future to only include what is true today?
On the other hand, a mobile AI device will only become really successful if it can replace the smartphone, and we aren’t anywhere close to that.
AI obviously doesn't need a dedicated hardware device to succeed. It's having massive success already as people access it from any of the devices they already own.
Smart phone, laptop, headsets, VR goggles, AI can work with all of these just fine.
I think part of Apple's struggles with AI is they can't find a way to tie it to their hardware in a differentiating way. Since it's so cloud based and there are few compelling use cases for running worse models locally, "AI" works just as well on any device.
I don’t agree with that. I see people carrying around iPads, clipboards, physical books, sheets of paper, paper notebooks, dedicated cameras, even walkie talkies. All of those people have smartphones in their pockets as well.
Off topic, but why does the site load a gazillon different fonts?
https://static.cafenono.com/fonts/font-face.css
Well, "the hardware" is also so locked down that even if a third party has a great idea of something to do with it, they won't be able to.
I don't wear glasses but that's the primary form factor I can imagine. Already socially and legally acceptable, non-audible communication channel plus low-volume audio, points in a direction that generally matches attention. And pre-AI investment in augmented reality has given it a head start.
What's happened between the failure of Google Glass and now? People not wanting to be creep shotted in public was one of the major reasons it got pulled, as far as I recall. Have people just gotten over it or what?
It was early. Social acceptance will happen like it did for phones (although I still get weirded out looking at a bus full of people all staring at a device).
Social acceptance for panopticon glasses is going to be very weird.
... why? I imagine most of them are doing the same activity as a bus full of people reading the newspaper or a magazine, just with new forms of media...
As an older person, I have to say that it feels palpably different to me.
Old time buses with people reading felt a little more like some 80s buses full of people with Walkman headphones. The material was a bit of a performance of "I'm minding my own business".
A modern environment with people grafted to their phone apps feels more than that. It sometimes feels more like the movie cliche of an opium den.
Here, people aren't just signalling the idea that they are minding their own business. They really are lost in their own world of addiction. A circus clown could ride down the aisle juggling flaming bowling pins and these phone users would not even know.
Maybe, but plenty of people are prepared to poke their fingers in their eyes every morning in order to avoid wearing glasses, so it can't be all that popular a form factor.
Plenty, but not most. More and more people have accepted glasses now that they've become more fashionable. In fact, anywhere you go, the majority of people are likely wearing glasses if you take the time to notice. They pretty much blend right in anymore, so it's much less noticeable unless you're looking for it.
Both of my kids wanted to need a glasses prescription
That's so wild. Why on earth would anyone want worse eyes? It's a complete pain in the ass. Glasses make people look uglier, you have to keep track of them, they make stuff like 3D movies a pain (cause the glasses don't fit especially well over your normal glasses). I have had glasses since I was a kid and I would love to have been born with healthy eyesight.
Kids see strange things as fashionable. A lot of my kid's (12 year old) friends want braces even though their teeth are straight and healthy. When my kid had to get them, she was the envy of her friend group. -shrug-
Probably because wearing eye glasses signals a handicap whereas this instead could signal being part of an in-group.
Kind of like torn jeans. Before the mid sixties torn clothing would signify economic disadvantage and you’d avoid it if possible but afterwards it signified rebellion and people wanted to signal rebelliousness with torn jeans or at least signal being part of an in-group however large and diluted it be.
> Before the mid sixties torn clothing would signify economic disadvantage
It still does. Absolutely insane to me that people are willing to put on the appearance of being poor, and they think it's cool. You will never catch me wearing ripped jeans, but maybe that's because I grew up poor enough that I had to wear ripped jeans when we couldn't afford new ones.
See, the elites can tell the provenance of the rips at a glance.
Whether it is a high fashion rip of the season, made by artisans, versus some counterfeit rip made at home or in an unlicensed sweat shop versus the unimaginable actual wear and tear of old clothes.
More like: it's the stupid hardware
Someday, it won't be a device; it will already be in the air.
Could be a plot device, nanites that only certain people's genetic lineage can control, they wave their hands and the swarms of nanites move like waves as if they were a mage casting a spell
This leads to nanite drone warfare and nanite allergy seasons and all the other craziness in the Diamond Age...
I can't identify your voice spellcaster,try retraining your voice model in the Home app, checking that your correct account is linked, and ensuring the app and device firmware are updated
Your subscription has expired
A bit like the Transcendence (2014) movie.
Funny full circle, Humane AI pin vs. the sixth sense demo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrtANPtnhyg