135
Apple has been quiet about ChatGPT. Now Tim Cook says its hefty $22.6 billion research spend is down to generative AI. (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Apple has been quiet about ChatGPT. Now Tim Cook says its hefty $22.6 billion research spend is down to generative AI.::The company's research and development spending hit $22.61 billion for the year so far, a figure $3.12 billion higher than this time last year.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

People on this app get personal so quickly its not fun. Been here a week and more hate hit me than in 12 years of reddit. Calm tf down.

Blackberry was not a smartphone in my opinion. You are right with the rest and you can consider blackberry a smartphone if you want to. We can have different opinions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I don't hate you, and I'm not throwing hate your way. I'm just a little exasperated, that's all.

    Look... A smartphone is defined as a device that combines mobile telephone functions and computing functions into one unit. By that definition, the BlackBerry definitely qualified. If you're using a different definition - for example, one that requires a full-body touchscreen and no physical keyboard - that's fine, it's just important that we agree on what we're talking about. I'm using the traditional definition and you're not, I guess.

    That's OK, just as long as we both know.

    So let's move on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Ok. What is the topic? Innovation vs invention?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    That's a good one. I think there's a lot that would be interesting to explore in both. For example, was the IBM Simon a smartphone? It had a touchscreen, apps, and network access way back in 1992. So what are the material vs. cosmetic differences between it and the iPhone? (Don't worry, I'm not arguing that the iPhone isn't both innovative and inventive in comparison, it's just that there's more gray area than people tend to realize.)

    I guess what I'd most like to think about is three things:

    • The difference between invention and innovation.
    • The difference (if any) between innovation and cosmetics. (Not That I'm knocking cosmetics! They're an important part of UX!)
    • Where you perceive the original iPhone as being ahead in each area (innovations, inventions, and cosmetics)

    Hey, also wanted to say I'm glad we've hammered this out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    A smartphone integrates a camera, a phone, a gps device and internet as well as being a phone and enabled communication by text, video and audio.

    A device that combines all of this may have existed before but they failed in the fight for adoption by the masses. Innovation is theorized:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

    What you need to make inventions into innovation is to make it accessible to people who expect products to just work. Innovation always faces resistance. The people who don’t want any change will always fight new stuff while early adopters will always try new things. The people in the middle are key. UX is a big part but also hardware and software that works without the need for tinkering is essential.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent