Exist50

Then why don't you just stick with the App Store?

You seem to have a very selective habit when you read on what your read. I state "up till now" and "until recently", read more carefully next time.

You were making claims about what they were researching, not what they've released. These are not the same thing. And your sentence was a gramatical mess, do maybe consider writing more clearly?

You can obviously google for past interviews/news, similar to any other company investment, but in the first 5 seconds I found this

Your claim was that Apple invests as much as anyone else in AI. There's nothing in that link to suggest that statement is true. So am I to presume you just made it up?

You are joking , yes? MS, Google , Meta, Samsung, Intel etc did not made any statements on especially Apple? are you living under a stone or something?

Sure. Please find where those companies suggested regulation in a field they don't participate in. Much less AI-specific.

Although not on-device only , they were till recently investing on this. Yes cloud resources were used but their development was focusing on on device process.

Where did you see this? Again, last rumors I saw indicated there were considering cloud-based solutions, as well as hybrid and on-device.

Apple "invested" which means it can be on any company or research dealing with AI.

Where are you getting your numbers from?

I have difficult to believe that anything Google, Meta, MS, Samsung, Nvidia (or many others) propose will be in good faith the same as Apple

Maybe, maybe not. But you don't see them making sanctimonious proclamations about what others should do. Again, no one's going to take Cook's position seriously until Apple has a stake in the matter.

Also Tim said that regulation needs to get in place, not that Apple will dictate it. A regulatory body of several companies.

Apple hates regulation. See their ongoing fight with the EU et al. And they're happy to ignore the work of standards bodies whenever they please. If Apple wants regulation, they really want Apple-defined regulation.

These are AI's that need to be Online and their effectiveness comes from huge computing power on datacenters. Apple at this point was going for an on device mobile hardware AI.

According to the latest reports, Apple was also considering cloud AI services. Siri today uses Apple's servers for plenty of things, so this is clearly not a hard requirement for them.

Regardless, Apple needs to offer competitive services, no matter how they chose to implement them. This is too big of an inflection point for them to sit by twiddling their thumbs for another few years until these models can run on-device.

Apple has invested as much money as any other on the field

That does not seem to be the case. Microsoft, Meta, and Google are clearly ahead of Apple in AI research. Or if Apple has spent equivalent money, it's clearly being used very inefficiently.

If the only people who can dictate these rules are the companies that actively creating and have the majority of the market then this would be only OpenAI. But a lot of companies invested money on OpenAI, so should not they be able to pitch in?

I suppose the more salient point is that Cook has no leverage. Apple's big, but they don't have a meaningful presence in generative AI, so they can't lead by example. Or in other words, they'd be setting rules to restrict others, not really themselves. And without their own competitive offerings, they have a perverse incentive to artificially restrict AI development to diminish the competitions' advantage. To this day, that's an active strategy they employ for e.g. web apps, so it's difficult to believe anything they propose today is in good faith.

Seems to be ~100MB.

Having them contribute research would add more features or at lease actual End to End encryption to the GSM Universal profile.

It's not a lack of research that hinders E2EE on the universal profile. Google only did it themselves because the standards bodies and carriers just wouldn't do it themselves.

It's a vacuous statement, and people have a hard time taking his stance on AI seriously with Apple so far behind. Tim is not in a position to be dictating policy, nor does he express a clear idea of what that policy should be.

I expect Samsung, Google, Motorola, etc will make sure that their default messaging app supports RCS by default and well.

They do. Basically everyone is aligned on Google Messages (with RCS) as the default texting app.

Another day, another braindead take from Gruber. Is his entire blog just screeching about Apple's competitors? It's embarrassing.

There is no way they can collect such a cut under the new rules.