Yeah, this is super on-brand for Apple. They still have the Jobsian slavish devotion to branding with all the Tim Apple complete lack of understanding as to its value or how to leverage that value.
Call Apple what you will, but suggesting the 9th highest revenue company in the world lacks understanding of how to leverage its brands doesn’t really make sense to me.
Also, Forbes rates Apple as having the highest brand value of any company in the world.
I agree with you. I think the responses to your comment are missing a few key points
- Calling an Apple product something weird with “i” or “Apple” is Jobsian slavish devotion to branding
- Under Tim Cook, innovation has arguably stagnated (see comparisons to Ballmer
- Cook has not leveraged the value of Apple’s innovation successfully eg Apple Silicon being limited to Apple devices vs PowerPC days, the Vision Pro being horrible, the recent hilarious iPad creativity crusher ad.
- A company with Apple’s market cap can do dumb shit and still appear valuable just because they have Apple’s market cap.
I read OP as “names are dumb and this is just Apple trying to be different in the same way everyone else is.” I think all of that is true and I think it’s valid criticism of the product. My last point about Apple’s value is probably the most important. They can do a lot of dumb shit before it matters.
Sorry to bring this argument to yet another thread, but the only reason why what is fundamentally the exact same feature was generally perceived as a disaster for Microsoft last week and what seems to be a net win for Apple this week is that man, they do seem to understand these things.
“Apple Intelligence” is a very stupid name, though.
I’d say it’s because Apple’s implementation isn’t essentially spyware at it’s core. The Microsoft implementation was straight up deranged and dangerous, frankly.
Nah, it’s exactly the same. Arguably in some aspects more suspect, in that it doesn’t seem to have an opt-out at all and it IS sending some data over the Internet for remote processing.
Presumably better local security than the first version MS announced, but we’ll have to see when compared to the shipping version. Definitely obscuring what they’re actually doing a lot more. It’s Apple magic, not just letting some AI look at your screen and stuff.
But hey, ultimately, that’s my point. The fact that they went on that stage, sold the exact same thing and multiple people are out here, of all places going “no, but this time it’s fine” shows just how much better at selling stuff Apple is. I’m not particularly excited or intend to use either of these, but come on, Apple’s messaging was so far ahead of MS’s on this one.
Because they can’t patent it and troll everyone else for money.
Samsung Lawsuits: Apple’s series of lawsuits against Samsung over alleged patent infringements related to smartphone and tablet designs and functionalities have been seen by some as overly aggressive. These lawsuits have led to significant financial penalties for Samsung and have been viewed as attempts to stifle competition rather than protect genuine innovations.
App Store Patents: Apple has been known to enforce its patents related to the App Store, targeting other companies that have tried to create similar platforms. This has sometimes been criticized as an attempt to maintain a monopoly over app distribution for iOS devices.
HTC Lawsuit: In 2010, Apple filed a lawsuit against HTC for allegedly infringing on 20 Apple patents related to the iPhone’s user interface and underlying architecture. Some viewed this as an aggressive move to slow down the growth of Android devices.
Patent Assertions Against Smaller Companies: There have been instances where Apple has asserted its patents against smaller companies or startups. Critics argue that these actions can stifle innovation and competition, as smaller companies often lack the resources to fight prolonged legal battles against a giant like Apple.
Did you generate this with chat gpt? And that’s not being a patent troll. A patent troll is specifically a company that buys up patents, that they do not intend to use and never do, and then sue for them. E.g. a company that does nothing, produces no value, and simply takes others to court for what they own.
App Store Patents
“Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words ‘app store’ together denote a store for apps”
Actual quote from a legal filing by Apple in 2011. It’s about copyright but the effect and intent is the same. They wanted Amazon to not use the term “app store”.
They quite literally tried to claim that they invented the rectangle with rounded corners…
https://www.engine.is/news/category/in-apple-v-samsung-scotus-sided-with-reason-over-rounded-corners
They just want to Think Different.
Unfortunately that often means being stupid.
Let’s be honest. They certainly plan to, but first they’re gonna see if saying “Apple Intelligence” a bunch is going to convince people they actually did something innovative.
We’ll see how it pans out. As of now I don’t know of any phone manufacturer doing on-device AI… so??? Is that innovation?
I mean the biggest innovation here isn’t the “AI” (partially “on-device” or otherwise). It’s exposing the apps action hooks to the model.
Ok, so either way, there’s innovation no?
I get the “Apple bad” thing but come on, they actually ARE doing something here
couldn’t you at least choose a name with different initials?
It’s the whole point. They’ll try to take over the AI brand by doing this.
"So what does AI actually stand for? "
“It stands for Apple Intelligence, of course!”
“Wow, Apple really is everywhere, they are so good and competent.”
This will happen too often.
