I heard a Steve story from a relation that was a high level exec during his tenure. They were running a meeting about failure rates of (Macbooks, phones, I can't remember which exactly). They knew their stats well, parts, how to source, costs, etc. They spent months on research. They presented it to him from an operations nature, e.g. the costs and such. His response was along the lines of: TV's are amazing technology, they've improved in every way, and are cheaper than ever. But when is the last time your TV broke? They don't break. They never break. And they always work. That's our strategy. Make it happen.
Obviously it didn't quite work out that good (although I guess in my personal use cases, it has). But the point of telling me the story anyways, which I think matches here, is he had a way of pattern matching the average persons expectations based in reality, and applying it to their technology, and then aligning people towards ambitious goals that were on some level based in reality (i.e. people use TVs, they are similar technology, people don't expect them to break). I don't know how much credit is him or others and all. But I know from these kinds of stories, and from my own experience elsewhere, that some people just regularly and instantly "get it", and Steve Jobs seemed to be one of those people, and to also have the station to force others to go along.
Here I think its pretty obvious Apple is both the worst performer in AI, and also the best positioned to capitalize on it. In that sense their current state is clearly demonstrative of some major failure. Its hard to imagine someone like Jobs being in the same position in today's rate. LLM's are phenomenal technology and their use cases are vast. And we've all got these devices ready to take advantage of them, ready to listen, to respond, to coordinate, etc. And here i am asking Siri to turn down the volume and it either turns it up, gets confused, or misinterprets and goes on some tangent. There's a wildly large gap in what Siri does now, and what we 100% know it could do based on the existing tech many of us are using every day.
> But the point of telling me the story anyways, which I think matches here, is he had a way of pattern matching the average persons expectations based in reality, and applying it to their technology, and then aligning people towards ambitious goals that were on some level based in reality (i.e. people use TVs, they are similar technology, people don't expect them to break).
Obviously it didn't quite work out that good (although I guess in my personal use cases, it has). But the point of telling me the story anyways, which I think matches here, is he had a way of pattern matching the average persons expectations based in reality, and applying it to their technology, and then aligning people towards ambitious goals that were on some level based in reality (i.e. people use TVs, they are similar technology, people don't expect them to break). I don't know how much credit is him or others and all. But I know from these kinds of stories, and from my own experience elsewhere, that some people just regularly and instantly "get it", and Steve Jobs seemed to be one of those people, and to also have the station to force others to go along.
Here I think its pretty obvious Apple is both the worst performer in AI, and also the best positioned to capitalize on it. In that sense their current state is clearly demonstrative of some major failure. Its hard to imagine someone like Jobs being in the same position in today's rate. LLM's are phenomenal technology and their use cases are vast. And we've all got these devices ready to take advantage of them, ready to listen, to respond, to coordinate, etc. And here i am asking Siri to turn down the volume and it either turns it up, gets confused, or misinterprets and goes on some tangent. There's a wildly large gap in what Siri does now, and what we 100% know it could do based on the existing tech many of us are using every day.