I suspect that current ML tech is good enough to constitute a big discrete step forward in terms of how much value Siri is providing as a digital assistant that's also in charge of your home. If that's the case, there's more harm in being reputed as the company that is one serious step behind in a space that isn't yet settled vs facing the same level of gaffs that Google and Microsoft are putting out.
Just look at Microsoft right now. They're experiencing all the heat that OpenAI brings, including unforced errors like Sky. Reputationally speaking, are they better or worse off having made such an early push for LLM product integration?
I would argue that Microsoft do not have the same brand that Apple does. So they’re much more free to pursue OpenAI partnerships regardless of how well it works.
I don’t mean brand as in purely recognition, but what it means to people. Apple are held to a higher standard because of the specific identity they’ve cultivated. (Arguing the specifics of whether that’s deserved or not will be its own essay so I’m leaving that out)
You see this all the time on HN or Reddit, where any negative subject about Apple gains significantly more traction than other companies.
Meanwhile Microsoft has an identify that is more “meh”. Users expect Microsoft products to not have the polish, to have ads and be weird/quirky. Microsoft did Windows phone and the zune, Apple did the iPhone and the iPod.
Does that mean one companies products are better or worse? Maybe? Maybe not.
But it does mean that the brand appeal of every company has different characteristics that need to be accounted for. Siri giving bad answers is much worse perceptually than Cortana/Bing giving the same answers.
It also means Microsoft is more free to experiment and do things that are half baked because their brand identity allows for that. Often that leads to really interesting use cases ahead of its time.
I’d also add that Apple being “behind the curve” perceptually has rarely been an issue. The brand is that they enter late and redefine the segment. Again, not always deserved, but that’s the association. They often ride out trends that way.
You can see this even with Google vs Microsoft/OpenAI. Google had their LLM chat-bot working internally (remember the ethics guy who got fired because he was so convinced that the chatbot had a soul?), but they clearly thought that the level of hallucinations at the time would be bad publicity as all the news would be "Google's chatbot spews nonsense!". But OpenAI and Bing had nothing to lose, they could launch them with no expectations of quality, taking Google by surprise, and now everyone just says Google was behind instead and had to scramble to catch up.
Same thing with Apple - if Apple had launched Siri with GPT-3.0 before ChatGPT, they would have been a laughing stock with how bad it was. But instead now they're behind, even though the competing products are STILL unsuitable.
Yeah the Google vs OpenAI comparison is really apt.
ChatGPT will give terrible hallucinations as well, but Google is getting lambasted right now for theirs. But even then, it’s written off as Google being Google.
If Apple did it, it would take over the tech news cycle for weeks. Personally I do think it’s better for Apple to be seen as behind in this trade off.
Just look at Microsoft right now. They're experiencing all the heat that OpenAI brings, including unforced errors like Sky. Reputationally speaking, are they better or worse off having made such an early push for LLM product integration?