Report: Revamped Siri to Be at the Core of Apple's New AI Strategy

[dk001]

Consistency? I get a better read on the words I said from Homepod or my phone than the Alexa devices (2) in use. Alexa isn't terrible, but Siri is better. I was attributing it to better microphones. My wife has a lot of misses on both. I was guessing she doesn't speak as clearly, as loudly, and she varies the pitch of her voice more. (they may be dumb as bricks, but don't baby talk to one).

"Here is what I found..." is a perfectly acceptable answer to me as long as it is right, to a question like "How tall is Steph Curry?"

Good to know. I don’t use Alexa.

 

[heretiq]

He did operate at a high level but not in innovation? His expertise was fulfilment at IBM finally being director of North American fulfilment and VP of corporate materials at Compaq.

But I'm not in the bash Tim Cook brigade nor will I be. He has been good at what he does, but what he does is not innovation in my opinion, and her certainly didn't step in and save Apple, being appointed by Steve where Tim acknowledged Steve was effectively one of a kind.

Steve though needed someone like Tim, which is why Steve appointed him and why Tim after rejecting Apple's advances agreed to join Apple.

For the progression of the company I doubt Steve could have done it alone, as business and innovation do not always go hand in hand, but as a driving force for innovation and the effective saviour of Apple that was in danger of becoming yesterday's company, he was the catalyst.

1. If one cannot see the innovation in pioneering a manufacturing and logistics framework that optimized production to demand and allowed Apple to build, ship, and support billions of devices and operate a billions-scale enterprise at previously-unseen profit levels — without owning a single factory one needs to question their definition of innovation.
2. Steve Jobs was indeed the visionary architect and catalyst for the recovery and repositioning of Apple, but that was insufficient. That vision needed a framework for realizing and sustaining it. Steve needed a partner-builder that could make the vision real. That builder was Tim Cook.
3. If one cannot see the architect and builder as co-creators then one should question their grasp of the creative process. Crediting only one as creator is a political choice and does not change the fact that they are co-creators.

 

[steve123]

1. If one cannot see the innovation in pioneering a manufacturing and logistics framework that optimized production to demand and allowed Apple to build, ship, and support billions of devices and operate a billions-scale enterprise at previously-unseen profit levels — without owning a single factory one needs to question their definition of innovation.
2. Steve Jobs was indeed the visionary architect and catalyst for the recovery and repositioning of Apple, but that was insufficient. That vision needed a framework for realizing and sustaining it. Steve needed a partner-builder that could make the vision real. That builder was Tim Cook.
3. If one cannot see the architect and builder as co-creators then one should question their grasp of the creative process. Crediting only one as creator is a political choice and does not change the fact that they are co-creators.

This is fake news and revisionist. Steve recreated Apple after his absence. Tim was the hired help to provide Steve assistance to scale manufacturing. He is and was in no way Steve's business partner. There was only ever one partner and that was Wozniak. Tim had nothing to do with Apple's product innovation and he has now demonstrated he is not a thought leader. Tim can be replaced. The question is does the AVP distraction and lack of attention to AI suggest the timing for his replacement is now or is it already too late?

 

[dk001]

True but none of them are really very good. I hope that some better AI will make them more flexible and better able to handle problems.

So true.

Example: I asked this just a few minutes ago to see what I would get. I have to travel to the regional airport this afternoon (about 2 hours away).

I asked Siri what the weather this afternoon will be for my trip. Siri “ This afternoon will be partly cloudy. ”. That’s it. No temp and no indication if this is my start or destination.

I asked GA the same. GA “ The weather is afternoon will be 76, partly cloudy, with a 15% chance of precipitation. Your destination this afternoon in Phoenix will be 93 degrees. The wind will be blowing from 5 mph.”

Trip appt is on the family Google Calendar which on the 15PM is linked into the Apple Calendar. I don’t expect more on the trip as the details are in Proton Mail / Calendar. I would be concerned if either did.

From Siri I received far less than I expected. From GA I received what I wanted.

This is just a simple question. Siri - 15PM. GA - S24U

So I tried the same question a different way. “For my trip this afternoon to Phoenix Arizona, what will the weather be?”

Siri “ The National Weather Service has issued an Air Quality Alert. The weather in Phoenix will be from 90 degrees at 1200 hours to 93 degrees at 1600 hours.”

GA “ The weather in Phoenix, Arizona this afternoon will be sunny with a high of 93 degrees Fahrenheit. The wind will be blowing from the west at 5 miles per hour.”

Another - I want the asst to arm my Blink and let me know.
Hey Siri, arm my Blink. Siri opens the app to the Home Screen.
Okay Google, arm my Blink. GA opens the app and sets the status to Armed. It leaves the app open.

Siri - Fail. GA - sort of right.

Hopefully AI will help Siri.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Tim can be replaced.

I'll go further

He needs to be replaced

 

[dk001]

I'll go further

He needs to be replaced

Tim did a great job of turning Apple into a supply chain powerhouse in the US.

Now Apple needs to evolve globally. I have no clue who that innovative leader should / could be.

 

[heretiq]

This is fake news and revisionist. Steve recreated Apple after his absence. Tim was the hired help to provide Steve assistance to scale manufacturing. He is and was in no way Steve's business partner. There was only ever one partner and that was Wozniak. Tim had nothing to do with Apple's product innovation and he has now demonstrated he is not a thought leader. Tim can be replaced. The question is does the AVP distraction and lack of attention to AI suggest the timing for his replacement is now or is it already too late?

This comment is the poster child for fake and revisionist news. Here are the facts:

1. Steve Jobs returned to Apple in July 1997 as Interim CEO
2. Tim Cook joined Apple 8 months later in March 1998 as a senior vice president for worldwide operations

To suggest that Steve had everything figured out all by himself in 8 months and that Cook was just “hired help” .. and to dismiss pioneering the production and logistics infrastructure required to build and ship products efficiently and profitably at billions-device/user scale as not “product innovation” is both ignorant and factually incorrect.

The fact is that the NeXT purchase brought back Steve and his vision for what Apple could be. However, Apple lacked both the operations talent and innovations necessary to realize that vision. Steve Jobs had the business acumen to recognized that a company with product vision but no ability to ship is destined for failure. Steve also had the people skills to also recognize that Tim Cook could close that existential gap. History proved Jobs right and the facts are evident to anyone with an understanding of what it takes to accomplish what Jobs (the Visionary) and Cook (the Integrator) accomplished together.

Question: What do you call a clearly articulated product vision without the means to produce it? Answer: A design.
Question: What do you call a clearly articulated product vision with the means to produce it? Answer: A product.

Tim Cook provided the means for Apple to realize Jobs’ vision to ship product.

PSA: Those are verifiable facts — regardless of how you might feel about Tim Cook.

 

[heretiq]

Tim did a great job of turning Apple into a supply chain powerhouse in the US.

Now Apple needs to evolve globally. I have no clue who that innovative leader should / could be.

Do you realize that only 35% of Apple's revenue is from the US? That fact demonstrates that Apple is already a global player for anyone who isn't already aware of this fairly obvious fact. Can you explain what you mean by "Now Apple needs to evolve globally" -- if Apple already operates in the Americas, Europe (which includes Middle East and Africa), China, Japan and the rest of Asia Pacific -- and what exactly this new "innovative leader" needs to accomplish to execute your formula for continued Apple success?

 

[dk001]

Do you realize that only 35% of Apple's revenue is from the US? That fact demonstrates that Apple is already a global player for anyone who isn't already aware of this fairly obvious fact. Can you explain what you mean by "Now Apple needs to evolve globally" -- if Apple already operates in the Americas, Europe (which includes Middle East and Africa), China, Japan and the rest of Asia Pacific -- and what exactly this new "innovative leader" needs to accomplish to execute your formula for continued Apple success?

A supply chain runs from raw materials to the sold consumer unit.
Apple is globally for the mfg supply chain. For the sold units, not.

Apple needs to innovate from a usable alternative stores, use of super apps, and other functions, plus compete with the next gen devices coming out of the AP area. Innovation. Tim has not shown that aspect IMO.

 

[heretiq]

A supply chain runs from raw materials to the sold consumer unit.
Apple is globally for the mfg supply chain. For the sold units, not.

Apple needs to innovate from a usable alternative stores, use of super apps, and other functions, plus compete with the next gen devices coming out of the AP area. Innovation. Tim has not shown that aspect IMO.

Apple 2023 revenue distribution is 42% Americas (including US) -- that means that almost 60% of revenue comes from overseas [25% Europe (including Africa and Middle East), 19% China, 6% Japan and 8% Rest of Asia Pacific] -- how is that not already global??

By alternative stores I'll assume you mean alternative app stores because Apple already uses resellers for physical product retail sales around the world. If you do mean alternative app stores what problem does this solve for Apple as Apple does not have an app distribution problem (virtually anyone on the planet can already buy apps from the App Store) -- so alternative app stores will not improve distribution or sales -- only reduce revenue and margins for Apple. How is that innovation? Innovation is a two-way street: It needs to benefit both company and consumer. How does alternative app stores benefit Apple? I don't think any board or any capable CEO for that mattter would respect a CEO whose definition of innovation did not create value for shareholders and customers.

On Super Apps, are you suggesting that Apple should build its own Super Apps or allow others to build super apps? If it's the former then that is a recipe for Anti-trust action against Apple. If you mean Apple needs to allow super apps like WeChat how exactly is that innovation? What do super apps offer to consumers that isn't available today? And how do super apps build value for Apple?

And I’m curious: what are these “next gen devices coming out of the AP area” that you’re speaking of? What do they have that Apple devices do not? In what way(s) are AP device manufacturers out-competing Apple? I try to stay up to speed, but I don’t recall hearing about any devices coming out of AP or any other place that Apple devices are not competitive with. 🤔

I'm not trying to be argumentative but these are the same tropes that are casually tossed about without explanation. I'm asking because you seem to have thought about this so I'm hoping to learn something.

 

[Fraserpatty]

I'll go further

He needs to be replaced

I admit Tim did not use the best judgment and instead threw all the company behind making Vision Pro and did not see that the AI Revolution was sneaking up on him and passing him by. That doesn’t mean he needs to be replaced. What he does now that he has that knowledge is what I’m anxious to see .

 

[dk001]

Apple 2023 revenue distribution is 42% Americas (including US) -- that means that almost 60% of revenue comes from overseas [25% Europe (including Africa and Middle East), 19% China, 6% Japan and 8% Rest of Asia Pacific] -- how is that not already global??

By alternative stores I'll assume you mean alternative app stores because Apple already uses resellers for physical product retail sales around the world. If you do mean alternative app stores what problem does this solve for Apple as Apple does not have an app distribution problem (virtually anyone on the planet can already buy apps from the App Store) -- so alternative app stores will not improve distribution or sales -- only reduce revenue and margins for Apple. How is that innovation? Innovation is a two-way street: It needs to benefit both company and consumer. How does alternative app stores benefit Apple? I don't think any board or any capable CEO for that mattter would respect a CEO whose definition of innovation did not create value for shareholders and customers.

On Super Apps, are you suggesting that Apple should build its own Super Apps or allow others to build super apps? If it's the former then that is a recipe for Anti-trust action against Apple. If you mean Apple needs to allow super apps like WeChat how exactly is that innovation? What do super apps offer to consumers that isn't available today? And how do super apps build value for Apple?

And I’m curious: what are these “next gen devices coming out of the AP area” that you’re speaking of? What do they have that Apple devices do not? In what way(s) are AP device manufacturers out-competing Apple? I try to stay up to speed, but I don’t recall hearing about any devices coming out of AP or any other place that Apple devices are not competitive with. 🤔

I'm not trying to be argumentative but these are the same tropes that are casually tossed about without explanation. I'm asking because you seem to have thought about this so I'm hoping to learn something.

There is more to this than just revenue. Focusing on that as a primary point generally shows a loss of innovative focus allowing your company to become overtaken. History has demonstrated that with many “big” companies. Revenue is key but innovation is a must for successful longevity. Innovate or stagnate.

One big trend coming out of the AP region is the inovation in phone design. A large portion of that is driven by the use of super apps. With super apps, the “who” in hardware design becomes second when you can just take your app with you. As a result, innovation and gimmicks become the new development driver. A smoother swipe or new sticker doesn’t drive sales. Think of store-fronts. If it doesn’t catch the eye …. Cool looks. Super charging. Foldables. Cost. Gimmicks like a giant camera. AI.

The iPhone used to be the driver for hardware, camera, and display. Now they are still very good but no longer the leader or driver. The iPhone is a front runner but it is one of the pack. They are still used as comparison items because of their past.

Alternative stores, usually OEM driven allow manufacturers to show off special features to drive customer interest. These are frequently not allowed in the Play Store or are region locked. The OEMs are using innovation to drive sales as they know that with these items the brand is second. Look at Apple. When was the last time you saw a launch line?

Here in the US, many of the AP region devices are not available. I have ordered a few when I find ones that work on here and a carrier will allow. Some real surprises. I recently found the 1+ 12 is a sub $1k device that pushes the 15PM and S24U. I am currently impressed with the Magic V2 - a foldable that is super thin and even folded is basically the same size as the 15PM. OS needs help but there are launchers.

Apple has become … complacent? VP is nice but not seeing it as the next big thing. The watch used to be king but others are rapidly catching up. Announcing features like candy that are software add-ons while ignoring current deficiencies while trying to tighten the grip around the current user base. This behavior has caught the eye of regulators globally. While other companies shrug and move on with development, Apple is seeing how they can minimize impact to their control.

Apple has the ability to become an innovative powerhouse once again. Their development has become tentative. Too do that they need a “risk taker”, a “visionary”. Tim has not demonstrated this ability.

I’ll use myself as an example: if my kids had not gifted me a 15PM, I would still be using my 13PM. Other than speed, and that is marginal, there really isn’t any difference.

Last item. Imagine if all the phone models were available in the US. What is the impact? That is a thought.

 

[heretiq]

There is more to this than just revenue. Focusing on that as a primary point generally shows a loss of innovative focus allowing your company to become overtaken. History has demonstrated that with many “big” companies. Revenue is key but innovation is a must for successful longevity. Innovate or stagnate.

One big trend coming out of the AP region is the inovation in phone design. A large portion of that is driven by the use of super apps. With super apps, the “who” in hardware design becomes second when you can just take your app with you. As a result, innovation and gimmicks become the new development driver. A smoother swipe or new sticker doesn’t drive sales. Think of store-fronts. If it doesn’t catch the eye …. Cool looks. Super charging. Foldables. Cost. Gimmicks like a giant camera. AI.

The iPhone used to be the driver for hardware, camera, and display. Now they are still very good but no longer the leader or driver. The iPhone is a front runner but it is one of the pack. They are still used as comparison items because of their past.

Alternative stores, usually OEM driven allow manufacturers to show off special features to drive customer interest. These are frequently not allowed in the Play Store or are region locked. The OEMs are using innovation to drive sales as they know that with these items the brand is second. Look at Apple. When was the last time you saw a launch line?

Here in the US, many of the AP region devices are not available. I have ordered a few when I find ones that work on here and a carrier will allow. Some real surprises. I recently found the 1+ 12 is a sub $1k device that pushes the 15PM and S24U. I am currently impressed with the Magic V2 - a foldable that is super thin and even folded is basically the same size as the 15PM. OS needs help but there are launchers.

Apple has become … complacent? VP is nice but not seeing it as the next big thing. The watch used to be king but others are rapidly catching up. Announcing features like candy that are software add-ons while ignoring current deficiencies while trying to tighten the grip around the current user base. This behavior has caught the eye of regulators globally. While other companies shrug and move on with development, Apple is seeing how they can minimize impact to their control.

Apple has the ability to become an innovative powerhouse once again. Their development has become tentative. Too do that they need a “risk taker”, a “visionary”. Tim has not demonstrated this ability.

I’ll use myself as an example: if my kids had not gifted me a 15PM, I would still be using my 13PM. Other than speed, and that is marginal, there really isn’t any difference.

Last item. Imagine if all the phone models were available in the US. What is the impact? That is a thought.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. The regional revenue distribution (on top of global supply chain) was used to demonstrate that Apple is already a global player in response to your comment that Apple needs to “evolve globally”. I’m still puzzled about what that actually looks like.

Regarding innovation, Apple has always been a fast follower technologically in every era. They did not pioneer the personal computer, graphical interface, portable audio players, smartphone or tablet computers — the they made them better and more accessible to ordinary people.

While competitors experiment with new technology (displays, camera, processors, memory, etc.) and form factors in public, Apple silently and deliberately takes their time and introduces new products or changes to existing products only after they are convinced that the change deserves to exist, can be profitably and sustainably produced and are ready for public use.

That has been Apple’s formula for success. Some view experimenting in public as “innovation” while others view it as gimmicky — for example, shipping a foldable to be first while knowing that the screen will prematurely degrade and fail or a smartphone with a fan for active cooling. That is not Apple.

The first Apple computers including the Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad and now VisionPro* were not the first in their categories and they were all derided as not innovative when launched, however they all became the industry leading products in their class in term of quality, usability, reliability, sustainability and profitability (*jury is still out on VP).

Paradoxically today’s Apple critics are pointing to many of these products as examples of how Apple is no longer “innovative” even though these products weren’t considered by the Apple critic cohort at their time of launch as innovative — go figure. 😂

Net-net: Apple is guided by its own definition of innovation (novelty that deserves to exist, usable, high quality, reliable, sustainable and profitable). It’s not glitzy or gimmicky but it works for Apple and it works for me. 🙏🏽

 

[Motorola68000]

1. If one cannot see the innovation in pioneering a manufacturing and logistics framework that optimized production to demand and allowed Apple to build, ship, and support billions of devices and operate a billions-scale enterprise at previously-unseen profit levels — without owning a single factory one needs to question their definition of innovation.
2. Steve Jobs was indeed the visionary architect and catalyst for the recovery and repositioning of Apple, but that was insufficient. That vision needed a framework for realizing and sustaining it. Steve needed a partner-builder that could make the vision real. That builder was Tim Cook.
3. If one cannot see the architect and builder as co-creators then one should question their grasp of the creative process. Crediting only one as creator is a political choice and does not change the fact that they are co-creators.

Seems you are now struggling "innovation in pioneering a manufacturing and logistics framework" its the sort of talk that ties up meetings with phrases that are made to fit rather than adding substance. The amount of Directors meetings I've been where someone comes up with verbiage, but little else amount to a considerable waste of time, whereas the innovators do it, not talk about it and and Steve was a doer...for the record he had made swinging cuts to production lines again as I've posted, and probably the biggest cull in products before Tim joined, but Tim for all the criticism has pushed shareholder value, but for me there does seem to be a growing void on the innovation front as opposed to the technological progress across the computer based devices which has been phenomal in my lifetime but where we seem to be diverting from usability and productivity allied to great design and innovation into designing multiple pencil cases and emojis.

If you'd read my posts about Tim, you will note I've made no disparaging comments at all and praise his stewardship of Apple...after all it wasn't Tim hiring Steve, it was Steve hiring Tim, and after Tim had been approached several times by Apple but declined, but after speaking to Steve he changed his mind.

Tim told Charlie Rose in 2014. “Steve created the whole industry that I’m in,” he said, adding that Jobs was “doing something totally different.”

Elsewhere he stated: “I knew I couldn’t be Steve [when I became CEO]. I don’t think anybody could be Steve. I think he was a once-in-a-hundred years kind of individual...."

 

[dk001]

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. The regional revenue distribution (on top of global supply chain) was used to demonstrate that Apple is already a global player in response to your comment that Apple needs to “evolve globally”. I’m still puzzled about what that actually looks like.

Regarding innovation, Apple has always been a fast follower technologically in every era. They did not pioneer the personal computer, graphical interface, portable audio players, smartphone or tablet computers — the they made them better and more accessible to ordinary people.

While competitors experiment with new technology (displays, camera, processors, memory, etc.) and form factors in public, Apple silently and deliberately takes their time and introduces new products or changes to existing products only after they are convinced that the change deserves to exist, can be profitably and sustainably produced and are ready for public use.

That has been Apple’s formula for success. Some view experimenting in public as “innovation” while others view it as gimmicky — for example, shipping a foldable to be first while knowing that the screen will prematurely degrade and fail or a smartphone with a fan for active cooling. That is not Apple.

The first Apple computers including the Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad and now VisionPro* were not the first in their categories and they were all derided as not innovative when launched, however they all became the industry leading products in their class in term of quality, usability, reliability, sustainability and profitability (*jury is still out on VP).

Paradoxically today’s Apple critics are pointing to many of these products as examples of how Apple is no longer “innovative” even though these products weren’t considered by the Apple critic cohort at their time of launch as innovative — go figure. 😂

Net-net: Apple is guided by its own definition of innovation (novelty that deserves to exist, usable, high quality, reliable, sustainable and profitable). It’s not glitzy or gimmicky but it works for Apple and it works for me. 🙏🏽

One aspect I look at is iPhone growth in China and India year to year. If it is growing, what is driving the growth?
New models?
New features?
Cost reduction?
Regulation?
Politics?
Decrease/Increase in the number of OEMs?
New market?

It is an interesting area to watch.

 

[heretiq]

Seems you are now struggling "innovation in pioneering a manufacturing and logistics framework" its the sort of talk that ties up meetings with phrases that are made to fit rather than adding substance. The amount of Directors meetings I've been where someone comes up with verbiage, but little else amount to a considerable waste of time, whereas the innovators do it, not talk about it and and Steve was a doer...for the record he had made swinging cuts to production lines again as I've posted, and probably the biggest cull in products before Tim joined, but Tim for all the criticism has pushed shareholder value, but for me there does seem to be a growing void on the innovation front as opposed to the technological progress across the computer based devices which has been phenomal in my lifetime but where we seem to be diverting from usability and productivity allied to great design and innovation into designing multiple pencil cases and emojis.

If you'd read my posts about Tim, you will note I've made no disparaging comments at all and praise his stewardship of Apple...after all it wasn't Tim hiring Steve, it was Steve hiring Tim, and after Tim had been approached several times by Apple but declined, but after speaking to Steve he changed his mind.

Tim told Charlie Rose in 2014. “Steve created the whole industry that I’m in,” he said, adding that Jobs was “doing something totally different.”

Elsewhere he stated: “I knew I couldn’t be Steve [when I became CEO]. I don’t think anybody could be Steve. I think he was a once-in-a-hundred years kind of individual...."

Our disagreement appears to be in what is considered innovation. You seem to believe and have endlessly argued that innovation ends with product design. I believe that innovation extends beyond design and into production and fulfillment because "Real artists ship" to quote Steve Jobs. Tim Cook was the architect and driver of innovation in production and fulfillment -- without which both the Apple turn around and the broader Jobs vision could not be realized. That is the reason I believe Cook is as much a co-creator of the Apple recovery and the modern Apple as Steve, Jony Ive and others. Not recognizing this monumental contribution is disrespectful of the genius and effort it took to create it and the results it helped to achieve. You obviously believe different .. and that's OK.

 

[heretiq]

One aspect I look at is iPhone growth in China and India year to year. If it is growing, what is driving the growth?
New models?
New features?
Cost reduction?
Regulation?
Politics?
Decrease/Increase in the number of OEMs?
New market?

It is an interesting area to watch.

I agree and suspect all of those factors are influential to that growtn. Interesting times and events ahead for sure. I'm excited to see what WWDC24 reveals to us!

 

[Motorola68000]

Our disagreement appears to be in what is considered innovation. You seem to believe and have endlessly argued that innovation ends with product design. I believe that innovation extends beyond design and into production and fulfillment because "Real artists ship" to quote Steve Jobs. Tim Cook was the architect and driver of innovation in production and fulfillment -- without which both the Apple turn around and the broader Jobs vision could not be realized. That is the reason I believe Cook is as much a co-creator of the Apple recovery and the modern Apple as Steve, Jony Ive and others. Not recognizing this monumental contribution is disrespectful of the genius and effort it took to create it and the results it helped to achieve. You obviously believe different .. and that's OK.

The only problem is that Steve had already undertaken streamlining of production and the biggest cull of prducts in Apples history and where by 1998 the iMac was already in the throws of being the fastest selling computer which transformed Apples circumstances and innovation, design and production was before Tim but you may also note that I’ve posted that I do not believe Steve could have carried on without Tim’s input.

 

[heretiq]

The only problem is that Steve had already undertaken streamlining of production and the biggest cull of prducts in Apples history and where by 1998 the iMac was already in the throws of being the fastest selling computer which transformed Apples circumstances and innovation, design and production was before Tim but you may also note that I’ve posted that I do not believe Steve could have carried on without Tim’s input.

“Tim’s input” ??? I truly hope, upon reflection, you realize just how factually incorrect, condescending and disrespectful that statement is of both Tim Cook and the scope and scale of the task that Steve Jobs was confronted with .. and how ludicrous the statement that Steve (a product visionary) solved operations (global supplier logistics, manufacturing, and fulfillment) all by himself in 8 months is. If that was the case why did he need Tim Cook? Peace out. 🙏🏽

 

[Fraserpatty]

I really hope that the revamped Siri will be available to everyone who can get iOS 18. I can understand if other features cannot be obtained with old devices, but as I have said before, since we have all waited so long for Siri to get an update, I would think that limiting the new Siri to brand new devices would be a really bad look for Apple.

 

[Motorola68000]

“Tim’s input” ??? I truly hope, upon reflection, you realize just how factually incorrect, condescending and disrespectful that statement is of both Tim Cook and the scope and scale of the task that Steve Jobs was confronted with .. and how ludicrous the statement that Steve (a product visionary) solved operations (global supplier logistics, manufacturing, and fulfillment) all by himself in 8 months is. If that was the case why did he need Tim Cook? Peace out. 🙏🏽

Seriously just check on massive cut I. product range Steve initiated before he hired Tim? Then don’t take my word for it just look at what Tim quoted about Steve.

Facts are not condescending they are just facts and if they’ve come across as condescending it not intended but as someone involved at the time and not a retrospective perspective I stand by my views and apparently Tim’s comments suggest he was also in awe of Steve’s contribution indeed more so than mine as he described how he had turned down approaches from Apple but changed his view after speaking to Steve and look at the comments Tim made about that decision.

Best regards though as ‘argument/discussion’ is not something fatal nor should it be considered so and nor should any comments on macrumours