Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | antipaul's commentslogin

Umm, that's neither a direct quote, nor even a paraphrase.

This is due to EU's wider tech regulation "DMA"

And, in fact, it's due to DMA's mandate leaning _against_ privacy:

> under EU regulators’ extreme interpretation of the DMA, Apple would have to give any virtual assistant direct access to users’ private data — and the ability to directly control other installed applications — as soon as Siri AI is made available in the EU, without the essential protections necessary to keep users and their data safe.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/due-to-dma-siri-ai-de...


Dunno. I love these events. Polished, well executed, fun. I always walk away inspired.

But then, I'm a fan of Apple, overall, and I like most of what they do.


"The big three are trying to capture B2C mainly"

I think it's more complicated. Anthropic has been focused on enterprise for a long time, and OpenAI seems to be doubling down as well.


I can clearly see, and feel, Dario's associates' "increased productivity" in their Claude Code/Chat/Cowork desktop product...

So many updates, pretty much daily, so many tweaks to the interface. Sometimes the tweaks are a bit dumb, sometimes completely trivial, and other times they just undo what they did previously.

My favorite examples of their newfound velocity:

1. When there is a nice feature that was easily discovered, and then it was gone...

2. When the "customize" section moves around to random places in settings, or entirely out of it

Special mention to their scatterbrained keyboard shortcuts strategy


"All of [SpaceX]'s compute capacity at Colossus 1"

SpaceX/xAI also has Colossus 2, with double or more the GPUs

Seems xAI will still be around


That is one take, but here is how I interpret it. They spent a lot of money training a model which isn't doing enough inference to justify continuing to use those GPUs, and now they are buying even more GPUs to build an even bigger model that also won't be very popular.


Focused on "simplicity", they used to have only a "tableful" of products.

With more products, will Apple collapse under the weight of the complexity?


They pretty much still only have a "Good -> Better -> Best" ladder for the majority of their products, with a handful of "niche" offerings sprinkled in. Complexity hasn't increased much from those days, they added one extra column and row

iPhone: iPhone 17e -> iPhone 17 -> iPhone 17 Pro (Niche: iPhone Air)

iPad: iPad -> iPad Air - > iPad Pro (Niche: iPad Mini)

Mac Laptop: Macbook Neo -> Macbook Air -> Macbook Pro

Mac Desktop: Mac Mini -> iMac -> Mac Studio

They have product with different screen sizes, but those are really just configuration options on the base product in that tier, now. Compare that to offerings from Samsung or Dell and you can see it could be much, much more complicated.


That was a different era of consumer behavior. Consumers are hyper targeted with personalized organic and paid messages. The algorithmic media ecosystem mitigates or counters complex product offerings. For example, my YouTube feed displays Apple Pro devices reviews over other lines like iPad basic. Also, purchase power acts as a natural filter.


The customer base is also so much bigger. Just before the the iMac was introduced, they were selling under half a million Macs per quarter. And that was divided up among a bunch of different models. That makes it much harder to manage production and inventory, and your development costs get spread across fewer units. With 10x more Mac sales and 100x more iPhone sales, there’s more room for variety.


There is a difference between 5 B revenue and 400 B revenue.

Also the price point shifted from primarily a 2K machine, to all price ranges, with the original iPhone being a few hundred bucks. More sales smaller units so the number of products being sold is more than it appears based on the revenue comparison.

Maybe the price per unit is available somewhere for people to trend how it changed over 2-3 decades.


Performance wise, they often seem solid.

Usability wise (UI/UX/design), they are in the gutter.


A Snow Leopard move, at least for iOS, is what's on deck:

https://www.macrumors.com/2026/03/15/ios-27-will-reportedly-...


A major reason Snow Leopard was well received was because of how performant it felt along with the bug fixes. What isn't mentioned anywhere near as much is that it dropped a lot of hardware (PPC). The last G4 Powerbook got about 1.5y of OS support before it was dropped.

iOS 26 is slated to drop a bunch of iPhone models. macOS is dropping all all macs with Intel CPUs.

A Snow Leopard release isn't great news for a lot of people.


> The last G4 Powerbook got about 1.5y of OS support before it was dropped.

> macOS is dropping all all macs with Intel CPUs.

Those two cases are not really comparable though, are they? The last Intel CPU Mac was the 2019 Mac Pro, which was discontinued in 2023.


Aren't they? The last Intel macs were being sold less than 3y ago, and by the time macOS 27 releases they'll be less than 3.5y old.

The broader point is that a "Snow Leopard" release has historically resulted in a lot of hardware being left behind, and many of the devices that could have benefited the most from optimizations were cut off.


they also used to sell 2018 intel mac minis alongside it for a while as well, didn't they?


Those were discontinued in 2023, too.

I still think it's unrealistic to expect 8+ years of OS updates for a computer even if you purchased it 5 years after its launch date.


Great... yet more attention on iOS


Roughly 1.75 billion to 250 million installed OSes, according to public estimates. 7 to 1 ratio.


The numbers don't tell the full story.

The development of Mac OS X was the development of iOS, and it was one-way.


How does that matter to where the attention is paid today?


Everything (or 90%) on the iphone was taken from the mac and put into the iPhone. The software dvelopment for the PC environment, then stripped down and streamlined for the phone is why the iPhone was the revolution that it was.

Apple, like you, can only think in terms of revenue and profit generated. "iPhone makes this much profit = iphone gets this much development".

That thinking has led us into this stagnated crap, because it's a terrible way to do software. Worse, what's happening now is apple is taking its iThing software and trying to migrate it to the mac. The Mac is now getting destroyed by the iPhone development.

That is the reason why.


> Apple, like you, can only think in terms of revenue and profit generated.

Wow.


Don't "Wow." out of context.

The smart move is further development of the Mac to explore ways to bring new features to the iPhone or future apple devices. To simply go "this = profit = all development goes there" personifies a lack of wisdom.


Seems like the most basic thing ever.

Can’t even use the new Gemma on device model… no model selection besides fast/normal/thinking.

Also requires Google login


Google models are good, their products are all subpar


I recently discovered you can lose chat history by switching between using Gemma web "app" and at least the Android version.

Simply start chat on web, head to couch and continue on phone, later go back to web and, crucially, do not refresh your browser, but resume chatting.

All that lovely stuff you chatted about on your phone will be gone from the chat...

Android app also loses anything you've typed but not submitted if the app is closed while in background. I guess kinda expected but also annoying if you get interrupted.

I also found Gemini oddly less accurate at web searches, and less willing to do them compared to ChatGPT. Working on an electronics project Gemini relied much more on innate, hence sometimes incorrect knowledge, while ChatGPT 4.5 went and verified datasheets and whatnot much more rigorously.


I wouldn't attribute that as much to the model as I would the tools, prompts, and app plumbing around them. This is where I find Google to be really lacking in comparison to Anthropic and my custom stack. I don't use OpenAI so cannot offer a comparison or opinion.


Right I meant the experience from the apps, since that was what OP talked about.

I couldn't even get the Gemini VSCode plugin to work so haven't tried that, just kept asking me to log in and saw others reporting the same.

So yeah...


Do you know anyone who is innovating beyond basic chat?

Yes there's Claude Code, but I just can't stand them with woke politics, limits, poor prompt adherence. ChatGPT has been ok, but mostly same chat window (with terrible model hallucination). At least in google's ai studio you can interrupt using keyboard.


Anthropic is out in front with their Desktop app (imo), I have to evaluate it for rollout at a client, latest update brought significant improvements. I find Claude and the soul thing to be annoying. I won't touch Sam Altman stuff, for similar economic / political reasons in the opposite direction. OpenAI is the most likely to fail too (imo) and rumor has it they have not had a successful pre training run since Ilya left, with the 5.x series being mid/late iterations on the unreleased 4.5

Personally, I built a full custom agent stack so I can have full control. There should be lots of options these days for beyond just chat. Search my HN or GitHub history if you want more details on my take.


Of course it requires a Google login. It’s an app for a Google service. That service is about Gemini, their strongest consumer model. Gemma is not much more than a tech demo.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: