Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kilo's avatar

To me, it does seem the opposite case could be easily made. Apple doesn't have anyone that can match others leading the AI development, so why would they have someone behind in the area run the company? Maybe they tried to lure someone away from the leaders, but no takers. So they've promoted the guy who has led them to the top in the hardware, which you've said yourself is some of the best. Maybe it's for the best to keep focus on the gear that customers love, and contract out the AI to whoever is able to compete. That field is still shifting, and who knows who will be leading two years from now? Putting the company in the hands of someone proven to keep them in the forefront of what they've been doing well seems a rational choice, while making a move to try to top the leaders in an area in which they do not have the best expertise, and try to outdo the guys who are putting billions into running ahead in that race, the most competitive arena in technology, would be a possibly risky play. I am not an Apple fanboy, since the 80's, but I think it could work out well to keep doing what they're doing well, and wait for the AI situation to play out and mature for a bit. Who knows, there could easily be yet another split, with internal factions breaking up some of the top names, and one or more of the brilliant leaders leaving or getting forced out, and Apple has enough money to offer them a new home, and then Apple could jump forward. I'm not an expert, nor as well informed as you in this area; this is just thoughts that came to mind when I read of the situation yesterday. I could be way off on this.

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?