Apple has been quiet about ChatGPT. Now Tim Cook says its hefty $22.6 billion research spend is down to generative AI.
Apple has been quiet about ChatGPT. Now Tim Cook says its hefty $22.6 billion research spend is down to generative AI.
The company's research and development spending hit $22.61 billion for the year so far, a figure $3.12 billion higher than this time last year.
Apple has been quiet about ChatGPT. Now Tim Cook says its hefty $22.6 billion research spend is down to generative AI.::The company's research and development spending hit $22.61 billion for the year so far, a figure $3.12 billion higher than this time last year.
You're viewing part of a thread.
The iPhone transformed the world. Blackberry still innovativated Business phones but did not have the impact the iPhone had.
Man, are you even listening to yourself, let alone reading what I wrote? You've confused me for someone who is claiming the iPhone didn't have an impact on the world, and I never said that.
I said - please actually read this - that the BlackBerry was a successful smartphone before the iPhone. That's it! That's the entirety of my thesis on this topic. I'm not saying it was better (it wasn't), I'm not saying the iPhone didn't steal its lunch (it sure as heck did)... All I'm saying is that when you claimed there were no successful smartphones before the iPhone, that was inaccurate.
That's it! That's all there is to it!
Now, the appropriate thing to do here is to recognize the BlackBerry came first, recognize that it was profitable for years until better smartphones arrived, and say something like, "You're right, that was an incorrect statement that I hadn't fully thought through."
Then we can put a pin in that particular topic, call it done, and discuss whatever other topics you'd like to discuss. I'm genuinely game for a debate on whether or not the iPhone was "innovative" or what the appropriate definition of the word even is. Seems like a really interesting discussion. But before I go down that path, I need to know that we have a shared understanding of what the history of these devices really was, because if we don't we'll just end up talking past each other.
People on this app get personal so quickly its not fun. Been here a week and more hate hit me than in 12 years of reddit. Calm tf down.
Blackberry was not a smartphone in my opinion. You are right with the rest and you can consider blackberry a smartphone if you want to. We can have different opinions.
I don't hate you, and I'm not throwing hate your way. I'm just a little exasperated, that's all.
Look... A smartphone is defined as a device that combines mobile telephone functions and computing functions into one unit. By that definition, the BlackBerry definitely qualified. If you're using a different definition - for example, one that requires a full-body touchscreen and no physical keyboard - that's fine, it's just important that we agree on what we're talking about. I'm using the traditional definition and you're not, I guess.
That's OK, just as long as we both know.
So let's move on.
Ok. What is the topic? Innovation vs invention?
That's a good one. I think there's a lot that would be interesting to explore in both. For example, was the IBM Simon a smartphone? It had a touchscreen, apps, and network access way back in 1992. So what are the material vs. cosmetic differences between it and the iPhone? (Don't worry, I'm not arguing that the iPhone isn't both innovative and inventive in comparison, it's just that there's more gray area than people tend to realize.)
I guess what I'd most like to think about is three things:
- The difference between invention and innovation.
- The difference (if any) between innovation and cosmetics. (Not That I'm knocking cosmetics! They're an important part of UX!)
- Where you perceive the original iPhone as being ahead in each area (innovations, inventions, and cosmetics)
Hey, also wanted to say I'm glad we've hammered this out.
A smartphone integrates a camera, a phone, a gps device and internet as well as being a phone and enabled communication by text, video and audio.
A device that combines all of this may have existed before but they failed in the fight for adoption by the masses. Innovation is theorized:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
What you need to make inventions into innovation is to make it accessible to people who expect products to just work. Innovation always faces resistance. The people who don’t want any change will always fight new stuff while early adopters will always try new things. The people in the middle are key. UX is a big part but also hardware and software that works without the need for tinkering is essential.