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.

  • kescusay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wait, what? I literally name-dropped the most successful smartphone in history prior to the iPhone. The BlackBerry predates the iPhone by almost a decade.

    • bglad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      What you’re saying is technically true but the BlackBerry was mostly a business phone and the iPhone was successful with the consumer market. Also, the iPhones success has dwarfed the BlackBerry’s even at its height. And, calling the 2007 era BlackBerry a smartphone is a little bit of a stretch. It was smarter than the other phones of that era but it was not smart by today’s standards and when we talk about smartphones we’re usually referring to modern phones with touchscreen displays.

    • An_Ugly_Bastard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      You said

      But what the iPhone did was put it all into an attractive package that worked really well with Apple’s services.

      And where is the BlackBerry design now. The iPhone design isn’t just an “attractive package.” Back then, there were phones with a stylus, clamshells/sliding designs, and full keyboards. Now any modern smartphone is based off the original iPhone design.

      • kescusay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a different subject. You said:

        Before iPhone there were no successful smartphones.

        I was responding to that. It’s factually incorrect. The BlackBerry existed first, it was a smartphone, and it was successful until competition from Apple (and eventually Android) rendered it obsolete.

        I’m not arguing that the BlackBerry was particularly great. I’m not arguing that the iPhone wasn’t better in many ways. It’s just that claiming the iPhone was the first “successful smartphone” is just wrong.

        • silent2k@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The iPhone transformed the world. Blackberry still innovativated Business phones but did not have the impact the iPhone had.

          • kescusay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • silent2k@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • kescusay@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                  • kescusay@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.