Sounds great now to sign up for a digital currency provided by a big bank/ government and be a good little drone.
Big brother surely is coming for you.
1 Like
Truth be told we’ve probably been living with big brother in the U.S. for years. There has always been a ton of personal information available in commercial background checks. And most of my data has been leaked a couple of times thanks to companies like Equifax.
I expect we will see a digital currency, CBDC, in the next few years. It would offer more convenience than Apple Pay, but also total transparency of our finances. The IRS already receives reports of all bank transactions of $10,000 and above. While that may sound like a large amount, it’s purchasing power is the same as $1478 was when I finished school. 
On the bright side the advances in AI that we are starting to see could be beneficial to a lot of people. I’ve never needed more than simple search to find my email or other information. And Google Cloud Search already searches everything, email, documents, calendar, contacts, etc. at one time.
This new AI technology looks like it could eventually eliminate the need for complex folder structures, tagging, backlinks, etc. Depending on cost & availability this may really shake things up.
1 Like
A lot to unpack in this thread. I think that in some ways AI will be commoditized. That’s not to say that new markets/economies won’t develop along the way.
I read something that Aaron Levie from Box said a few years back when Microsoft, Google, Amazon etc. were getting a lot of press for AI investment in the “early days”. He simply said that they’ wouldn’t participate because it wasn’t a fruitful investment for them; that AI would be a service that is consumed from the major providers because others don’t have the resources to compete. I think that will become more true over time.
I did a briefing at Google back in 2018(ish) and there was a game in the lobby that you played against the computer. You draw a picture and the computer guesses what it is. Seems like that was eons ago. Microsoft isn’t doing anything earth-shattering here, and their competition is not sitting on their hands. Personally, I banking on Google figuring this out in a major way. Could be wrong but we’ll see…
I agree on Microsoft and Google. I’ve never thought of Apple as a “hardware” company. Have always felt like the hardware was a tool for them to achieve an outcome or user experience; in a feng shui(ish) way. For example, there were all kinds of MP3 players before the iPod. But they were overly complex in a fragmented market. The iPod wouldn’t have been the success it was without the glue of iTunes and the backend infrastructure that enabled it. And from a business perspective, the margin is definitely in the software…
1 Like
One simple question… what’s in it for them be they Google MS etc?
Let’s be clear none of these companies work for the benefit of mankind only themselves and their shareholders, and it these shareholders and executives who will ensure “AI” results mirror their own biases and ailms
With respect, I think that is too simplistic. It is not always mutually exclusive to work for profit and shareholders or for the benefit of mankind. Both can be done. I’d argue that companies with a good corporate culture and values will seek both profit and social good, the former making the latter possible. Obviously, that is not always (usually?) the case, but some companies do strive to do both. Think of the multi-million / billion dollar foundations funded by corporations as just one example.
2 Likes
That might be partly true for some companies, but for sure not in relation to the mayor player there.
And the Foundations are mainly for Taxreasons, “Green-/Socialwashing” or a result of an settlement to avoid a higher fine/penalty.
1 Like
I’m a little less cynical. 
I believe, based on both my experience and lots of reading, that there are, in fact, major corporations that give for the social good. Do they take advantage of tax breaks, of course. They would be foolish and bad stewards not to do so. But that doesn’t mean that their ultimate motivation cannot be altruistic. Again, I’m not naïve. I recognize that in many instances, the motives are less than sterling but I’m not prepared to condemn corporations with a broad brushstroke. I think each corporation stands on its own merits. I’m more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt unless the evidence says I shouldn’t.
The problem is it is their version of ‘social good’ and their vast resources often push that vision forward no matter what. One persons heaven is another persons hell.
Agreed, but that is a different issue than your inital post. 
And who pays for their corporate largesse?
Those who voluntarily pay for their products and services.
But what I want when I give them my money is a good product or a good service. Not their idea of a social good or a charitable cause on my dime. Corporations do nothing unless it is to their benefit, even if it is just to make themselves look good. Charity and good works come from individual people.
1 Like
As private entities corporations have the right to use their profit as they please provided it is legal. As a private consumer I have the right to not buy from them if I find their social engagement problematic. This is the blessing of freedom.
But, we are off topic so we best move on to avoid the moderators closing this tread.
1 Like
My first thought would be to empower Siri and surpass Bing and/or Google at search, but then Google pays Apple $18 billion a year for search engine defaults so that would blow a HUGE hole in their revenue.
I’m doubtful they will do anything meaningful with it, to be honest, at least not for the foreseeable future.
1 Like
I have always thought of them being a software company that makes its money through hardware. While the hardware itself was and is nicely designed (I do agree on your comparison to Feng Shui) and is a great attractor, I don’t think it’s their main selling point. Many customers would have chosen more utilitarian hardware (like… computers with legacy ports) or just less expensive hardware, were it not for their software offerings, ease of use and integration.
Given that Apple has moved to basically giving away their software for free (think iWork, iLife, macOS) and Final Cut Pro at what’s basically become a nominal fee today, their margins are clearly in hardware.
- Apple is a software company that makes its money through selling hardware
- Microsoft is a software company that makes its money through selling software
- Google is a software company that makes its money through selling advertising
2 Likes
Here’s a breakdown of Apple’s 2022 revenue and profit:
They get 75% of their revenue from products, 25% from services. The margin on services is much higher, 72% compared to 36% on products, which makes it closer: their gross profit was $115B on products and $56M on services. They wouldn’t have those services without the iPhone and other hardware, so that’s why I think of them as a hardware(-driven) company. But I agree you can think of it from various angles, including that iOS and Apple’s other software features drive the hardware sales.
2 Likes
Not to start an a long discussion but I’ve always thought of them as a hardware company. Because they named the company “Apple Computers, Inc.” in 1976 and didn’t change it for 31 years.
Today Apple sells, AFAIK, four professional software programs. And all four can be had for a one time cost of approximately $1000. IMO, if Apple was really interested in selling software these programs would almost certainly be subscriptions, the same as everything they offer except their hardware.
3 Likes
I agree. But everyone of these “services” is software based/delivered. They just call them services because they recognize revenue in the books differently. Wall St loves that.
For sure. I think of them as software, too.