Apple's positioning of 'privacy' and 'data blindedness' was always opportunistic.
Apple never ever believed that. Even their positioning of 'standing up to the government/FBI' is super hypocritical as well. When going became tough, Tim Cook personally went to the White House to gift a gold plaque (puke).
So much for looking out for the little guy.
I'm 100% convinced that Apple has a backdoor in China. Why else would Chinese government allow Apple to operate there?
Google, love them or hate them, picked up their business and exited. I admire them for that. The day Apple truly does follow through, I'll respect them.
This doesn't match up with what I've heard from people I know within Apple, but perhaps things have changed recently. Certainly the encrapification seems to have gotten worse - my suspicion is that the services businesses have too much power within the company and are damaging product design to boost their own numbers.
There's an excellent Ben Thompson piece where he points out one of the big missteps of Apple executives. He was talking about Tim Cook and the like in the context of App Store legal case. He says Apple started drinking their own kool-aid around privacy, and user benefit - which makes them want to seek rent a lot more. I suspect your friends at Apple might be falling onto that as well.
This will be like saying - there are good people working at Nestle. The packaged water business is the villian, but people are nice.
there were tons of smartphones on the market prior to the iphone. i used several of them. mostly windows mobile devices that required a stylus or keypad for input. they had apps stores, web browsers, email, etc. copy and paste, which the iphone lacked at release. from a functionality stance there were many options very much like the iphone available. the interface on the iphone was nicer for most things, and it had a nicer web browser. not a different world of functionality at all, just a bit nicer overall but also with some big trade offs.
Wait, were you not there? Did you not see how much the world changed pre vs post iPhone? In 2007 some nerds failed to see the forest for the trees and bitched about MMS but we have 2 decades of hindsight so let’s not. Why are we having this discussion
That doesn’t fit: Apple’s been experimenting with VR since the 90s and Vision Pro was hardly novel–well executed, but not novel. I think it’s more complex where you have to think about the products executives and Wall Street analysts want to exist providing pressure against the “is it good enough to buy?” response.
Honestly seems like a supportive argument. Yea, your amendment clearly shows Apple isn't always right/late, but Vision Pro is an example of them being early and how far they miss when they're early hah.
And I’d add that like AI, there was clearly a conflict inside Apple between people who wanted to be in the game and the people who correctly recognized that it wasn’t yet where most consumers wanted.
Like AI, the Vision Pro would have been a better product if Apple told the detractors to shut up and ship out. NPUs and AR are not going to sway consumers or compete for market share.
Nevermind the godawful Liquid Glass UX they cooked up and imposed on everyone else...
Who will Apple serve? Users, Apple or their partners?
It has always been Apple > Users > Partners.
There's a reason why Microsoft is still the king of enterprises. Anybody getting involved with this with Apple will deserve everything thats coming their way
This was a fun listen indeed. I started very skeptical, and was actively rooting for Nilay but I have to say I can see why Shishir is highly rated. Not only did he articulate his position, he defended his company pretty well - and also painted a picture of what they were trying to do.
I recommend listening to it with an open mind. The execution might have been poor, but as entrepreneurs and /builders/ we should always be open to new ideas.
It opened my eyes to a new way of thinking, even if I think Superhuman/Grammarly might not be the ones to do it. I can certainly see what they were thinking.
This has been explained many times in this thread. Your subscription to Claude models for use in Claude Code is subsidized. That is, it is only meant to be used with that harness.
When you use that API key with OpenCode, you're circumventing that.
The PS5 is subsidized because the make money with the games.
Printers are subsidized because the make money with the ink.
The API use is subsidized because they make money with Claude Code?
I would understand if Claude Code could only be used with Anthropics API but not the other way around. 1 million tokens is 1 million tokens unless Claude Code is burning tokens and others are more efficient in token use.
I'd say that they want Claude Code to become the standard, so that they can milk corporations on enterprise plans. We individual subscribers are nothing, but we'll go to work and be vocal about specifically having Claude.
Anthropic provides subsidized access to Claude models through Claude Code. It is well understood to be 'a loss leader' so that they can incentivize people to use Claude Code.
OpenCode lets people take the Claude-Code-only-API-Key, and lets them use it in a different harness. Anthropic's preferred way for such interaction is getting a different, Claude API key (and not Claude Code SDK API key).
---
A rough analogy might be something like getting subsidized drinks from a cafe, provided you sit there a eat food. What if someone says, go to the cafe and get free drink and come sit over at our cafe and order food. It is a loose analogy, but you get the idea.
If it wasn't the case, the Claude API pricing would be the same, $200 for unlimited use. But it's metered.
We don't know if Claude Code bleeds money for every user that touches it. Probably not. But the different pricing is a strong enough clue that it's an appeal product with subsidized tokens consumption.
API is intended for a different audience - companies with a big pocket who aren't as price sensitive as private users. So the pricing will be different than for a private subscription.
There is huge value in getting people to subscribe to recurring payments. Giving people a discount to do so makes sense and does not mean that the subscription service loses money.
> That law is perhaps an annoyance for Apple, but it can't cost them billions, can it?
The CEO has 24h in the day, and he/she is asked to be deposed (laws and legal system has that power), it chips away from grand visions. It isnt just money, you cant just stand up a team and be done with it. Everybody will be coming at you.
Expect to see a lot "Y alleges Apple didnt do enough to protect kids" and the burden of proof will be on Apple to make their executives available.
But didnt Apple fire the first shot with ATT? Apple was never against ads (see ads.apple.com or numerous ads on App Store) they were against Facebook's ads.
Oddly, their blog index page doesnt show this. sneaky. https://blog.railway.com/
reply