I think also we cannot measure wealth in GDP or even by salary. Someone who earns $2k e.g. in vietnam and lives in Danang will have better quality of life than someone who earns $4k and lives in SF.
I did tried as well few months and also uninstalled. Application didn't at least back then have update feature and for each new release you had to reinstall again. UI experience was also very poor comparing to many other open source projects - would expect they at least hire some designer
> Devstral 2 is currently offered free via our API. After the free period, the API pricing will be $0.40/$2.00 per million tokens (input/output) for Devstral 2
With pricing so low I don't see any reason why someone would buy sub for 200 EUR. These days those subs are so much limited in Claude Code or Cursor than it used to be (or used to unlimited). Better pay-as-you-go especially when there are days when you probably use AI less or not at all (weekends/holidays etc.) as long as those credits don't expire.
> We mainly build small closed-down AI compute-chips we can control, sell them for-profit to individual consumers and then orchestrate data-processing on those chips, with setup and operational cost all paid by the consumer
I wish they did but they don't. They have been for decade so stingy on RAM for iPhone and iPad. There are at current point that only small percent of their userbase have iPhone or iPad with 8GB RAM that somehow can run any AI models even open source and be of any use. Not mentioning they don't compare to big Models.
They don't even provide option to sell iPhone with bigger RAM. iPad can have max 16GB RAM. Those mainstream macbook air also can have max 32 GB RAM.
And for the current price of cheap online AI where e.g. perplexity provides so many promo for PRO version for like less $10 per year and all ai providers give good free models with enough rate limit for many users I don't see apple hardware like particularly bought because of AI compute-chips - at least not non-pro users.
If the loose AI though and because of that won't have good AI integrations they will loose also eventually in hardware. e.g. Polish language in Siri still not supported so my mum cannot use it. OSS Whisper v3 turbo was available ages ago but apple still support only few languages. 3rd party keyboard cannot integrate so well with audio input and all sux in this case because platform limitation.
Some lot of good that's done them. The Neural Engine is dark silicon on most devices I've seen, and now we're getting another product segment with M5's matmul GPUs.
To me, it feels like Apple should have supported CUDA from the start. Sell the ARM-hungry datacenter some rackmount Macs with properly fast GPUs, and Apple can eventually bring the successful inference technology to cheaper devices. Apple's current all-or-nothing strategy has produced nothing but redundant hardware accelerators, while Nvidia's vertical integration only gets stronger.
I have a little rust script that uses the built in vision toolkit to do ocr of pdfs, it spins up the ANE to a full 1W compared to 0 as measured by the power profiler. So it is used!
IMO, It’s a very apple strategy, stuff just works and is slowly more accelerated/lower power.
Maybe. But Apple tried the server business and found that they can't compete there.
Not because of Engineering deficiencies, but because datacenters buy based on facts, not fluff.
Now their ARM silicon is top-notch, no doubt about that. But will they earn a higher margin if they put it in a datacenter instead of a consumer device which is then used to consume Apple Services? I don't think so.
> But will they earn a higher margin if they put it in a datacenter
Nvidia is a five trillion dollar business right now. The total sum of Apple's profits from services, hardware and servicing/repair costs all fail to crest Nvidia's total addressable market. We've been past the point of theorizing for almost two years now.
Apple has the means to break into that market, too. They don't need the silicon (iPhone/iPad are way overpowered, Vision Pro and Mac are low-volume), they have thousands of engineers with UNIX experience, and hundreds of billions of dollars in liquid cash waiting to be spent. If the China divestment and monopoly case happen, Apple needs a game plan that guarantees them protection from US politicians and secures an easy cash flow.
From the consumer perspective, it seems simple; stop shipping the latest silicon in the iPhone. Nobody uses it. They're not playing AAA-games or inferencing the latest AI models, and the efficiency gains haven't been noticable for a decade. You don't need TSMC 2nm to browse the App Store, or watch AppleTV. The only opportunity cost comes from selling consumers hardware they can't appreciate.
> From the consumer perspective, it seems simple; stop shipping the latest silicon in the iPhone. Nobody uses it.
From a vendor-perspective, ~200mn iPhones are sold each year, the end-user will pay for it. The scale of this is financing the entire development and supply-chain for the silicon itself, and it contributes not only to hardware but also service revenue of the entire company.
nVidia owns 94% of the GPU market and shipped 11.6mn GPU's in Q2/2025, let's say they ship 60mn GPUs in 2025 total.
--> Why should I stop shipping the latest silicon in the iPhone?
Even without stopping production, why should I enter and compete in a market that is currently dominated by a single player, has a total size of ~60mn units/year, with each product deprecating almost instantly as soon as a more efficient product is announced?
Apple's silicon is not magically more efficient than everything else, their products are efficient because they are vertically integrated.
I doubt that Apple Silicon is competitive to nVidia in a datacenter setting
> And not very long after, 93 per cent of those horses had disappeared.
> I very much hope we'll get the two decades that horses did.
Horses typically live between 25 to 30 years. I agree with OP that most likely those horses were not decimated (killed) but just died out and people stopped mass breeding them. Also as other noticed chart shows 'horses PER person in US'. Population between 1900 and 1950 increased from 1.5B to 2.5B (globally but probably similarly almost 70% increase in US).
I think depends what do you worry about:
1) `that human population decrease 50-80%`?
I don't worry about it even if that happen. 200 years ago human population was ~1 B today is ~8 B. At year 0 AD human population was ~0.250 B. Did we 200 years ago worry about it like "omg human population is only 1 B" ?
I doubt human population decrease 80% because of no demand for human as workforce but I don't see problem if it decrease by 50%. There will short transition period with surplus of retired people and work needed to keep the infrastructure but if robots can help with this then I don't see the problem.
2) `That we will not be needed and we will loose jobs?`
I don't see work like something in demand. Most people hate their jobs or do crappy jobs. What do people actually worry about that they will won't get any income. And actually not even about that - they worry that they will not be able to survive or be homeless. If there is improvement in production that food, shelter, transportation, healtcare is dirty cheap (all stuff from bottom maslov piramid) and fair distribution on social level then I also see a way this can be no problem.
3) `That we will all die because of AI`
This I find more plausable and maybe not even by AGI but earlier because of big social unrests during transition period.
As someone who raises horses and other animals, I can say with pretty high certainty that most of the horses were not allowed to "retire". Horses are expensive and time-consuming to care for, and with no practical use, most horses would have been sent not to the glue factory but (at that time) to the butcher and their non-meat parts used for fertilizer.
Yeah, I agree with what you said. It's not about the absolute number of people, but the social unrest. If you look at how poor we did our job at redistribution of wealth so far, I find it hard to believe that we will do well in the future. I am afraid of mass pauperisation and immiseration of societies followed by violence.
What's more important - "redistribution of wealth" or simply reducing the percentage of people living in abject poverty? And wouldn't you agree that by that measure, most of the world, including its largest countries, have done quite a good job?
From 1990 to 2014, the world made remarkable progress in reducing extreme poverty, with over one billion people moving out of that condition. The global poverty rate decreased by an average of 1.1 percentage points each year, from 37.8 percent to 11.2 percent in 2014.
I think the phrase "fair distribution on social level" is doing a lot of work in this comment. Do you consider this to be a common occurrence, or something our existing social structures do competently?
I see quite the opposite, and have very little hope that reduced reliance on labor will increase the equability of distribution of wealth.
Doesn't matter. The countries with most chaos and internal strife gets a lot of practice fighting wars (civil war). Then the winner of the civil war, who's used to grabbing resources by force, and the one that has perfected war skills due to survival of the fittest, goes round looking for other countries to invade.
Historically, advanced civilizations with better production capabilities don't necessarily do better in war if they lack "practice". Sad but true. Maybe not in 21st century, but who knows.
Yeah none of that fever dream is real. There's no "after" a civil war, conflicts persist for decades (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Myanmar, Colombia, Sudan).
Check this out - https://data.worldhappiness.report/chart. The US is increasingly a miserable place to live in, and the worse it gets the more their people double down on being shitty.
Fun fact: Fit 2 lines on that data and you can extrapolate by ~2030 China will be a better place to live. That's really not that far off. Set a reminder on your phone: Chinese dream.
reply