As a Hongkonger, native in Cantonese (zh-hk/yue) and fluent in English (en) and work in Singapore (en-sg & zh-sg), I have a even more mundane use case that Siri is not clever enough to support.
I want my location to be in Singapore (Singapore SIM/Card etc)
I want my UI to be in English.
I want my Siri speaks Cantonese to me.
For reason on Apple knows why, I have to use English (Singapore) as my UI and Siri language or Apple Intelligence will not turn on. As if the engineer who develop Siri/Apple Intelligence have never think about the needs of those who speaks more than one language.
Honestly, this is a complaint of mine with a lot of software. I'm Hungarian and live in Hungary. The amount I have to struggle to have British English language, American keyboard layout, and Hungarian time in Windows is insane.
Me, driving, using Apple Maps for navigation: "Hey Siri, what's my ETA?"
Siri: ... "Here's what I found on the web for "what is my ETA'"
From outside I don't know the cause but contrary to their normal reputation for better integration between parts of their products it seems like Siri is in some organizational way fundamentally broken.
When I was a respiratory therapist I was working a code in an ER for a motorcyclist crash, we were doing CPR and pushing meds and the MD uses Vocera, the digital hospital voice assistance dohicky we all wore on our collars to "call the X-Ray tech" and the stupid thing bleeps back in it's robot voice, "CALLING: PIZZA TRUCK."
It was one of the most surreal moments of my career. It was an emergency and the team was dialed in to saving this guy and the entire moment was just super "wtf!!" We all looked at each other and nobody really did anything. We all already hated Vocera with the fire of 10,000 suns and that dumbass moment just was the ultimate example of how dumb it was. The MD just moved on and barked at the ER tech to go get x-ray and to this day I am surprised he didn't rip the vocera off his collar and throw it across the room or put it on the ground and stomp on it.
Vocera was always a buggy piece of crap that was the miserable bane of our existence. After the code (the guy didn't make it) on of the nurses was smoking outside on the benches and was like "I didn't even know we had a pizza truck."
Google assistant isn't much better. In fact it got worse once they replaced it with gemini. I used to be able to say "hey Google turn lights off" and it'd connect to my Google home and turn lights off. Now it's usually "I can't do that" or "searching for turn lights off." once it even helpfully started playing Ellie Goulding's "Lights" at double speed.
Mine can't "silence alarm" anymore, because it declares that there are no alarms currently ringing. That's not even a language interpretation issue, it's simply broken.
I never understood why they haven't had a team implementing simple features like that for over a decade. It's not even AI. Have a dashboard of the most commonly tried things every day, and develop the features.
I find the idea of IRL multi-user UX really interesting. So much of modern computing is built around a 1-to-1 model of users and devices. And then multi-player, collaboration features are built on top of that. Sometimes they’re quite slick (ex. figma) and sometimes they’re pretty clunky (ex. apple family sharing stuff).
But what’s really lacking is a model for multiple people sharing a single computing experience in real life. Companion mode in Google Meet or Spotify Jam are two attempts but both still force you through the one user, one device path.
Two adults sitting in a car shouldn’t have to constantly think “whose phone is this?” connected to CarPlay. Especially when they’re part of the same Apple “family” and on a Spotify family plan.
Two people seamlessly interacting with one “system” would break all sorts of auth and other assumptions, but it seems worth figuring out as computing becomes more and more prevalent in every facet of life.
There’s an opportunity to also build “computing homes”. Say that a number of devices are within a household, some mobile and some desktop.
Imagine harnessing the desktop devices within the home for a family-focused OpenClaw, Xgrid-style, rather than offloading to some server far away that is unaware of the general context of a household.
For the context of a prototypical nuclear family unit it all seems pretty straightforward, but once you introduce extended families, blended families, nannies, or abusive parents or partners you suddenly get a lot of complications and a level of granularity with permissions that would get pretty intricate.
For the CarPlay use case at least some kind of ad hoc “party” entity that all the devices flow into might be interesting. I’m thinking about how with the original StarCraft game one disc had a license for up to 8 instances of the game to play via LAN so you could have a single license key allow a whole LAN party. Some system like that where the auth flows through a “primary” account but everyone in the “party” contributes their own entitlements to it and can provide input.
Funny, I was just sort of spec'ing this out to myself yesterday.
I'd consider building the system out as an MCP server rather than trying to bundle the agent with it. I had an AI build something out that is just a tasklist that works the way I think about tasks, which I've been using both personally and professionally. It's an MCP server only, which I can expose on the internet with OAuth. It has been surprisingly fun to use, because the AI can spontaneously interact with the information in ways I didn't program in. I have a recurring task with an AI to give me a dump of my current top tasks once a day to my phone.
Professionally, I'm working between a lot of different teams with their own Jira boards and I needed something to use myself to organize and prioritize tasks that can't be prioritized within one place in Jira. With the Atlassian MCP server hooked up to the same agent as my code it is fairly trivial to attach a Jira bug to a task and then prompt the AI to do whatever to the bug attached to this task. I put an explicit field for it in to the task definition but you don't even really need that, just putting the bug in the description is all that was really necessary.
The point I am trying to make here is, you don't even really have to "design" a product at this point. You just need to expose things to the AI so that when the user makes some vague statement about what they want to do it can convert that into concrete calls. The AI and the user will do things with it that you didn't even think of, and users can just add things by saying things in the descriptions of various tasks. I've mentioned how even if AI were to freeze today for the next 10 years we'd still be learning how to use AI and getting more out of it... this is I think a still under-explored application space.
I agree - this isn’t complicated. It seems to me that the issue arises from Apple’s “what-if-ism” - what if you get divorced, what if one of the kids grows up and stops speaking to you, what if the dog dies etc etc, a million different versions of which will get them bad press: “Apple told me to go and pick up my dead child’s cancer medication!” Hence it falls into the Steve Jobs “we say NO to a thousand good ideas before we say yes to one”.
And also living without it doesn’t really affect Apple’s bottom line. But yeah I wish I had an AI assistant in my iPhone which would text back my parents with what I’m doing today and reply to their needless updates I get since buying them smartphones.
Siri in general seems to be, for me at least, superfluous. The answer to most questions I ask is “I don’t know” or “I didn’t catch that” or “I can’t”. AI in general is still causing me major question marks, especially where it comes to the valuations right now on the stock market. This morning I was watching Bloomberg at the European open and noticed one of my stocks wasn’t really moving as usual, and the presenter then announced that the Nordic markets were closed today because of the Ascension Day public holiday. So I googled “is the Danish stock market open today?” and naturally Google’s AI was the top link, proudly announcing “Yes! The Danish market is open today, here are the hours yadda yadda”. I scrolled down and found the actual link to the market and it showed that, of course, the market is closed, it’s ascension day. So I asked the Google AI - “are you sure about that?” and it thought again and found out that “no, the Danish stock market is closed today. I apologise for telling you it was open without checking”. Honest to god this is the tech that’s putting Nvidia at a $5.5Trilion valuation and keeping the market at all time highs right now? A technology that makes even Google worse?
AI is really bad at current events and the concept of "now." I have a Claude project for bouncing questions off about my daughter (<1yo) and I have her date of birth in it, with the intention that new chats would be able to infer her age.
It will get it right most of the times, but sometimes it puts her as wildly younger than she is, and once it even said she wasn't born yet so I should prepare for xyz.
The AI is one thing. But it's also about conversational assistants generally being largely superfluous for a lot of people including myself. I use the Alexa in my bedroom as an alarm clock but I'll have a backup for anything early and critical. I started using the Alexa in my kitchen as a timer mostly because I find the timer on my new range a bit clunky to operate. I'd actually rather use something with a visible countdown.
Siri is occasionally useful in the car if I'm by myself but mostly in the better than nothing sense.
I think it's fair to say that a technology Amazon was, at one point, going to fill a building in downtown Boston to further develop has been extremely underwhelming.
> It seems to me that the issue arises from Apple’s “what-if-ism”... [divorce, estrangement, grief].
I don't think it is these PR issues that cause Apple such consternation, partly as -- even as someone who lives a personal life filled with such corner cases -- I just don't think those are complex issues to solve, but mostly as Apple never seems to put much thought into corner cases like this anywhere else in their business, even when it doesn't butt up against the skewed demographics of software developers (such as how Cydia had much better handling of independent developers and joint projects than Apple's App Store still does 15 years later, and the what ifs were often fascinating to handle).
In reality, the "what ifs" that Apple gets stuck on are lower level, and can even sometimes be spun in a sympathetic light: "what if a domestic abuser manages to automate so much of your software that they essentially have persistent spyware on your device" or "what if a user scripts something to the point where their phone doesn't work quite right and constantly needs tech support" or "what if people share so much of their content with someone else that they share private information without realizing"...
...but -- as is the case with their App Store restrictions that sometimes are reasonable but almost always are not -- the truth is their implied concerns are selfish: "what if a family only buys one iPad for their two or even three kids and we lose 10% of our hardware revenue" or "what if some college roommates declare themselves a family and start sharing purchases of movies and books" or "what if kids in high school (aka, 13+) can still agree to screen time limits they can't change and then don't spend as much time engaged with their phone".
It isn't just that Apple has merely not implemented some of the stuff in this article or doesn't understand what people want: instead, as their business model (like almost all big tech business models) is inherently extractive and even a bit exploitative, their need to optimize for profit is a tradeoff against what people want, so they go out of their way (in ways that are sometimes ridiculous, such as how payments work for family sharing) to make some of these use cases so broken that it forces and/or misleads their customers into spending more (and sometimes a lot more) money to work around the otherwise-arbitrary limitations.
The potential for creepiness and abuse in the example use cases given is too damn high. At Apple scale, a single case of an insane stalker misusing this technology is image destroying - see some of the PR debacles they’ve been facing lately with AirTags.
These sort of things are exactly what hand-rolled setups à la OpenClaude are great for- the potential for insane privacy disaster is still there, but in that case you have no one to blame but yourself.
Large tech companies aren’t going to take that heat for features that aren’t really monetizable.
I’m the founder of Life360. We have a 100m users by exploiting exactly this. Our app is designed specifically for your close family group vs Apple which has a single user focus.
It’s very hard to do both things well and at Apple scale it’s nearly impossible.
This is what enabled us to win despite FindMy being launched a few years after us.
As a shameless plug I’m building a family AI team as a startup within our larger 600 person org.
This requires integration of various systems, apps and services that just isn't possible until Apple really restructures the entire organisation and ways of working. Many things in Apple's first party ecosystem feel developed by teams completely unaware of other team's products.
There's two layers to this as well. The layer they handle reasonably well is integration between Apple products owned by the same person (less so shared products like Apple TV and HomePods), what they do terribly is dealing with the fact most people don't exclusively interact with people who exclusively use Apple products. God forbid, some of us might even use non-Apple products ourselves.
That means that you've got a bunch of really neat features built into the operating system which in practice you can only use one time it would be useful in twenty because the other people you want to use them with aren't using an iPhone. I'm thinking here of things like Airdrop only working between Apple devices, or the support for sharing audio from your phone/TV with someone else who's also got a pair of Bluetooth headphones only working if those headphones have an Apple logo on them.
Welcome to a large company. In my previous stint as an analyst, we'd be doing a consulting day with some group and a topic would come up and we'd be: "Um. You do know so-and-so in such-and-such a group is working on exactly this issue."
> Surface things on Apple TV that match what we actually watch, not what the recommendation engine wants us to try.
That's not a trivial thing to build. By what criteria should a show match what you've already seen if you watched shrinking and below decks and silo this past month?
Things with boats? Jason Siegel? Post apocalyptic stuff?
It requires a shit tonne of context and also has a fucktonne of bad outcomes that people accept with chatGPT but not apple products.
> Know that my son has a test on Thursday and hasn’t opened the revision material since Monday. A gentle nudge, not a surveillance report.
That requires two bits of context that are hard to find:
1) that there is an exam. Ideally it'll be in the calendar, but who's exam is it actually? is it the creator, the invitee or owner of the calendar's exam
2) That certain actions on the web == revision. THat requires knowing what the exam is about, what the offical study material is, and more importantly cross account access to web history.
> Track our medication schedule and ping people (or me, if someone misses a window) without turning into a clinical monitoring tool.
How do you nonintrusive test that medication has been taken? How do you know its the right pills? How do you upload the prescription to do that? how do you handle power of attorney? How do you not get sued when people rely on it?
> Coordinate pickup times, grocery lists, meal plans–the sort of mundane family logistics that currently live in a group chat and three different apps.
Again sharing of rawe data to model to build a context. How do you screen for privacy? how do you make sure that talking about private stuff (like love interest etc) doesn't leak into other contexts?
> Better family e-mail, better event handling, better package tracking across household members.
Define better.
Look as someone who worked on AR/AI assistant glasses, its trivial to make something like that which works 80% of the time. You can't make it secure though, because it requires removing a bunch of privacy barriers that stop fraud and stuff leaking to third parties.
Its a really hard problem to crack to both be accurate, private and secure. You can pick one, at best.
This all sounds nice, but I’m not sure how you track your kids’ medication usage or study habits or viewing habits via technology without being hyper-intrusive. And that’s assuming everyone uses all Apple devices for everything.
I’m also not sure how any of this can happen given that Apple seems intent on making their apps harder to use and less interested in the users’ preferences over time. They are running away from elegant solutions and simple just-works software.
hm yeah. it could be nice for apple to have a list of shortcuts that'd actually be useful based on real activity. but getting all the info needed is hard.
/agree (and wondering why this angle of criticism isn't being constantly brought into all discussions of the Siri fail)
Siri isn't lame because of the lack of frontier LLM. Siri is a massive failure of simply coding it to do obvious things, which is a UX failure, which is ironic given Apple's reputation as the UX leaders. I guess it is a low bar considering the competition of MS and Goog.
Over the last 6 years, I have fully bought into the ecosystem and it constantly dissapoints me. I invite the UX team to spend a few days watching me struggle with their fragmented ecosystem. But I warn them to not let me get started on AppleTV (the streaming app), where the enshitification takes the crown over all of their competitors. They seem to have jumped the shark past the give the consumer great value stage.
As a Hongkonger, native in Cantonese (zh-hk/yue) and fluent in English (en) and work in Singapore (en-sg & zh-sg), I have a even more mundane use case that Siri is not clever enough to support.
I want my location to be in Singapore (Singapore SIM/Card etc) I want my UI to be in English. I want my Siri speaks Cantonese to me.
For reason on Apple knows why, I have to use English (Singapore) as my UI and Siri language or Apple Intelligence will not turn on. As if the engineer who develop Siri/Apple Intelligence have never think about the needs of those who speaks more than one language.
Honestly, this is a complaint of mine with a lot of software. I'm Hungarian and live in Hungary. The amount I have to struggle to have British English language, American keyboard layout, and Hungarian time in Windows is insane.
You mean there are languages that are not English and countries that are not US?? News to big tech!
(/s)
It's pretty funny when you consider how many top people in SV are Chinese, Indian, or Russian and speak English as a second or third language.
Me, driving, using Apple Maps for navigation: "Hey Siri, what's my ETA?"
Siri: ... "Here's what I found on the web for "what is my ETA'"
From outside I don't know the cause but contrary to their normal reputation for better integration between parts of their products it seems like Siri is in some organizational way fundamentally broken.
When I was a respiratory therapist I was working a code in an ER for a motorcyclist crash, we were doing CPR and pushing meds and the MD uses Vocera, the digital hospital voice assistance dohicky we all wore on our collars to "call the X-Ray tech" and the stupid thing bleeps back in it's robot voice, "CALLING: PIZZA TRUCK."
It was one of the most surreal moments of my career. It was an emergency and the team was dialed in to saving this guy and the entire moment was just super "wtf!!" We all looked at each other and nobody really did anything. We all already hated Vocera with the fire of 10,000 suns and that dumbass moment just was the ultimate example of how dumb it was. The MD just moved on and barked at the ER tech to go get x-ray and to this day I am surprised he didn't rip the vocera off his collar and throw it across the room or put it on the ground and stomp on it.
Vocera was always a buggy piece of crap that was the miserable bane of our existence. After the code (the guy didn't make it) on of the nurses was smoking outside on the benches and was like "I didn't even know we had a pizza truck."
Google assistant isn't much better. In fact it got worse once they replaced it with gemini. I used to be able to say "hey Google turn lights off" and it'd connect to my Google home and turn lights off. Now it's usually "I can't do that" or "searching for turn lights off." once it even helpfully started playing Ellie Goulding's "Lights" at double speed.
Thanks technology.
Mine can't "silence alarm" anymore, because it declares that there are no alarms currently ringing. That's not even a language interpretation issue, it's simply broken.
It's so bad. This happens to me on a weekly basis:
"Get directions to <restaurant in the city I live>"
"Getting directions to <restaurant with same name 800 miles away>"
I never understood why they haven't had a team implementing simple features like that for over a decade. It's not even AI. Have a dashboard of the most commonly tried things every day, and develop the features.
Am i stupid, or did the thing actually used to work 10+ years ago??
I find the idea of IRL multi-user UX really interesting. So much of modern computing is built around a 1-to-1 model of users and devices. And then multi-player, collaboration features are built on top of that. Sometimes they’re quite slick (ex. figma) and sometimes they’re pretty clunky (ex. apple family sharing stuff).
But what’s really lacking is a model for multiple people sharing a single computing experience in real life. Companion mode in Google Meet or Spotify Jam are two attempts but both still force you through the one user, one device path.
Two adults sitting in a car shouldn’t have to constantly think “whose phone is this?” connected to CarPlay. Especially when they’re part of the same Apple “family” and on a Spotify family plan.
Two people seamlessly interacting with one “system” would break all sorts of auth and other assumptions, but it seems worth figuring out as computing becomes more and more prevalent in every facet of life.
There’s an opportunity to also build “computing homes”. Say that a number of devices are within a household, some mobile and some desktop.
Imagine harnessing the desktop devices within the home for a family-focused OpenClaw, Xgrid-style, rather than offloading to some server far away that is unaware of the general context of a household.
For the context of a prototypical nuclear family unit it all seems pretty straightforward, but once you introduce extended families, blended families, nannies, or abusive parents or partners you suddenly get a lot of complications and a level of granularity with permissions that would get pretty intricate.
For the CarPlay use case at least some kind of ad hoc “party” entity that all the devices flow into might be interesting. I’m thinking about how with the original StarCraft game one disc had a license for up to 8 instances of the game to play via LAN so you could have a single license key allow a whole LAN party. Some system like that where the auth flows through a “primary” account but everyone in the “party” contributes their own entitlements to it and can provide input.
Funny, I was just sort of spec'ing this out to myself yesterday.
I'd consider building the system out as an MCP server rather than trying to bundle the agent with it. I had an AI build something out that is just a tasklist that works the way I think about tasks, which I've been using both personally and professionally. It's an MCP server only, which I can expose on the internet with OAuth. It has been surprisingly fun to use, because the AI can spontaneously interact with the information in ways I didn't program in. I have a recurring task with an AI to give me a dump of my current top tasks once a day to my phone.
Professionally, I'm working between a lot of different teams with their own Jira boards and I needed something to use myself to organize and prioritize tasks that can't be prioritized within one place in Jira. With the Atlassian MCP server hooked up to the same agent as my code it is fairly trivial to attach a Jira bug to a task and then prompt the AI to do whatever to the bug attached to this task. I put an explicit field for it in to the task definition but you don't even really need that, just putting the bug in the description is all that was really necessary.
The point I am trying to make here is, you don't even really have to "design" a product at this point. You just need to expose things to the AI so that when the user makes some vague statement about what they want to do it can convert that into concrete calls. The AI and the user will do things with it that you didn't even think of, and users can just add things by saying things in the descriptions of various tasks. I've mentioned how even if AI were to freeze today for the next 10 years we'd still be learning how to use AI and getting more out of it... this is I think a still under-explored application space.
I agree - this isn’t complicated. It seems to me that the issue arises from Apple’s “what-if-ism” - what if you get divorced, what if one of the kids grows up and stops speaking to you, what if the dog dies etc etc, a million different versions of which will get them bad press: “Apple told me to go and pick up my dead child’s cancer medication!” Hence it falls into the Steve Jobs “we say NO to a thousand good ideas before we say yes to one”.
And also living without it doesn’t really affect Apple’s bottom line. But yeah I wish I had an AI assistant in my iPhone which would text back my parents with what I’m doing today and reply to their needless updates I get since buying them smartphones.
Siri in general seems to be, for me at least, superfluous. The answer to most questions I ask is “I don’t know” or “I didn’t catch that” or “I can’t”. AI in general is still causing me major question marks, especially where it comes to the valuations right now on the stock market. This morning I was watching Bloomberg at the European open and noticed one of my stocks wasn’t really moving as usual, and the presenter then announced that the Nordic markets were closed today because of the Ascension Day public holiday. So I googled “is the Danish stock market open today?” and naturally Google’s AI was the top link, proudly announcing “Yes! The Danish market is open today, here are the hours yadda yadda”. I scrolled down and found the actual link to the market and it showed that, of course, the market is closed, it’s ascension day. So I asked the Google AI - “are you sure about that?” and it thought again and found out that “no, the Danish stock market is closed today. I apologise for telling you it was open without checking”. Honest to god this is the tech that’s putting Nvidia at a $5.5Trilion valuation and keeping the market at all time highs right now? A technology that makes even Google worse?
AI is really bad at current events and the concept of "now." I have a Claude project for bouncing questions off about my daughter (<1yo) and I have her date of birth in it, with the intention that new chats would be able to infer her age.
It will get it right most of the times, but sometimes it puts her as wildly younger than she is, and once it even said she wasn't born yet so I should prepare for xyz.
The AI is one thing. But it's also about conversational assistants generally being largely superfluous for a lot of people including myself. I use the Alexa in my bedroom as an alarm clock but I'll have a backup for anything early and critical. I started using the Alexa in my kitchen as a timer mostly because I find the timer on my new range a bit clunky to operate. I'd actually rather use something with a visible countdown.
Siri is occasionally useful in the car if I'm by myself but mostly in the better than nothing sense.
I think it's fair to say that a technology Amazon was, at one point, going to fill a building in downtown Boston to further develop has been extremely underwhelming.
> It seems to me that the issue arises from Apple’s “what-if-ism”... [divorce, estrangement, grief].
I don't think it is these PR issues that cause Apple such consternation, partly as -- even as someone who lives a personal life filled with such corner cases -- I just don't think those are complex issues to solve, but mostly as Apple never seems to put much thought into corner cases like this anywhere else in their business, even when it doesn't butt up against the skewed demographics of software developers (such as how Cydia had much better handling of independent developers and joint projects than Apple's App Store still does 15 years later, and the what ifs were often fascinating to handle).
In reality, the "what ifs" that Apple gets stuck on are lower level, and can even sometimes be spun in a sympathetic light: "what if a domestic abuser manages to automate so much of your software that they essentially have persistent spyware on your device" or "what if a user scripts something to the point where their phone doesn't work quite right and constantly needs tech support" or "what if people share so much of their content with someone else that they share private information without realizing"...
...but -- as is the case with their App Store restrictions that sometimes are reasonable but almost always are not -- the truth is their implied concerns are selfish: "what if a family only buys one iPad for their two or even three kids and we lose 10% of our hardware revenue" or "what if some college roommates declare themselves a family and start sharing purchases of movies and books" or "what if kids in high school (aka, 13+) can still agree to screen time limits they can't change and then don't spend as much time engaged with their phone".
It isn't just that Apple has merely not implemented some of the stuff in this article or doesn't understand what people want: instead, as their business model (like almost all big tech business models) is inherently extractive and even a bit exploitative, their need to optimize for profit is a tradeoff against what people want, so they go out of their way (in ways that are sometimes ridiculous, such as how payments work for family sharing) to make some of these use cases so broken that it forces and/or misleads their customers into spending more (and sometimes a lot more) money to work around the otherwise-arbitrary limitations.
The potential for creepiness and abuse in the example use cases given is too damn high. At Apple scale, a single case of an insane stalker misusing this technology is image destroying - see some of the PR debacles they’ve been facing lately with AirTags.
These sort of things are exactly what hand-rolled setups à la OpenClaude are great for- the potential for insane privacy disaster is still there, but in that case you have no one to blame but yourself.
Large tech companies aren’t going to take that heat for features that aren’t really monetizable.
I’m the founder of Life360. We have a 100m users by exploiting exactly this. Our app is designed specifically for your close family group vs Apple which has a single user focus.
It’s very hard to do both things well and at Apple scale it’s nearly impossible.
This is what enabled us to win despite FindMy being launched a few years after us.
As a shameless plug I’m building a family AI team as a startup within our larger 600 person org.
https://chrishulls.medium.com/life360-is-building-a-family-a...
This requires integration of various systems, apps and services that just isn't possible until Apple really restructures the entire organisation and ways of working. Many things in Apple's first party ecosystem feel developed by teams completely unaware of other team's products.
There's two layers to this as well. The layer they handle reasonably well is integration between Apple products owned by the same person (less so shared products like Apple TV and HomePods), what they do terribly is dealing with the fact most people don't exclusively interact with people who exclusively use Apple products. God forbid, some of us might even use non-Apple products ourselves.
That means that you've got a bunch of really neat features built into the operating system which in practice you can only use one time it would be useful in twenty because the other people you want to use them with aren't using an iPhone. I'm thinking here of things like Airdrop only working between Apple devices, or the support for sharing audio from your phone/TV with someone else who's also got a pair of Bluetooth headphones only working if those headphones have an Apple logo on them.
Welcome to a large company. In my previous stint as an analyst, we'd be doing a consulting day with some group and a topic would come up and we'd be: "Um. You do know so-and-so in such-and-such a group is working on exactly this issue."
> Surface things on Apple TV that match what we actually watch, not what the recommendation engine wants us to try.
That's not a trivial thing to build. By what criteria should a show match what you've already seen if you watched shrinking and below decks and silo this past month?
Things with boats? Jason Siegel? Post apocalyptic stuff?
I have an app called Trakt that I use to track shows and movies I watch and get reminders when there's a new episode of a show I follow.
It has a recommendation engine that is based on my watch history. It's not perfect. But it usually is helpful.
If this small indie team can build one, I'm sure apple could spin one up if they so chose. They just choose not to, because they have another agenda.
> And none of it requires SOTA models,
I mean thats not actually true
It requires a shit tonne of context and also has a fucktonne of bad outcomes that people accept with chatGPT but not apple products.
> Know that my son has a test on Thursday and hasn’t opened the revision material since Monday. A gentle nudge, not a surveillance report.
That requires two bits of context that are hard to find:
1) that there is an exam. Ideally it'll be in the calendar, but who's exam is it actually? is it the creator, the invitee or owner of the calendar's exam
2) That certain actions on the web == revision. THat requires knowing what the exam is about, what the offical study material is, and more importantly cross account access to web history.
> Track our medication schedule and ping people (or me, if someone misses a window) without turning into a clinical monitoring tool.
How do you nonintrusive test that medication has been taken? How do you know its the right pills? How do you upload the prescription to do that? how do you handle power of attorney? How do you not get sued when people rely on it?
> Coordinate pickup times, grocery lists, meal plans–the sort of mundane family logistics that currently live in a group chat and three different apps.
Again sharing of rawe data to model to build a context. How do you screen for privacy? how do you make sure that talking about private stuff (like love interest etc) doesn't leak into other contexts?
> Better family e-mail, better event handling, better package tracking across household members.
Define better.
Look as someone who worked on AR/AI assistant glasses, its trivial to make something like that which works 80% of the time. You can't make it secure though, because it requires removing a bunch of privacy barriers that stop fraud and stuff leaking to third parties.
Its a really hard problem to crack to both be accurate, private and secure. You can pick one, at best.
Very true. The people claiming this is a simple problem haven't thought it through.
https://xkcd.com/1425/
Is Apple even able to build software that works these days? iOS has been decaying update after update, MacOS is not getting any better either.
This all sounds nice, but I’m not sure how you track your kids’ medication usage or study habits or viewing habits via technology without being hyper-intrusive. And that’s assuming everyone uses all Apple devices for everything.
I’m also not sure how any of this can happen given that Apple seems intent on making their apps harder to use and less interested in the users’ preferences over time. They are running away from elegant solutions and simple just-works software.
hm yeah. it could be nice for apple to have a list of shortcuts that'd actually be useful based on real activity. but getting all the info needed is hard.
/agree (and wondering why this angle of criticism isn't being constantly brought into all discussions of the Siri fail)
Siri isn't lame because of the lack of frontier LLM. Siri is a massive failure of simply coding it to do obvious things, which is a UX failure, which is ironic given Apple's reputation as the UX leaders. I guess it is a low bar considering the competition of MS and Goog.
Over the last 6 years, I have fully bought into the ecosystem and it constantly dissapoints me. I invite the UX team to spend a few days watching me struggle with their fragmented ecosystem. But I warn them to not let me get started on AppleTV (the streaming app), where the enshitification takes the crown over all of their competitors. They seem to have jumped the shark past the give the consumer great value stage.
Apple UX has been swirling around the toilet bowl for over a decade now. It would be sad if it weren't something they've done on purpose.
Why should Apple build this?
They should just provide the hardware.
They are also not allowing anyone to build it. Just added a paragraph on that.