I’d give my left nut for a Google Home Mini powered by ChatGPT, but the article is suggesting this device will have a touch screen interface so it’s probably more like the Rabbit R1.
Knowing Ive, it’ll be thinner than anybody asked for, have mediocre battery life, and have a charging port on the bottom so you can’t use it while it’s charging because it’s flipped over.
Too many GitHub repositories can integrate GPT into smart speakers.
ChatGPT smart home assistant seems too cheap for a left nut, no?
At this point they're mostly decorative anyway.
Whatever it will come of this, it will be unapologetic. Just that. Unapologetically unapologetic!
if you would do all that, then search on how to build one. folks have been doing so since last year.
ChatGPT voice assistant is far too obviously useful.
How to pump up the value of a company? Hire as many popular dudes/gals and get them on your board or in a press release.
It’s what the leadership at Theranos did.
The similarity with theranos isn't really there even if we ignore the fraud from theranos.
Theranos's board members are a bunch of army generals with no technical experience.
Ive is an expert in building consumer devices...and that is what he is doing right now with OpenAI.
However, having a bunch of popular influential people working in the same team isn't exactly a recipe for success. But comparing to theranos is a bit unfair.
No comment on whether the conclusion is merited, but the parallels are closer than you're saying.
> Theranos's board members are a bunch of army generals with no technical experience.
OpenAI's board includes Retired U.S. Army General Paul M. Nakasone.
> Ive is an expert in building consumer devices...and that is what he is doing right now with OpenAI.
Surely, Theranos didn't hire a board of highly qualified doctors and medical professionals?
https://fortune.com/2016/04/07/theranos-adds-startlingly-wel...
In both cases I think the name and the press release is more valuable than the work being done by these famous names. That doesn't mean it's fraud, but it's a gross marketing tactic that sure looks similar to the behavior of fraudsters.
The majority of the OpenAI board members are tech entrepreneurs/tech execs.
Theranos' weren't majority of biotech.
This is a pointless attempt at a hot take made only because AI is the latest thing HN luddites like to dump on.
Theranos never shipped a real product. OpenAI has, and has millions of direct active users plus millions more indirect active users via tech companies building products on top of their API.
And the AI pin company- Humane.
I don’t really get why I’d want a separate device other than a a phone / watch / headphones.
Surly anything AI can do it can do via one of these.
If training data is the constraint for LLMs, and scraping from web and books is exhausted, what is a new source that you could tap into to leave Meta, Grok, Anthropic behind…?
TikTok-AI
apps don’t have direct access to BLE, NFC, microphone, camera, radio, or even processing power.
even Apple built their own smart speaker because an app was too restrictive, and they own the platform!
but I largely agree with you. if they want me to walk around with it, it’s a tough sell.
I reckon those platforms will open up (to AI at least).
iPhones didn't even have apps to begin with.
conversely, you might get a device that replaces all those and also does AI.
You might but that's massive cliff to scale. Maybe OpenAI has money to do that but I highly doubt that.
On the other hand, they could do OpenAI Android Phone which is cheaper but still requires a ton of cash. I also haven't met many people bullish on OpenAI that they would buy a phone around it.
I am curious to how this will play out, as far as I know, he's known for prioritizing design over functionality and even willing to sacrifice it. I am still a fan of him though.
It will probably fail.
It's common for visions to clash. Then both of them are hugely influential and have fuck you money. It is too easy to either of them to walk out on the deal.
Is he the guy behind the Apple Mouse?
I don't know if there was any reason they couldn't put the charging port on the front, but it's not particularly problematic in real world usage because you almost never have to charge it and it takes 15 minutes. I think the flatness is a trade off with the ability to have gesture controls on the surface, which I don't prefer compared to better ergonomics at my desk but Apple Mouse is actually incredible for using laying on the couch or in bed. Also good for travel and packing.
You have to stop work for 15 minutes to charge, but it isn't a full charge, so you need to remember to plug it in overnight. Meanwhile, with a well-designed mouse, I can just plug it in, relive the experience of a wired mouse for a few hours, and end up with a fully charged mouse.
Apple is trying to reduce the number of required connected wires at any given time. Obviously you have to recharge at some point, but another way to minimize it is to refuse to operate when plugged in. That's all Apple did - it was deliberate, not some "horrible design mistake".
You're welcome to disagree with the premise that fewer wires is better. I personally like their opinions but definitely not for everyone.
"deliberate" and "horrible design mistake" aren't mutually exclusive (see: touchbar). I don't think anyone's suggesting Apple didn't recognise the conflict with charging and usage until after they'd made it.
Now we've reached the conclusion of this discussion with a good old "well that's just like, your opinion, man" I would like to add that the magic mouse is not as popular as their other peripherals. In fact, at least in the office I work in, people would rather use a £5 Amazon special than one of the spare Magic Mice laying around.
yeah and i have a backup wired mouse for when the magic mouse is too frustrating. I just meant to clarify that design is subjective and Apple has always been on the more pretentious end of that subjective spectrum. People seem to respond (like the sibling comment) as though Apple deliberately wanted users to feel patronized. My whole thing is that Apple's been doing that for years (making decisions for the benefit of the average user at the expense of the power user) and there's really no need to complain about it (at least not like it's a personal attack).
the touch bar is not an optional peripheral so I can understand a bit more resentment there. I do however at least see where they were going with it (fn keys are too far from the home keys to be useful, few people use them anymore, we want to integrate touch without smudging screens and requiring awkward wrist angles). They happened to be wrong about most of that in a more objective way, but people act as though it's a decision made with the sole purpose to annoy people, or perhaps a the elites at Apple have become out of touch.
It's the sort of tech that would work much better as "simple" per-key displays you can configure. I imagine in their minds, it wouldn't be too dissimilar from that in the future with the right haptics and maybe some programmatic tactile feedback (for which the tech just isn't there yet).
It is user hostile and extremely patronizing. I agree with parent: my Logitech wireless mouse is used wirelessly 99% of the time, but it’s really nice to be able to use it in wired mode when I forget to charge it.
Ah ok, so you mean it would be a horrible design mistake to choose Apple products?
He played a significant role in the design, yes.
Only since about the hockey puck mouse, the earlier Lisa, Macintosh and ADB mice weren't his design.
The hockey puck was the one that slowly rotated in your hand if you clicked, creating weird “why is mouse moving diagonally” problems.
Also, you had to cover it with a pillow if you wanted to print via the Mac’s IR port.
From Wikipedia
> Working closely with Jobs during their tenure together at Apple, Ive played a vital role in the designs of the iMac, Power Mac G4 Cube, iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBook, and the user interface of Apple's mobile operating system iOS, among other products. He was responsible for the design of major architectural projects including Apple Park and Apple Stores.
Was Jobs the counterweight to this, to keep it in check?
> Was Jobs the counterweight to this, to keep it in check?
This is often said.
Yes, it seems so.
Then when Jobs passed away Ive was left to do his own thing. This led to butterfly keyboard problem, magsafe being removed, less ports, and lots of other things.
Ignoring what the customer wants has always been Apple’s thing, but it can be taken too far. Steve Jobs was a huge fan of magsafe.
Ive fascinated me early during iPhone and Apple Watch. I loved those marketing videos.
His impact on Apple Park has immortalized him for some number of centuries until it is destroyed by earthquake.
He's specifically mentioning less social friction than iPhone, so I assume not a smartphone but a wearable. Glasses or some Star Trek/Rabbit-like button? I wouldn't mind something that works. I still want a sleek and functional low latency cellular+wifi AI companion. Glasses would help because you could ask about what you see. I assume it'll also use similar technology as OpenAI Advanced Voice Mode.
> not a smartphone but a wearable. Glasses or some Star Trek/Rabbit-like button?
Form factors that haven't been explored yet: earrings, broaches, lapel pins (that don't look like microwaves) and belt buckles.
A broach was explored by humane (at pretty unanimously bad reviews)
Actual article:
Jony Ive's Life After Apple and His LoveFrom Design Business
This tracks. Find someone who can find a way to take a natural idea and make it impossibly uncomfortable to use. He’s a classical designer stuck in a troll’s shell.
I'm not a fan of his most recent work for Apple, but let's not discount his past brilliance. Hopefully he can get his "mojo" back. Although I'm bearish on "AI", so really don't care about this new partnership.
this is incredibly negative but lacks examples, could you back your statements up with evidence or ease off the hyperbole? the middle ground is the worst
I was in a bad state of mind when I posted. I would delete this if I could.
<3
that’s an interesting excuse as it only happened 3 hours ago
I'm imagining something like a Rabbit, but shaped like a giant thin Chiclet, 5 cm on a side, with no display or visible buttons. Touch it and it plays a tone, then you speak to it and it speaks back.
[dead]
Please, create a new phone. Even if it is worse in most things compared to iphone and android, I will use it. If it just runs Linux I will buy many for my whole family.
Are you seriously expecting a Linux phone from Sam Altman and Johnny Ive?
I'm not expecting them to use iOS. Are you seriously expecting Sam Altman and Johnny Ive to create an OS from zero? And succeed? That's an "impressive" reasoning.
I don’t particularly see the connection between Ive, OpenAI, and a new phone but are you maybe just looking for something like a PinePhone?
I don’t use one but I have followed the company for some time due to their low cost laptops that run Linux (PineBook, PineBook Pro).
https://pine64.org/devices/pinephone/
Edit: oh, I see. I automatically assumed the device referenced in the article would be something like those smart home speakers that one can talk to.
> I don’t particularly see the connection between Ive, OpenAI, and a new phone
Smartphones are the most used device nowadays. A home assistant would not be used most of the times by many that don't stay at home most of the day. If OpenAI wants to get into hardware market it would make sense to enter the biggest market available. Microsoft won't try a third attempt at creating Windows Mobile but it makes sense for them to try again through OpenAI.
This is all true. My naïveté is showing; I assumed if they were developing a phone they’d just say so outright. I guess I don’t understand what benefits being vague about the kind of device gets them.