I mean, yeah, if it doesn't work at all nobody will use it. But the big players are spending $1k/mo.+ on AI at this point. That's obviously out of reach for many.
What is the target to write for is the key aspect here. Not sure there is enough on the phone for developers to create new experiences. I fear all of them are going to try to automate everything on the phone for the user. Not sure what value that provides. May be I am overly skeptical , let’s see
Maybe I'm a "simple" user but I honestly can't think of anything I'd need automated on my phone that I haven't already automated myself with shortcuts. It's first and foremost a communication device, and I don't need AI automation to reply to my messages or emails for me, nor do I necessarily want purchases/ordering things automated either.
The personal context/search stuff is nice, but that's first party now so yeah, not much room for new experiences.
Reading the title I had a very different notion of what to expect. The article has something completely different. I was hoping this would be something for indie app devs.
Is this more scraping at the bottom of the barrel?
I get it. So many tech companies built their platforms around people submitting their work for sale. Now that things have cooled down they're desperate. This is exactly like what happened to the music and movie industries.
If they want to make money they must take bigger creative risks. AI is the exact opposite of that because it's trained on what's already been done.
You can get a certain portion of the population to pay $20/mo. but I think it's a very small population who's paying enough to actually cover frontier models in agentic workflows right now.
Either I've fallen in with a unique group of non-techy people willing to pay for an LLM subscription, or you just not giving enough credit to it. I guess time will tell
> Only about 3% of households were paying for AI in February, using the most recent numbers available from the Bank of America Institute, which researches consumer trends based on the bank's customer transactions.
But even among these people I doubt most spring for the $100 plans, let alone are willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per user the way corporate users do.
The personal context/search stuff is nice, but that's first party now so yeah, not much room for new experiences.
This smells more like a get you hooked and then crank the costs.
Not that I'd be any less skeptical of the first option. We've already seen providers reduce quotas and raise prices.
I get it. So many tech companies built their platforms around people submitting their work for sale. Now that things have cooled down they're desperate. This is exactly like what happened to the music and movie industries.
If they want to make money they must take bigger creative risks. AI is the exact opposite of that because it's trained on what's already been done.
Apple: "Did somebody say 'we want cheaper AI'?"
Good luck, but define "cheaper" ? If you have to pay, no individual will pay, just corporations.
Fee with ads is the right fit for most people. But I don't think that describes most Apple customers or developers.
> Only about 3% of households were paying for AI in February, using the most recent numbers available from the Bank of America Institute, which researches consumer trends based on the bank's customer transactions.
But even among these people I doubt most spring for the $100 plans, let alone are willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per user the way corporate users do.