From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On Jan 12, 2026 at 6:22:02rC>PM EST, "Maria Sophia" <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

*Apple teams up with Google Gemini for AI-powered Siri*
<https://lite.cnn.com/2026/01/12/tech/apple-google-gemini-siri>

Because it does not cost Apple anything. Apple is paying Google $1 billion per year to use Gemini, but Google is paying Apple $20 billion per year to make Google the default search engine on all Apple products.

So Apple gets free (and quite good by all reports) AI AND does not have to spend billions creating their own. That's known as "Smart Business".

While I'm sure you are dying to spin this as "Apple is in trouble", the facts are:

"Apple is expected to post iPhone sales growth at around 11% year-over-year when it reports earnings for the December quarter later this month, according to analyst estimates compiled by FactSet. The companyrCOs total quarterly profits are expected to grow by nearly 8% to more than $39 billion."

AGAIN, from the link YOU provided.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

It's obvious isn't it? Siri is shit and has been almost from Day 1. Apple
have been incapable of making something that compares well with the competition.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

It's obvious isn't it? Siri is shit and has been almost from Day 1. Apple have been incapable of making something that compares well with the competition.

Pretty much.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Tyrone wrote:

On Jan 12, 2026 at 6:22:02rC>PM EST, "Maria Sophia" <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

*Apple teams up with Google Gemini for AI-powered Siri*
<https://lite.cnn.com/2026/01/12/tech/apple-google-gemini-siri>

Because it does not cost Apple anything. Apple is paying Google $1 billion per
year to use Gemini, but Google is paying Apple $20 billion per year to make Google the default search engine on all Apple products.

So Apple gets free (and quite good by all reports) AI AND does not have to spend billions creating their own. That's known as "Smart Business".

While I'm sure you are dying to spin this as "Apple is in trouble", the facts are:

"Apple is expected to post iPhone sales growth at around 11% year-over-year when it reports earnings for the December quarter later this month, according to analyst estimates compiled by FactSet. The companyrCOs total quarterly profits are expected to grow by nearly 8% to more than $39 billion."

AGAIN, from the link YOU provided.

Hi Tyrone,

Thank you for taking a stab at why Apple recently chose Gemini for Siri.

To be clear, the question in this thread is not about Apple's quarterly earnings or Google's search deal. Those are business issues. The question
was asking to discuss why Apple chose Gemini specifically to power Siri.

If we understand why Apple makes the choices it makes, it helps us to understand the Apple ecosystem better, so it's an apropos dialogue to have.

The technical reason matters because Apple has spent years promoting its
own on device machine-learning stack, its own neural engines and let's not forget Apple has brilliantly endlessly promoted its own privacy messaging.

In general, Google products aren't specifically known for privacy.
So the question is important as to why Apple chose this Google product.

As Chris astutely noted separately, by Apple choosing an external model, we
can assume it maybe likely means that Apple's internal models were not sufficient for the capabilities Apple has long wanted Siri to provide.

Using Gemini might not be just "smart business" but perhaps it can imply a technical admission that Apple needed a large-scale general-purpose model
that it did not have ready in a timely manner sufficient for production.

That is the part worth examining.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Chris wrote:

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

It's obvious isn't it? Siri is shit and has been almost from Day 1. Apple have been incapable of making something that compares well with the competition.

Hi Chris,

That's a refreshingly non-partisan view of Apple's motives which I welcome
as you are likely correct that Gemini is better than Siri would be in the
time frame Apple needs to be able to advertise they too have native AI.

My main worry, if I can voice my personal feelings aloud, of Apple choosing
to use Google services is Google isn't known for caring about our privacy.

However, perhaps even more important of a concern I have is why Google?

Apple possibly could have partnered with OpenAI, with Microsoft's Copilot models, with Anthropic's Claude, or even with Meta's Llama family. All of
those are viable large-scale LLMs. Apple reportedly held discussions with several of them based on news reports we've been discussing for a while.

So the interesting question is why Google was the one Apple selected.

Apple has spent years promoting on-device privacy, yet they chose the
vendor with perhaps the weakest privacy reputation. That suggests the
decision may have been driven by technical capability and deployment scale,
and not marketing, which, in a way, is a refreshing viewpoint, if true.

Why was Google a better fit than OpenAI, Microsoft, or Anthropic?
That is a key component that I think may be worth understanding.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2026-01-13 07:39:17 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

It's obvious isn't it? Siri is shit and has been almost from Day 1. Apple
have been incapable of making something that compares well with the
competition.

Pretty much.

*ALL* silly "artificial intelligence", "digital assistants", and
idiotic "smart" things are shit and have been from day 1 ... they're
*ALL* useless, gimmicky garbage. It's really just a con by the tech
companies to sell yet another "new" version of devices to people
foolish enough to part with their money. Personally, I don't know of
anyone at all who uses the garbage on any of their devices.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2026-01-13 13:15, Your Name wrote:

On 2026-01-13 07:39:17 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

It's obvious isn't it? Siri is shit and has been almost from Day 1.
Apple
have been incapable of making something that compares well with the
competition.

Pretty much.

*ALL* silly "artificial intelligence", "digital assistants", and idiotic "smart" things are shit and have been from day 1 ... they're *ALL*
useless, gimmicky garbage. It's really just a con by the tech companies
to sell yet another "new" version of devices to people foolish enough to part with their money. Personally, I don't know of anyone at all who
uses the garbage on any of their devices.

Do you realize how ignorant you sound.

Replace "artificial intelligence" with pretty much any other computer advancement, and you'll understand:

'*ALL* silly "voice recognition systems" are shit and have been from day
1 ... they're *ALL* useless, gimmicky garbage. It's really just a con by
the tech companies to sell yet another "new" version of devices to
people foolish enough to part with their money. Personally, I don't know
of anyone at all who uses the garbage on any of their devices.'

''*ALL* silly "text recognition systems (in images)" are shit and have
been from day 1 ... they're *ALL* useless, gimmicky garbage. It's really
just a con by the tech companies to sell yet another "new" version of
devices to people foolish enough to part with their money. Personally, I
don't know of anyone at all who uses the garbage on any of their devices.'

Etc.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:18:29 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

While I'm sure you are dying to spin this as "Apple is in trouble",
the facts are:

"Apple is expected to post iPhone sales growth at around 11%
year-over-year when it reports earnings for the December quarter
later this month, according to analyst estimates compiled by
FactSet. The companyrCOs total quarterly profits are expected to grow
by nearly 8% to more than $39 billion."

Nothing in there about Macintosh success, though. Apple is strictly an Iphone/Ipad company at this point; Mac sales, if they are bringing in
any profit at all, are a drop in the bucket by comparison.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2026-01-13 17:09, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:18:29 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

While I'm sure you are dying to spin this as "Apple is in trouble",
the facts are:

"Apple is expected to post iPhone sales growth at around 11%
year-over-year when it reports earnings for the December quarter
later this month, according to analyst estimates compiled by
FactSet. The companyrCOs total quarterly profits are expected to grow
by nearly 8% to more than $39 billion."

Nothing in there about Macintosh success, though. Apple is strictly an Iphone/Ipad company at this point; Mac sales, if they are bringing in
any profit at all, are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

As usual, you have no clue.

Does the iPhone bring in a lot more than the Mac? Sure.

But 12% of the revenues generated from iPhone/iPad/Mac taken together is hardly a "drop in the bucket".

The Mac brings in more revenue than the iPad and is up 12% YoY compared
to 2024, which itself was up 2% from 2023.

May I suggest you take a few moments to learn something before you type?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2026-01-14 01:09:27 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:18:29 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

While I'm sure you are dying to spin this as "Apple is in trouble",
the facts are:

"Apple is expected to post iPhone sales growth at around 11%
year-over-year when it reports earnings for the December quarter
later this month, according to analyst estimates compiled by
FactSet. The company's total quarterly profits are expected to grow
by nearly 8% to more than $39 billion."

Nothing in there about Macintosh success, though. Apple is strictly an Iphone/Ipad company at this point; Mac sales, if they are bringing in
any profit at all, are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Not quite. The iPhone and "services" (App Store, Music, TV, iCloud,
etc.) are the big money makers for Apple, but the Mac still makes more
money than the iPad. Almost everything Apple sells makes them profit.

It depends whose figures you want to believe (especially as Apple
doesn't report such things fully), but this is one version and roughly
the same as most others ...

In fiscal year 2025, Apple's revenue by segment is as follows:

- iPad generated $28.02 B in revenue,
representing 6.73% of its total revenue.

- iPhone generated $209.59 B in revenue,
representing 50.36% of its total revenue.

- Mac generated $33.71 B in revenue,
representing 8.1% of its total revenue.

- Service generated $109.16 B in revenue,
representing 26.23% of its total revenue.

- Wearables, Home and Accessories generated $35.69 B in revenue,
representing 8.58% of its total revenue.

<https://bullfincher.io/companies/apple/revenue-by-segment>



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

On 2026-01-13 07:39:17 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

It's obvious isn't it? Siri is shit and has been almost from Day 1. Apple >>> have been incapable of making something that compares well with the
competition.

Pretty much.

*ALL* silly "artificial intelligence", "digital assistants", and
idiotic "smart" things are shit and have been from day 1 ... they're
*ALL* useless, gimmicky garbage. It's really just a con by the tech companies to sell yet another "new" version of devices to people
foolish enough to part with their money. Personally, I don't know of
anyone at all who uses the garbage on any of their devices.

Sorry, but that makes you sound completely out of touch. It may sound like
a relatively recent fad, but it has been around on smart phones for many
years. In particular in managing and sorting photos.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 14.01.26 02:09, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

Nothing in there about Macintosh success, though. Apple is strictly an Iphone/Ipad company at this point; Mac sales, if they are bringing in
any profit at all, are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Bullshit!

X-Posting eliminated.
--
"Roma locuta, causa finita" (Augustinus)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 1/12/2026 6:22 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

*Apple teams up with Google Gemini for AI-powered Siri*
<https://lite.cnn.com/2026/01/12/tech/apple-google-gemini-siri>

Pretty simple really. Why has Apple not invested cloud computing while Microsoft and Amazon have made cloud a successful core piece of their business? Why use third party search engines?

Apple has limited resources. Not so much financial, but technical.
Developing a search or AI engine takes years and different skills than customer support, hardware, apps and operating systems that are Apple's
focus. AI involves massive hardware and human capital investments. Plus,
we do not even know yet if those investments will every meet the hype.
My stock portfolio sure hope AI succeeds!

Why Gemini? Based on what I have read it's a good fit and builds on the existing Google relationship. Privacy concerns may be an issue.

Siri was OK start in its day. But Siri failed to keep up with the
competition and has fallen way behind now. That is, except in Siri's
Apple hardware-specific capabilities baked into the Apple OS. Even that
is far from perfect.

Only time will tell if it was a good decision or not.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2026-01-15 08:21, Tom Elam wrote:

On 1/12/2026 6:22 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

-a *Apple teams up with Google Gemini for AI-powered Siri*
-a <https://lite.cnn.com/2026/01/12/tech/apple-google-gemini-siri>

Pretty simple really. Why has Apple not invested cloud computing while Microsoft and Amazon have made cloud a successful core piece of their business? Why use third party search engines?

And how in the world do you know what Apple has invested in, Liarboy?

Apple has limited resources. Not so much financial, but technical.

LOL!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Tom Elam wrote:

On 1/12/2026 6:22 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

*Apple teams up with Google Gemini for AI-powered Siri*
<https://lite.cnn.com/2026/01/12/tech/apple-google-gemini-siri>

Pretty simple really. Why has Apple not invested cloud computing while Microsoft and Amazon have made cloud a successful core piece of their business? Why use third party search engines?

Apple has limited resources. Not so much financial, but technical. Developing a search or AI engine takes years and different skills than customer support, hardware, apps and operating systems that are Apple's focus. AI involves massive hardware and human capital investments. Plus,
we do not even know yet if those investments will every meet the hype.
My stock portfolio sure hope AI succeeds!

Why Gemini? Based on what I have read it's a good fit and builds on the existing Google relationship. Privacy concerns may be an issue.

Siri was OK start in its day. But Siri failed to keep up with the competition and has fallen way behind now. That is, except in Siri's
Apple hardware-specific capabilities baked into the Apple OS. Even that
is far from perfect.

Only time will tell if it was a good decision or not.

Hi Tom Elam,

Thank you for taking the time to lay out your reasoning. I appreciate the technical perspective you add to the discussion since we're all stating
what we think might have been the reason Apple chose Gemini over others.

Your point about Apple not having the same cloud or AI infrastructure as Microsoft or Google has makes sense, and it helps explain why partnering
with an existing large-scale model like Gemini might make sense to Apple.

I also agree that Siri's hardware-specific strengths are different from the general-purpose AI capabilities that require massive compute resources.

Yet, Google has their flaws, even as Gemini may be a good LLM/AI choice. Particularly around Google's own interpretation of what privacy means.

Hence, it will be interesting to see how Apple balances privacy,
integration, and dependence on Google going forward with Gemini.

Thanks again for your thoughtful explanation, which helps all of us better understand why Apple makes the choices for iOS that Apple makes.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 1/15/2026 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-01-15 08:21, Tom Elam wrote:

On 1/12/2026 6:22 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

-a *Apple teams up with Google Gemini for AI-powered Siri*
-a <https://lite.cnn.com/2026/01/12/tech/apple-google-gemini-siri>

Pretty simple really. Why has Apple not invested cloud computing while
Microsoft and Amazon have made cloud a successful core piece of their
business? Why use third party search engines?

And how in the world do you know what Apple has invested in, Liarboy?

Just look at the products those investments have produced. Well, there
was that whole Apple Auto thing that failed. Miserably. Maybe Siri is
like that too? Which is why Apple is going to partner with Google. Not
all investments pay off.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2026-01-16 04:50, Tom Elam wrote:

On 1/15/2026 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-01-15 08:21, Tom Elam wrote:

On 1/12/2026 6:22 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Q: Why is Apple choosing Google's Gemini to power Siri?
A: ?

-a *Apple teams up with Google Gemini for AI-powered Siri*
-a <https://lite.cnn.com/2026/01/12/tech/apple-google-gemini-siri>

Pretty simple really. Why has Apple not invested cloud computing
while Microsoft and Amazon have made cloud a successful core piece of
their business? Why use third party search engines?

And how in the world do you know what Apple has invested in, Liarboy?

Just look at the products those investments have produced.

Nope. That doesn't work. R&D and investment happen long before products actually emerge.

There is literally no difference between what you're presuming right
now, than presuming before the emergence of the Apple Silicon processors
that they were therefore not investing in their technology.

Well, there
was that whole Apple Auto thing that failed. Miserably. Maybe Siri is
like that too? Which is why Apple is going to partner with Google. Not
all investments pay off.

You don't even see the contradiction, do you?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2