Apple never cared about having the most marketshare outright. It focuses on gaining marketshare on customers with the higher likelihood to give them a profit.
These are all capable devices but they have enough missing capabilities to make them sound like giant on-ramps to me. Gateway devices for people before their next upgrade.
There's a reason why the marketing strategy for smart watches pivoted so heavily to older clientele and became health-centric (Older user = deeper wallet).
They aren't targeted at the Western consumers - they are targeted at the India and ASEAN markets where they act as a gateway for customers who would previously have purchased used Apple products from resellers like Aptronix (India) or FPT Shop (Vietnam) instead of directly from Apple.
They all have one thing in common: better profit margin to their competition, better hardware/Better software/Better integration to Apple ecosystems in comparison to their, well, peers/Competition, with better performance to their competition.
I’m inclined to believe the Macrumors story because Apple did have a great cycle with the 17 and high memory prices affect brands with less pricing power more.
The reality is that you didn't really check whether the two articles are same. The one in the OP is citing Counterpoint Research. The one you linked to cites Omdia. They seem to be two different market research reports.
The reality is that the move is great, it's a very cool and nice stuff, just that it takes bandwidth and space without letting the user know.
A solution:
New AI features are available for use offline, they will make you able to translate offline, get answers, summaries, etc, would you like to download / install them (~4 GB)?
It is going to fix the experience in the UI. It's a significant misstep by Google in its form (probably lazy/hasted/bureaucratic release), but on the move itself, this is actually a very user-friendly initiative from Google.
It's quite unfair in that specific case to say that Google = evil, and when Qwen = good. It's just about informing the user better so the bandwidth and space is not wasted. Giving user choice.
They will fix it eventually, especially after raising the issue.
But shouting here "Google = bad, me uninstall Google, if you use Google Chrome you are an idiot" are not a productive feedback for a product owner there.
> But saying "Google = bad, me uninstall Google, if you use Google Chrome you are an idiot" are not a productive feedback for a product owner there.
I wasn't? I hope that wasn't directed at me since we seem to kind of agree otherwise.
Unfortunately the vast majority of Chrome users wont understand that prompt. Google decided that the Chrome installer should be 4GB, that seems like a large web browser, but is it that crazy compared to anything else? Teams on my Mac is taking 1GB+ just in Applications (not to say I'm terribly happy about that). Chrome installs its own updates and has for a very long time, ensuring we dont have to support super old browser versions, I'm not sure where the line is.
You can try the model here: https://chromeai.org/
-> Press the left edit button to start a new context.
It's free, multi-language, well tested, respecting privacy (no cloud needed), nothing extra to install. Quite nice actually.
Like what iPhones do, and everybody is ok with it. Chrome is not just a browser, it's a Window (ahem) to the web, almost an operating system considering the wide scope.
Average game is 80 GB, Call of Duty 200 GB+, etc
It's a quite oriented title:
Google Chrome silently installs a 4 GB AI model on your device without consent
The same news can be read as:
Amazing, Chrome now includes a fully offline AI so you don't have to send your secrets to ChatGPT
A proper journalist would have found the middle ground, explained that this is by default, can be made optional and to raise the issue to Google as "Cons: this uses bandwidth and user is not aware of it".
Can't say they are wrong, after the latest backdoor, or let's say, undocumented functionality that leaks some data that was pushed in Claude Code few days ago
It's a weird broken import of French (could be because the EU Parliament) is in Brussels so highly French-speaking. It's also still very incoherent, it mixes up billion and trillion, and it mixes up milliard (the French equivalent) with billion. You absolutely do not want ambiguity there when you work professionally as a politician.
deadline supposed to come from delay but it is incorrect use in French.
cabinet is toilet. etc
It's an artificial invented variant, like a kid would invent its own language to speak to other kids, not something that was born out of habit and unified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto shares a similar issue but at least it's cute and more logical though.
AI would be good at creating an international language
I don't think it's just French. The million-billion distinction is different from English in many European languages - [1] lists basically every language other than English in the EU. And in my example, "actual" to mean "current" and "eventual" to mean "possibly" are at least also present in Dutch and sometimes used in that way in the EU.
Curious where is the reality