We were promised better Siri, better Alexa, better everything. Instead we’ve gotten… chip bumps.
The onrushing AI era was supposed to create boom times for great gadgets. Not long ago, analysts were predicting that Apple Intelligence would start a “supercycle” of smartphone upgrades, with tons of new AI features compelling people to buy them. Amazon and Google and others were explaining how their ecosystems of devices would make computing seamless, natural, and personal. Startups were flooding the market with ChatGPT-powered gadgets, so you’d never be out of touch. AI was going to make every gadget great, and every gadget was going to change to embrace the AI world.
This whole promise hinged on the idea that Siri, Alexa, Gemini, ChatGPT, and other chatbots had gotten so good, they’d change how we do everything. Typing and tapping would soon be passé, all replaced by multimodal, omnipresent AI helpers. You wouldn’t need to do things yourself; you’d just tell your assistant what you need, and it would tap into the whole world of apps and information to do it for you. Tech companies large and small have been betting on virtual assistants for more than a decade, to little avail. But this new generation of AI was going to change things.
There was just one problem with the whole theory: the tech still doesn’t work. Chatbots may be fun to talk to and an occasionally useful replacement for Google, but truly game-changing virtual assistants are nowhere close to ready. And without them, the gadget revolution we were promised has utterly failed to materialize.
In the meantime, the tech industry allowed itself to be so distracted by these shiny language models that it basically stopped trying to make otherwise good gadgets. Some companies have more or less stopped making new things altogether, waiting for AI to be good enough before it ships. Others have resorted to shipping more iterative, less interesting upgrades because they have run out of ideas other than “put AI in it.” That has made the post-ChatGPT product cycle bland and boring, in a moment that could otherwise have been incredibly exciting. AI isn’t good enough, and it’s dragging everything else down with it.
I would argue that they moved to LLMs because they had run out of ideas on actually improving cellphones. It wasn't that they were distracted by them. They are trying to distract us because they need to cell new phones every year and nothing they've come up with is really justifying shelling out $1200 for a phone that's virtually the same as the previous 3-5 iterations.
This “new phone every year” is the worst consumer crapfest we have going. AI features feel like clutching at straws when seemingly everyone hates the battery life on every single phone. Slap a larger battery in there? Well now you get shit AI that burns whatever extra capacity was gained. I can’t name a single quality on an iPhone model from the last 6 years that I truly wanted, other than the size of my 13 mini. It works fine and it fits in my pocket. Now make one that stays on for a full 24 hours and doesn’t need a battery replacement every 2 years.
I've been using a Sunbeam flip phone for a year or so. Paid for the phone up front, and pay $3/mo for use of maps, speech recognition, and continued bugfixes.
Even if phones never got new features, dev time still needs to be committed to security updates, and services (like Siri) need to be paid for. The model of getting 100% of your revenue from new phone sales is starting to break. If I could pay $3/mo for Siri or whatever and never have my phone go obsolete, I think that'd be a good deal.
Maybe a bad example, but there is certainly a trend recently of purpose built hardware with “free” services failing to justify the expenses of the necessary backend infrastructure getting turned into useless landfill.
Car Thing, Facebook Portal, and this dumb little treat dispensing dog webcam that I used to have come to mind.
Everyone hates subscriptions, but when it comes to hardware that needs to generate revenue to function, I think a token dollar or so a month is appropriate.
Edit: also thinking about it more, core OS software features that are arbitrarily linked to new hardware (like Apple Intelligence) are definitely designed to sell more phones over just selling more software on existing phones. I think it’s fair to say that there’s a revenue link there.
I'm a firm believer that hardware must never be linked to any sort of subscription to function. If it does, then it's because the hardware only serves as a way to access the content, but in that case, it must allow competition between providers for that content.
If I buy something, it's mine. No one should be allowed to dictate how I use it, I want to be free to do what I want with it.