Those Apple AI rumors aren’t all that Perplexing when you think Intelligently about it

I don’t know if you’re “in the know” like the Macalope but it seems to this antlered observer that Apple may have a bit of an AI problem on its hands. And it might be getting worse.

Reuters reports that Apple is being sued by shareholders for allegedly overstating AI progress. Turns out shareholders don’t like it when you talk up stuff and then don’t deliver on it. Oopsies. Who knew? (Apple actually knew.)

Now, shareholders sometimes also sue with no real chance of winning and there is a difference between saying things in a marketing context, such as an advertisement, in which you can make up all sorts of crap, and a financial context, like the company’s quarterly investment calls with analysts in which you have to be much more careful about what you say.

The investor suits claims:

…Apple led them to believe AI would be a key driver of iPhone 16 devices, when it launched Apple Intelligence to make Siri more powerful and user-friendly.

Anyone who really believed that should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle, let alone be a big-time money investor type person. How these people get a lot of money in the first place is beyond the Macalope. Unless it’s by inheriting it in which case he completely gets it.

But they said the Cupertino, California-based company lacked a functional prototype of AI-based Siri features…

Welcome to Vaporgate, the lawsuit.

Is Apple now grasping around for an easy way to put its AI problem behind it? Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman says maybe: Apple Executives Have Held Internal Talks About Buying AI Startup Perplexity.

Who among us hasn’t gone shopping to try to cure feelings of inadequacy?

Todd, you know what the Macalope’s talking about. That 3D printer? The table saw? All those classic black and white Criterion Collection movies you never watch because you’re too busy watching Cocaine Bear again?

It’s not a subtle commentary on social mores, Todd! It’s about a bear that gets into some cocaine!

Anyway, who could deny Apple trying to buy its way out of this situation? Well, Apple, possibly, as it appears this probably isn’t really going to happen. The Macalope has had internal talks with himself about buying lots of things he never came close to buying. But also, Samsung, which Gurman says is trying to strike its own deal with Perplexity that would complicate any potential deal with Apple.

There is some question as to where this information is coming from. Is Gurman getting this from sources inside Apple, or is coming from Perplexity, as Nick Heer suggests?

IDG

Heer notes that Gurman’s story didn’t start this rumor; it was preceded by an analyst’s call for Apple to buy Perplexity. Well, technically, the analyst said Apple “must” buy Perplexity, but that’s just analyst talk for saying why Apple “should” or maybe even just “could” buy Perplexity.

If you write a big-time Wall Street piece and it’s not absolutely pants-on-fire about why Apple has to make its biggest acquisition ever right now or its existence will be retroactively wiped from the timeline, will anyone read it? Turns out no one knows because no analyst has ever done that.

Several stories about Apple considering buying Perplexity later, it seems like it’s maaaybe Perplexity itself calling around and saying, “We are a very hot property right now! Apple is in the mix! If you want to buy us, you’d better hurry! And also be willing to spend lots and lots of money. So hot right now. [beat] Please, we’re begging you.”

Far be it from the Macalope to tell Tim Cook how to spend his money (cough), but trying to magically buy its way out of this situation smacks of the kind of thinking that got it into this situation in the first place. Any time analysts say Apple “must” do a thing, you can almost assuredly bet that it’s the wrong thing to do.

Like, just an example off the top of the Macalope’s head, trying to rush an AI offering to market.