Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

The iPhone will still be relevant for four years. Apple has every year planned out until the iPhone goes away. Monday is the first of four planned keynotes. 2023: ugly device with cord. 2024: beautiful device with no cord. 2025: glasses. 2026: glasses that fix your eyes. 2027: glasses...

742,192 views • 3 years ago •via X (Twitter)

10 Comments

Elon Musk's profile picture
Elon Musk3 years ago

Neuralink

Robert Scoble's profile picture
Robert Scoble3 years ago

What year?

Blake McCorkle 🌻's profile picture
Blake McCorkle 🌻3 years ago

That's a crazy hardware dev cycle - 4 years. Zuckerberg's biggest mistake was not purchasing a semiconductor factory 10 years ago

Robert Scoble's profile picture
Robert Scoble3 years ago

Yes.

AI Daily's profile picture
AI Daily3 years ago

The iPhone will be relevant for a lot longer than 4!

Robert Scoble's profile picture
Robert Scoble3 years ago

@AlexAIDaily Probably!

Dennis Malmgren's profile picture
Dennis Malmgren3 years ago

Consumers aren't swapping to glasses in that time frame.

Robert Scoble's profile picture
Robert Scoble3 years ago

That is when they will be introduced. Adoption sometimes takes years.

korben's profile picture
korben3 years ago

Hasn’t Apple hired researches in BCI-related fields? It would make logical sense to go that direction.

Robert Scoble's profile picture
Robert Scoble3 years ago

Or buy neuralink from @elonmusk. :-)

Related Videos

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, on why the iPhone, the greatest consumer device ever made, is the wrong hardware for the AI era: Sam argues the iPhone's basic design wasn't made for a world where AI needs to live alongside your entire life. "I think the iPhone is currently the greatest piece of consumer hardware ever made by a lot. Like, incredible what that has done." The iPhone was designed for a pre-AI world. Sam Altman explains: "It was not meant for a world where you needed a piece of hardware that could absorb all of the context of your life. You know, you can use the phone, you can stop using the phone, you can put it in your pocket, but it's kind of like on or off." That binary, on or off, in use or in your pocket, is the core mismatch. A device that flips between active and dormant can't continuously absorb the context that a personal AGI would need to actually be useful to you. Sam uses the conversation he's having in that moment as the example: "This has been a very interesting conversation. I would love this to be referenced by my personal AGI later, but my phone is in my pocket and it's not going to understand." The vision he's pointing toward is a device that participates differently: "I would like a device that, if I wanted to, can participate and understand and know about this conversation." The shift Sam is describing is from a device you pick up and put down, to one that quietly captures the context of your life. Without that continuous context, a personal AGI can't actually be personal.

Big Brain AI

25,447 views • 3 months ago

Here's more analysis on the Apple and Google deal to make a new kind of Siri, after I had a cup of coffee. This is what OpenAI is doing: they're making a variety of new products and going after Apple. Apple didn't want to give OpenAI any more data to help a potential new competitor. The real problem for this OpenAI effort is that we're about to move to glasses. People don't believe me that we're about to move to glasses, but you should, because I just got back from CES and there was a ton of glasses there. For OpenAI to really get somewhere, they need to add a camera to an earphone. While I don't see that in this latest report, I won't be shocked to see a camera show up somewhere eventually. It is cameras that add understanding of the real world, which can lead to many new features that Apple's current AirPods Pro can't match. I believe Apple is developing such a product to go with their glasses, which makes a lot of sense. Also, Google's AI models are better at multimodality; this means they can use cameras in a much better way than even OpenAI's models can. This is why in Silicon Valley robotics companies, a lot of them use Google Gemini: because robots need multimodality. Apple's glasses, which are expected in 2027, have some significant advantages over the others. First, they have eye sensors in them, so it knows where the user is looking. It also can tell what the user is touching, holding, or gesturing towards. This new capability will give Siri a significant parlor trick: it will let Siri answer questions that no other search engine has been able to answer before. But the real reason I'm still bullish on Apple's glasses isn't technology—it's content. Apple has NBA rights and Formula One (among others) and a really great studio system, which has produced one of the biggest hits of the last six months. Pluribus. Apple also, because of its privacy stance, has a significant lead in consumer trust. Because of its retail stores, it also has a significant lead in the ability to: 1. Show people glasses 2. Get them fit properly 3. Get people trained On Saturday, I went to the main Apple store in Cupertino and watched one of the classes that they teach every few hours in an Apple store. The store was packed with people watching the class on a huge screen in the middle of the store. Apple has dramatically changed retail because of its stores, which gives it the most trusted brand in the business and gives it distribution to most of the world's richest people. While OpenAI has almost a billion users, it is unclear whether those users will switch ecosystems from Apple to OpenAI. Even if OpenAI's AI and devices can do a few more things, I'm not so sure anybody's going to care when Apple has very capable headphones that match up with their iPhones and has the world's richest people addicted to the Apple ecosystem (me included). Here is one of the secret Chinese suites at CES, which makes a series of glasses to sell to other brands. This gives you a sense of how fast the glasses world is moving. AI needs to not just tell you what it's seeing, but it needs to show you things to really make the solution complete. Also, Apple usually picks a much better design than anyone else. Because it's such a luxury brand, it can charge more than anybody else and be more profitable. I don't see anyone else being able to put together the whole solution the way Apple can. Therefore, I am still very bullish on Apple making a dramatic announcement about glasses sometime in the next 24 months. At CES, though, it's clear that many manufacturers will try. XREAL 👓 just got $100 million of funding to continue its glasses development, and officials of the company told me it will release its Android XR based glasses later this year. Short version: AI is coming to wearables in a big way, and Apple will do what it always does: come in late to the market and redefine it when it enters. It still has all the pieces to put together the puzzle, even though it doesn't have its own LLM so had to do a deal with Google for that. Yeah, others will be earlier to the market, and will win some buyers because of that, but buyers like me know that and will be happy to put down our other ones to buy Apple because of its advantages. With one big caveat: Apple has to deliver an amazing pair of glasses, and maybe a headphone with a camera, to keep the competition from taking its lunch. Also, behind the scenes there is a big patent battle brewing. Apple has quite a few, but I talked with Ann Greenberg at CES, who started Gracenote. She says she has several patents that will enable a large company to force others to license their technology and that she's already in final stages of selling those patents to a big company. All the big companies have patent portfolios they can use against each other, and particularly smaller, newer, competitors. Microsoft alone has dozens of patents it bought to start off its Hololens efforts, which it gave up on, but Microsoft still has almost 1,000 lawyers who would love to go after other companies for licensing deals. Plus, Google-funded Magic Leap has about 1,000 patents, so it'll be interesting to see if anyone buys the remnants of that company. The question is: can anyone disrupt Apple? Especially OpenAI?

Robert Scoble

275,056 views • 7 months ago

🚨 Most people haven't realized it, but without proper legal oversight, AI glasses might already be supporting privacy harm and CRIMINAL activity: Last year, Alexander Klöpping, a Dutch journalist, went to Amsterdam's financial district using AI glasses. After seconds-long interactions with random people on the street, the facial recognition technology powering his glasses could identify the person using publicly available data from the internet. His goal was to demonstrate how invasive facial recognition technology has become, especially since anyone can wear a device that enables real-time identification. Many people forget, but besides the more 'hyped' use cases, real-time identification can also be used to support criminal activity. For example, someone may use these types of AI glasses to identify the victim after a few seconds of small talk, then pretend to be an old acquaintance to steal or commit a violent crime. Most smart glasses have a small green light at the upper corner to signal that the camera is on, but my guess is that the majority of people will not notice it (that's what we see in the video, too). Also, more recently, I have seen smart glasses WITHOUT the green light (which would likely be illegal in some countries and U.S. states). The video is from November 2024, but has been circulating again one year later. I would say that from legal and regulatory perspectives, one year later, the problem remains the same, and little to nothing has been done to protect people from AI-led privacy invasion on the streets (which might also facilitate other types of harm and violent crime). I would also say that, in general, we are WORSE in December 2025 than we were in November 2024. Why? There is a global deregulatory trend in AI (pushed by the U.S.), and, through the Digital Omnibus, the EU is proposing changes to the GDPR and the EU AI Act that are detrimental to the protection of fundamental rights, including, of course, privacy. Despite all the odds... I'm cautiously optimistic that the pendulum will swing in the opposite direction in 2026, as deregulated AI clearly benefits no one (except tech billionaires). - 👉 Most people have no idea why privacy matters, ESPECIALLY when AI is everywhere. Make sure to share this video. 👉 To learn more about AI's legal and ethical challenges, join my newsletter's 87,500+ subscribers (link below).

Luiza Jarovsky, PhD

370,160 views • 8 months ago