Author: Security – Computerworld

Generative AI is sliding into the ‘trough of disillusionment’

August 22, 2024 /

Market research firm Gartner yesterday published its 2024 Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, and the study revealed that generative AI (genAI) has passed the “peak of inflated expectations” and is now sliding down into the “trough of disillusionment.”

Along with genAI, AI-augmented software engineering is also heading down the slope, after passing its inflated expectations in markets, according to Gartner, whose Hype Cycle describes the hot ascent and eventual cooling off of technology adoption.

AI-assisted code generation tools are increasingly prevalent in software engineering, and somewhat unexpectedly have become low-hanging fruit for most organizations experimenting with genAI. Adoption rates are skyrocketing. That’s because even if they only suggest a baseline of code for a new application, automation tools can eliminate hours that otherwise would have been devoted to manual code creation and updating.

Hitting the peak of inflated expectations is prompt engineering, according to Gartner. While most large language models like OpenAI’s GPT-4 are pre-filled with massive amounts of information, “prompt engineering,” a way of training the algorithm, allows genAI to be tailored for specific industry or even organizational use.

GenAI interest wanes as ROI becomes the focus

Excitement around foundation models, such as Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, Amazon Bedrock, and OpenAI GPT-4, is waning among enterprises as companies instead seek concrete returns on investment (ROI). These days, companies are more often than not deploying genAI only for use cases that drive ROI, according to Arun Chandrasekaran, a Gartner distinguished vice president analyst.

“Generative AI is sliding through the trough of disillusionment due to mismatch between high expectations vs. reality, enterprise challenges in maturing their data engineering and AI governance, as well as intangible ROI of many genAI initiatives,” Chandrasekaran said.

While the technology has been heralded as a boon to productivity, nailing down an ROI in genAI can prove to be elusive. That’s not necessarily because finding ROI is difficult, but expressing ROI has been difficult because many benefits like productivity have indirect or non-financial impacts that create financial outcomes in the future, according to Rita Sallam, a distinguished vice president analyst at Gartner.

Gartner’s trough of disillusionment describes a time when interest wanes as experiments and implementations fail to deliver on the initial hype of a technology. Producers of the technology shake out or fail. Investment continues only if the surviving providers improve their products to the satisfaction of early adopters, according to Gartner.

AI agents step into the spotlight

But far from a negative effect, the trough of disillusionment can lead to what Gartner describes as the “plateau of productivity,” when mainstream adoption starts to take off. It also means enterprise focus on ROI will likely spur adoption of autonomous AI in the form of AI agents — something with a more solid potential for productivity and efficiency gains.

An AI agent is a software program that collects data and uses the data to perform self-determined tasks to meet predetermined goals. For example, an AI agent could act as a customer care representative and automatically ask the customer different questions, look up information in internal documents, and respond with a solution. Based on the customer responses, it determines if it can resolve the query itself or pass it on to a human.

By 2030, companies will spend $42 billion a year on genAI projects such as chatbots, research, writing, and summarization tools, according to Gartner.

Autonomous AI systems can operate with minimal human oversight. They seek to “understand” their environment, draw conclusions from it and adjust their actions accordingly, according to Chandrasekaran.

“They can make decisions, purchase things and perform tasks, achieving goals in a range of environments as effectively as humans can. Systems that can perform any task a human can perform are beginning to move slowly from science fiction to reality,” he said.

While the current generation of AI models lack “agency,” AI research labs are quickly releasing agents that can dynamically interact with their environment to achieve goals, although it will be a gradual process, Chandrasekaran noted.

An eye on other emerging tech

“Even as AI continues to grab the attention, CIOs and other IT executives must also examine other emerging technologies with transformational potential for developers, security, and customer and employee experience and strategize how to exploit these technologies in line with their organizations’ ability to handle unproven technologies,” Chandrasekaran said.

Gartner said its Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies is unique among the company’s other Hype Cycles because it distills insights from more than 2,000 technologies and focuses on “must-know” emerging technologies.

“These technologies have potential to deliver transformational benefits over the next two to 10 years,” Gartner said.

Autonomous AI software was among four emerging technologies called out in the report because it can operate with minimal human oversight, improve itself, and become effective at decision-making in complex environments.

“These advanced AI systems that can perform any task a human can perform are beginning to move slowly from science fiction to reality,” Gartner said in its report. “These technologies include multiagent systems, large action models, machine customers, humanoid working robots, autonomous agents, and reinforcement learning.”

Autonomous agents are currently heading up the slope to the peak of inflated expectations. Just ahead of autonomous agents on that slope is artificial general intelligence, currently a hypothetical form of AI where a machine learns and thinks like a human does.

GenAI technologies are evolving at a rapid pace, Chandrasekaran noted, and the innovation continues at a rapid pace, which can be overwhelming enterprise  IT leaders.

“Many enterprises are also realizing that genAI alone may not be a panacea for all their use cases, and they need to combine it with other AI techniques for meaningful value,” Chandrasekaran said. “The long-term potential of generative AI will still be significant, but enterprise IT leaders need to address the near-term risks to reach the plateau of productivity.”

OpenAI opposes California AI bill as lawmakers prepare to vote

August 22, 2024 /

OpenAI has expressed opposition to California’s proposed bill regulating AI development and deployment as lawmakers prepare for an upcoming vote.

In a letter addressed to California State Senator Scott Wiener, the AI startup argued that the bill would stifle innovation in the sector and suggested that such regulation should be handled at the federal rather than state level, according to a Bloomberg report.

But in response, Wiener said that the OpenAI letter doesn’t criticize a single provision of the bill and that the company appears to acknowledge the bill’s specific core provisions.

“Instead of criticizing what the bill actually does, OpenAI argues this issue should be left to Congress,” Wiener said in a statement. “As I’ve stated repeatedly, I agree that ideally, Congress would handle this. However, Congress has not done so, and we are skeptical Congress will do so.”

“Under OpenAI’s argument about Congress, California never would have passed its data privacy law, and given Congress’s lack of action, Californians would have no protection whatsoever for their data,” Wiener added.  

The bill, SB 1047, seeks to implement safety regulations for large-scale AI models that surpass certain size and cost benchmarks. Passed by the state Senate in May, the legislation mandates AI firms to adopt measures ensuring their technologies do not facilitate severe risks, including the creation of bioweapons capable of widespread casualties or causing financial losses exceeding $500 million.

A controversial bill

Other technology firms, including Meta and Alphabet, and trade associations including the AI Alliance have also reportedly opposed the bill.

Charlie Dai, VP and principal analyst at Forrester, noted that although AI governance on security, privacy, and regulatory compliance is crucial, the new bill could create unnecessary business uncertainty and raise operational costs for most AI companies.

This may slow the pace of innovation and harm the overall open source ecosystem surrounding AI.

“AI firms need to consider a range of options to mitigate the effects, such as engaging with lawmakers collaboratively to shape the bill in a way that balances safety with innovation, making more investment in regulatory compliance, and expanding or relocating to states with more flexible policies,” Dai added.

In the letter, OpenAI warned that the proposed legislation could significantly and adversely impact US competitiveness in AI and national security.

Wiener responded that, far from undermining national security, SB 1047’s requirements for AI companies to thoroughly test their products for the ability to cause catastrophic harm can only strengthen national security.

Not limited to California-based companies

OpenAI has also argued that the legislation could drive companies out of California, but Senator Wiener countered, noting the bill would affect any company doing business in the state, regardless of where they are based.

“This tired argument — which the tech industry also made when California passed its data privacy law, with that fear never materializing — makes no sense given that SB 1047 is not limited to companies headquartered in California,” Wiener said in the statement. “Rather, the bill applies to companies doing business in California. As a result, locating outside of California does not avoid compliance with the bill.” 

Efforts have been made throughout the year in collaboration with open-source advocates, Anthropic, and others to refine and improve the bill, according to Wiener. He added that SB 1047 is well-calibrated to address foreseeable AI risks and deserves to be enacted.

OpenAI opposes California AI bill as lawmakers prepare to vote

August 22, 2024 /

OpenAI has expressed opposition to California’s proposed bill regulating AI development and deployment as lawmakers prepare for an upcoming vote.

In a letter addressed to California State Senator Scott Wiener, the AI startup argued that the bill would stifle innovation in the sector and suggested that such regulation should be handled at the federal rather than state level, according to a Bloomberg report.

But in response, Wiener said that the OpenAI letter doesn’t criticize a single provision of the bill and that the company appears to acknowledge the bill’s specific core provisions.

“Instead of criticizing what the bill actually does, OpenAI argues this issue should be left to Congress,” Wiener said in a statement. “As I’ve stated repeatedly, I agree that ideally, Congress would handle this. However, Congress has not done so, and we are skeptical Congress will do so.”

“Under OpenAI’s argument about Congress, California never would have passed its data privacy law, and given Congress’s lack of action, Californians would have no protection whatsoever for their data,” Wiener added.  

The bill, SB 1047, seeks to implement safety regulations for large-scale AI models that surpass certain size and cost benchmarks. Passed by the state Senate in May, the legislation mandates AI firms to adopt measures ensuring their technologies do not facilitate severe risks, including the creation of bioweapons capable of widespread casualties or causing financial losses exceeding $500 million.

A controversial bill

Other technology firms, including Meta and Alphabet, and trade associations including the AI Alliance have also reportedly opposed the bill.

Charlie Dai, VP and principal analyst at Forrester, noted that although AI governance on security, privacy, and regulatory compliance is crucial, the new bill could create unnecessary business uncertainty and raise operational costs for most AI companies.

This may slow the pace of innovation and harm the overall open source ecosystem surrounding AI.

“AI firms need to consider a range of options to mitigate the effects, such as engaging with lawmakers collaboratively to shape the bill in a way that balances safety with innovation, making more investment in regulatory compliance, and expanding or relocating to states with more flexible policies,” Dai added.

In the letter, OpenAI warned that the proposed legislation could significantly and adversely impact US competitiveness in AI and national security.

Wiener responded that, far from undermining national security, SB 1047’s requirements for AI companies to thoroughly test their products for the ability to cause catastrophic harm can only strengthen national security.

Not limited to California-based companies

OpenAI has also argued that the legislation could drive companies out of California, but Senator Wiener countered, noting the bill would affect any company doing business in the state, regardless of where they are based.

“This tired argument — which the tech industry also made when California passed its data privacy law, with that fear never materializing — makes no sense given that SB 1047 is not limited to companies headquartered in California,” Wiener said in the statement. “Rather, the bill applies to companies doing business in California. As a result, locating outside of California does not avoid compliance with the bill.” 

Efforts have been made throughout the year in collaboration with open-source advocates, Anthropic, and others to refine and improve the bill, according to Wiener. He added that SB 1047 is well-calibrated to address foreseeable AI risks and deserves to be enacted.

How Apple can fight the tyranny of ‘choice’

August 22, 2024 /

Apple’s iPhone and App Store turned the mobile phone industry upside down, created the smartphone generation, and set the scene for developer success that did not exist before, all while working to protect privacy and security.

No wonder Apple’s enemies want to break all that the company has achieved. No wonder they hope to feast on the crumbs left behind. The regulators seem to want to let them do just that, but what choice will consumers be given as they endure the tyranny of choice? 

We know the direction things are heading in. 

Where we are going

Apple will be forced to open up its App Store, to accept sideloading from outside of its curated experience, and to open up some of its APIs and device features in the name of competition.

But, as the company has argued, some of these moves can, may, or will erode platform security, which is something many of its customers expect from its products. Surely those customers deserve to keep to that choice, too? 

However, the regulators don’t seem to see it that way, insisting on changes to Apple’s iPhone platform that, quite frankly, threaten to turn it into the kind of flimsy, compromised beast we might have had if Windows had won the mobile war.

Luckily, Windows failed to win that war.

That’s not to say that all the arguments to force Apple to open up are flimsy. Apple does have huge market power, it can enter new markets fairly easily, and it seems appropriate to find ways to create new opportunities across its platforms.

But should those opportunities replace the existing privacy and security Apple’s customers luxuriate in today? Surely that privacy and security is also a choice.

Privacy and security should be an option

Perhaps there is a way Apple can provide both things: the essential curated experience hundreds of millions of us already love, and the more open platform its competitors seek to draw profits from. Perhaps it’s time to fork the platform. 

Think about it this way — it seems the introduction of support for third-party app stores and so on is being forced on Apple as a universal constraint. But should it be? Shouldn’t Apple’s customers have the right to choose which way to go? 

Many may decide to work with third-party app stores so they can use alternative billing systems and make that bloke from Epic Games even richer, but many others may never, ever want to play those games and may instead want to remain entirely in Apple’s so-called “walled garden.” Why shouldn’t they be able to?

What about giving people choice?

An interesting addition over the last 12 months on iOS has been a new and simpler way to run iOS beta software on your device. You can now do so with the flick of a switch.

What if Apple used that same system to deliver two breeds of its standard operating system? The first would be the iOS we all love and use today, though likely with the addition of new APIs to make some functions (such as mobile payments) more competitive; the second might be a more open version of iOS, equipped with support for external stores, payment systems, and all the other things people with lots of money seem to get angry about when it comes to Apple’s systems. 

That’s a compromise, perhaps, but it means Apple’s customers could vote with their own fingers. They could choose to join life outside the garden or stay within it. That is, after all, a choice they should be able to make. For many users, it is the choice they already took when they selected Apple’s platforms.

Some people need security more than they need Fortnite

It’s also a choice many enterprise users of Apple products want to make. 

Particularly in regulated industries, they need to ensure the privacy and security of sometimes highly sensitive data. To do so they need — they are actually legally required — to ensure every possible protection is in place.

Choosing Apple’s hard-as-nails walled garden iOS would be the option they took with their managed devices. People regularly accessing your medical data on a device shouldn’t be installing software that may or may not be completely safe from third-party stores that may or may not be what they seem. Many companies forbid the use of all kinds of device features using MDM controls, and taking the choice to remain all-in on Apple’s model is a choice they probably want to keep.

Maybe there’s another way

Perhaps Apple is thinking in the same way, particularly following the shock resignation of Matt Fischer, Apple’s Worldwide head of the App Store and the decision to split those operations into two segments: one to handle the App Store as is, the other to handle incoming alternative distribution systems. I don’t know if Apple is thinking in this direction; I’m merely speculating that it could be.

If it were, then it would provide a choice that lets people currently using iPhones retain the right to keep things as they are, rather than being forced to open up because a smattering of well-connected millionaires want to make money out of their insecurity. A lot of people — customers, developers and not just Apple — have already made a great deal of money while also protecting their security, after all. 

If Apple moves in that direction, the usual chorus of voices, amplified by a click-bait-hungry media, will castigate the company for the new buzz word of “malicious compliance.” But the question, at least when it comes to customers happy with the status quo, is why should they be forced to accept an openness they neither want nor need?

At least make it an opt-out option.

Please follow me on LinkedIn, Mastodon, or join me in the AppleHolic’s bar & grill and Apple Discussions groups on MeWe.

How Apple can fight the tyranny of ‘choice’

August 22, 2024 /

Apple’s iPhone and App Store turned the mobile phone industry upside down, created the smartphone generation, and set the scene for developer success that did not exist before, all while working to protect privacy and security.

No wonder Apple’s enemies want to break all that the company has achieved. No wonder they hope to feast on the crumbs left behind. The regulators seem to want to let them do just that, but what choice will consumers be given as they endure the tyranny of choice? 

We know the direction things are heading in. 

Where we are going

Apple will be forced to open up its App Store, to accept sideloading from outside of its curated experience, and to open up some of its APIs and device features in the name of competition.

But, as the company has argued, some of these moves can, may, or will erode platform security, which is something many of its customers expect from its products. Surely those customers deserve to keep to that choice, too? 

However, the regulators don’t seem to see it that way, insisting on changes to Apple’s iPhone platform that, quite frankly, threaten to turn it into the kind of flimsy, compromised beast we might have had if Windows had won the mobile war.

Luckily, Windows failed to win that war.

That’s not to say that all the arguments to force Apple to open up are flimsy. Apple does have huge market power, it can enter new markets fairly easily, and it seems appropriate to find ways to create new opportunities across its platforms.

But should those opportunities replace the existing privacy and security Apple’s customers luxuriate in today? Surely that privacy and security is also a choice.

Privacy and security should be an option

Perhaps there is a way Apple can provide both things: the essential curated experience hundreds of millions of us already love, and the more open platform its competitors seek to draw profits from. Perhaps it’s time to fork the platform. 

Think about it this way — it seems the introduction of support for third-party app stores and so on is being forced on Apple as a universal constraint. But should it be? Shouldn’t Apple’s customers have the right to choose which way to go? 

Many may decide to work with third-party app stores so they can use alternative billing systems and make that bloke from Epic Games even richer, but many others may never, ever want to play those games and may instead want to remain entirely in Apple’s so-called “walled garden.” Why shouldn’t they be able to?

What about giving people choice?

An interesting addition over the last 12 months on iOS has been a new and simpler way to run iOS beta software on your device. You can now do so with the flick of a switch.

What if Apple used that same system to deliver two breeds of its standard operating system? The first would be the iOS we all love and use today, though likely with the addition of new APIs to make some functions (such as mobile payments) more competitive; the second might be a more open version of iOS, equipped with support for external stores, payment systems, and all the other things people with lots of money seem to get angry about when it comes to Apple’s systems. 

That’s a compromise, perhaps, but it means Apple’s customers could vote with their own fingers. They could choose to join life outside the garden or stay within it. That is, after all, a choice they should be able to make. For many users, it is the choice they already took when they selected Apple’s platforms.

Some people need security more than they need Fortnite

It’s also a choice many enterprise users of Apple products want to make. 

Particularly in regulated industries, they need to ensure the privacy and security of sometimes highly sensitive data. To do so they need — they are actually legally required — to ensure every possible protection is in place.

Choosing Apple’s hard-as-nails walled garden iOS would be the option they took with their managed devices. People regularly accessing your medical data on a device shouldn’t be installing software that may or may not be completely safe from third-party stores that may or may not be what they seem. Many companies forbid the use of all kinds of device features using MDM controls, and taking the choice to remain all-in on Apple’s model is a choice they probably want to keep.

Maybe there’s another way

Perhaps Apple is thinking in the same way, particularly following the shock resignation of Matt Fischer, Apple’s Worldwide head of the App Store and the decision to split those operations into two segments: one to handle the App Store as is, the other to handle incoming alternative distribution systems. I don’t know if Apple is thinking in this direction; I’m merely speculating that it could be.

If it were, then it would provide a choice that lets people currently using iPhones retain the right to keep things as they are, rather than being forced to open up because a smattering of well-connected millionaires want to make money out of their insecurity. A lot of people — customers, developers and not just Apple — have already made a great deal of money while also protecting their security, after all. 

If Apple moves in that direction, the usual chorus of voices, amplified by a click-bait-hungry media, will castigate the company for the new buzz word of “malicious compliance.” But the question, at least when it comes to customers happy with the status quo, is why should they be forced to accept an openness they neither want nor need?

At least make it an opt-out option.

Please follow me on LinkedIn, Mastodon, or join me in the AppleHolic’s bar & grill and Apple Discussions groups on MeWe.

RingCentral adds new AI-powered features to RingCX

August 21, 2024 /

RingCentral on Wednesday announced new features for its AI-based contact center offering, RingCX, that included what the firm said is a “real-time AI powered assistant for both agents and supervisors.”

Launched last November, RingCX is described by the company as a “natively built AI-first contact center.” In this update, other new features include AI coaching insights that the company said leverage AI to review all interactions automatically, and a conversational AI platform that allows customers to integrate their preferred intelligent virtual agent (IVA) for customer self-service across both voice and digital channels.

The new capabilities, RingCentral said in a release, come at a time when companies are increasing their investments in AI for customer service. It cited new research from Metrigy that found that organizations plan to up their spending on AI-supported customer self-service this year by 71%, and AI-supported agent assistance by 67%.

Other analysts are in agreement. Jitesh Gera, research manager of unified communications and collaboration at IDC, said, “RingCentral’s announcements are testament to how important it is for UC&C [unified communications and collaboration] companies to enhance their platforms’ customer communication capabilities. Businesses are demanding unified employee and customer communication platforms that are also interoperable with other platforms and customized API-driven applications. And AI capabilities will act as one of the true differentiating factors in this pursuit.”

One customer benefiting from those capabilities is the The Husband and Wife Law Team, a personal injury law firm with locations throughout Arizona.

Joe Phelps, director of operations, client contact, said in an email, “we have a strategic goal this year to utilize AI and other new technologies to deliver improved outcomes for our clients. Our team is measuring the time saved and being intentional about how we give that time back to our staff to build client relationships and spend more time on meaningful work.”

The intent, said Phelps, “is to harness the power of AI to free up extra time for our staff, allowing them to focus on human interactions. That is an essential part of the strategic goal. AI has significantly enhanced efficiency and customer satisfaction when it comes to our call center operations.”

With RingCX, he added, the company is able to answer calls faster, which has nearly eliminated call abandonment, and its outbound queue captures any abandoned calls for immediate callback. “These improvements have led to an 11% point increase in our SLA (speed of answer) metrics and have streamlined our workflows to get calls to the right people faster,” he said.

AI is now an expectation

Shashi Bellamkonda, AI and marketing strategist and principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group,  said, “I have seen various organizations’ sales or customer experience (CX)/call centers use RingCentral. It is inevitable that they have to introduce an agent-assist model to their CX solution. The primary use case here is for training, coaching, and also intelligently assisting call center agents with information.”

Organizations, said Bellamkonda, “will expect to have these features within the software instead of an upsell. If their current video/call solution doesn’t have assisting technology using AI, companies may elect to have AI point solution providers for this.”

The conversational intelligence solution market, he said, “has many such providers; the winners will be organizations that are multi-modal and can be used across the organization — sales, marketing, customer service, and account management. A potential challenge for RingCentral AI is to avoid being intrusive or annoying, as some customers may feel uncomfortable with having multiple AI notetakers joining their calls and outnumbering human participants.”

And, noted industry analyst Jon Arnold, principal of J. Arnold Associates, since RingCentral has no intention of competing  with NICE or Genesys in the high-end enterprise CX space, but targets mid-market organizations, “they can reach a pretty broad swath of the market with this offering.”

Survey: Apple Vision Pro fails to ignite business interest

August 21, 2024 /

More than half a year since its launch, Apple’s Vision Pro has attracted only muted interest from businesses. The augmented reality headset holds greater appeal to large firms, however, as well as in particular industry sectors.

That’s according to a recent International Data Corporation (IDC) survey report, which polled 402 US-based IT managers and employees with responsibility for purchasing AR/VR devices.

The survey, conducted in June this year, showed that 35% of the repondents were “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in the device.

The level of interest interest from businesses to date can be described as “mediocre,” according to Lewis Ward, senior research analyst at IDC. “I think Apple has a lot to do on both a software and hardware front before the Vision Pro will become a ‘must have’ device, even at a pilot level, at the typical US business,” Ward said.

The Vision Pro is a new device category for Apple and a work in progress in many ways.

If rumors are to believed, Apple is already working on a cheaper version of the headset aimed at consumers, though this is likely to be at least a year away from release, with a proper follow-up Vision Pro device taking even longer.

Meaningful software improvements may arrive in the interim, Ward said. This could make the headset more attractive to business users.

As part of the VisionOS 2.0 preview release at WWDC this summer, Apple, which has talked up enterprise adoption of the Vision Pro in recent months, announced new developer tools that aim to increase the headset’s utility for certain business use cases. It has also added enterprise-friendly features such as support for mobile device management software since the headset launched to US customers in February.

Vision Pro appeals to finance and healthcare orgs

There were indications that the Vision Pro resonates more with certain types and sizes of business, according to the IDC survey.

Large organizations (over 2,500 employees) showed the highest levels of interest in the device, for example, with 42% “very” or “somewhat” interested. This is likely due to the availability of more resources to try out new technologies such as the Vision Pro, said Ward, alongisde a wider set of potential use cases in comparison with smaller and more focused organizations.

The two industry sectors that displayed the highest levels of interest were healthcare and social assistance (54%), and finance and insurance (52%). A separate survey report from March of this year by electronic health record provider Tebra also highlighted the positive perceptions of the Vision Pro among healthcare professionals.

Ward suggested that organizations in these sectors see potential for the device to solve well-defined problems for certain employees or customers, and may have developed custom software that makes use of the Vision Pro’s strengths.

Manufacturing and retail organizations showed lower interest levels comparatively, below 30%. “This is also an interesting — and, in some ways, counterintuitive — finding, because these are two verticals that have been discussed as being decent fits for Vision Pro,” said Ward.

The IDC survey also indicated that Apple’s entrance into the market has had a “moderately positive” effect on business attitudes towards the use of AR/VR in the workplace more generally.

Survey: Apple Vision Pro fails to ignite business interest

August 21, 2024 /

More than half a year since its launch, Apple’s Vision Pro has attracted only muted interest from businesses. The augmented reality headset holds greater appeal to large firms, however, as well as in particular industry sectors.

That’s according to a recent International Data Corporation (IDC) survey report, which polled 402 US-based IT managers and employees with responsibility for purchasing AR/VR devices.

The survey, conducted in June this year, showed that 35% of the repondents were “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in the device.

The level of interest interest from businesses to date can be described as “mediocre,” according to Lewis Ward, senior research analyst at IDC. “I think Apple has a lot to do on both a software and hardware front before the Vision Pro will become a ‘must have’ device, even at a pilot level, at the typical US business,” Ward said.

The Vision Pro is a new device category for Apple and a work in progress in many ways.

If rumors are to believed, Apple is already working on a cheaper version of the headset aimed at consumers, though this is likely to be at least a year away from release, with a proper follow-up Vision Pro device taking even longer.

Meaningful software improvements may arrive in the interim, Ward said. This could make the headset more attractive to business users.

As part of the VisionOS 2.0 preview release at WWDC this summer, Apple, which has talked up enterprise adoption of the Vision Pro in recent months, announced new developer tools that aim to increase the headset’s utility for certain business use cases. It has also added enterprise-friendly features such as support for mobile device management software since the headset launched to US customers in February.

Vision Pro appeals to finance and healthcare orgs

There were indications that the Vision Pro resonates more with certain types and sizes of business, according to the IDC survey.

Large organizations (over 2,500 employees) showed the highest levels of interest in the device, for example, with 42% “very” or “somewhat” interested. This is likely due to the availability of more resources to try out new technologies such as the Vision Pro, said Ward, alongisde a wider set of potential use cases in comparison with smaller and more focused organizations.

The two industry sectors that displayed the highest levels of interest were healthcare and social assistance (54%), and finance and insurance (52%). A separate survey report from March of this year by electronic health record provider Tebra also highlighted the positive perceptions of the Vision Pro among healthcare professionals.

Ward suggested that organizations in these sectors see potential for the device to solve well-defined problems for certain employees or customers, and may have developed custom software that makes use of the Vision Pro’s strengths.

Manufacturing and retail organizations showed lower interest levels comparatively, below 30%. “This is also an interesting — and, in some ways, counterintuitive — finding, because these are two verticals that have been discussed as being decent fits for Vision Pro,” said Ward.

The IDC survey also indicated that Apple’s entrance into the market has had a “moderately positive” effect on business attitudes towards the use of AR/VR in the workplace more generally.

UK ends Apple and Google app store scrutiny, but not for long

August 21, 2024 /

Apple and Google can take a moment to breathe, as the UK’s competition regulator has decided to end its investigation into their app stores — but not for long.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) today confirmed it is closing its ongoing investigations into both Apple’s App Store and Google Play, but only because a much tougher set of regulations is about to come into effect.

Breathing space, but trouble’s coming

Passed into law in May, the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers Act (DMCCA) will give the CMA more powers and more flexibility in how its powers are applied. Principally, these powers include the ability to impose requirements on the conduct of firms in digital markets where those firms have been designated as having Strategic Market Status, and to impose significant fines against firms if those requirements are breached. The intention of these laws is similar to Europe’s Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The DMCCA sets up the Digital Markets Unit (DMU), a new regulatory body within the CMA that will police large technology companies.

Will Hayter, Executive Director for Digital Markets at the CMA, said: “Once the new pro-competition digital markets regime comes into force, we’ll be able to consider applying those new powers to concerns we have already identified through our existing work.”

In 2022, the regulator’s market study of the UK mobile ecosystem found that Apple and Google held an effective monopoly over app distribution in the UK. The CMA then commenced investigating both companies for alleged anti-competitive behavior, but the investigations took place within the framework of a previous set of laws that will be superseded by the DMCCA.

Concerning Apple, in a statement, the CMA said the closure of the investigations “should not be understood” to mean the concerns it was investigating had been resolved. “The decision does not affect any other action that the CMA may wish to take in relation to Apple’s conduct in this area in the future,” it said.

Commenting on the decision, Hayter added:

“It’s critical that tech businesses in the UK, including app developers, can have access to a fair and competitive app ecosystem, helping to grow the sector, boost investment and result in better outcomes for UK consumers. These are all factors we are considering before launching our first investigations under the new regime.”

The UK regulator now has more power

There are numerous new powers within the DMCCA.

Like Europe’s DMA, the law means some companies with a global turnover of more than £25b or UK turnover of £1b+ may be designated as having Strategic Market Status (SMS). 

Companies given such status will be required to follow requirements on their conduct imposed by the CMA, though the CMA does say it wants to build “productive relationships” with those firms. 

Perhaps so, but as a Linklaters legal blog explained earlier this year, “The scope of permitted conduct requirements is incredibly broad, giving the DMU very wide discretion to decide what obligations should be imposed on each firm.”

The CMA has previously said it expects the first companies to be designated as such will be revealed in July 2025, but this date may now slip a little in consequence of the recent UK election. 

Those requirements will allegedly be developed with the intention of opening up competition and consumer choice in digital markets. That likely extends to app stores and payment systems being opened up, as they are being in the EU under the DMA. The CMA can also impose big fines on companies that fail to comply.

It may be instructive to note that the CMA recently rejected commitments made by Google in response to its concerns.

Google had given app developers some additional flexibility in the use of alternative payment systems. Similar to those Apple has proposed in the EU, Google’s proposals included a commission and pop-up screens to warn users when they were about to use a third-party payment system. 

Open markets seem inevitable

While the CMA hasn’t yet said which companies may be investigated for possible SMS designation, it’s unlikely Apple, Google, or other Big Tech firms will be able to avoid it.

After all, the regulator does state that it “anticipates that its early work under the new digital markets competition regime will build on and leverage its experience in areas it has already studied, such as mobile ecosystems, which includes app stores.” (Italics mine.)

The latest UK news around tech regulation follows similar announcements in the EU, Japan, and South Korea and potential incoming investigations in Apple’s second biggest market, China.

Please follow me on Mastodon, or join me in the AppleHolic’s bar & grill and Apple Discussions groups on MeWe.

UK ends Apple and Google app store scrutiny, but not for long

August 21, 2024 /

Apple and Google can take a moment to breathe, as the UK’s competition regulator has decided to end its investigation into their app stores — but not for long.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) today confirmed it is closing its ongoing investigations into both Apple’s App Store and Google Play, but only because a much tougher set of regulations is about to come into effect.

Breathing space, but trouble’s coming

Passed into law in May, the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers Act (DMCCA) will give the CMA more powers and more flexibility in how its powers are applied. Principally, these powers include the ability to impose requirements on the conduct of firms in digital markets where those firms have been designated as having Strategic Market Status, and to impose significant fines against firms if those requirements are breached. The intention of these laws is similar to Europe’s Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The DMCCA sets up the Digital Markets Unit (DMU), a new regulatory body within the CMA that will police large technology companies.

Will Hayter, Executive Director for Digital Markets at the CMA, said: “Once the new pro-competition digital markets regime comes into force, we’ll be able to consider applying those new powers to concerns we have already identified through our existing work.”

In 2022, the regulator’s market study of the UK mobile ecosystem found that Apple and Google held an effective monopoly over app distribution in the UK. The CMA then commenced investigating both companies for alleged anti-competitive behavior, but the investigations took place within the framework of a previous set of laws that will be superseded by the DMCCA.

Concerning Apple, in a statement, the CMA said the closure of the investigations “should not be understood” to mean the concerns it was investigating had been resolved. “The decision does not affect any other action that the CMA may wish to take in relation to Apple’s conduct in this area in the future,” it said.

Commenting on the decision, Hayter added:

“It’s critical that tech businesses in the UK, including app developers, can have access to a fair and competitive app ecosystem, helping to grow the sector, boost investment and result in better outcomes for UK consumers. These are all factors we are considering before launching our first investigations under the new regime.”

The UK regulator now has more power

There are numerous new powers within the DMCCA.

Like Europe’s DMA, the law means some companies with a global turnover of more than £25b or UK turnover of £1b+ may be designated as having Strategic Market Status (SMS). 

Companies given such status will be required to follow requirements on their conduct imposed by the CMA, though the CMA does say it wants to build “productive relationships” with those firms. 

Perhaps so, but as a Linklaters legal blog explained earlier this year, “The scope of permitted conduct requirements is incredibly broad, giving the DMU very wide discretion to decide what obligations should be imposed on each firm.”

The CMA has previously said it expects the first companies to be designated as such will be revealed in July 2025, but this date may now slip a little in consequence of the recent UK election. 

Those requirements will allegedly be developed with the intention of opening up competition and consumer choice in digital markets. That likely extends to app stores and payment systems being opened up, as they are being in the EU under the DMA. The CMA can also impose big fines on companies that fail to comply.

It may be instructive to note that the CMA recently rejected commitments made by Google in response to its concerns.

Google had given app developers some additional flexibility in the use of alternative payment systems. Similar to those Apple has proposed in the EU, Google’s proposals included a commission and pop-up screens to warn users when they were about to use a third-party payment system. 

Open markets seem inevitable

While the CMA hasn’t yet said which companies may be investigated for possible SMS designation, it’s unlikely Apple, Google, or other Big Tech firms will be able to avoid it.

After all, the regulator does state that it “anticipates that its early work under the new digital markets competition regime will build on and leverage its experience in areas it has already studied, such as mobile ecosystems, which includes app stores.” (Italics mine.)

The latest UK news around tech regulation follows similar announcements in the EU, Japan, and South Korea and potential incoming investigations in Apple’s second biggest market, China.

Please follow me on Mastodon, or join me in the AppleHolic’s bar & grill and Apple Discussions groups on MeWe.