Don't give me a launch 2: Hear about WWDC from me too

Years ago, a major launch event was held at the Lütfi Kırdar Convention and Exhibition Center in Istanbul for the Nokia 9210 Communicator.

Dealers had been invited. The hall had been prepared. The stage had been set. The lights were on. Instead of a technology writer, they had left the presentation of the night to Beyazıt Öztürk.

After a while, the event turned from a technology launch into a dealer meeting. As I was leaving, two people on stage were trying to quickly pass a cucumber between their legs to each other. 

They laughed.

They had fun.

Morning came.

The next day, I called Nokia.

“Send me a device, let me review it,” I said.

The answer was very clear:

“There are no devices available.”

That was the day I wrote an article titled “Don't give me a launch.” It was published in the magazine group I was working for at the time.

Because there was a very simple problem.

You don't hold a launch for a product that doesn't exist.

Years have passed.

Today, I see that Apple is making the same mistake.

One of the most important headlines of the WWDC event held last week was Siri again. Or rather, Apple’s new AI-powered Siri promise.

But the issue was this:

Apple was retelling almost the exact same Siri features it had announced at the previous WWDC.

So what happened?

The features described on stage last year did not become operational in the systems on time. Apple could not deliver the AI features and new Siri capabilities it announced during the iPhone 16 era at the speed it promised the user.

This didn't just lead to bad reviews in the tech press.

In a lawsuit filed in the US, Apple had to reach a $250 million settlement due to these delayed AI and Siri promises.

It is clear that Apple did not want to repeat the same mistake this year. This time, it didn't make wild promises. It tried to tidy up the work it had previously mentioned but couldn't deliver on time.

This was the reason the tech world didn't really like the Siri presentation.

No one said it out loud, but the feeling was clear:

“Don't give me a launch.”

Because in the age of AI, everyone is tired of listening to promises.

The new Siri will be like this.

The phone will understand you like this.

It will navigate between apps like this.

It will interpret the content on the screen like this.

It will know your personal context like this.

These are all nice.

But they are only nice if they work.

They are nice if they have reached the user.

They are nice if a journalist can review them.

Otherwise, it is just a stage show.

For years, Apple’s greatest strength was its “build first, tell later” culture. That is why the company was reliable. It was assumed that what was told on stage would sooner or later come to the device. However, in the AI race, Apple also caught the bad habit of Silicon Valley. Tell first. Then try to catch up. If you can't catch up, postpone it.

If criticism comes, tell it more cautiously.

This method does not suit Apple.

Because Apple’s difference was never to speak first. Apple’s difference was to release a working product after everyone else had finished talking.

The point Daron Acemoğlu missed

Last week, Daron wrote an article in Gazete Oksijen titled "What the Pope said about AI is not enough." Although I found it hard to reconcile his taking the subject through the Pope with a scientist’s objective perspective, I find his focus on the AI topic very appropriate.

However, the point I find lacking in Daron’s AI analyses is that he evaluates this technology like previous technological transformations. Yet, AI is not just changing our lives. The life it changes also changes AI itself a few months later. The process is not linear. It is a feedback loop that folds back on itself.

We see this most clearly in the software world. Just a few years ago, there was a huge wall between those who knew programming and those who didn't. Then came vibe coding. People started producing working tools and services without learning technical details. But this is not the most important change. Vibe coding has started to shake the world of applications we are used to and know. Because now, it may not be necessary for everyone to use the same application. Every user can have tools produced according to their own needs. AI did not transform a sector here; it started to change the reason for the sector’s existence.

Another objection I have is to the frequently heard sentence “AI is not human intelligence.” Of course, they are not the same thing. However, saying that AI cannot understand human thought based on this is becoming an increasingly weak argument. When I was in high school, my physics teacher would explain that the human brain could understand that thousands of other things were leaves by looking at one leaf, and that computers could not do this. He was right for that day. Not today. AI has started to learn not only to recognize objects but also to generalize. Moreover, it does this with a success that surprises humans in many fields.

More importantly, thanks to AI, we are beginning to see the mathematics of thought for the first time. We are trying to understand how the human mind forms patterns, how it establishes relationships, and how it generalizes. AI may not be a copy of human intelligence. But it is clear that it is one of the most powerful tools we have developed so far to understand how human thought works.

There is one point where Daron is right. The hardest blow from AI may be taken by today’s “developing countries.” In fact, let’s drop this British politeness. Not developing, but underdeveloped countries. If they remain only followers, this technology will widen the gap even further. However, the same technology also creates opportunities for leaps of unprecedented magnitude in history. Therefore, AI could be both the greatest threat and the greatest opportunity for underdeveloped countries.

The problem is that we are still trying to evaluate AI like the steam engine, electricity, or the internet. Yet, this time we are not just facing a technology that changes life. We are facing a technology that changes itself thanks to the life it changes. For this reason, measuring AI with the ruler of past transformations may lead us to wrong conclusions.

What I Reviewed This Week: Logitech G502 X Lightspeed

I have been reviewing technology products for years. Some products look impressive at first glance but are forgotten after a few days. Others do not attract much attention at first glance, but you understand why they are so loved once you start using them. This week, I had the Logitech G502 X Lightspeed model on my desk.

The G502 series is actually a family long known among gamers. Logitech has constantly updated this series over the years. The G502 X Lightspeed appears as a more modern and mature version of the series.

The first thing that caught my attention was the ergonomics. The mouse is specifically designed for right-handed users. The thumb rest and the natural placement of the hand are quite successful. It does not cause discomfort during long-term use. It offers a comfortable experience for daily office work as well as when playing games.

On the technical side, Logitech’s Lightspeed wireless technology is used. For years, latency and connection problems were discussed in wireless mice. However, today, this problem has largely disappeared in high-end gaming mice. The G502 X Lightspeed is also quite successful in this regard. It feels like you are using a wired mouse.

Another strong point of the model is its battery life. Unlike the Plus model with RGB lighting, there are no unnecessary light shows here. In return, a much longer battery life is obtained. For me, this is an important preference. Fewer distractions on the desk and longer usage time are always an advantage.

The programmable buttons on the mouse are also useful, especially on the productivity side. Different tasks can be assigned to these buttons during video editing, design, software development, or intensive internet use. Thus, the product appeals not only to gamers but also to professional users.