Apple wants to change our homes, Elon Musk wants to change our roads. So, which one sees the future?

Sometimes developments in the technology world are such that it is impossible to understand where companies want to go just by looking at the products introduced. It is necessary to look at the way of thinking behind those products rather than the products themselves. The discussions about Apple's smart home technologies last week and the claims that have come back to the agenda around the Tesla Roadster made me think exactly about this.

On one side, there is Apple, which wants to settle into the center of our homes but has not yet brought the artificial intelligence to do so to the level we want. On the other side, there is Elon Musk, who, while discussing the future of the automobile, is perhaps preparing to eliminate the very concept of the automobile itself.

Two different companies, two different executives, and two very different approaches to the future.

Apple has everything, except for artificial intelligence

The most important problem I see when I look at Apple's smart home strategy is this: The company has created a significant part of the hardware ecosystem necessary to place artificial intelligence at the center of our homes. However, the artificial intelligence that will make this entire system truly meaningful is not yet there.

I am talking about Siri.

Siri, which Apple has been developing for years and which is inside our phones, computers, and home devices, has become one of the players left furthest behind in the artificial intelligence race today.

I am not saying this just by looking at its technical specifications. I also see it in my daily use.

For example, I am someone who uses both Turkish and English together. Because I deal with technology, there are many English technical terms in my conversations. I have been using Siri for dictation for many years. In the past, I used to try to Turkify even English terms as much as possible. Because Siri's ability to switch between two languages was a serious problem.

I saw some improvements in later versions. However, at the point I have reached today, I realize that it is more efficient to dictate via ChatGPT instead of dictating via Siri.

Because the issue is not just recognizing words. It is understanding the context of the conversation.

Siri often cannot understand what the technical term I said means and why it is in that sentence.

Currently, one of the most important conveniences Siri provides me is being able to give some commands by voice while creating shortcuts. But there is an important distinction here: Siri makes the job easier but does not make it frictionless.

This is exactly the issue of frictionless technology, which I have emphasized before on 12Punto.

Good technology is technology that does not create new work for the user. It is technology that understands what the user wants to do and gets them to the result with as little intervention as possible.

Siri has not yet achieved this.

CarPlay works in the car. So, would the same logic work at home?

When evaluating the screen approach Apple is considering for the home, the first product that came to my mind was CarPlay.

CarPlay is an extremely successful solution. While your phone continues to work, you can use the functions you need on your car's screen. Services such as navigation, music, communication, and the like appear before you with an interface suitable for the conditions of using the car.

However, there is a very important reason for CarPlay's success.

The digital experience in the car is largely personal.

The phone is yours, your music list is yours, your navigation destination is yours. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for the car's screen to turn into an extension of your phone.

The situation is different at home.

A home is not used by a single person. Your spouse, children, and guests are in the home. Everyone's needs, habits, and access permissions are different.

Therefore, a screen to be placed at the center of the home needs to be much more than a personal terminal working with the CarPlay logic.

I would have expected something else from Apple.

Those who remember will know that Apple once had networking products called AirPort. With products like AirPort Express, AirPort Extreme, and Time Capsule, Apple was trying to manage not only our computers but also the communication infrastructure of our homes.

Time Capsule, in particular, was an extremely interesting product. While performing network management on one hand, it offered local storage and backup opportunities on the other.

If Apple really wants to start a new era in smart homes today, it should rethink this approach.

I am talking about a central device that manages the home's internet connection, stores local data, establishes communication between devices, recognizes family members, and manages all of this with a powerful artificial intelligence.

A system that can work like a NAS when necessary, will not have to send all data to the cloud, and can perform local artificial intelligence operations.

Such a device could be the true center of a smart home.

But Apple has a major problem here.

Tim Cook's subscription dilemma

One of the most important differences between Steve Jobs and Tim Cook emerges in the areas they prioritize while managing the company.

Steve Jobs's Apple was primarily product-centric. He would develop a new product, make that product indispensable in people's lives, and sell it.

During the Tim Cook era, Apple transformed into a company that increasingly attaches more importance to service revenues and subscriptions.

It is not difficult to understand why this is attractive from a financial perspective.

In hardware production, you have to cover research, development, production, and inventory costs. When you launch the product, sales revenues are generated. However, in the subscription model, there is a more regular, more predictable, and recurring revenue stream.

This is one of the reasons why the SaaS model has become so widespread.

Tim Cook moved this model to the center of Apple. He diversified the company's revenue structure with iCloud, Apple Music, Apple TV, and other services.

However, there is a limit to this approach.

For example, I use a 2 TB iCloud subscription. I pay about 500 liras per month. However, I don't even use half of my storage space. Therefore, I have no reason to switch to a higher package.

If I need more storage space in the future, I can set up a NAS in my home. I can also turn to other cloud services.

The dilemma facing Apple starts exactly here.

If the company places a powerful device with local storage and backup features in our homes, it could cause some users to reduce their iCloud subscriptions.

In other words, a product that could be better for the user might harm the company's current revenue model.

This is a point that I think is one of the most important impasses of Tim Cook's management style.

A company may move away from developing better products for the sake of protecting its current revenues.

The deficiency I see in Apple's smart home approach might be partly due to this.

Siri's problem is its character before its intelligence

The problem Apple is experiencing regarding artificial intelligence is not just technological. Another important problem is what kind of character it is trying to give to artificial intelligence.

Here, it is necessary to mention the concept of anthropomorphism.

Anthropomorphism means attributing human characteristics to non-human entities.

I have no problem with artificial intelligences speaking like humans. In fact, it is extremely useful for them to speak in a natural voice, fluently and clearly.

However, speaking like a human and trying to have a character like a human are different things.

It seems extremely wrong to me for an artificial intelligence to show sensitivity, to go on the defensive, to make the user's style a personal issue, or to produce a reaction as if it were a human.

Because what is in front of us is not a human.

It is software.

Moreover, it is software designed to help its user.

Of course, an artificial intelligence should have security boundaries. However, these boundaries do not need to be implemented through a character that mimics human emotions and gives the impression of personal offense.

An artificial intelligence can explain why it cannot fulfill a request when necessary. But while doing so, it should not make itself a party to the argument.

I think one of the problems Siri has been in for years is this approach.

If Apple really wants to save Siri, it must first stop forcing it to act like a human.

Because the reason we need artificial intelligence is not to create a new human character, but to perform the tasks that humans can do more easily.

Unless Siri solves this problem, it is difficult for Apple's smart home ecosystem to gain the expected meaning.

HomePod will remain a speaker. The home screen will remain a screen. And Apple TV will continue to be a device we connect to the television.

What makes these a smart home is not the hardware itself, but the intelligence that will manage the relationship between them.

And Apple's main deficiency is still here.

Elon Musk, on the other hand, is thinking about transportation, not the automobile

While Apple is trying to expand its existing ecosystem, Elon Musk's approach is very different.

The discussions around the Tesla Roadster made me think about this once again.

The extraordinary acceleration values, rocket-assisted maneuverability, and promises that go beyond the limits of traditional automobiles discussed for the Roadster are certainly remarkable.

However, when these are looked at only from the perspective of automotive engineering, the main issue might be missed.

There is an important side to the criticisms Fatih Altaylı brought to the agenda via the Roadster: What will a car reaching extraordinary speeds in a very short time or performing unusual maneuvers gain for the daily user?

How much can the human body withstand the accelerations created by these movements? How much sense do these features make for the passengers sitting inside the vehicle?

When viewed with today's understanding of the automobile, these are extremely valid questions.

However, I look at the issue from another angle.

What Elon Musk is doing might be changing the definition of the automobile rather than improving its features.

Because it is becoming increasingly difficult to evaluate Tesla only as an automobile company.

Let's look at what Musk did with SpaceX. He placed reusable rockets at the center of commercial space transportation. He implemented an approach that had been shown to be possible before but could not be popularized from an economic and operational perspective on an industrial scale.

With The Boring Company, he turned to opening transportation tunnels under cities.

With Tesla, he made electric cars a strong alternative in the mass market.

The common feature of these initiatives is that they question the boundaries accepted by existing sectors.

Therefore, looking at the Roadster only as a sports car to be compared with Porsche or Ferrari might not be enough.

The car of the future may not be a car

Pay attention to the discussions on autonomous driving.

Almost the entire sector is acting on the same assumption: In the future, cars will drive themselves, and we will spend more time inside the car.

As a result, the interior of the car is being tried to be turned into a living space.

Larger screens, more comfortable seats, entertainment systems, work environments...

All of these are based on the same basic assumption.

The car will still move on the asphalt.

The journey will still take hours.

We will only spend that time more comfortably.

But what if this assumption is wrong?

What if the transportation vehicle of the future is very different from what we call an automobile today?

This is the question that comes to my mind when I evaluate Elon Musk's initiatives together.

On one side, there is autonomous driving. On the other side, there are underground transportation systems. On another side, there are studies on rocket technologies and very different movement capabilities.

All of these do not have to be parts of a single transportation architecture. But it shows that Musk does not think of transportation as limited only to the highway.

In fact, even the Tesla Roadster sent into space with the first test flight of Falcon Heavy in 2018 was a symbolic example of this approach.

That car was not landed on Mars. It was sent into an orbit around the sun.

But the message given was clear: You can even rethink the limits of where a car can be.

We do not yet know how extraordinary features the Roadster will really have in the future. Whether all the promises made in the introductions will find a response in a commercial product is another matter.

However, what catches my attention is the discussion these promises have opened in the automotive sector.

Perhaps to design the transportation vehicle of the future, one must first get rid of the idea of the automobile.

Developing the future, or redefining the future?

We can see the difference between Apple and Elon Musk's companies more clearly here.

Apple is trying to build a stronger ecosystem by connecting its existing products and services. However, while doing this, the need to protect existing revenue models can limit how far the company can go.

Elon Musk, on the other hand, often questions why those boundaries exist instead of accepting the boundaries of the existing sector.

It is not possible to say that this approach is always successful. Many of Musk's claims were delayed, and some of his projects did not yield the expected results. However, the important difference in his approach is that he questions the category the product belongs to before the features of the product.

While Apple is designing a new screen for the smart home, Musk is making people think about whether the car needs a road.

One is trying to manage the devices inside the home better. The other is reopening the question of in what environment transportation will take place.

Of course, these are different engineering problems. But they also show a very important distinction that the technology world is facing today.

Will we move forward by improving existing technologies a little more, or will we re-question the assumptions we have accepted as true until today?

In my opinion, one of the most important technology races of the coming years will take place here.

Because the winners of the future will not only be those who produce faster processors, larger screens, or more powerful artificial intelligence.

Perhaps the real winners will be those who can ask the questions we haven't asked until today.

And then we will face another question:

Will the biggest technology companies of the future be those who make the products we use today better, or those who question why we need those products?