Maybe because I expect research to be published not just as marketing fluff, but also to be published as papers too. Apple for a long time was known for blocking their AI researchers from participating at conferences or publishing. They published their first paper only recently in 2016 (https://www.macrumors.com/2016/12/26/apples-ai-team-first-pa...) and it seems like squeezing water from rock.
This behavior rubs me the wrong way. Science is a collaborative community endeavor. Look at how many papers have been published by Google (https://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html) 874 in machine intelligence, arguably Google's main secret sauce that you could argue they should keep as a trade secret for competitive differentiation.
Apple's secrecy in product development is fine, but IMHO, if you're consuming the fruits of community academic and commercial research, and trumpeting your products advancements based on that, it behooves you to publish more openly, the papers, at least on preprint services like ArVix.
This behavior rubs me the wrong way. Science is a collaborative community endeavor. Look at how many papers have been published by Google (https://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html) 874 in machine intelligence, arguably Google's main secret sauce that you could argue they should keep as a trade secret for competitive differentiation.
Apple's secrecy in product development is fine, but IMHO, if you're consuming the fruits of community academic and commercial research, and trumpeting your products advancements based on that, it behooves you to publish more openly, the papers, at least on preprint services like ArVix.