Apple Executives Defend Apple Intelligence, Siri and AI Strategy
Apple's AI rollout has been rocky, from Siri delays to underwhelming Apple Intelligence features. WSJ's Joanna Stern sits down with software chief Craig Federighi and marketing head Greg Joswiak to talk about the future of AI at Apple—and what the heck happened to that smarter Siri.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Investors lukewarm on 30-year US bond auction
Charlie Jamieson from Jamieson Coote Bonds says markets are trying to price the deterioration of the long term outlook for the US credit rating, given Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' will blow out the US deficit. #ABCBusiness
The Australian
2 hours ago
- The Australian
US review on AUKUS nuclear submarine deal makes sense
The Americans are clearly having second thoughts on the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal. And who can blame them? The Albanese government has no credibility on defence with anyone, including the Americans. Elbridge Colby, the US Under-Secretary of Defence for Policy, will conduct a 30-day review to determine whether AUKUS fits in with Donald Trump's America First policies. Colby is a thoughtful and hugely influential strategic leader in the US. He is also one of the chief sceptics of AUKUS. The Australian embassy in Washington, under ambassador Kevin Rudd, has put enormous effort into trying to bring Colby round on AUKUS. Colby, like US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, considers Australia's defence effort, of a pitiful 2 per cent of GDP on defence spending, to be completely inadequate and obviously lacking all credibility. No country in history has gone down the road of acquiring nuclear-powered submarines without hugely increasing their defence budget. The Albanese government is trying to have all the benefits of AUKUS but not actually do anything substantial or timely about defence. It's interesting that in Hegseth's remarks relating to Australia at the recent security conference in Singapore, he mentioned various joint projects involving the US and Australia but didn't mention AUKUS at all. That's because the Trump administration understands that the most acute strategic challenge to Australia and regional security generally comes from China over the next 10 years, not in 30 years when Australia will notionally have its AUKUS fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. Colby also has fundamental doubts about the US industrial capacity to produce enough Virginia-class submarines to have one spare for Australia in the early 2030s. In order for the sale of Virginia subs to Australia to go ahead, the US must reach a production rate of well over two Virginias a year. The production rate is well below that. In the past, Colby has expressed a simple contradiction: if the US is short of nuclear-powered submarines itself why would it take one, and eventually three to five, out of its order of battle to sell them to Australia? The Albanese government, as a cheap alternative to producing a serious defence effort of its own, has committed to donating several billion dollars to the US to expand US industrial capacity. Defence Minister Richard Marles recently gave Hegseth a cheque for $800m. The Albanese government surely feels that by handing over hard money early, it will at least have bought kind comments from the Trump administration. And, of course, when the early 2030s finally come around, any outcome is possible. The US president at the time (JD Vance?) will go ahead with the deal only if it serves the US national interest and won't diminish its capability. It's hard to see how taking a Virginia-class sub out of the US Navy and putting it in Australia's navy will really satisfy those criteria. Instead, Australia could suffer further delay, and perhaps get, initially as a training boat, a much older sub. The Americans would also be aware that the necessary work to make the West Australian naval base at Stirling fit for US nuclear submarine basing, even temporary basing, is moving at a glacial pace, and is subject to the usual environmental green regulation madness and delays Australia specialises in. The bottom line is the Albanese government has not done enough within AUKUS to be a credible partner. And it has certainly not done enough with Australian defence capabilities outside AUKUS to make Australia credible in its own defence, or a seriously credible alliance partner for the US. The only foreign capital it consistently pleases these days is Beijing. If AUKUS were to fall over, it would be a blow to US credibility; it would also be a savage blow to Australian credibility, which is already in tatters. At the same time, there is no sign Anthony Albanese himself has any relationship with Donald Trump. Albanese promised he would visit the US early in this term. The decision not to go to Washington in connection with the G7 meeting in Canada next week is a sign of political cowardice on his part. He rightly has little or no confidence in his ability to handle a public encounter with Trump. Now it's not even clear if he can secure a proper meeting with Trump in Canada. The government's one commitment is to do and say the absolute minimum on security matters, in the hope controversy and difficulties blow over. It's not a remotely adequate approach. Read related topics: AUKUS Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan is The Australian's foreign editor. His most recent book, Christians, the urgent case for Jesus in our world, became a best seller weeks after publication. It makes the case for the historical reliability of the New Testament and explores the lives of early Christians and contemporary Christians. He is one of the nation's most influential national security commentators, who is active across television and radio, and also writes extensively on culture and religion. He has written eight books, mostly on Asia and international relations. A previous book, God is Good for You, was also a best seller. When We Were Young and Foolish was an entertaining memoir of culture, politics and journalism. As foreign editor, he specialises in Asia and America. He has interviewed Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world.
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Donald Trump's huge AUKUS call could change everything
ANALYSIS It is Australia's most ambitious construction project ever. It was never going to be easy. Just four years after the AUKUS agreement to share the production of a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines was signed to much fanfare in the presence of then Prime Ministers Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson and President Joe Biden, it's facing its first existential crisis. US President Donald Trump has launched a review to ensure the partnership conforms with his Make America Great Again (MAGA) dogma. His expectations are high. AUKUS, however, is already a big ask. Australia must produce nuclear engineers out of nowhere. It must reinvent its industrial base after abandoning any pretence of being a manufacturing nation with the cancelling of the car industry two decades ago. This must be capable of scaling the pinnacle of manufacturing technology, naval submarine building, before the 2040s. And Australia must somehow stump up the cash to do so. AUKUS is a rare example of long term thinking from Canberra. It was always going to take an even rarer commitment for cross-government continuity. But it was never going to be solely Australia's problem. Britain has to be on board. And it has yet to overcome its own budgetary, workforce, and industry hurdles. The United States is central to the plan's success. But it's also struggling with decades of shipbuilding neglect. Not to mention intensely polarised party politics. And now its 47th President is applying his trademark volatility to the fragile agreement. 'The Department is reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous Administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda,' a US Defence Department spokesperson said this morning. 'As Secretary Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our servicemembers, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. 'This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.' Art of the deal 'THE GOLDEN RULE OF NEGOTIATING AND SUCCESS: HE WHO HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULES,' Trump posted to his personal social media service Truth Social in April. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles made Australia's first $US500 million down payment on a $US3 billion contribution to upgrading US shipbuilding capacity in a February visit to the Pentagon. It's just a drop in the ocean of the $368 billion needed to deliver eight submarines by the 2050s. But Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth last month relayed a demand that Australia up its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of the national budget 'as soon as possible'. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declined, pointing to the massive AUKUS outlay as evidence of Canberra's commitment to do its bit. But is it enough to satisfy Trump? His administration is reviewing every decision of the past President, Joe Biden, as a matter of partisan principle. AUKUS has not escaped its attention. Trump wants allied defence money spent on US-designed and manufactured military equipment. Even if it comes with significant strategic, resilience and alliance benefits, outsourcing construction to Australia is not his style. So, the appointment of AUKUS sceptic and Under Secretary of Defence Elbridge Colby to lead the review has raised fears about his true intentions. Last year, Colby called the idea of selling US submarines to Australia 'crazy'. He stated the move would weaken the US Navy's ability to put powerful assets where needed in times of crisis. He softened this tone a little during his confirmation hearing earlier this year. 'If we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great,' he said. 'But if we can't, that becomes a very difficult problem. 'Because we don't want our servicemen and women to be in a weaker position and more vulnerable, and, God forbid, worse because they are not in the right place in the right time.' Australia faces precisely the same problem. John Bolton survived as Trump's former national security advisor for more than a year. He believes the move is about scaling back, or abandoning, the pact. 'It's more a question of how much of a downsize they are looking at, including potentially total cancellation — which would be catastrophic, a huge mistake for the US with enormous consequences for Australia and the UK.' Clear and present danger Defence Secretary Hegseth last month told the Shangri-la Dialogue of defence ministers in Singapore that war with China was 'imminent'. Beijing was openly practising its invasion plans for Taiwan, he said. The US - and Australia - aren't ready. Decades of on-again, off-again defence procurement plans have thrown navies, air forces and armies into disarray. And all the while, their ships, aircraft, tanks and equipment were approaching - and passing - their useful lives. Beijing, however, has been building big. It now has the world's largest navy. Its air force is both significant in size and technological capability. Its army has been reformed and retrained. And there's a new spanner in the works. Donald Trump. He wants to annex ally and next-door neighbour Canada. He wants to seize NATO partner Denmark's self-governed protectorate of Greenland. He wants to send in his troops to take control of the Panama Canal. Mostly, though, he wants his allies to do what he says. Overnight, his Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned Canberra, London, Ottawa and Oslo for daring to impose sanctions on Israel's far-right coalition government partners Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. 'We reject any notion of equivalence: Hamas is a terrorist organisation that committed unspeakable atrocities, continues to hold innocent civilians hostage, and prevents the people of Gaza from living in peace,' Rubio said in a statement. Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, however, have repeatedly called for the weaponization of starvation, the occupation of Palestinian land, and the forced deportation of Arabs from Gaza and the West Bank. Calling out this behaviour is a sovereign geopolitical stand taken by Canberra. It's bound to generate pushback from the White House. 'If AUKUS falls over it is Australia that pays the price,' Shadow Defence Minister Angus Taylor said this morning. 'We would face a dangerous gap in capability at a time when we lack the capacity to go it alone.' With friends like these... 'When the AUKUS submarine deal was agreed to in 2021, an understandably angry French foreign minister said, 'Australia has sacrificed sovereignty for the sake of security. It is likely to lose both',' former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull stated in an essay published last week. 'AUKUS may be a cautionary tale for other allies. Sovereignty and autonomy are more important than ever. Compromise them at your peril.' Trump's America First agenda is not just economic. It's strategic. And personal. He's launched a global trade war against friends and enemies (except Russia and North Korea). He's dismantling international trade, corruption, climate and humanitarian agreements. He's lambasted Europe and the NATO alliance for failing to carry its weight. He's threatened to 'leave them to Russia' in the face of looming conflict. 'The reality of Trump's administration—the contempt for law both at home and abroad, the bullying, the abrogation of agreements and treaties, the threats against allies, and the cuddling up to tyrants—is plain to see. But it still seems incredible,' Turnbull writes. However, like NATO, Australia is totally dependent on US military support. Without it, it doesn't have an air force, an army, or a navy. For example, US-built F-35 stealth fighters are reliant on ongoing US support. Computer services, software patches, spare parts, and rare materials… are all subject to Washington's whims. Then there's satellite surveillance, navigation and communications. The Albanese Government has abandoned plans to build up a sovereign satellite manufacturing and launch capability. That leaves the military and emergency services totally reliant on US and other foreign suppliers. They're powerful coercion cards Trump is clearly willing to play. 'In recent years, Australia has become more dependent on the United States even as the United States has become less dependable,' Turnbull adds. 'This dynamic is most glaring when it comes to the formation of AUKUS.' But former Australian Prime Minister and Chinese state-run China Development Bank board member Paul Keating says any move by Trump to terminate the AUKUS deal would 'save Australia from itself'. 'AUKUS will be shown for what it always has been: a deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Jhonson and the confused President, Joe Biden.' Heart of the matter Under the AUKUS agreement, Australia would receive its first second-hand Block IV US Virginia-class attack boat no sooner than 2032. Australia has committed to purchasing another old Block IV and a new Block VII by 2038. And it holds an option on a further two. Delivery of new, collaborative next-generation designs - from both the UK and a new submarine assembly facility in Adelaide - is not expected until well into the 2040s. Secretary Hegseth, however, believes Beijing will be ready to move on Taiwan by 2027. On Tuesday, Hegseth sought to reassure London and Canberra that he was committed to honouring the AUKUS deal despite a growing US shipbuilding crisis. He told the US House of Representatives that the Pentagon was talking 'every day' to US shipbuilders to ensure 'their needs are being met and their shortfalls are being addressed so we can close that gap in real-time.' Critics argue that the US should not sell even second-hand submarines to Australia while its fleet is struggling to make up its numbers. 'There is a gap,' Hegseth admitted, 'but we believe we are closing it.' But the Pentagon has moved to further delay construction by pushing $US3.1 billion worth of work on new Columbia-class nuclear ballistic missile carrying submarines back by one year. And US attack submarine shipbuilders are already working near maximum capacity while struggling against workforce shortages and supply chain challenges brought about by growing international trade tensions. Australia, however, has put itself in a position where it faces a future without submarines. 'If you don't stick to a plan, you will never acquire the capability,' Defence Minister Marles said this morning. Canberra should know. Successive Liberal and Labor governments have handballed, delayed, and abandoned every plan for a Collins-class replacement for the past two decades. 'So our focus is on sticking to this plan and on seeing it through … because chopping and changing guarantees, you will never have the capability,' he added. But that's not his call. London has a say. As does Washington. Meanwhile, the implications for defence remain stark: 'You just need to look at the map to understand that Australia absolutely needs to have a long-range submarine capability,' Marles concluded.
