[coffeecoders]

I feel like being in a time loop. Every time a big company releases a model, we debate the definition of open source instead of asking what actually matters. Apple clearly wants the upside of academic credibility without giving away commercial optionality, which isn't unsurprising.

Additionally, we might need better categories. With software, flow is clear (source, build and binary) but with AI/ML, the actual source is an unshippable mix of data, infra and time, and weights can be both product and artifacts.

[basisword]

I'm glad you said it. Incredible tech and the top comment is debating licensing. The demos I've seen of this are incredible and it'll be great taking old photos (that weren't shot with a 'spatial' camera) and experiencing them in VR. I think it sums up the Apple approach to this stuff (actually impacting peoples lives in a positive way) vs the typically techie attitude.

[mabedan]

> which isn't unsurprising

There has to be an easier combination of words for conveying the same thing.

[ericflo]

I don't think it isn't unsurprising :)

[jama211]

Wait so you are surprised?