They could have matter of factly just described their algorithm. How many papers do you read from ACM that start off with a long, marketing oriented set of paragraphs to justify why the paper's algorithm was written?
Let if you're reading a paper on style transfer using DNN, you don't get "Well, we wanted to paint replicas of these paintings, but due to corporate issues, our motto, or our lack of impressionists, we were forced to invent this algorithm..."
I just felt like there was an excess of Apple branding and marketing in what's supposed to be a scientific paper. Yes, Google does this too, but on it's blogs, not in the actual CS papers it publishes.
The papers on Map Reduce or Dremel aren't full of humble brags.
This isn't a research paper. Apple never claimed it to be one. It's not in some scientific journal. It's not peer reviewed. It doesn't contain any level of detail. It lacks any of the sort of norms you would expect from a paper. It's even hosted on Apple.com in a blog style format.
So why are you holding it to a research paper standard ?
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.
Let if you're reading a paper on style transfer using DNN, you don't get "Well, we wanted to paint replicas of these paintings, but due to corporate issues, our motto, or our lack of impressionists, we were forced to invent this algorithm..."
I just felt like there was an excess of Apple branding and marketing in what's supposed to be a scientific paper. Yes, Google does this too, but on it's blogs, not in the actual CS papers it publishes.
The papers on Map Reduce or Dremel aren't full of humble brags.