"But in Machine Translation, Apple is ahead." was an example of a statement that could be made if metrics existed, he is not asserting that that is true.
I assumed that he was asserting it to be true, because as my updated comments shows, the metrics do exist. But Apple neither releases them nor does it discloses the architecture/technology (if any) used.
As others have mentioned, you are completely wrong in your assumptions. It is you who shows zero clue in reading comprehension and communication. I'm well aware of the benchmarks used by industry and academia. I've been working in the industry for many years, including multiple ML-based products used commercially and running in production serving a large number of customers. Machine translation was just an example, and there was no assertion that company A is better than B; I was in no way "asserting it to be true". I was merely providing an illustrative example to highlight the fact that * popular press * articles about ml, such as this one, are quick with subjective opinion, without providing in writing the necessary citation and metrics to back their claims. Furthermore, they do so at a generalized level, without going into specific subdomains. My initial post was intended as a constructive comment, so take it as such.