Because jayd16 was responding to samwillis's comment about Apple being in a unique position.
Part of that unique position is already being a popular product. Google adding a bunch of local ML features isn't going to move the needle for Google if people aren't buying Pixels in the first place for reasons that have nothing to do with ML.
If Google's trying to roll out local ML features but 90% of Android phones can't support them, it's not benefiting Google that much. Hence, Apple's unique position to benefit in a way that Google won't.
> number of phones Google has sold is completely irrelevant to the fact that they too do local ai
How will they make money? For Apple, device purchases make local processing worth it. For Google, who distribute software to varied hardware, subscription is the only way. For reasons from updating to piracy, subscription software tends to be SaaS.
Does Google do on-device processing? Or do they have to pander to the lowest denominator, which happens to be their biggest marketshare?
If the answer is no, then does it make sense for them to allocate those resources for such a small segment, and potentially alienate its users that choose non-Pixel devices?
Also, if the answer is no, this is where Apple would have the upper-hand, given that ALL iOS devices run on hardware created by Apple, giving some guarantees.
The number of phones Google has sold is completely irrelevant to the fact that they too do local ai and have hardware on device for processing it.