1. The article is based on a paper submitted to the prestigious CVPR, which is obviously not anonymous. ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07828 ) They mention this at the end of the post.
2. The blog's "journal" name is misleading. It means "journal" in the sense of a record of some of the stuff happening at Apple. My guess is that the blog post does not name authors because it was written by an Apple representative who manages public communications---probably because Apple is very very particular about managing their brand and what they say publicly. I wouldn't put it beyond Apple to hire someone well-versed in ML just for this role.
So, while they are starting to allow researchers to publish, they have quite some distance to go to encourage their researchers to communicate freely. One step at a time, I guess...
PS: Somehow the SNAFU of deliberately calling it a "journal" is very reminiscent of Steve Jobs's chutzpah.
Well, the "journal" in the sense of academic publishing and in the sense of a blog derive from the same root: a continuing first-person description of one's activities, updated periodically over a stretch of time.
So who wrote this? You say it's "based on a paper" written by known authors, but did they write this publication? Why not put their names not on it? Or did a representative write it, as you suggest? We don't know. It's anonymous.
> The blog's "journal" name is misleading
The usage seems similar to that of "Bell Labs Technical Journal" or "Lincoln Laboratory Journal."
It is unattributed, and while clearly based on the CVPR it is different enough that if it were a traditional publication it would be counted separately. If someone wanted to cite this post, what would they cite?
1. The article is based on a paper submitted to the prestigious CVPR, which is obviously not anonymous. ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07828 ) They mention this at the end of the post.
2. The blog's "journal" name is misleading. It means "journal" in the sense of a record of some of the stuff happening at Apple. My guess is that the blog post does not name authors because it was written by an Apple representative who manages public communications---probably because Apple is very very particular about managing their brand and what they say publicly. I wouldn't put it beyond Apple to hire someone well-versed in ML just for this role.
So, while they are starting to allow researchers to publish, they have quite some distance to go to encourage their researchers to communicate freely. One step at a time, I guess...
PS: Somehow the SNAFU of deliberately calling it a "journal" is very reminiscent of Steve Jobs's chutzpah.