2026-02-24 20:12:20
Almost exactly two years ago, I wrote a post about the muddled mistakes Microsoft seemed to be making with their "Xbox Everywhere" strategic shift. Re-reading it now, in light of the news of the major shakeup atop the Xbox division, and I think it pretty much nailed the failures we're now seeing play out, which have culminated in these changes – so much so that I'm going to steal my old URL slug for this title. Because I do think this signals the end for the endeavor...
2026-02-23 23:31:52
One of the more interesting things about NVIDIA being the most valuable company in the world for the past couple of years is that unlike their Big Tech peers, they're not really a known consumer brand. Sure, they have their graphics cards which have long been popular with gamers (and, of course, got them to their AI moment in the sun), but they're not the household name like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, or Meta. And that's in part because those who buy from NVIDIA (again, aside from hardcore gamers), are largely the aforementioned Big Tech players (well, aside from Apple).
NVIDIA, it seems, would like to change that...
Nvidia chips for laptop computers are set to hit the market this year in products from Dell, Lenovo and others, a return to the consumer PC market for the leader in artificial-intelligence chips.
The world’s most valuable company by market capitalization, Nvidia isn’t expecting big profit soon from getting its chips into everyday PCs, but analysts said it wanted to keep a connection with consumers in an era when every device will be AI-enabled.
It's sort of buried in here, but this isn't just about GPUs, but CPUs as well. And it's a "return" to that market – beyond their mini AI "supercomputers" – in that the company actually made such chips for Microsoft's original version of the Surface products – which, um, didn't go so well. But they also make the chips powering the Nintendo Switch – both the original and new Switch 2 – which has done extremely well, obviously.
Still, NVIDIA is known as the GPU company, not the CPU company. That, despite all their problems over the past many years, would still be Intel. Thanks to their long-gone but still iconic "Intel Inside" marketing campaigns, consumers know Intel. Which is exactly why, nearly two years ago, I wrote a post entitled: Can NVIDIA Become Intel Faster Than Everyone Becomes NVIDIA?. In it, I noted:
At the same time, NVIDIA is moving further into tangential fields with not only different types of GPUs, but also CPUs as well. At first, it seems the aim is to try to take on more of the datacenter workloads, which their rivals Intel and AMD have long controlled. But presumably, this portends a move to try to take on all computing chip needs in general.
All of that is to say, NVIDIA is trying to become Intel faster than Intel (and everyone else) can become NVIDIA.
Well, the race to become NVIDIA is still very much on – for pretty much everyone aside from perhaps Intel. And yes, here NVIDIA comes for "general" computing as well. And they're doing this, in part, with Intel – back to Jie:
For the PC chip, Nvidia has two collaborations: one with Intel, which was announced last year, and a second with Taiwanese chip designer MediaTek, which was informally disclosed by Nvidia Chief Executive Jensen Huang during a trip to Taiwan in January.
Nvidia’s new PC processors are designed to be what’s known as a system-on-a-chip. They integrate a central processor with the powerful graphics processing units for which the company is famous. GPUs are the chips that power AI models.
The Intel partnership would pair Intel CPUs with NVIDIA GPUs in one SoC. But the MediaTek one is arguably more interesting as it would be actual NVIDIA CPUs made in partnership with MediaTek working off of ARM designs – a company which, of course, NVIDIA was blocked from acquiring years ago.
It's that full NVIDIA SoC that Dell, Lenovo, and others seem to be circling. Undoubtedly in part to play up the NVIDIA angle, hoping to get some halo effect for PC sales. You could see the angle being something like "forget about Intel and AMD, NVIDIA, the company building the future of AI, is here with PC chips". Yes, they'd be touting "NVIDIA Inside".
Fewer consumers are paying attention to PCs these days in a tech world dominated by talk of AI and smartphones, but laptops are still a big business. Nvidia’s Huang has observed that roughly 150 million laptops are sold each year, explaining why the area is worth his attention.
“There’s an entire segment of the market where the CPU and GPU are integrated,” he said last September. “That segment has been largely unaddressed by Nvidia today.”
One imagines a company absolutely printing money at the moment – so much so that they can't find things to spend it on – can help with any marketing push too...
But while the obvious early sweet spot would be gamers, who again know the brand thanks to their GPUs, it's a bit of a complicated one:
For the Nvidia-MediaTek collaboration, the challenge will be making the PCs compatible with high-end games and other applications originally designed for the Intel standard.
The Arm architecture used by the Nvidia-MediaTek team has proved troublesome for gamers. In 2024, Microsoft rolled out new AI PCs with chips from Qualcomm using designs from Arm. Many gamers complained they couldn’t play their favorite games on those PCs.
But one has to imagine that NVIDIA can figure this out, even if Microsoft and Qualcomm couldn't – as they were clearly too focused on, what else: AI. (And, of course, Apple's MacBook Air.) Could such machines lead to an actual "supercycle" for the PC? Or is it just a smart play by NVIDIA to make some inroads into the hearts and minds of actual consumers as AI permeates everything?...
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
2026-02-22 22:39:04
I mean, the answer to the question in the title is: of course. But it's also a far more nuanced question that it may seem on the surface – or that could fit in a title. It's more along the lines of can OpenAI execute an AI device strategy before Amazon and Apple and Google and Meta can?
And it's especially interesting with Amazon given the reports that they're going to invest perhaps $50B into OpenAI's new funding round. From the moment it was rumored, that seemed like a wild amount of money, even for a company the size of Amazon. But certainly one that is also the largest shareholder in OpenAI's chief (startup) rival, Anthropic. And has a deep partnership with them on a few fronts. Perhaps most notably, to help power the new Alexa+ service. And it gets even more complicated with the reports that alongside this new funding, OpenAI may build custom models for Amazon's products – including, perhaps Alexa.
At the same time, we know that OpenAI is hard at work on their first devices. And ever since word started to trickle out about what they might be working on with Jony Ive's team at LoveFrom, my guess was basically along the lines of a newfangled smart speaker. As I wrote last May:
The problem with a full-on wearable in this regard is that everyone focuses far too much on the whole wearable part. That is, the exterior of the device and how it will work on your body. And then: how can I get the technology to work on that? But I suspect that OpenAI/IO are focused on the opposite: what's the best device to use this technology? Why does it have to be wearable?
To be clear, I suspect that whatever the device is, it will look fantastic – this is an Ive/LoveFrom production, after all – but that's mainly because beautiful products bring a sense of delight to users and can spur usage. I suspect the key to the design here will be yes: how it works. And again, I suspect that will be largely based around voice, and perhaps augmented by a camera.
And:
Anyway, the reporting here makes the IO device sound a bit like a newfangled tape recorder of sorts. Okay, I'm dating myself – a voice recorder. You know, the thing some journalists use to record subjects for interviews. Well, when they're not using their phones for that purpose, as they undoubtedly are 99% of the time these days. But it sounds sort of like that only with, I suspect, some sort of camera. I doubt that's about recording as much as it's about the ability to have ChatGPT "look" at something and tell you about it. But these are just guesses.
Well, they seem less like guesses now, and more like pretty solid predictions. OpenAI's device is shaping up as a sort of Amazon Echo for our modern age of AI. To me, the launch of GPT-4o was the key in showcasing where OpenAI was headed. The first true "omni" model that could properly input and output visuals and voice pointed directly towards the science fiction future of Her – a reference Sam Altman explicitly made, which got him in quite a bit of trouble...
But this was always about moving beyond the computer and perhaps even the smartphone. Or, at least, that's what OpenAI (and Meta – and even Amazon) have to hope. I tend to think all of these new AI devices are just going to reinforce the smartphone at the key hub (at least until models that can run locally on device are good and small enough), and Altman and Ive made it clear in the formal announcement of their partnership that whatever they were building would not be an iPhone replacement.
At the same time, clearly Ive was hoping it could be a device that could slowly ween people off his other famous creation. A parasitic device, in a way.
The form factor of what that parasite may look like keeps coming more into focus. On Friday, Stephanie Palazzolo and Qianer Liu published the latest such report for The Information. Noting that OpenAI now has more than 200 people working on various AI devices, including interestingly, a smart lamp. But the key one is clearly:
The smart speaker—the first device OpenAI will release—is likely to be priced between $200 and $300, according to two people with knowledge of it. The speaker will have a camera, enabling it to take in information about its users and their surroundings, such as items on a nearby table or conversations people are having in the vicinity, according to one of the people. It will also allow people to buy things by identifying them with a facial recognition feature similar to Apple’s Face ID, the people said.
To me, this sounds less like an "iPhone-killer" and more like an "Alexa-killer". Fine, fine, technically an "Echo-killer", but everyone uses them interchangeably, of course. In fact, the only thing holding it back – aside from, you know, it actually working – would be the price. $200 to $300 is more in the Apple ballpark than the Amazon one. That said, Amazon has pivoted their initial "Alexa everywhere" strategy (which forced Apple to shift their initial HomePod strategy) with cheap devices anywhere and everywhere to a more focused strategy around higher quality devices under Panos Panay.
Again, this feels like a collision course waiting to happen. And it's especially odd given the talk of the deepening relationship between OpenAI and Amazon. But if OpenAI is able to make an AI device that's great for shopping... perhaps the hope is to partner with Amazon to be the retail side of that equation. And vice versa! Maybe Amazon no longer cares if you buy using Alexa devices, just so long as you buy. That's probably smart, especially given how well (read: not well) the first wave of voice-based shopping went with Alexa.
And the two of them may be better off working together to combat Apple and Google. Not only are they the two other players battling for the home (alongside Samsung, of course), but they're the two that control smartphone platforms (alongside Samsung, thanks to Google, of course). And Apple is seemingly about to step it up in a major way in the home with the 'HomePad' device. It's thought to be a smart speaker with a camera, powered by AI. Sound familiar?
Of course Apple's, like at least half of Amazon's new Alexa+ lineup, will also feature a screen. Whereas the OpenAI device is believed not to have one. The lack of one has clearly hurt Amazon in the past for their shopping ambitions, so we'll see how OpenAI fares... But the visual input, the camera, will clearly be the other key for the device:
During a presentation last summer, leaders from the device team told employees the device will be able to observe users through video and nudge them toward actions it believes will help them achieve their goals, said a person who attended the presentation. You could imagine the device observing its user staying up late the night before a big meeting and suggesting that they go to bed, for example.
Interesting. That's going to be a very tricky set of features to promote. OpenAI will probably get more leeway than, say, Meta, but certainly not as much as Apple here. Oh yes, have I mentioned that Apple is also working on a camera-focused AI wearable? One that's meant to be the "eyes and ears" of the iPhone?
This is all shaping up for a very interesting next 12 months. Apple's 'HomePad' should come in the Spring – hopefully! – with Siri finally powered by Gemini, to meet the latest Alexa+ devices from Amazon in market. Google's own first real Gemini smart speaker should arrive around the same time. Meta will continue to iterate on the Ray-Bans while Apple could meet them in market in late 2026 or early 2027. Then this OpenAI smart speaker should hit...
One more thing: As The Information report notes, Adam Cue is one of the key players on the software side of this new OpenAI device, having come over from the acquisition of the io team. Cue is, of course, the son of longtime Apple SVP Eddy Cue. Another fun wrinkle in the race!
Thanks for reading, if you enjoyed this, perhaps:
🍺 Buy Me a Pint
🍺🍺 Buy Me 2 Pints (a month)
🍻 Buy Me 20 Pints (a year)
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
2026-02-20 01:27:04
Folks, strap yourselves in and get ready for a wild ride – or at least, a narrative violation: what if Apple is actually ahead in AI?..
2026-02-19 00:47:52
With media invites now out there, it sure looks like all systems are go for the long-rumored return of Apple's MacBook. Not the Air. Not the Pro. The first of its name. And a name Apple hasn't used since they killed off the last iteration in 2019. But a lot has changed since then. Most notably, Apple Silicon. Whereas the last MacBooks were either underpowered or overheating – or both – machines due to Intel's incompetence back then, we now live in an world without such concerns.1 As such, it's undoubtedly time to bring the brand back.
At the same time, the MacBook Air has basically become the MacBook. With the move away from the "tear drop" iconic design a few years back (just after the first M1 Airs), there's nothing decidedly Air about these machines. Sure, they're thin and light compared to the MacBook Pros, but certainly they could be thinner and lighter still with our new technologies. But Apple basically chose to stick with the name for marketing purposes. It works. Why mess with what works?
And so it sure seems like the new MacBook – if Apple does indeed decide to call it that2 – will go in a slightly different direction. It may end up the thinnest and lightest Mac, but that won't be the core selling point as it was with the last MacBook (and the original MacBook Airs). This one will be all about affordability. And yes. Colors.
This too has been rumored for months – and many of us have been clamoring for a return to the "fun" root of Apple's machines for far longer than that – but Mark Gurman has now seemingly confirmed one of the key selling points for Bloomberg:
Apple will market the machine to students and enterprise users and offer it in playful colors, going beyond the muted tones of the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro. Over the past year, Apple has tested options such as light yellow, light green, blue, pink, classic silver and dark gray — though it’s unlikely all of these will ship. I expect the MacBook to launch as early as March, with Apple preparing for an event that month.
Such colors, of course, are echoed in the invites to Apple's special "experience" in early March. And after years of decidedly drab designs, at least from a color-perspective (iMacs and a few iPads aside), color seems to be gathering momentum within Apple once again, thanks in no small part to the orange – sorry, "Cosmic Orange" – iPhone, which is said to be driving a lot of Pro model sales. Might yellow, green, and pink do the same for the MacBook lineup?3
Regardless, the key selling point here will clearly be the price. Since the rumors started, my guess has firmly been in the $799 range. Certainly not the cheapest laptops on the market by any stretch, but a solid $200 below the MacBook Air entry point (student discounts aside). The more interesting question is what it means for the M1 variety of the MacBook Air that Apple has been selling with Walmart at $699 – or often lower, with deals. Presumably, the time for that machine is over, unless they update it with a newer 'M' variant? M2? M3?!
But that also would be a strange move given that these new would-be MacBooks are said to be using iPhone-class Apple Silicon – aka an A-series chip. That plus a new production process is all about keeping costs down. And presumably that will mean less RAM as well – the hottest topic in the industry right now.
All of that likely adds up to machines which are fully tailored for the budget-oriented shopper – which notably could include schools, in bulk. An area which Apple has oddly ceded in the past many years to Chromebooks and yes, Microsoft. iPads were good in classrooms for some things but as Apple more than anyone likes to remind us, iPads are not MacBooks! They're not laptops. They're different, even as they increasingly look and act the same. And even in 2026, students still need laptops.
Still, beyond the colors, I personally remain intrigued by this element of the machines:
The machine will feature other compromises — compared with the MacBook Air or MacBook Pro — including a slightly smaller display that’s just under 13 inches. But in one area, Apple isn’t cutting corners: build quality.
This goes back to the last MacBook, which had a 12" screen. I loved that form-factor and would be tempted by something slightly smaller than the current 13" MacBook Air. But probably only if it had incredible battery life and could be upgraded from what will undoubtedly be 8GB of RAM as the base.
Give me a 2lb (actually) yellow MacBook with 16GB of RAM and I might be very intrigued... Otherwise, it will be a great (and fun) machine for many, I assume.
Thanks for reading, if you enjoyed this, perhaps:
🍺 Buy Me a Pint
🍺🍺 Buy Me 2 Pints (a month)
🍻 Buy Me 20 Pints (a year)
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
1 An Apple world without Intel, at least for now... ↩
2 I mean, would they ever dare go back to "iBook"? I assume not given that the 'i' prefix seems to have run its course post-iPad. Then again, we still have iMacs... What about another 'MacBook' variant? ↩
3 Obviously, there is already a blue MacBook Air – I'm typing on it right now! – as well as silver and "gray" (or whatever name Apple chooses for the darker variety these days). I am curious if "yellow" and "pink" end up being far different than the previous "gold" and "rose gold" color configurations... ↩
2026-02-18 02:36:41
The most obvious reference would be to The Godfather. So much so that I almost can't believe neither Netflix nor Warner Bros made it in their comments around the re-opening of discussions with Paramount. There are just so many to choose from! Even beyond any number of Corleone family quotes, there's the whole horses-head-in-the-bed bit. And so many others which are especially top of mind right now with the passing of Robert Duvall. Yes, yes, an activist, Ancora Holdings, already sort of played that hand. But come on. I mean, Paramount now literally has to make an offer that WBD cannot refuse!
Still, for some reason my mind is drawn towards another Paramount release: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. At the end of that film – 55 year spoiler alert – Wonka's demeanor suddenly switches from one of seeming disinterest in Charlie and Grandpa Joe as they're leaving, to one of anger. As Grandpa Joe pushes for the free chocolate Charlie was supposed to receive, Wonka points out the contract they signed. "It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!"
As Paramount has relentlessly pushed from all angles to suggest that they actually should have been the winners of the Warner Bros sweepstakes, Netflix has just sort of kept going. Making the case to Washington (and Hollywood) about the deal, but largely ignoring the "loser". Until today.
“Throughout the robust and highly competitive strategic review process, Netflix has consistently taken a constructive, responsive approach with WBD, in stark contrast to Paramount Skydance (PSKY),” Netflix said in a statement. “While we are confident that our transaction provides superior value and certainty, we recognize the ongoing distraction for WBD stockholders and the broader entertainment industry caused by PSKY’s antics.”
"Distraction" and "antics" are just the start.
“Accordingly, we granted WBD a narrow seven-day waiver of certain obligations under our merger agreement to allow them to engage with PSKY to fully and finally resolve this matter,” the streamer continued. “This does not change the fact that we have the only signed, board-recommended agreement with WBD, and ours is the only certain path to delivering value to WBD’s stockholders.”
This is Wonka getting out the magnifying glass to read the fine print...
Netflix reiterated that its deal with Warner Bros. would “deliver more choice and greater value to audiences worldwide with expanded access to exceptional films and series – both at home and in theaters.”
It also said the deal “is centered on growth, opportunity, and a reinforced commitment to creating world-class films and television – not consolidation and layoffs” and would expand production capacity, increase its investment in original content and create jobs.
In other words, this is Netflix calling Paramount's bluff. First and foremost, the fact that they keep floating the notion of raising their bid, without actually doing so. But also, the notion that they keep trying to spin a narrative that their deal, even without the price change, is better. Netflix has a pretty clear counter argument to that. It's a bit more than one word, but to boil it down: bullshit.
At the same time, Netflix blasted Paramount, arguing it has “repeatedly mischaracterized the regulatory review process by suggesting its proposal will sail through, misleading WBD stockholders about the real risk of their regulatory challenges around the world.” For example, the company noted that it received clearance from foreign investment authorities in Germany on Jan. 27 — the same day as Paramount.
It also said that the foreign funding backing Paramount-Skydance’s bid is “already raising serious national security concerns” and that it expects the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), Team Telecom in the U.S. and European authorities to scrutinize Paramount’s backing from Middle Eastern investors.
“In reality, PSKY is far from obtaining all of the regulatory clearances required,” the company said. “Enforcers will focus on the impact of PSKY’s proposal on competition, job losses, reduced output, and downward pressure on wages for film and television workers.”
Netflix also warned that the Paramount offer would create “significant horizontal overlaps” that will concern antitrust enforcers, including combining two of the five major Hollywood studios, two major theatrical distribution channels, two of the major TV studios, two major news networks and two major sports distributors.
Again, this reads like Wonka unloading on poor Grandpa Joe! And it keeps going:
Additionally, the streamer argued that Ellison’s “aggressive financing package, rapid deleveraging plans, and performance track record pose tremendous risks to both the completion of their proposed deal and the industry” and that Paramount would be over-leveraged with approximately $84 billion in debt and a roughly 7 times leverage ratio.
In order to hit the midpoint of its deleveraging targets, Netflix said it would need to realize roughly $16 billion of cost savings — far in excess of its previously disclosed $6 billion synergy figure — through “greater, even deeper job cuts that would irreparably harm the entertainment industry.” It added that Paramount is undershooting its guidance for 2026 adjusted operating income by 15%, which could mean even more cost cuts.
“This extraordinary execution risk and track record of operational underperformance could impact PSKY’s ability to fund and close a transaction,” the company concluded. “A business plan that is dependent upon $16 billion in cost savings should be an unmistakable red flag for regulators, policymakers, union leaders and creatives.”
In other words, Netflix to Paramount: put up (more money) or shut up. Netflix to WBD shareholders: even if they happen to put up a couple more bucks per share, you'd be crazy to go with their offer. We're so confident in this, that we're giving them a week to come back with something. After that, no more bullshit, let's get this deal done.
The problem for Netflix, of course, is that investors – at least those who own huge chunks of WBD shares – undoubtedly only care about the bottom-line here. If Paramount moves to $31 or $32 or $33/share, Netflix is likely going to have to counter with something beyond words – no matter how compelling those words may be! It's just math and investors are for the most part, stupid. They need the math to be done for them.
But, to a point sort of tangential to Netflix's own points, there might be a reason why Paramount hasn't yet raised their offer: because they're already insanely levered here. This would be a relatively small company buying a much larger one, versus the Netflix situation, which is the opposite. Both are using debt, of course. But only one needs a personal backstop from one of the richest men in the world – and the father of the CEO of the acquiring company – on that debt. It's, um, strange. And it doesn't really speak to an easy path forward here for the newly combined companies. Netflix and Warner Bros though? It may or may not be a success, but the path is far more straightforward.
Perhaps Paramount's play was to push this to the breaking point before raising their bid and trying to run away with the bag. Or maybe Netflix has one more trick up their sleeve as well. Either way, the next week will be fun! Will someone wake up with a horse head in the bed? Or are we about to go for a ride in the glass elevator? All options are back on the table thanks to a clearly pissed off Netflix, who got sick of WBD's meek attempts to tell Paramount to piss off.
Thanks for reading, if you enjoyed this, perhaps:
🍺 Buy Me a Pint
🍺🍺 Buy Me 2 Pints (a month)
🍻 Buy Me 20 Pints (a year)
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
