2026-08-22 01:49:51
Did you miss me while I was away? Not that I wasn't busy still writing in between planes and pools. But I come back bearing gifts. Well, a gift – albeit one long requested by many of you... full RSS feeds for paid members of The Inner Ring. Yes, over two years in the making – well, more like a few hours, thanks to our AI overlords helping me out – I finally cracked the code. Unfortunately, it still needs a fairly manual deployment at the moment – which is to say, if you're interested and a paid member, shoot a note to subs [at] spyglass.org. If not, carry on. The current RSS feed will continue to work just fine, albeit truncated.
Happy last days of Summer. And Friday.
Inklings is a newsletter featuring links and commentary from M.G. Siegler on timely topics found around the web.
💸 Yet Another New Flavor of Hackquisition – NVIDIA is paying $6B to the investors in Poolside for... something. Technically, it sounds like a license to access their "open" model "factory", which sounds a lot like technology created – perhaps after a couple pivots – to be acquired by NVIDIA. After all, Jensen Huang's two favorite words of late are "open" and "factory". Not on that list is "acquired" – this is the word that shall never be mentioned in such deals, lest regulators come calling. Again, this is just a licensing deal and some job offers – 109 of them, to be exact. But interestingly, unlike most other "hackquistions" to date, this one explicitly does not include the founders. In fact, they're staying back with the remaining parts (if any) of the company, and raising $1B from NVIDIA at a new $12B (pre) valuation for their troubles. I mean, what?! What could possibly go wrong? The only thing that is clear here is that NVIDIA has way too much money on their hands, and they seemingly can't give it away fast enough. [Newcomer 🔒]
💨 Pissing in the Wind – While I've largely been on the side of Epic's Tim Sweeney over many years now with regard to the App Store rules – and I think I correctly read long ago the game he seemed to be playing to continuously bait Apple – his comments the last few days in light of Apple and the EC seemingly reaching a detente over the rules in the EU seem disingenuous at best and unhinged at worst. This would seem to be some last-ditch effort to keep the EC fighting, but come on, it's over dude. You got some of what you wanted! Distribution outside of the App Store is here and payments on the web are mandated – including, importantly, in the US, which was largely you're doing! It's true that those payments won't be completely free of charge, and I get that the EC de facto accepting that makes the US case even harder, but come on, this was never going to be some sort of flawless victory. Take the W. Or sell to Disney. [Xitter]
⚖️ Meta's Make Or Break Trial – "Big Techbacco" indeed. Unlike with the silly antitrust case against Meta, it feels like the stakes can't get much higher for the company here. Four states (representing 25 others) are more or less trying to take down social media (represented by Meta) much as yes, the tobacco companies were once taken down. While $200B is the headline potential damages number here, technically the fines could reach $1.4T – which is exactly Meta's market cap. So yeah, that feels pretty existential. More importantly, it could completely upend Meta's actual business, in a time when they need it to be pumping out cash more than ever so they can pump it into AI. While there is an 8-person jury here, they're merely meant to be advisory to the judge who will issue the verdict and award any would-be damages. That judge? Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, whose name may look awfully familiar to anyone who has followed the Apple/Epic ongoing situation (see: above). Meta should probably hope they don't piss her off as Apple did! So far, things seem up and down. [NYT]
💬 OpenAI Keeps Right On Poking the Bear – ChatGPT for Apple Messages support seems interesting, it also sounds like something Apple will absolutely hate. Given that this is on the Mac, and the ChatGPT app (clearly) isn't distributed through the Mac App Store, I'm not sure what they can actually do here – certainly send some strongly worded messages to OpenAI and perhaps the public about security – while noting that Apple will be happy to do such AI things for you shortly, with new Siri – but if this was an iOS feature, well, such an app would never get approved. Add this to (allegedly) threatening to sue Apple, then Apple (actually) suing OpenAI, and you have quite the situationship here. I'm reminded when Twitter tried to connect to Facebook's Friend Graph back in the day. That didn't last long. Nor did Instagram images on Twitter, after the sale. [9to5Mac]
🪙 'The Stripe of AI' Joins Stripe – With the clear disclosure that I invested in Stripe back in the day so of course I'm biased here, I found Ben Thompson's thoughts on the (then still rumored) OpenRouter deal insightful. This seemingly makes sense on a number of fronts – first and foremost if you consider tokens to be the currency for companies building with AI, as Patrick Collison clearly does. But at the highest level, nearly anyone else (who could afford to) buying OpenRouter would ruin, at least in part, their value proposition by destroying the "Switzerland" nature of the product. Stripe just enhances it. [Stratechery 🔒]
🥒 The Vision Pro Pickle – Beyond the layoffs within the group – following the defection of their leader to, where else: OpenAI, a couple months back – it's really pretty wild just how bad Apple's timing was here. I mean, I've been saying this from the get-go, but that was simply around product/market fit. Arguably worse is the fact that they released their most expensive device (at least from a starting-point perspective) just as the world of component prices were set to explode due to the AI boom. They couldn't have known that, of course. But also, maybe they should have? In a weird way, Apple is probably happy they're not selling too many because the price to manufacture them must have gone up dramatically. And while there was a price increase ($3,500 is now $3,700), they also can't afford to raise it too much here – again, it was already the most expensive device and clearly wasn't selling in no small part due to that price. Also, can you imagine a world where Apple would prioritize chips and memory for the Vision Pro versus, say, the iPhone, iPad, or Mac? Given the component issues are likely to last into 2027 and beyond, it's increasingly fair to wonder if the device will ever get another refresh (especially with so much else going on). Apple will support it as best they can given the numbers, but I'm fairly worried about true support here, even if they won't admit it right now. Which is too bad, as it was finally coming into its own, content-wise. [AppleInsider]
🔗 Pushing or Pacing or Pulling Back From the AI Frontier? • Spyglass
"If Mark makes something a priority, mountains move in months."
– Arturo Bejar, a former Facebook safety engineer and Instagram consultant, testifying against Meta in the opening of the aforementioned trial. Notably, he also testified in the New Mexico case which Meta lost.
I saved this chart a couple months ago, and it remains wild. The top 20 companies in terms of wealth creation over the past century in the stock market are... completely dominated by tech companies. Perhaps not too surprising given the state of the world right now. But this is since 1926!
Even crazier, as recently as 2016, Exxon still topped the list. Now they're all the way down at #7, with Apple having more than 3x'd them in that regard. Apple and Exxon – remember when that was a race? I do!
NVIDIA only went public in 1999 and is #2. Again of all public companies over the past 100 years. To highlight just how bonkers the recent run-up has been, SpaceX, which went public a whole two months ago, was briefly in the top 30 (before the slide post IPO pop).
🎶 Listening to Doors (Live) by Noah Kahan
🍺 Enjoying a Time Better Spent IPA by Tap Social
🇬🇧 Sent from London, England
2026-08-21 20:44:45
He-Man has the power! Well, on streaming at least. After (rather predictably) bombing at the box office, Amazon smartly, quickly, pivoted Masters of the Universe to Prime Video and by the power of Grayskull... As Rick Porter (Ri-Porter?) reports:
The movie based on the 1980s cartoon series and toys scored the No. 1 overall ranking in Nielsen’s streaming ratings for July 20-26, its first week of streaming. It debuted July 22 on Prime Video, less than weeks after its theatrical premiere; it has made a little under $114 million worldwide at the box office against a $170 million budget. Masters of the Universe scored 1.17 billion minutes of watch time for the week and was one of just two titles to cross the billion-minute threshold.
Let's not get too carried away, it barely beat The Big Bang Theory, content which is – checks notes – nearly two decades old. Still, that's a show with 281 episodes versus a single movie (I'm still not sure why they bother comparing such things, which is insanely unfair to movies, but I guess time glued to screen is time glued).
Anyway, if the movie can hold well on streaming, it will be interesting if Amazon moves forward with the sequel, which – quasi-spoiler1 – they obviously aimed to do given the tease at the end. There had been some talk that they would despite the box office disappointment, and I think that's perhaps a promising sign that Amazon understands that box office is increasingly just one element of how this can work. To be clear, they would have loved a big box office here, but they've also run this playbook before, salvaging big budget "bombs" on streaming.
The key is to move relatively quickly, as Amazon did, going to Prime Video just six weeks after the opening – notably, skipping any SVOD window.
This is smart. You can take advantage of/recoup some of the theatrical marketing, which is a trick Netflix has stubbornly refused to learn with their anti-theater stance – but that's obviously changing too. Yes, even post-Warner Bros deal blowing up.
It helps that Masters of the Universe was decent. Not great, but not awful. Not as good as Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves – seriously! – was, but in a similar tongue-firmly-in-cheek vein. The fact that it looked a little too Thor-y,2 but with worse CGI didn't help. But it seemed to find some footing as it went on.
So yeah, definitely watchable in a nostalgic sort of way. Which, I was the, um, prime audience for. As I've written about – probably far too much – I grew up obsessed with the He-Man toys and cartoon. Did I know that it was created by Mattel as a way to combat Star Wars (after they passed on those toys)? No. Would I have cared? No – have you seen the Castle Greyskull toy?3 It's still awesome.4
I also loved the first Masters of the Universe movie even though it was scary as shit – especially if you're, I don't know, five years old, as I was when it came out. Frank Langella, FTW.
Anyway, the fact that I wasn't there on opening night for this new one probably wasn't a great sign for its box office prospects. Worse, I didn't see it in theaters at all! A big part of the problem is that I now have young kids of my own. It's hard to find time to break away to go see a movie (well, one that's not in their wheelhouse at least). Sure, you do it for The Odyssey and Spider-Man (especially since my wife was interested in the former and my older child interested in the latter!), but Masters of the Universe? Sorry, He-Man. And I suspect I wasn't alone in my demographic – again, perhaps the key demographic here...
But did I watch this new Masters of the Universe immediately when it came to streaming? You bet your Skeletor I did!5
So what might Amazon do here for a sequel, strategy-wise? It's early, but I think the right idea would probably be a wide, but limited theatrical run. Make it a two-or-three-week-only engagement – ideally with IMAX – to try to drive super-fans to theaters. Then go even faster to streaming. And ideally augment all of this with some killer toy sales! You're Amazon for Teela's sake!
1 And I don't mean Orko, who obviously also needs to be a focal point of any sequel! ↩
2 Not helped by the role that Idris Elba plays in both. He's good in Masters, but come on... ↩
3 As the popcorn buckets can attest! ↩
4 I couldn't have been the only kid who was confused that the castle shaped like a skull wasn't the home of the villain with the skull face... ↩
5 The movie also probably wasn't helped by some level of Jared Leto backlash, though the most recent allegations came out well after the movie was already bombing. Also, he was pretty widely considered to be the best part/performance of the movie (not that you can tell it's him). Though shout out to Alison Brie as Evil Lyn! ↩
2026-08-21 06:04:39
🔗 YouTube Offers Creators Millions to Not Work With Netflix • Bloomberg
YouTube and Netflix have seemed like they were on a slow-motion collision course for years. Now things are speeding up. Here's Lucas Shaw:
YouTube is offering millions of dollars to popular channels if they upload their videos to the site exclusively for a certain period of time, in an effort to halt Netflix's pursuit of its biggest stars, according to people familiar with the conversations.
The payment would come in a couple of different forms. YouTube has discussed directly financing some programs, and it has also offered to allot a portion of major brand deals to creators. Though YouTube hasn’t finalized deals with any creators, it is close an agreement with several partners, said the people, who declined to be identified because the negotiations are sensitive and ongoing.
These are carrots. But there are also sticks:
Creators who do sign deals with Netflix face consequences, YouTube has said, according to the people. YouTube will be less likely to feature them in marketing campaigns or at events if they release videos on Netflix at the same time. YouTube would also exclude those creators from collecting a share of proceeds from some major brand campaigns.
Clearly, Netflix's various efforts to pick-off top YouTube talent to "take them pro' as it were, is pissing off YouTube. A number of other services from Facebook to Twitch to dozens of startups have tried to do this over the years, but these moves might seem to suggest that Netflix is getting some traction here.
Or that YouTube really doesn't want them to.
To me, a few things are going on here. First, YouTube made the jump from the computer to the couch and took over the living room. This clearly freaked out Netflix because not only did they overrun their home turf, they did so, fast. YouTube did something similar to the podcast industry and seemingly singlehandedly took video podcasts from a niche to arguably the most important element of the industry. Spotify, the former leader there – oh, Apple – had to respond, and did by partnering with Netflix. At the same time, both services started ramping their efforts in more "traditional" television like awards shows and yes, sports.
The latter has pretty much every player in tech fighting because it's obviously the most important element – the NFL in particular – when it comes to actual viewership and the all-important appointment – read: live – viewing. And that matters, of course, for ads. The area where YouTube, thanks in no small part to parent Google, dominates. But Netflix has been ramping here fast. And because they have more premium content, it's an easier sell straight from television in many ways.
So yeah, Netflix has been shifting towards YouTube just as YouTube is shifting towards Netflix. But the real prize for both is to be the one main hub for content. What's "UGC" and what's "professional" is blurring, fast. Both want it all because both want to be the UI that unites all content, including from partners.
It's a two-horse race. But lately, YouTube has seemingly been kicking Netflix's ass – I wrote about this just a month ago (with the url slug "netflix-vs-youtube"). Acquiring Warner Bros may have changed that narrative but, well... YouTube's Peacock deal was just salt in the wound.
So again, it's interesting that YouTube feels the need to respond here – with both carrots and sticks. I'm still waiting for Netflix to pull their next rabbit out of their hat – buying IMAX? Universal? Could they make another run at Warner Bros if the Paramount deal collapses under its own weight?
Anyway, killer picture of Neal Mohan here. Who looks like the Terminator. With a target.
2026-08-19 23:42:10
This is a strange moment in time for AI. I mean, things are always sort of strange simply given the breakneck speed at which the technology is evolving. But that's the thing about right now: we're sort of paused? At least at the all-important frontier.
We're used to a race. The various parties racing don't like to frame it that way publicly, but come on. It's a race. To AGI. Or RSI. For talent. Or the best models. Or to the models that simply score best on various tests. But in the past few weeks, it almost seems like it's more of a caution flag situation, to extend the metaphor. When the yellow flag is out in an F1 race, drivers must slow down and get behind a safety car. No overtaking is allowed. All drivers adhere to this for the integrity of the race – and so no one gets killed in moments of uncertainty...
2026-08-19 05:03:12
🔗 Apple Announces Changes for Apps in the EU • Apple Newsroom
Peace in Europe for Apple? Well, at least on one front, it seems:
Apple today announced changes to its business terms for apps in the European Union, following close collaboration with the European Commission. These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution. They also reduce complexity by moving every developer that distributes apps in the EU to a single set of business terms. Developers can sign the new terms today, and changes will go into effect on October 1.
Notably, this isn't a proposal, it's the announcement of actual changes that Apple will implement (starting October 1) after "close collaboration" with the EC. And lest we think Apple is overplaying that last aspect, that group gave a statement to Bloomberg backing up the assertion:
A spokesperson for the commission said it “welcomes Apple’s changes to their business terms, which follow a close dialogue” with the company. “Following today’s announcement, the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new terms,“ the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
So what are the changes? At the highest level, the biggest ones are the change in app distribution and in-app payment fees.
It's actually pretty straightforward. I suspect people will still complain that 26% is too high,1 but again for most developers, it will actually be 15%. This feels like mainly a way to keep the all-important big gaming fees – which make up most of in-app payments, and as such, most App Store fees – mostly intact.
Many will also complain about the 5% "Core Technology Commission" but this seems like a relatively simple way for Apple to retain some level of compensation for ongoing device platform work – aka, the platform which allows all apps to work on iOS, iPadOS, etc.
But to me, the most interesting thing about this is how neatly it lines up with Apple's recent proposal in the US when it comes to the link-out payments. We just went over this, but quickly: as a result of the Epic trial, Apple was forced to allow apps to link out to the web for payments. Apple tried to take a 27% commission for those payments – which actually would have resulted in a higher cut than Apple's standard 30% in many cases – which pissed off the judge, who then threw the book at Apple and said they had to allow for web payments without taking a cut. An appeals court kept the link-out option intact, but said Apple should be allowed to collect some sort of commission. Apple tried to delay all of this while they appealed to the Supreme Court, but eventually they had to make a proposal, this time ideally in good faith. The number they landed on? 15%.
That does not seem like a coincidence. It seems coordinated.
It sure looks like Apple knew this EU deal was coming down the pike and that the bloc agreeing to their terms would bolster the case that these are "fair". The US judge still gets to decide that, and Epic has already pushed back as Apple seeks to negotiate directly. One big reason for pushing? Epic wants to ensure any changes Apple tries to negotiate be put in place for all developers.
With that in mind, the EC framework sure seems like a potential proposal Apple would be willing to make and take. They technically don't have to, but aligning with these new EU rules would simplify/streamline the App Store rules and potentially alleviate some of the long-mounting pressure on those rules – which are far out of date at best and out of touch at worst.
If I'm right, it will be up to Epic to agree and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to decide. Both remain clearly pissed off at Apple so there's certainly no guarantee of any such agreement. But again, the EU signing off on this is an interesting signal, if nothing else. Might Apple want to announce such a new deal at a big, upcoming event that every app developer in the world will be watching? We'll see!
Update August 19, 2026: Well it sure doesn't look like Tim Sweeney will have Epic settling with Apple anytime soon! What's most odd about his tweet though is how overtly disingenuous it is – sure, it may not technically be a "settlement", but clearly the EC was in the loop with Apple on these changes and again, they're publicly talking about how pleased they are with them.
Sweeney seems pretty upset about this possible detente in Europe. One read might be, per above, that these new rules would likely keep the rate for gaming commerce flowing fully through the App Store at the still pretty high 26%. Though, of course, Epic would have other options now to route would-be players and payers elsewhere!
He also clearly has the company account tweeting about this and those tweets are also strange in the way they're matter-of-factly interpreting the DMA in a way that the DMA itself doesn't seem to around link-out payments (seemingly conflating it with the current situation in the US, which is obviously different). And again, the EC has already given an on-the-record comment on all of this!
1 Sort of fun/interesting/weird that Apple set it exactly 1% below the 27% which got them into trouble in the first place. Apple would handle the payment processing in this case, so it's different. But 26% is an oddly specific number. Why not, say, 25%? Just optics off that 27% rejection? ↩
2026-08-18 21:07:00
The first thing you'll notice is that there is no phone. The second thing you'll notice is that there. is. no. phone.
It's not just that Apple leaked a codename or numeric reference to the long-rumored AirPods with cameras1 – which I hope they call 'EyePods' but probably something like 'AirPods Vision' or 'AirPods Ultra' is far more likely2 [update below] – they inadvertently leaked a video in the release candidate build of macOS 26.7. Yes, not even the new, still-in-beta 'Golden Gate' version of the OS, but the soon-to-be upgraded 'Tahoe' variant. Someone is likely to be in a lot of trouble.
Because yes, the 13-second video very clearly shows a man in a room pick up a book as a voiceover says "with Visual Intelligence, your world becomes savable". When I type that out, it makes it sound like this guy might be trying to save the world from disaster. But what he's actually doing is visually capturing the book in front of him so he can recall it later. "See something you like? Just ask me to save it for later," a voice which is clearly intended to be Siri says. The man nods and the video fades out...
Visual Intelligence, of course, is nothing new. I've long held that it was one of the most underrated aspects of the iPhone, dating back to when Apple first tried to launch Apple Intelligence two years ago. But it was a bit buried. With iOS 27, it will be baked directly into the all-important Camera app.
But again, the difference here in this video is that there is no iPhone.
And again, that heavily implies that what the man is actually using to capture the book are the AirPods that he's clearly wearing. At first glance, they don't look different from the current AirPods Pro. But the forensic experts on Xitter seem to think there are subtle differences in the stems. This is obviously where any camera component would likely go.3
So yeah, not only are these 'EyePods' coming, they're very likely coming soon. As in, probably set to be unveiled at the iPhone event in just a few short weeks. That's exciting because it's going to shift Apple into a whole new era. While Apple has long held a leading position in wearables, this will be their first true AI wearable.
While a lot of the focus has been on the potential for Apple entering the smart glasses space to meet Meta in market, using the AirPods as their first entry point actually makes a ton of sense.
First and foremost, the AirPods are already an insanely popular product. While people made fun of how they looked at first – for the record, I always thought they were ingenious – they're now ubiquitous. You literally can't go anywhere with a crowd without seeing many pairs tucked into peoples' ears. It's true in America, it's true in Europe. They're everywhere. They're mainstream.
Contrast this with the Ray-Ban Meta glasses. I've seen a few pairs while out and about this Summer, but it's obviously not in the same ballpark. Estimates have these glasses perhaps around 10 million sold to date. Apple has sold over 400 million AirPods to date, perhaps closer to 500 million.
It's not meant to be a fair sales comparison as AirPods have been both around longer and sell at lower price points, but the comparison matters when it comes to rolling out AI wearables into the world. Meta smartly partnered with EssilorLuxottica to leverage the Ray-Ban (and later Oakley) brand (and distribution), but these are not Apple-scale hardware. At least not yet.
But Meta's partnership was also smart in perhaps a similar way to the playbook Apple will clearly run here. Ray-Ban Meta glasses look like Ray-Bans. AirPods with cameras, at least from what we can see here, look like AirPods.
That obviously matters as both companies try to negate the "Glasshole" problem. That is, when Google Glass first started rolling out over a decade ago, they didn't look like anything else on the market. They were a sort of visor with a prism in the corner where information was displayed. On paper, this sounded cool – futuristic. In person... well, you sort of looked like an asshole.
That's both not fair and entirely fair. If they simply looked weird, that would be one thing – again, the AirPods looked weird to many people to start. But the fact that they had a camera on them was, well, a problem.
The Ray-Ban Metas also obviously have cameras, but thanks to the aforementioned use of the standard, iconic Ray-Ban designs, the system is far more subtle. This is an arguably bigger problem for people who care about privacy and potential surveillance, but at least the design isn't as in-your-face as Google Glass was. People like 'new' except when it comes to merging new design with new technology. Better to start with old design and new technology.
Again, that's also what it seems like Apple is doing here with AirPods. We'll have to see what they look like from the front, but the fact that the overall footprint isn't wildly different suggests they'll be far more subtle in the wild. Had Apple started with smart glasses, unless perhaps they also teamed up with a famous eyewear brand, the result would be far more in-your-face, quite literally.
Instead, when those first Apple smart glasses – iGlasses? – hit next year, the market should have about a year of getting used to Apple's first AI wearables – with cameras – in the market in the form of these new AirPods. That doesn't mean there won't be backlash against Apple's entry, but it certainly will help to blunt the potential impact.
One of the most surprising elements of the Ray-Ban Metas (still such an awkward name to write and say) has been that there hasn't been a ton of backlash to date. Again, credit for Meta for knowing to partner with EssilorLuxottica here. But as the sales are growing – and as Meta does Meta things – the backlash is growing. To the point where I wouldn't be shocked if Apple further pushes out their own smart glasses offerings to try to distance themselves from any would-be controversy.
Oh and by the way, it's not just the cameras. It's the cameras mixed with the other currently most controversial technology in the world: AI.
The Ray-Ban Metas launched as more of a cameras-plus-music thing, and that perhaps also helped ease any controversy. But as Meta has ramped up their AI efforts, the tech is becoming more of a focal point with the glasses too, which is naturally aiding in ramping any controversy surrounding them. Apple will seemingly be going head-first into such controversy with the AI focus from day one. Sorry, I mean 'Apple Intelligence' – or 'Visual Intelligence' not 'AI', totally different, you see.
There had been some talk that these AirPods with cameras wouldn't actually be able to take pictures but instead would simply be to "look" at the world in real time. This video blurs that notion – at the very least, it suggests the cameras are used to look at and remember an object, even if it doesn't take an actual picture – though it still might for your memory? – which probably wouldn't be a great picture anyway! Video almost certainly will be off the table, even if just at first. Maybe Apple enables such capabilities down the line as people grow more comfortable with such devices out in the wild.
To that end, when these AirPods with cameras are pulling in information, surely there will be some sort of indicator? A light on the stems, perhaps? That might be slightly weird as you don't have such an indicator on the back of your phone, but again, this is about establishing new norms and trying to help people be at ease around this new technology.
Apple, of course, has a natural advantage here in that they're generally viewed as the most privacy-centric of the Big Tech players. They'll undoubtedly note that any data ingested by these devices will be either securely handled on-device (presumably on your iPhone) or, if you choose, via their secure cloud set-up. They're going to triple-down on any privacy messaging here.
Meta, on the other hand, is undoubtedly last on the Big Tech trust scale. Again, it's sort of incredible that the Ray-Ban Metas are working at all...
But Apple still runs a real risk here in launching not just a wearable with cameras, but one entirely built around AI. This is walking right into the lion's den. Perhaps not wearing Google Glass, but still, there's some real Glasshole risk here. Which is why the AirPods are the right first step to take.
Update August 19, 2026: Some of the code in the macOS beta suggests Apple may simply still go with 'AirPods Pro' as the name for the version with the cameras. Apple, sort of confusingly, already does this for the "regular" AirPods, where there are two versions (one with ANC and one without), so it's certainly possible Apple just makes this a more expensive variant of the AirPods Pro – starting at, say $349? And they may even seek to downplay the camera element further by simply calling them 'AirPods Pro 4 with Visual Intelligence'. In fact, I can definitely see that happening...
Update August 20, 2026: It looks like the leak may be even more problematic for Apple because it's teasing the imminent launch of a product which may not be imminently ready to launch, per Mark Gurman at Bloomberg. As he's previously reported, while Apple did initially intend for these new AirPods to launch in 2026, and was even testing them internally with employees – and um, obviously shooting demo videos for them, as this video leak is very real – software bugs and supply chain woes have pushed them into 2027, it seems. Quite the tease!
Also, Gurman notes that, as discussed above, the cameras in the products are "low-resolution censors" – i.e. not meant to take photos to save, let alone videos – which should ease around the "pervertpods" problem...
1 Something which they've also been doing plenty of here as well! ↩
2 We know John Ternus isn't afraid to shake things up a bit – even branding-wise, with things like the MacBook Neo, so perhaps we get a new sub-brand here? 'AirPods Neo'? 'AirPods See'? 'AirPods Intelligence'? 'AIrPods'? ↩
3 Though I suppose it's possible they're at end of of the AirPods' main bulb? ↩