2026-08-19 05:03:12
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 an agreement Apple has reached with the EC. And that group is obviously quite pleased with themselves for forcing Apple to move here, in a statement to Bloomberg:
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!
1 Interesting that it's 1% below the 27% which got Apple in trouble. Why? Because that likely puts the acually out-of-pocket cut right back at 30% – rather than 31% – when you take into account payment processing fees... ↩
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 – 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 (or video) 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. (But I assume it will take a picture.) Video might be off the table though, even if just at first. Maybe Apple enables this 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.
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? ↩
2026-08-17 23:38:10
Someone reset the 'Days Without Incident' clock at Anthropic to 0. From, I don't know, maybe 1, at most 2, these days.
Look, when I first saw the news that the company would be "watermarking" text, I didn't think much of it. That's in part because they didn't really explain how they'd be doing it so I assumed, like probably most people, that they'd be embedding some invisible characters in text outputs. But that, of course, would only work for people who directly copy-and-paste text from Claude to elsewhere. If you re-wrote whatever the output was, or used some tool to "wash" the text – AI laundering? – you'd remove such "watermarks". Still, many were up-in-arms about this because it was some level of invasive or sneaky. Others because it was going to gunk up the internet even more with superfluous characters. And some simply because it was going to make using AI to write without being known harder to pull off!
As it turns out, what they're actually doing – or planning to do – to pull this "watermarking" off is instead fairly insane.
Basically, Anthropic has designed a system that will alter the output in a way that allows them to assess the probability that any block of text has been generated by Claude. The key is switching one possible output to another at various points in a way that they suggest would only be perceptible by them, holding the keys to how they're doing this.
While it's true that Google has also been leveraging this same basic idea in the form of their "SynthID" technology for a couple of years, I suspect it hasn't been met with such outrage simply because most people don't use Gemini for such purposes – at least not to the extent they use Claude (or ChatGPT).1
Regardless, Anthropic has now pulled this to the forefront and made it a debate.
Again, at first glance this may not sound so bad. Perhaps even somewhat clever. I'm reminded of how back in my reporting days, I used to insert some subtle tweaks to catch if someone was trying to copy a scoop without properly attributing the information source (me).2 You'd be surprised how often this worked!3
To that end, I honestly don't think I'd be as upset/annoyed if Anthropic was doing this simply as a way to catch (or, if you prefer "identify") people who use AI to, say, write entire thought pieces. Just write the damn thing you lazy sonofabitch. Or don't, but don't put your name on it like you did!
Other tools and services have been popping up to do this, obviously. I'm not really sure we need to police such things, but it is also amusing to know the type of people who do this. Then again, it also opens a can of worms in terms of if such output should be considered as a "valid" form of expression if it's driven by your own input (your prompt)...
The key, I think, is that many people just want to know. They want to know if you used AI to generate what they're reading. And in some situations, like legal proceedings, people may need to know. To make sure they can trust that the actual legwork was done to say, prosecute a case, versus just the prompt work. Which is why the EU passed the law that Anthropic is now trying to adhere to with this! (More on this in a minute.) Should anyone be forced to disclose this? Again, I don't know. I think so, and certainly I'd prefer it, but this area seems pretty gray with a lot of slippery slopes. Should Anthropic be the one enforcing it? Well, like it or not, with this, they are.
Anyway, the far bigger problem I have is that this isn't just about text that people are copying and pasting elsewhere. It's about all text. As in, the kind you're being served up inside of Claude as well – even if it's not meant to be put elsewhere.
Anthropic is admitting that they're manipulating the output in order to implement this system. Again, that's insane. It may sound small or subtle, but it's just an awful decision and precedent to manipulate your product in this way. Even if you don't notice? Especially if you don't notice. This is full on subversion at scale.
But as weirded out as I may be by this, it's nothing compared to John Gruber, who devoted almost 5,000 words to the matter this weekend on Daring Fireball, calling it not "subversion" but "perversion". Here's a taste:
One of my fundamental problem with this is that no two synonyms carry the exact same meaning. “He leaped at the chance” and “He jumped at the opportunity” are very similar sentences expressing the same general sentiment, but they are not the same. The exact words we choose when writing matter. I want any LLM I use to choose the very best, most precise words at every single decision point. An obvious constraint that I accept is time and computation. Within the constraint of executing inference quickly, and at a certain cost per token, I want the best words. This constraint matches human writing. I could surely write a better column by taking longer to write it. I write with a sense of how much care I should put into every word and punctuation choice I make. I take more time with certain paragraphs, sentences, or even individual word choices when my gut feeling says I should.
In other words, these are necessary trade-offs. These factors are all in my interest: speed, cost, quality. Ideally I would like perfect writing, at instantaneous generation speed, at zero cost. None of those things are possible. Computation is not free of charge (and cloud-based LLM inference with leading models is actually expensive). Inference is not instantaneous. And great writing, whether natural or artificial, can only approach perfection.
The idea that anything other than my needs should factor into the generation of text for me is patently offensive.
Incidentally, I happened to write about AI and writing just yesterday, before I started to dive into this situation, noting the import I place on word selection. This Anthropic nonsense throws that notion right out the window. You may as well just buy a Mad Libs and run a random synonym generator.
For all the talk about AI slop, this is AI slop!
And for a company that likes to portray and convey moral superiority at every turn, and to hold themselves as the stewards of AI, it's a bad look. Yes, it's being somewhat forced upon them by the EU, but they don't have to do this everywhere, and yet they are.
They'll say that's just easier, and I'm sure that's true. But it doesn't make it better. That makes it worse. This is a nearly $1T company. They're about to be one of the largest companies in the world. Hell, they already are. Put in the effort to not make your product and service shittier for every single user.
Again, it may seem like a small thing. But small things matter. And they tend to snowball...
Honestly, what Anthropic should do here is tell the EU, just as their soon-to-be Big Tech peers, Apple, Google, and Meta do, that their rules are stupid. As with other such EU rules, they appear at first glance to perhaps be coming from the right place, but they're usually just political grandstanding. Worse, they seemingly don't think through the very obvious second-order effects of such rules.
Also, such rules were set in March 2024. That may as well have been 50 years ago when you're operating at the speed of AI development.
If the EU mandates that the big AI tools have to implement these "safeguards", the people most likely to take advantage of such things are just going to turn to other tools. And what happens when running models locally on machines becomes far more commonplace? There's just no way this actually works. Again, all it will do is make what were the most-used AI tools worse. And that, in turn, may make the most-used AI tools less used. Of course, that often does seem like the EU's basic mandate. So...
I digress. This is all just so nutty. Not that it's happening – again, Google already has been doing this and the EU is mandating it – but that it needs to be explained to these companies why it's such a batshit idea. Again, they're making their products less trustworthy – on purpose. Writing with AI was already contentious. Now it's nuclear.
Why does this need to be spelled out? It's almost as if they have a reading-the-room problem here. And perhaps that is impacting the overall perception of AI. You think?
I'll let Gruber take us home:
This isn’t just about text one might generate with the intention of passing it off as their own natural work. This isn’t even about LLM proofreading of work written by hand. Anthropic is saying that all new Claude models are going to adulterate every single bit of text longer than 200 tokens (~150 words) they generate, including everything it presents to its users to read. So even in a private conversation between a user and Claude, which will never be read by anyone other than the user, Claude will begin making word choices in the name of marking its output in statistically predictable ways rather than maximizing clarity and precision.
Even today’s so-called frontier models are already decidedly lacking in lucidity. Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, et al. are “better writers” than most humans and produce better prose than the median human. But: no shit. Most people are terrible writers. The “average person” is pretty stupid and half of all people are stupider than that. And there are many smart, interesting people who are miserable writers. So as impressive as LLMs are, the bar is low. The best writing I see come out of these models is worse than anything I would choose to read for pleasure. And now Anthropic is saying they’re going to make it worse, on purpose, for purposes that do not benefit me in any way? Even if only slightly worse?
Get fucked.
1 It was also framed more around images, video, and audio "watermarking" and less around the text element. ↩
2 And what outrage this caused back then in the blogosphere. Which feels so quaint now. ↩
3 Some companies employ similar tactics for internal memos too. Best not leak! ↩
2026-08-17 18:33:00
Presentation aside, clearly this was a bit of a muted year for Pixel hardware. Some small upgrades, some actual downgrades, and – undoubtedly related to both – price increases. The one new stand-out feature, hardware-wise at least, for the devices was clearly the 'HiLight' indicator in the camera bump. Much like BlackBerrys of old – which everyone keeps trying to get back to, it seems – this gives you a visual alert to a notification. Unfortunately, it sounds like it's comically under-implemented, to the point of being pointless:
That’s where this year’s “HiLight” feature comes into play. The rear-facing LED is available on all three Pixel 11 Pro models, and somehow it feels more half-baked than the temperature sensor.
This feature currently exists for exactly two functions – to tell you when a favorite contact is calling you, and to indicate that Gemini is active.
That’s it.
It's completely inexplicable that this notification is only for phone calls and not messages. I mean, even BlackBerry did that! Google seems to be messaging that this could come down the road, but how do you not launch with this? Who gives a shit about phone call notifications? The phone functionality is arguably the least interesting element of modern smartphones.
But even better would be:
Also, elephant in the room, why in the world does this not work as a notification LED?!
Our Andrew Romero pointed out just how good this would be. Having the LED customized to the app you got a notification from – reds and purple for Instagram, as one example – would be so good.
I see no reason why, with the right software, you couldn't have a few options. Say, light up "red" if my wife is messaging me somewhere (not just a phone call, but in any app). But also, say, light up "blue" if I get a Signal message. I mean obviously.
The Gemini notification is fine/cute – perhaps mirroring the 'Pixel Glow' strip that Google is trying to make happen on (the still poorly named) Googlebooks? It's probably a good thing to have if you're going to be talking to Gemini a lot and need to know it's active/listening.
Of course, the only time I would ever put my phone face down on a table is if I'm using a case (I worry less about scratches and more just the cleanliness of the surface for a device I'm going to touch so often throughout a day). And my "case" of choice is usually a MagSafe wallet which allows me to put the phone face-up (while making the phone actually stable with the ever-massive camera bump). And this obviously negates anything on the back of the phone.
Also, all of this with regard to notifications is what my Apple Watch is far better for anyway. So really this is just a feature for if you don't wear a smartwatch and often leave your phone face-down on a table. That's probably nice/useful but only if Google adds the obvious other notification integrations and why they're not launching with those is just dumbfounding.
But, to Schoon's point, Google often launches with features for Pixel devices which are half-baked at best. And as such, they usually vanish rather quickly.
2026-08-16 21:57:26
A number of interesting parts in this interview of Tim O’Reilly — including kicking off with the distinction between actual open source and all the current buzz (again) around open weights — but the ending bit about AI and writing stands out:
Steven Levy: When I edit this interview I will boil down our long conversation to a shorter one, but I won’t use AI to do it. And of course, the writing in the introduction will be all mine. It’s actually our policy.
Tim O'Reilly: I think that's a legacy thing that's going to go. My ability to have a thought partner in AI when I'm writing is very powerful.
SL: AI does your writing for you?
TO: No, no. I use it for brainstorming, and sort of just functional writing. When I interview somebody for an hour, I go to AI and say, “Turn it into something I can use.” I don't have the time to write up all those interviews.
I’ve already said (and written) my piece about using AI to write. To quickly summarize: quality aside, I personally don’t see the point because most of what I get out of writing is from the process itself. From thinking to choosing what words to use — and just as importantly, what words not to use. It’s a bit like having a robot run a marathon for you. What’s the point?
But I also say that as someone who loves writing. Many people do not, and so I also think using AI is fine for certain types of low-stakes writing, like many types of email. But if you’re actually putting your name to something more substantive, forget the audience, you’re just sort of cheating yourself.
Anyway, what I really want to remark on here is the idea of using AI to brainstorm. In the past, I may have written this off as well. But actually, with the rise of the very good AI voice technology — namely, GPT-Voice — I actually have found going back and forth with AI quite useful in helping to think through some ideas. And actually, it’s less about the content coming from the AI, it’s just the fact that I'm having a conversation and it’s drawing ideas out of my brain.
I’ve long found that some of my best ideas to write about come out of conversations. And while it’s obviously great to have those with people, people aren’t always immediately available to have a conversation with you. And again, if I’m being honest, it’s less about what the other person is saying and more that the chat is fleshing out my own ideas. In a way, I’m sort of “using” the human on the other end. Why not use an AI for that?
Again, I’ve found it quite interesting these past few weeks. These conversations with AI have spurred some ideas in my brain that I’m not sure I would otherwise have had. And to me, it's the actual speaking that's key to that. Saying things out loud forces your mind into places – at least it does for me.
SL: Aren’t you worried that AI will eventually supplant human writing?
TO: AI is literally a medium, in the same way that written words are a medium, or paint or music is a medium. When I talk to an AI or design art with it, I get something different out of it than you do, in the same way that Michelangelo and Van Gogh got completely different things out of paint. The idea that you can't write with AI will seem as curious as the idea that you can't make a good portrait or landscape with a camera. There will be people who are masters at expressing their ideas by summoning words from LLMs. People used to ride horses. Now, few do. We're in the early days.
I’m honestly not sure if I agree or disagree with this. I think I mainly agree but it’s also still a bit hard to see now. Because so much of what I see as the output still seems to mostly follow the same general patterns. I do expect that will change as models continue to improve, but perhaps I’m just not good at prompting when it comes to producing output that could pass as good writing.
On the flip side, I think the people who view any kind of AI-aided creation as an abomination are sort of silly. AI is a tool. The latest in a string of technological tools which will never end. What people inherently actually don’t like is the way this tool came about — by ingesting much of the internet. That is, words written by humans. Yet, in a way, humanity has done something similar throughout history, from cave painting on down, but this new level of “learning” has been done at a scale that no human can match. And, in fact, without other humans on the receiving end. It feels unnatural because it is unnatural, but that also depends on what your definition of “natural” is.
One more thing: when asked if open source can break the Big AI hold:
I don't predict the future. But I will say the world is proceeding the way that I hoped it would. What if the big frontier models end up like mainframes or supercomputers—aimed at really hard problems, which are not actually the thing that gets diffused throughout society?
Lost in all the aforementioned open weight debates is the notion that the frontier models may end up being overkill on a number of fronts — including, importantly, price and performance. Beyond some of the "open" players catching up on the latter, the real takeaway of this particular era may be the realization that we don’t need the absolute frontier for many tasks. And, in fact, more nimble, tailored models may be better suited for certain – maybe even most? – jobs.
The question there is whether the best of those come from — are distilled from — the frontier. And who gets to distill...
2026-08-14 05:23:29
On the plus side, it wasn't as bad as last year. On the minus side, it was still pretty bad.
Look, I'm clearly – clearly – not the intended audience for the 'Made by Google' events. But then again, shouldn't I be? I'm a sort of tech-obsessed user that upgrades my smartphone every year. Yes, that's been an iPhone for the past 19 years,1 but I often tend to buy a Pixel device too because I'm curious! Yes, that's crazy. And yes, I'm not at all a typical user. But with the cards – and devices – played right, I could, theoretically, be someone who moves to a Pixel phone as my primary device one day, right?2
I mean, not if I'm watching this presentation.
Again, Trevor Noah was a far better MC than Jimmy Fallon was last year. But the bar was so comically low – pun actually intended – that almost anyone would have been an upgrade. Sure, my own personal preferences naturally finds Noah funnier than Fallon, but he also just seemed decidedly more chill and at ease than Fallon and, as such, a lot of his jokes landed with less of a cringey thud. Of course those jokes were almost always negated by the Google employees he was playing against as they were clearly far more worried about sticking to the script. And it's hard to blame them, they're not comedians nor actors. But they are asked to be here.
It's a fucking weird strategy for a product unveiling!
Again, clearly I'm not the audience. But who that audience is, I don't know. People who are fans of the various celebrities they showcased, I guess. But even then, is that really a good acquisition strategy? How much are they paying these people to hawk these products and how many purchases will it actually lead to? Clearly Google can measure this. Are they? Or are they just hoping for some kind of halo effect? Are they just hoping for more views on YouTube? What's the ROI?
I would like to give Google credit for trying something different. This is not an Apple keynote. But I gave them credit for that last year. It didn't work, yet they doubled down. Again, Noah is an upgrade over Fallon, but the format just doesn't work. At least for me. And I assume for many. It still just feels like an infomercial.
It's like when Meta has tried to do keynotes with laughably scripted "candid" conversations. But at least those were actual Meta employees who, script aside, were presumably actually excited about what was launching. Here, half of the presenters were actors and/or celebrities. Are they genuinely excited about new Pixel products? Maybe. But also maybe mainly because they're getting paid to be excited about them. Start the countdown to shots of them in the wild using iPhones...
Again, the other half of the presenters were actual Google employees, but they were faced with the impossible task of acting against professionals. For the most part, they were actually pretty good at it, but still failed because it all just looks so scripted. Because it was so scripted! What is the point?!
At least the events are live! (Aside from the many pre-recorded videos Noah would tee-up throughout.) As such, they do feel actually more alive than the last several years of Apple events. But again, sort of in an awkward way here.
Staging aside, there was also this weird undercurrent throughout the event, highlighted by Noah again and again, which boiled down to: we know we promised the last wave of AI was cool, but didn't really do much for you, but this time, it's really cool. Okay, but why would anyone buy that, quite literally, this time?3
Noah veered between seemingly improvising well – as you'd hope! – to awkwardly being forced to come back to the script. And again, that just serves to undermine the entire "performance".4 Is he actually excited about any of this? Even if he is, when we're asked to believe that he knows these random Google product managers well, casually sitting on the couch with them, just to catch up, it just all feels so fake.5
It's like Google doesn't quite understand what actually made Apple keynotes work. It's not the current, slick variety. It's the history behind them dating to when Steve Jobs would be on stage, clearly excited and enthusiastic about what he was showcasing. That's what translates and what people want to see. In that regard, hiring actors to do this is the opposite of the point.
Update August 17, 2026: As for one of the key features of the Pixel devices being shown off/touted...
1 Yes, even for the 11 of those years that I worked at Google. Sorry, Google! ↩
2 I can't decide if it was weird or smart to set up Alex Cooper as the Switcher-in-Residence. If it's legit, probably smart. But again, better not capture any shots of her with an iPhone! ↩
3 Also, it all honestly felt decidedly AI-lite versus what you'd expect?! Then again, maybe that shouldn't be a huge surprise at this particular moment in time? ↩
4 The parts with his fellow South African, Noel, while obviously staged, were also by far the best of the bunch. Fun/funny banter. ↩
5 Which is honestly a bit annoying when say, the ASL demo is so awesome. In ways, this felt like a distraction from the technology. ↩