2026-07-14 19:04:41
While the high-level itself is interesting – that Apple is seemingly doubling and tripling down on the AI aspects of their Apple Silicon efforts – one part of Gurman's newsletter this week stood out:
Apple had been planning major neural-processing upgrades for the M7 family and ultimately decided those improvements were important enough to justify accelerating the next generation rather than completing the M6 lineup. Those changes go into high gear with the M7 Ultra. I’m told the processor dramatically upgrades AI performance, bringing it closer to the class of dedicated AI accelerators such as Nvidia Corp.’s Blackwell.
Uh, is this suggesting that Apple is about to make a chip that's comparable to the chips that are fueling the Age of AI and have turned NVIDIA into the most valuable (and profitable and perhaps important) company in the world? Well, no, not exactly.
If I'm reading Gurman's (too-simplistic) line correctly, I believe it just suggests that the M7 Ultra may have performance that's comparable in some ways with NVIDIA's Blackwell. Which chip? Unclear, there's the B100 and B200 model, as well as other variants like the 'GB 200 Superchip' which is a GPU paired with a 'Grace' CPU. It's undoubtedly not about to touch the actual Blackwell racks that NVIDIA sells – which run from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars – but still, just matching the chips would be impressive for AI workflows.
Specifically, he also undoubtedly means inference (seemingly hence "accelerators") and not training of AI models, as again, there's almost no way for a "single" chip (even two or more fused together as Apple does with their 'Ultra' models) to match the processing power of what NVIDIA's systems can offer. The power required alone (see also: every headline about data center power consumption) would make this a completely unfair comparison. As would the current state of memory bandwidth between the two types of chips – which stands at about an order of magnitude difference, which also obviously matters for token generation, I might add!
That said, because Apple's chips use unified memory, they actually do have a potential inherent advantage here for running AI models. The problem has been that the amount of memory they utilize is just so much smaller than what NVIDIA's overall systems call to, so it has historically only been good for smaller, local models (see also: Apple's Siri AI hybrid strategy). But if the M7 Ultra is able to jack up available memory to 1.5TB as the story mentions, that could very well compete with a Blackwell when in comes to inference for LLMs.
But even with the current memory crunch issues aside – and those may very well not even be alleviated by the time such a chip is ready – the huge caveat here is that this M7 Ultra chip is slated to launch in 2028. Blackwell is doing all of this in 2026 and it's not like NVIDIA is sitting still. They already have their next generation of chips seemingly ready to roll and then will presumably have a generation after that ready to roll too. Further, the AI labs are also not sitting still and so today's state of the art models are likely to be quite a bit larger in 2028 too...
Anyway, my point is that this almost throwaway sentence sounds insanely impressive – and it would be in many ways – but there's also likely quite a bit of nuance to it.
Still, if Apple is this focused on ramping up AI capabilities for their chips, it is fair to wonder if this won't be yet another huge advantage the company has in the future thanks to Apple Silicon. Again, Apple is clearly already focused on the hybrid approach of doing some AI work on-device while offloading the bigger stuff to the cloud. If they can bring more and more of that work on device...
And that mixed with the current trend of companies balking at the AI compute costs and mixed with the notion that perhaps some of their frontier models are increasingly going to be paired (or distilled) down because they're overkill for a lot of AI workloads... and yeah, Apple could be sitting pretty in a few years.
Perhaps also why NVIDIA is building their own AI PC chips in the form of 'RTX Spark' alongside Microsoft. The battleground changes but the combatants remain the same...
One more thing: the above is obviously all about computer-grade chips, but what about servers?
The chip may also ultimately be the basis of a coming overhaul to the AI server strategy. Apple plans to soon deploy a more powerful server based on the M5 Ultra under the internal code name J246, but engineers are already developing another new server chip for launch by 2029 that is built around the M7 Ultra’s capabilities.
This, of course, points to a world in which Apple doesn't need to rely on Google Cloud (running NVIDIA chips, no less) for that offloaded work. But might it also point to another world in which Apple, like Google and Amazon before them, start selling their chips to others to use? Or what about their own actual 'Apple Cloud' business? Let's not get ahead of ourselves, but everyone is doing it these days...
2026-07-14 01:00:53
Have you heard? Apple is suing OpenAI. While I think my initial quick reaction after the Friday news dump remains correct at the highest level, having now read the full 40-page document, there's also – as expected – clearly a bit more nuance to the situation. Namely, while Apple frames OpenAI – or at least its fledgling hardware division – as "rotten to its core" (interesting terminology!), they really only have a case against two and maybe three individuals. But they also clearly believe that if this case goes to trial, they will have a case against a lot more.
That is to say, it's a fairly standard legal document. It's well-written, narratively, and fairly concise, but it still is very much making a one-sided argument in grandiose terms. That's the job to be done here. But in reading it, augmented by some of the reporting around the suit, you can start to see the contours of reality.
With the usual caveat that I'm not a lawyer and the allegations still remain just that, allegations, to which the other side has not responded beyond boilerplate ("We have no interest in other companies' trade secrets."), here's my current read of the situation...
First and foremost, again, if the allegations are true, Chang Liu, the former Senior System Electrical Engineer at Apple and now a Member of Technical Staff at OpenAI, is in a lot of trouble. At the very least, it seems safe to assume that he won't be working for OpenAI any longer. The real question would seem to be what kind of penalty he would face. The parallels to the Anthony Levandowski situation after he left Google for Uber have been drawn. Obviously, he was far more senior and high profile of a person than Liu is, still, the fact that he was sentenced to prison (before being pardoned by President Trump) for his actions is, well, not a great precedent for Liu. Again, they are just allegations at the moment, but Apple also would seem to have the receipts – many of them – because of the use of Apple-owned hardware for many actions.
It is interesting that Apple is not suing Yu-Ting “Alyssa” Peng, who is named in the suit as a co-conspirator with Liu while she was still employed at Apple, before she also subsequently went to work at OpenAI. Is it possible she's cooperating or has cooperated with Apple in this investigation? Or that they hope she will in any would-be trial? Pure speculation, of course, but an interesting wrinkle given the receipts Apple also seemingly has there.
As for Tang Tan, the other named defendant here, Apple's case feels more nebulous. It seems pretty obvious that they weren't looking into his actions until after they came upon the Liu situation and subsequently found a few things, likely in scouring their systems for Liu-related information, that they felt they could use to bring a case against him as well. Including, most notably, allegedly emailing himself partner information before he left Apple and apparently asking would-be recruits to bring proprietary and potentially confidential information – including prototype hardware?! – to "show and tells".
This is not a great look under any circumstance, but perhaps especially not when you've already been accused of something similar by another company!
More murky would seem to be the endless talk of using Apple's internal codenames for projects to lure both recruits and partners into divulging confidential information – as if the codename was some sort of password that unlocks such details.
Anyway, the fact that Tan was an extremely high profile vice president at Apple and is now the most important person on OpenAI's hardware side (since Jony Ive is not technically a full-time employee) makes him both an obvious and key target here. Even if these allegations are found to be untrue or embellished, can he reasonably stay at OpenAI now? And perhaps that's the real outcome Apple is looking for here, as they clearly frame him as the ringleader of the 400-plus people who have come over to OpenAI from Apple.
Cut off the head of the snake and... chill the body to ensure the snake stops growing.
Speaking of, the sheer number of people who have moved from Apple to OpenAI would seemingly help make Apple's case here. Would a jury buy that so many people leaving from one company to another wasn't a coordinated effort? That itself wouldn't be illegal – thanks California for no non-competes/non-solicitation rules – but how/why those people came over with regard to IP and trade secrets would obviously be at play here. I mean, that's more or less the entire case!
And of course, the true leader of that movement is undoubtedly the aforementioned Ive in the eyes of many. Given the history of Ive and Apple, no matter the tensions, it's simply hard to imagine them ever going after their former – quite literal – knight. The optics of it alone would be hugely damaging to both brands. At the same time, it would be hard to believe that Ive would do anything so blatant to try to hurt Apple. Sure, he may want to compete to combat some of what he feels like he wrought with the iPhone, but it's just hard to see him doing something as nefarious as knowingly taking or directing others to effectively steal from Apple. Maybe that's naive, but again, Ive is not even mentioned in the suit.
Tan, on the other hand, perhaps had a reputation for "flying too close to the sun" while at Apple, as Bloomberg's Mark Gurman is reporting around the lawsuit. Perhaps even more intriguing is the notion that some felt he should have gotten the head of hardware role that John Ternus ultimately landed which, of course, has now vaulted him into the CEO-in-waiting role. So yeah, that's an interesting rivalry dynamic here!
As for timing, it would seem sort of wild that Apple knew about Liu having some level of access to what they viewed as their information in February 2026 (a couple weeks after his departure to start at OpenAI) but didn't bring about this lawsuit until nearly six months later. While they note that they reached out to OpenAI about a potential issue (and never heard back), it's not clear who at OpenAI they reached out to (nor is it clear who at Apple reached out). Was it simply to Liu himself or someone else? Was it a low-level "heads up" ping between IT departments or something that was elevated much higher? This may remain unclear until/if there's actual discovery.
But again, the fact that Apple didn't bring the lawsuit immediately suggests that either they didn't view it as a big deal at the time (perhaps they didn't know the full scope) or that they felt the need to build a case. To that end, Apple's statement to CNBC that "Recently, significant evidence has emerged..." could go either way.
It may be a bit too conspiratorial to wonder if Apple waited until the OpenAI IPO preparations were in process and/or the first hardware product development was far enough along for the timing here. But I mean, there's certainly a world in which these allegations sidetrack one or both things – if not outright torpedo them.
To that end, OpenAI's best path may be to figure out if there's a way to get Apple to settle here quickly. And that may be tough. While they did eventually drop their lawsuit against Gerard Williams III, the former employee who went on to start Nuvia to compete with Apple Silicon, they did so after three years. And they also seemingly didn't have the case that they do at least against Liu here. And again, the real key to that may not be Liu himself here, but unlocking a discovery process that unearths who-knows-what-else. If nothing else, it would certainly unearth what OpenAI is actually building hardware-wise!
Then again, Apple undoubtedly already knows that. After all, OpenAI is seemingly using some of the same suppliers per the lawsuit! And perhaps even some of the same materials, the proprietary nature of one in particular is sort of humorously focused in on in the suit – a "trade secret metal-finishing technique" that OpenAI allegedly tricked one of Apple's suppliers into doing for them!
But there, what Apple really might want to know about is if/when OpenAI intends to build a phone – or phone-like device. And if, as reported, they are, perhaps with those 400+ people who worked on the most popular consumer electronics device in history while at Apple, well, there may be a whole other can of worms there. Again, depending on what any discovery would unearth.
Sam Altman, of course, is no stranger to such discovery, but can he really sit through more depositions with more of his emails and text messages shown to the world casting him in an embarrassing (or worse) light? It just depends, I guess! The extent to which he's involved in any of the above – and clearly he's been front and center with OpenAI's hardware efforts alongside Ive – could be the latest in a string of not great situations to be in, to put it mildly.
It's also, of course, the latest not great situation for OpenAI itself to be in.
Regardless, if Apple really does intend to fully go through with this trial (remember that they'd be subject to discovery as well, something the famously secretive company has not historically liked in the past either), it presumably wouldn't happen until sometime next year at the earliest, and perhaps even later. Though hearings around injunctions Apple is requesting would happen far sooner. And all of that paints a picture where OpenAI may not be able to launch said hardware on their intended roadmap of later this year or early next.
Might that suggest that Apple is actually worried about what OpenAI intends to launch here? I mean, maybe! Again, they have 400+ of their former people working on it. But at the very least, they simply must view it as strategic to slow-down a would-be competitor. Apple would never say that out loud, of course. But come on. Does Cupertino want to compete against a new Jony Ive-designed product in the market? If nothing else, again, it's a bad look for them, optically!
That isn't a reason to launch such a lawsuit, but OpenAI gave them a reason! 400+ of them actually! And while it may or may not be just one or two employees acting on their own, the (now widely reported) fact that OpenAI was said to be considering their own lawsuit against Apple around the failure of their ChatGPT/Siri partnership could not have helped matters!1 Again, that was apparently happening in between Apple alerting OpenAI about a potential breach and this lawsuit being filed. That's why I said at the time that it was probably fairly stupid for OpenAI to poke the bear. But they did, and now the bear has woken up and is pissed off!
So again, upon full reading of the lawsuit, the nuance seems more clear but there are also some real remaining questions. Questions which only the discovery process and/or the actual trial would uncover. There are a least a half dozen reasons why OpenAI would seemingly want/need to settle such a case ahead of such a trial, but it certainly doesn't seem like Apple intends to do that right now! At the very least, it's going to bog OpenAI down for the next several months – and potentially years – and cast a shadow over the hardware side of the house.
Even if all the allegations are unfounded, this uncertainty will undoubtedly make some would-be partners question any allegiances. And it may send OpenAI back to the literal drawing board to ensure any hardware isn't touching anything close to IP that Apple controls.
So yeah, none of that seems great for OpenAI and their hardware prospects. And that's not great because it's perhaps the key differentiator they were hoping to have against the other frontier labs. Maybe that forces them to storm ahead anyway, at which point those injunction hearings will be awfully important...
It remains just wild that it has come to this. Just two years ago, Apple was using their biggest stage to tout ChatGPT and the partnership with OpenAI. Now it's all lawsuits, allegations, and name-calling. Rotten, indeed.
Update July 14, 2026: Bloomberg's Mark Gurman is reporting that despite the lawsuit, OpenAI intends to move forward with their first device – at least for now. Again, let's see what happens with any injunctions...
1 I suppose it's good that Apple doesn't have a representative on OpenAI's board – let alone an investment in the company – as was nearly the case a couple years ago! Then again, such an equity stake may have led to an easier path to ease tensions, just ask Microsoft! ↩
2026-07-13 06:22:00
I can now confirm, the pubs were in fact crazy on Saturday night as I watched my Conflicted Cup – aka, the World Cup semifinal between England and Norway (I, of course, live in England but my maternal heritage is full-on Norwegian). It was close, but England pulled it out in the end – an end that occurred shortly before 1am local time, which was especially fun.
Anyway, while there was a sports angle of my usual tech talk with Alex Kantrowitz this month thanks to the VAR situation in said World Cup, for the most part, we stick to tech. Namely, 'The Summer of Super Apps', which ended up being a timely chat since just days later, we got the first such app in the form of OpenAI's updated – but hardly upgraded – version of ChatGPT.
Spoiler alert: it's a mess.
So do we really believe Microsoft will be able to pull this off? I mean, at least they're coming at it from a place where they needed to change their strategy, OpenAI runs a real risk here of ceding the consumer space – the area of AI they've unquestionably dominated to date – potentially to Meta or even Apple! At the same time, OpenAI clearly feels the need to combat Anthropic and so it's hardly surprising that the new ChatGPT looks a lot like the Claude Mac app. Well, it is surprising in that it's sort of a UI nightmare when we're used to OpenAI making actually delightful product experiences, for the most part. Everyone is also chasing the notion, if not exactly the product, of OpenClaw for agentic AI.
Meanwhile, Google, which rather remarkably feels behind again at the moment, still has the biggest surfaces to naturally insert AI (well, more naturally than Meta at least, whose user base will undoubtedly largely reject such insertion). Is it wild to think that Google may turn to Chrome not just to spur Gemini usage (which they've been doing, of course) but to turn it into the "Super App"? Would they dare?! Talk about risk – from both the user base and regulators!
Does 'Bring Your Own AI' come into play in all this? That could be a new can of worms!
Apple, though, does suddenly feel well positioned again. Perhaps best positioned even! Thanks, of course, to the iPhone. It sort of feels like we're going to see a lot of people over the next year transition into a mode where they walk around and talk to Siri – actually talk to her, not yell at her, angry with her previously poor responses. But here OpenAI may have a real opportunity thanks to their focus on superior voice-based AI. You'd think that's an opening for a new product category – or categories – but well, there's a potential new massive hiccup there as of a couple days ago.
Also, don't sleep on "Visual Intelligence".
If it all plays out this way, Apple will obviously feel very good about their CapEx strategy. Which is to say, they'd be positioned well in AI without having spent hundreds of billions of dollars. And it's sort of starting to feel like Microsoft is moving more in this direction too. Or, at least, focusing on finding paths towards cheaper AI – both for themselves and for their user base.
Lastly, stick around for Alex's VAR rant – are we trusting the robots too much and literally taking the fun and majesty out of the game?
2026-07-11 05:35:41
We all know the old saying "don't poke the bear." Less well known is the follow up: "because he might rip your fucking throat out." OpenAI, it seems, may be about to learn this lesson the hard way.
To be clear and fair, I have not seen the lawsuit Apple has filed against OpenAI alleging stolen trade secrets. Nor am I a lawyer. But I do like to think I know Apple fairly well after a couple decades writing about and reporting on the company. And around these parts, I've watched OpenAI fairly closely these past few years. My gut instinct here would be that there's no way Apple files such a lawsuit unless they think they have a strong case on what they're alleging.
I mean, you don't have to be close to the companies at all the sense this: they were, and in fact still are, partners! I mean, this is about to make OpenAI and Microsoft look like the greatest love story of all time. Or at least The Notebook. The Elon Musk situation, yeah it's complicated. Maybe it's like Past Lives or Marriage Story. But now the OpenAI and Apple relationship suddenly looks like Fatal Attraction.
I mean, my god.
The allegations are, um, not great. I'm honestly not even sure where to begin. CNBC seems to have a good summary of key parts of the filing so far:
Apple alleged that OpenAI’s chief hardware officer, Tang Tan, who is a former Apple vice president, has directed Apple employees interviewing at OpenAI to share Apple secrets as part of the interviewing process. Tan is named as a defendant in the suit.
“He has directed job candidates still working for Apple to bring ‘actual parts’ from Apple to their interviews for ‘show and tell’ sessions in which he and his team at OpenAI can elicit still more Apple confidential information,” Apple said in the filing.
Apple alleged that OpenAI coached departing Apple employees in how to evade security processes when leaving the iPhone maker, and that Chang Liu, a former employee who joined OpenAI, stole an Apple laptop. Liu is named as a defendant in the suit.
While Jony Ive is not mentioned in the suit, Tan is just about as high-profile as they come in terms of former Apple folks outside of the SVP level. Which is to say, these are very serious allegations against a very senior person – someone who spent 24 years at Apple.
So why now? I mean, this is clearly a Friday news dump – this crossed the wires just after the market closed. But it also seems timely:
“Recently, significant evidence has emerged suggesting individuals employed by OpenAI wrongfully took Apple’s secret and confidential information regarding our unreleased technologies, processes, and products,” an Apple representative told CNBC in a statement.
It all reads a bit as if Apple has been building up evidence of these allegations for some time and recently got their smoking gun. It's not just nebulous "trade secrets" either, there are specific mentions down to "metal finishing techniques" that Apple apparently invented and protected.
It also comes a little less than a month after OpenAI was rumored to be threatening Apple with a lawsuit over the perceived failure of their deal to bake ChatGPT into the iPhone. As I wrote at the time, even just that threat was clearly not going to go over well in Cupertino. If you're say, upset over Apple's new deal with Google around AI, this is not the way to air your grievances with this particular company. I went on to note:
Just for fun, let's go ahead and layer in a few more things.
First, Apple probably doesn't love the fact that OpenAI acquired the Jony Ive-founded io with the notion of building products that would break the chains that the iPhone has placed upon us. But they really can't love the fact that the team keeps poaching key Apple talent to help with such efforts.
And what if some of those people are also working on an actual iPhone competitor in the form of a phone, or a smartphone-like device?
I'm not saying that's the reason Apple may not have been as receptive to reworking any deal with OpenAI, but I'm saying that if there were such discussions, that dynamic probably didn't help matters!
Again, you poke the bear... it's a fucking bear. It's a move that seemingly so stupid that perhaps OpenAI was well aware that Apple was looking into all of the above and decided to try to get ahead of it? To what end? I don't know. Even with that in mind, it would be pretty stupid.
But even without their own threats of litigation, what did OpenAI think was going to happen when they poached so many folks from Apple – over 400?! – to work under the guidance of Ive no less? At best, Apple was going to hate them. At worst, well, this.
Speaking of, if any of these allegations are even partially true, it's hard to believe Tan or Liu or anyone at OpenAI could possibly be so stupid? Again, this is one side's allegations, and there's always going to be some level of moderation in what actually happened, but... I mean, either these allegations happened or they didn't?
And if they did. I mean, I keep saying "I mean" because I mean, beyond Tan and Liu, OpenAI itself would seemingly be in real trouble. Potential damages aside, this could sidetrack their hardware aspirations for months, if not years. Possibly forever. And seemingly just as they got the right software in place to make such things sing.
This would also, of course, not be a great look for the leadership of OpenAI. Yet another controversy and yet another messy divorce from yet another Big Tech trillion-dollar behemoth. If OpenAI isn't running out of friends, they're running out of people who would potentially work with them. They better hope these allegations are unfounded. But, I mean, this is Apple. And this is Apple going after the highest profile AI startup in the world. A partner of theirs, no less.
“This much is clear, however: at every level, from members of its Technical Staff to its Chief Hardware Officer, and in coordination with business partners, OpenAI has been stealing Apple’s trade secrets and confidential information,” the company said in a legal filing.
I mean...
Update July 13, 2026: Some further thoughts having now fully read the lawsuit...
2026-07-10 21:04:35
I am so confused right now. I mean that literally. Trying to use the new ChatGPT app on the Mac, I'm confused. I knew this was coming, more or less, and I'm still confused! I hope "regular" users don't try this anytime soon, because it's a mess.
The "good" news is that it's such a mess that simply trying to update the old ChatGPT app, does trigger an update, but it's actually not the new ChatGPT app, but rather an updated version of the old one. So anyone doing a regular update, shouldn't be shoved into this new experience – yet. Instead, to get the new ChatGPT app, you need to manually re-download it from the page on OpenAI's website. Or have Codex installed, because that should update to this new ChatGPT. And that's because the old Codex is essentially the new ChatGPT.
Yes, the "Super App" is here. Unfortunately, it super sucks.
Again, I knew all of this was coming thanks to leaks and just general statements from various OpenAI executives. But somehow I still wasn't prepared. Because I assumed that given OpenAI's solid history of product prowess, I thought this new ChatGPT would just be... better? Instead, it's seemingly just Codex merged with ChatGPT to look and importantly, act, like Anthropic's Claude Mac app.
But the Claude Mac app is also sort of a mess! It's a tangle of toggles and strange UI decisions. OpenAI took the straightforward ChatGPT app and made a mess.
Yes, part of that mess is because it's seemingly no longer a native Mac app but instead a bloated Electron package. I'm not as religious about such things as John Gruber of Daring Fireball is, but, yeah, this sucks, relatively speaking. Electron apps, by their nature, simply aren't as performant as native apps. I understand the cross-development and deployment trade-offs – I was a board observer at Slack back in the day – but OpenAI sort of bait-and-switched us here.1
But to me, the bigger issue is the UI choices.
It took me a while to figure out what was going on with 'ChatGPT Work' – and that was after I watched the unveiling video. I knew this was a new aspect of ChatGPT, but I assumed the "old" aspect would remain as the default here. You know, chat. Having written a post entitled "Chat is dead" specifically about OpenAI moving away from the chat paradigm for ChatGPT, I also probably should have realized this! But I just didn't think OpenAI would make this transition so jarring.
When I see the new ChatGPT app launch into 'ChatGPT Work', I instinctively assume it's an enterprise version of the app. Instead, OpenAI clearly means for 'ChatGPT Work' to evoke 'Claude Cowork', you know the agentic set of Claude tools, but this is insanely clunky branding. As much as people may know Claude Cowork, probably infinitely more think of Microsoft's enterprise suite of productivity tools when they see 'Work'. Or they think of the English language itself. And 'ChatGPT Work' makes it sound like it's ChatGPT to use at work. Like as in your office. As in not for home. Not for personal use.
My god this is stupid branding. It's not bad in the way Microsoft branding is often bad. It's just dumb.
Anyway, my immediate instinct was to click on the 'ChatGPT Work' drop-down and try to get back to 'ChatGPT' itself. But there is no such option. But there is an option: it's to switch to 'ChatGPT Codex'. What the fuck?
I thought that was the whole point of this new app? That Codex was now ChatGPT. But as it turns out, they really wanted to exactly copy Anthropic here. So 'ChatGPT Work' – again, their version of Claude Cowork – is distinct from 'ChatGPT Codex' – their version of Claude Code. Why these have to be different things, I don't know. I mean I think I do know. I think it's so as not to piss off/confuse developers.
At the same time, both OpenAI and Anthropic have been adamant that their coding tools are for far more than developers. In fact, software development may already be a minority use case. So they will clearly be merged at some point. And OpenAI could have taken the lead here, but chose not to. Confusing us all!
Of course, the real confusion stems from the one main thing they're doing differently than Anthropic here: they don't default you into 'Chat'. Let's just pause for a moment to consider how insane it is that a product called 'ChatGPT' doesn't default you into chat mode but instead "work" mode. Again, Claude does default to chat by way of a toggle (where you can switch to Claude Cowork) which is separate from their main toggle (where you switch to Claude Code). That's not great, but OpenAI's UI choice is somehow much worse. 'Chat' got shoved into the sidebar.
Yes, 'Chat' is now a buried sub-menu feature of ChatGPT.
It's below 'New task' (for ChatGPT Work), 'Scheduled' (for ChatGPT Work), and 'Plugins' (for ChatGPT Work). The priorities could not be any more loud and clear.
But crazier still is that clicking on 'Chat' doesn't take you into the good, old ChatGPT chat area we know and love, instead it launches a pop-up box from the bottom of the window. A goddamn pop-up! Yes, I suppose this is a known 'chat' paradigm. But it's one that sucks!
And while you can pop-out the box into its own window (there you are, old friend), there's also a 'minimize' button which doesn't actually minimize the window into some sort of bottom toolbar like you might expect, but instead it just closes the window. You can also move the chat window around in the ChatGPT app environment, which is different from popping it out to move it around (which naturally has its own, different minimize/maximize/close toggles per normal macOS window standards). I mean, what?
But the reason why OpenAI was undoubtedly okay doing all this is even more confusing! Because while it's labeled as a 'task' rather than a 'chat' you can still just chat with ChatGPT in the chat box even when in task mode as you normally would in the old ChatGPT. How's that for a sentence? In other words, as best I can tell, you can use 'ChatGPT Work' just as you used to use ChatGPT itself. The phrasing is all different and confusing "Do anything" is the new "Ask ChatGPT" prompt in the box – I get the sentiment, but come on, "Do anything"?! – but it works.
Okay, that's 1,100 words shitting on this update. I will say something nice: the new model toggle, which is now just a slider for you to indicate where on the spectrum from 'Faster' to 'Smarter' you want to be, is pretty nice. There are still way too many options – six! – but it's better than having to choose a model name/number.2
I'm only a few hours in, but I seriously think that's the only nice thing I have to say about this change. Again, I understand why they're doing it, but I just thought they would do this more gracefully.
Honestly, they're probably a bit trapped. Given the recent success Anthropic is seeing – and the numbers OpenAI themselves are seeing with their own Codex product – they obviously feel the need to make these changes, but given all of the above, they probably should have changed the name from 'ChatGPT'. At the same time, they undoubtedly couldn't do that because they have so much mindshare with it – it's the 'Kleenex' of AI right now. So even though ChatGPT now has little to do with chat, here we are.
Oh yes, and have I mentioned that the new web experience for ChatGPT is entirely different? The web app defaults to, you guessed it – or perhaps not! – 'Chat'. There's a toggle at the top (which is a completely different UI than the Mac app) to move to 'Work'. Not 'ChatGPT Work' mind you, as it is in the new app, just 'Work'. (I suppose they wanted to avoid the embarrassment of having to label the other box 'ChatGPT Chat'.) And yet there is no option for 'Codex' (though presumably that will come at some point, with Anthropic also moving such tools to the web).
It's a cleaner and more straightforward UI – even if the 'Chat' and 'Work' toggle also still make it seem too much like a 'work and play' dynamic. So one presumes OpenAI's assumption is that anyone willing to download the Mac app will be intending to do work – meaning not necessarily actual "work" but instead just general agentic uses. Meanwhile, anyone more casually looking to chat will most likely just use the web. I guess that's fine, but it's confusing, and yes, sucks. Because I would often use the previous version of the Mac app as my go-to always-on chat app (using the option-space shortcut to bring up the nice mini overlay). The new settings area of the new app is so convoluted it's almost Microsoft-ian, if not Facebook-ian in nature.
Speaking of, with these changes, my mind goes back in time to when Facebook rolled out the News Feed. This is that jarring of a change. Obviously, despite the backlash at the time, that ended up being one of the best calls Meta ever made as a company. Perhaps this shift from chat to "work" will be the same for OpenAI. At the highest level, moving beyond simple chat – to voice and other paradigms – makes sense. But it's too convoluted and messy to see it right now.
Bigger picture: I worry that ChatGPT is ceding the consumer AI space. Or worse, that they just intend to take their massive foothold and milk it for needed revenue by shoving ads into our faces. Potentially even more problematic for OpenAI: this is just as Meta and Apple are nearly ready to pick up that potential slack. I already thought that the new Siri AI was going to end up as the default chatbot for many if not most Apple users, simply thanks to its default (and finally "good enough") status. Now I'm even more sure of it because ChatGPT has become such a mess on the Mac.
Let's see what they do – or hopefully don't do – with mobile...
One more thing: Nearly lost in yesterday's flurry of releases is the news that Atlas, OpenAI's not-even-year-old web browser, will also be no more. While it launched to much fanfare last October, the reality remains that it's just an insanely hard area in which to compete, perhaps the hardest, given Google's dominance with Chrome on desktop. I actually quite liked Atlas and would often use it as a secondary web browser (after Dia, still my preferred "AI Browser"). But that was mainly because it was fast relative to the comically bloated Chrome and too-resource-cautious Safari.
As expected, Atlas does live on, in a way, inside of this new ChatGPT app, but good luck finding it! Here's a hint, it's in the 'side panel' which you have to toggle on via a button in the upper right corner of the app. Here, you'll also find the ability to have a "Side task" (which is a concept I like, but come on, "Side chat" was right there!). Atlas, if it's even still called that, is now about as bare-bones as a browser can be and seems mainly to exist for agentic purposes. Which I guess makes sense.
Oh, there's also a 'bottom panel' where the browser and side tasks can reside alongside the Terminal. In a way, the new ChatGPT app is like the new Windows!
So if the goal was for the "Super App" to be the new, convoluted operating system,3 mission accomplished, I guess?
1 Thankfully, it seems that, at least for now, you can have both the old ChatGPT app and new ChatGPT app installed at once – but you need to be careful to rename the old one first because they new one, with the same name, will override it! ↩
2 How will the masses feel about such a change? We'll see! ↩
3 Complete with a hidden away "File Tree"! ↩
2026-07-10 02:43:57
Happy Muse Spark 1.1 Day to those who celebrate. Which clearly includes Mark Zuckerberg, who is seemingly so giddy about the latest work out of his Superintelligence Lab that he's even tweeting for the first time in years. And just as with the first 'Muse Spark' – still a silly name – model, the early results sounds promising. Still not full-on frontier, but inching closer in certain regards like image generation and perhaps coding and some other agentic workflows.1
Anyway, with "Watermelon" – their true frontier model shot – seemingly still growing on the vine, performance isn't really the key today. I mean, a certain level of performance remains table stakes, but there are two other areas to focus on in today's announcement: charging for the API and the price they're charging.
Zuckerberg sat down with Kurt Wagner for Bloomberg to talk about it:
“Since this is not an open source model, this is I think the first time that we’re doing a real serious API,” Zuckerberg said, referring to the application programming interface used to access Meta’s AI. “And the pricing is going to be very aggressive and attractive.”
We've been over Meta's shift from open source – many times – so I won't belabor it, but it is wild just how casually Zuck has shoved it aside given his rhetoric over the past few years. But hey, good leaders know when they need to change direction, even if it's a 180 and makes previous statements seem a bit silly. Far more interesting is the fact that they're charging for the API and again, the pricing.
To the first point, despite endless efforts to diversify their business over many years, Meta's revenue remains completely dominated by advertising. To the tune of something like 98%. As I've noted before, it's a great problem to have – but it's still a problem. And you can tell Meta knows this not only by all the efforts over the years to branch outside ads, but just the efforts in recent weeks to move to sell premium subscriptions (many of which are tied directly to AI usage) and the rumored (but obvious) move to launch a Cloud offering.
This API would be a part of that Cloud offering, so consider it a first step. And it's an important one because Meta is obviously coming very late to this game. So how do you enter such a crowded field? Price:
Meta will also introduce a new Meta Model API system, which will be used to collect fees from developers. Its API pricing is roughly 25% of the cost advertised by other top models from OpenAI and Anthropic PBC. Developers will be able to use Meta’s model for free, but only up to a point; they’ll be required to pay for access after reaching a certain token threshold, Zuckerberg said.
“The pricing from some of the other labs is very extreme and has very high margins,” Zuckerberg said, underscoring that his strategy is to get Meta’s technology in front of as many people as possible. “We think that there’s a real ability to be able to offer frontier or very high-level intelligence at a much more affordable cost.”
Yes, this is Zuck's "your margin is my opportunity" moment, echoing the old famous Jeff Bezos quote.
Now, I assume the AI rivals would all say that they're not being overly aggressive on margin and that the cost is simply what they think can get them to some level of sustainability. Of course, while Anthropic may or may not be close to such a level, OpenAI famously is not. That's why they're raising $122B venture rounds. Mind-boggling numbers which, by the way, still won't be enough to take them to that sustainable level without some major tweaks to their model and/or spend. And Meta just made that a lot harder today.
In a way, it's more like "your lack of an underlying business to support your AI build out is my opportunity". Because, yes, Meta's ads cash machine allows them to execute such a strategy. OpenAI also supposedly wants to drastically cut prices to eat up market share, but again, how are they going to pay for that?
At the same time, Wall Street would also like to know how Meta is going to pay for this. Because as great as the ads business is, at the end of the day, the amount being spent on the AI build out is going to eat into their profits and then some. That's undoubtedly part of the reason why Zuck is throwing them the 'Meta Cloud' bone.
Also, it helps to have full founder control and voting shares and you can more or less tell Wall Street to Zuck off.
But actually, Zuck is also making the case in this interview for why he feels like Meta had to (re)build their own frontier models:
“If you really want to build the best experiences for people, you have to be able to shape the underlying technology,” the Meta CEO said. Controlling the technology is going to let Meta “deliver exactly what we think is going to be the best experience.”
Fair enough, though Apple would argue they're building the exact best experience they want by paying Google to distill their models. So couldn't Meta just have done that or something similar?
Zuckerberg is not convinced that the technology will ultimately become a commodity — that is, that all of the various AI models will essentially do the same thing and be more or less indiscernible from one another. He pointed to Mythos, the latest model from Anthropic, which raised national security concerns in the US, as an example of how companies are already gatekeeping aspects of the technology instead of sharing it widely.
“The capabilities are not actually getting diffused or made broadly available to everyone,” Zuckerberg said. “Anthropic is sort of keeping a model for themselves and releasing a kind of simpler version of a model. And there are all these reasons for why they may or may not be doing it. But that at least does not suggest to me that the world is either heading in, or is guaranteed to head in, a direction where this ends up being something that is widely available.”
In other words, if they relied too much upon someone else's models, Zuck knew they would run into the situation where those models could go away for any number of reasons. While perhaps no one thought it would be the US government who would pull them back, the point stands. Zuck has years of scar tissue from being beholden to Apple (and to a lesser extent, Google) in mobile. He wasn't about to let someone do it to Meta in AI. Costs be damned!
Wall Street should probably appreciate that. But won't. But they will appreciate charging for the API – even if it means undercutting prices – because of what it signals: the potential for a more diversified Meta and one that may yet figure out how to pay for that AI build-out...
One more thing: Of all the juicy Zuck quotes, this must be the most succulent:
“That is a pretty interesting milestone because I think this may be the first time, at least that I can remember, that Meta’s models are better than all of the Google models,” he said.
Ouch! You think this is being passed around Mountain View today?
1 That's assuming we can trust the numbers that Meta is putting out there which, after the Llama 4 debacle, we should probably still wait for these to be verified by others. ↩