2026-06-13 18:58:20
This is a great post by Hari Raghavan, despite the fact that it's written on Xitter, which offers up an experience that's a bit like reading in an active war zone. He makes the case for why the sentiment around Anthropic, which started as the sort of lovable underdog of AI compared to OpenAI,1 is shifting, fast.
Part of it is as simple as moving from an entity playing catch-up to one in the lead. This naturally changes perceptions – just ask Apple. But a lot of it is the self-inflicted wounds Anthropic keeps giving themselves over and over again. None of it seems actually nefarious, but all of it suggests a complete and utter inability to read a room.
At first, this was the Pentagon, which, admittedly, is complicated, and perhaps especially under the current administration – an administration full of folks that flat-out don't like Anthropic, I should note. And that's in part because of their ideals, some of which stem from the term which has become the bogeyman of tech: effective altruism. The government perhaps thought they locked up that notion with Sam Bankman-Fried, but then Anthropic came roaring into prominence and placement with their superior models and Claude Code.
Anyway, a lot of the EA stuff is undoubtedly FUD at this point. It's Anthropic's actual rhetoric, as outlined in the many missives of Dario Amodei that is arguably more problematic now. It's turning the strength of the company – their idealistic nature and maximal stances on AI, from Dario on down, which has naturally built up a team of "true believers" who don't waver when, say, Mark Zuckerberg comes calling with billion-dollar poaching offers – into a liability.
Again, the real problem is that they don't seem to see the predicaments they're getting themselves into until after it's too late. Even after getting blacklisted by the Pentagon and quickly scrambling to de-escalate, they're right back at it with other escalations.
Again, I don't view any of it as nefarious. But they simply don't understand how the world is going to react when, say, they release their Fable model that secretly sabotages the abilities of others looking to use Claude for augmenting their own models. On the surface, we can all understand why they did this – they're sick of everyone from Elon Musk on down using Claude to distill to their own competitive offerings. And they undoubtedly also believe such actions can be used by bad actors to create bad models to do bad things. But it's insanity to handle this via subterfuge – certainly when there are legitimate use-cases from academics aiming to study AI or researchers aiming to quantify models, for example. But even if it's just to thwart bad actors, this is a bad look and policy when you're now viewed as the leader in the space – one trying to build a reputation around trust and safety no less!
This is all Comms 101 and Strategy 101.2 And to beat the dead horse, that's the real problem here. It would be one thing if this was a one-off situation, but Anthropic keeps shooting themselves in the foot over and over again. Because they clearly just can't see the problem with anything that they're doing. Because they obviously think that the fact that they believe they're doing what they're doing for the right reasons outweighs anything else. That's just not how the world actually works, sadly.
So while I think the public is now viewing this as a sort of classic wrestling "heel turn", where the hero becomes the villain – Harvey Dent, if you prefer the movie analogy – I actually think this is more like an Anakin Skywalker situation. That is, he turns to the Dark Side for arguably justifiable reasons: to save the life of his wife, Padme, and their unborn child.3 But he too doesn't fully think through the ramifications and can't think clearly about how such a move is likely to play out.
Next thing you know, he's slaughtering young Padawans and battling his master. HE WAS THE CHOSEN ONE. Which is how I think many viewed Anthropic. Which is why, like Obi-Wan Kenobi, we're so disappointed in the decision-making here. The good news? It's not too late for Anthropic. They just need to wake up to the realities of the real world in which they operate, fast.
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
1 The rival company from which they were born out of, of course. Because of idealistic differences. Which adds another interesting dynamic to all of this. ↩
2 OpenAI clearly needed some help on this front too. Really, all of AI (and perhaps all of tech) does at the moment! But again, Anthropic's new front-running position makes this more problematic for them right now. As has long been a problem for OpenAI with their many stumbles! ↩
3 Spoiler – lol – twins! ↩
2026-06-13 02:46:50
As the AI frontier models keep improving unabated, a funny thing is happening to the user base. That is, different segments are increasingly looking elsewhere as costs rise and capabilities become more clear. Apple's hybrid approach with Siri AI between on-device and cloud is clearly something we're going to see more of...
M.G. Siegler
Inklings is a newsletter featuring links and commentary from M.G. Siegler on timely topics found around the web.
😈 Anthropic Walks Back Their Sabotage Strategy – Because we can't go a week without an AI strategy and comms crisis, after some major pushback, Anthropic has decided that, you know what, maybe they will tell those trying to use their new Fable model for their own training purposes that they can't do that – rather than just quietly undermining their code! Look, we get that they don't want rivals (and potentially bad actors) trying to distill their work, but who thought this strategy would work for a company that is trying to grab the ethical high ground and help with AI's trust issues?! Now that Anthropic is seen as the AI front-runner, we should and they should expect even more scrutiny over some of their um, interesting strategies and comms blunders. Upside: I now have some Beastie Boys stuck in my head. And now you do too. [Wired 🔒]
🗣️ Siri AI Actually Seems To Just Work – The early reviews are in! Well, previews. This is just the first of many betas before a roll out – which will still be in beta – in the Fall. But these first impressions seem pretty universally positive across the board. Clearly, the bar was low – perhaps so low so as to be impossible to go under. Most takes seem to be "well, this is simple" or "yeah, other systems have been able to do this for a while" but still... it works! I have Siri AI on two systems currently, a backup MacBook and an old iPad. It's a bit buggy (again, as you'd expect) and slightly slow on the iPad which is several years old. But still, it works! You just couldn't say that really about Siri, and not just in the past couple of years with Apple Intelligence debacle, but really since Siri first launched 15 years ago. There will obviously be times still where she doesn't work or misfires – and we'll see how she scales – but the hits seem to happen far more often already. It's early, but I've been impressed. If anything, she might be too cold? [Verge]
💎 Elon's Diamond Hands – A trillion dollars. It's an insane amount of money, obviously. But as with Hollywood box office results, there's some caveats and context required. First and foremost, Bill Gates and then Jeff Bezos would have hit the number first if they had just held on to all of their shares in Microsoft and Amazon, respectively. Instead, they either sold off over time or in the case of Gates, famously gave most of it to charity alongside Warren Buffett. It's a very uncharitable way to look at things, quite literally. The divorces haven't helped either of course, but Musk has plenty of those too. The difference is that Musk has held (or bought up/been granted more shares) in each of his companies. Diversification is for wimps, one might say. Actually, Musk's method of diversification is to start new companies. Whereas almost all of his net worth used to be tied to Tesla, with today's IPO and $2T+ valuation, his 50% stake in SpaceX now dwarfs his Tesla holdings (and he's obviously going to merge them at some point anyway). Bezos is perhaps learning this lesson with his new Prometheus AI startup, currently valued just under $30B and rising fast. But really, while the piece notes that Musk's trillion would now trump John D. Rockefeller's billion back in 1937 in terms of share of US GDP (3% versus 1.5%), globally, Musk controls a mere 0.9% of GDP (honestly, that is maybe the most insane stat). Augustus Caesar controlled something more like 25% - 30% during his time atop the Roman Empire. Mansa Musa may have commanded more during the Mali Empire. Everyone needs goals to aspire to, even Musk. [NYT]
📺 Apple TV Really is the New (Old) HBO — From a quality-perspective, I’ve been saying this for years at this point, but Janko Roettgers' point here is a slightly different one: that Apple TV is relying on a few tentpole shows to drive their subscriptions and word-of-mouth, just like HBO used to do in the days of cable. But streaming has obviously changed everything, and as a result, Apple TV remains a non-player to the point of still not showing up on overall charts despite some of their high-profile content. They started with no library, of course, but years later, it’s still tiny compared to Netflix and the like. If and when they push into an ad-tier, that’s likely to change. They’ll start licensing more content on top of what they produce. This is inevitable from a Services-perspective – because ads are. Because while being the new HBO is nice and the content is for the most part great – big fan of their latest show, Widows's Bay – it still isn’t moving many — if any — needles. There’s some halo effects, for sure. But Apple is a $4T company. They missed out on HBO. Maybe they should buy Disney? [Lowpass]
'Xbox Everywhere' doesn't make sense if Xbox is nowhere...
M.G. Siegler
"The faster the potential RSI takeoff looks like it could be, the more it could be advantageous to delay an IPO. Technology and the world may change in surprising ways, and there might be good reasons to be a private company during that time."
– Sam Altman, telling OpenAI employees why the company may not rush to IPO even with SpaceX now public and Anthropic on the path.
There's been a lot written about that race and while I do think it would have been good for OpenAI to go out before Anthropic for all the obvious optics and narrative reasons, with that ship having sailed, it may actually make more sense to wait. Then the question becomes if they can afford to, quite literally. Given their burn, they'll need to raise money again before achieving profitability – yes, even after the largest fundraise in history – and the public market is going to give them more avenues to do so. That said, there are tradeoffs, as Altman is alluding to. And given where OpenAI seems to be on the path to profitability versus Anthropic – which is to say, far behind – there's a world in which the market punishes OpenAI more than their peers. And that's not a good place to be.
Lastly, it's interesting to see the seemingly coordinated pivot around "RSI" – recursive self-improvement – as the key talking point in terms of the next big thing in AI. Obviously, it points towards the path to AGI, but all of the labs clearly going to believe it's either the first step, the next step, or the major step. And coming soon – earlier this week I noted that OpenAI put a very specific date out there: March 2028. Anthropic clearly thinks we're on the cusp. Google. Etc.
The look that Apple SVP of Marketing Greg Joswiak gives – to the camera – after SVP of Software Craig Federighi tells Laurie Segall that "I don't think the sexy part belongs in your computer, it belongs in your life." is just priceless. A real Office-like moment of breaking the fourth wall. It's the look of a man who knows that what Craig just said it going to launch a thousand headlines and memes.
I'll spare Apple here, but might I just suggest that were I to write a whole post around this, it might be titled something like: Siri AI Not DTF.
In all seriousness though, the whole interview for Segall's Mostly Human podcast is well worth the watch/listen, a lot of meat in here about Apple's AI mindset. And yes, it went decidedly better for Federighi and Joz than last year's showdown with Joanna Stern. It helps when they have something to actually talk about!
Aside: while asked to reflect on his 40th anniversary at Apple (!) Joz gives a nice Michigan shout-out (as both he and Segall are grads). #GoBlue
🎶 Listening to "Sabotage" by Beastie Boys
🍺 Enjoying a Kernal Table Beer
🇬🇧 Sent from London, England
2026-06-12 20:53:23
There are a number of narratives the past few weeks that I think you can tie together with the same string. That is, we may be slowly shifting into a world where frontier AI isn't needed for most workflows. I mean, technically that has always been the case. But we're starting to see real action and movement around that notion to turn it into a reality for many.
First came the narrative around costs spiraling out of control at many companies trying to leverage AI in day-to-day operations. Some of this is obviously related to the "tokenmaxxing" trend, but it's also seemingly just around "normal" AI deployment too. With usage growing and the shift towards consumption-based pricing...
Then came the news of NVIDIA 'RTX Spark' systems. The company's shift into CPUs for PCs is all about local inference. Why? At least in part to be able to cut AI costs and workloads in the clouds, while also potentially boosting speed if you simply don't need the biggest and best models for everything.
Next we saw Apple at WWDC showcase 'Siri AI' – for real this time – which is heavily predicated around their on-device models. While much was made about the Google Gemini partnership, and rightfully so, the real key may be their routing system which is able to quickly know when to use those local models versus when to call to their models running in the cloud – Google's Cloud, running NVIDIA chips, no less. For a lot of Siri queries, you won't need that. And for a lot of your personal content, you may not want that. And if you do need it, Apple may charge you more for it.
Speaking of, this week also brought Claude Fable 5 – yes, Anthropic's 'Mythos' model meant for the masses, at last. Beyond the security concerns, there are major cost concerns too. To the point where Anthropic has a big disclaimer on the model picker that customers will have access to Fable through June 22, at which point it's likely to be an extra-cost add-on. Read: credits will be burned. And the reality here is that Fable is undoubtedly overkill for many "regular" AI workflows.
And that's my word to tie all of these things together: it feels like we're entering the Era of AI Overkill.
Famous last words and all that, but while everyone has spent the past couple of years debating if and when frontier model development would slow down, the real story may be reaching a sort of equilibrium where end-users (and businesses) are realizing that they simply don't need the latest and greatest model for every task. And certainly, given the rising costs with rising usage, they may not want to pay for the best every time.
Again, on paper, this isn't anything new. It's the reason why we've long had the model picker drop-downs within the various AI products. They always implied that maybe you don't need the biggest and best model for your task – and, in fact, this other model may be far faster. But money has a way of talking that time doesn't. If you're telling someone that using this other model will be not just faster, but far cheaper, they're more likely to listen. Provided the end result is still good. And again, for many queries/tasks, "good enough" is now just that.
Countering this is the ongoing push towards agentic workflows and yes, coding. But as Apple may more clear this week, that's probably not going to be the AI workflows that the masses use any time soon. Over time, sure, agents will continue to creep into our lives. But for a lot of tasks, the on-device agentic work that Apple is offering will be more than enough to surprise and delight the masses.
The power users like you and me will undoubtedly continue to use – and pay for – the Claudes and the ChatGPTs at the bleeding edge. But again, it's impossible to argue with free.
What will be truly interesting will be watching how enterprises strike this balance. In light of the rising AI bills, do they start to buy up RTX Spark machines to take a lot of AI work offline as it were? "Unmetered intelligence" is a term that Microsoft and others would really like to make happen. Spending a few thousand dollars up-front versus tens or hundreds of thousands per employee over time is obviously a pretty easy equation. Again, provided the output is still good!
Do we enter a world of 'have and have-nots' in business where the biggest businesses pay up for the frontier AI all the time while smaller businesses "settle" for cheaper AI?
Hybridization seems inevitable here as well. And that will require good routing systems to know what should be done locally, for free, versus what needs to be handled at the frontier in the cloud. The buzzword you're actually looking for here is "orchestration", again, not new. But it will be increasingly important. Not just to route between different models from different providers, and different models from the same provider, but also local versus cloud models.
How the model makers themselves handle this will also be interesting to watch. Obviously they've been trying to take on more of the work of picking the right model for you, but this has also prompted some backlash and backtracking. At the same time, it was never going to be tenable to have a Microsoft Office-like toolbar system of drop-downs, and instead, most people will want what Apple is now offering with Siri AI: one prompt box to rule them all.
Yes, yes, here too power users will want to decide and pick their own. But also undoubtedly not always. It's just far too big of a cognitive burden to have to think about which model you want to use for each query or task. And as workflows move more towards audio and perhaps to different types of AI devices, the UI to handle such model picking quickly goes away out of necessity.
And as agentic workflows become more automated, the system will necessarily need to pick the right models for your task. Interestingly, while much of this work started local with OpenClaw and the like, this will probably increasingly move the other way: to the cloud as more devices get incorporated into such workflows. But there still might be a home "hub" for local model work to save cost/time? Even if it's a smartphone?
Again, if nothing else, people may feel more comfortable running their personal information locally. Certainly Apple believes this! And going forward, does our personal AI morph into our professional AI, or do they stay fully separate?
Anyway, yes, it's fun to try Fable to see if it can answer "who let the dogs out?", but it's also increasingly insanely expensive and stupid to do that. I mean, it was always stupid to do that. But now money talks. And barks back.
As we enter the Era of AI Overkill, are the cheaper and local models ready to answer the call? And is the orchestration layer ready to route to them?
2026-06-12 02:10:11
I'm not sure it's entirely fair, but it's right there: if the new leadership of Xbox just wrapped up their 'Charm Offensive', the next phase looks to be the 'Harm Offensive'.
While Asha Sharma and team spent their first 100 days rejuvenating the XBOX brand, killing off AI, dropping subscription prices, restoring exclusives, bringing on talent, retro green translucent anniversary consoles, an Oprah moment! Yeah, these next 100 are going to be significantly tougher. Including, it seems, mass layoffs...
It's harsh, but I also think it's a sound strategy. You want to give consumers hope that you've heard what the problems are and to showcase that you intend to change them, instantly in some cases. At the same time, there are very real structural and business problems in the division, which is going to require some drastic actions to help course-correct. If you launch those first, it's just going to fuel the fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the entire endeavor. So you start with the carrots before switching to sticks...
During said charm offensive, I noted that Sharma's fast, big moves reminded me of the early days of her boss, Satya Nadella, when he took over the larger Microsoft org a dozen years ago. One of his very first moves was to announce Office for iPad. Obviously, it had been in the works for some time – hence it being ready to be shown off – but the key was the symbolism of the move. It signaled a new day and era for Microsoft. After Steve Ballmer's "lost decade" of mostly milking profits from Windows, the company was ready to change and reorient itself to move forward.
Sharma's moves were arguably more dramatic, because she was rapidly retconning a lot of what Phil Spencer and team had spent the past several years putting in place. Of course, that's also fairly easy to do when none of that stuff was working. And Sharma's 'Next 100 Days' memo outlines just how dire things are:
We will end this fiscal year at about a 3% accountability margin, down year-over-year. Excluding Activision Blizzard King, over the past five years, we have spent over $20 billion on ongoing investments in our content, platform, and hardware subsidy, but our annual revenue has declined nearly half a billion during that time. Going forward, this cannot continue.
Yes, that's aside from the nearly $70B spent on Activision Blizzard. And that's important to note because that deal was masking the growing disaster within Xbox. The core was no longer working, Microsoft was buying revenue to mask it. Sharma ripped the mask off. "Going forward, this cannot continue."
Earlier this week, she was noting that her job, first and foremost, was to build Xbox back into a leading entertainment company. Just last week, she was specifically noting that her job wasn't about the margins – something which Nadella and Microsoft CFO Amy Hood were clearly pushing the division on previously. But as this memo showcases, it is also still about the margins. Xbox isn't a charity, it needs to be sustainable, as Nadella has made clear.
Part of that, unfortunately, means layoffs. And part of it means backtracking from the weird, piecemeal strategy put in place by Sharma's predecessors. 'Xbox Everywhere' doesn't make sense if Xbox is nowhere. And while I think it's fine to do some level of cross-promotion and pollination of older games and/or IP to other platforms, the goal obviously has to be to bring more people back to Xbox, not to make it so that no one needs to buy an Xbox.
As such, exclusives are back on the menu. Which also means ripping off some band-aids with your would-be awkward partners like Sony. Sorry, we're no longer going to be feeding you so that you can kill us even faster.
In a way, I'm reminded a bit of another famous tech CEO coming in: Steve Jobs. When Jobs came back to Apple in early 1997, the company was obviously in bad shape. Infamously close to death. One of the first orders of business was massive layoffs – executed by then-CEO Gil Amelio, before he himself was executed and Jobs was officially elevated into his famous 'iCEO' role.
Jobs too had a sea-change moment like Nadella, albeit in reverse, by striking a deal with Microsoft to ensure that Office would continue to be supported on the Mac. Everyone remembers the equity investment, but this was the key to that deal. Well, and Bill Gates showing up on screen behind Jobs during his keynote at Macworld in Boston. While the "Big Brother" vibes are humorous today, this moment also signaled a new era at Apple and a path forward, "for Apple to win, Microsoft doesn't have to lose". 17 years later, Nadella had the same message in reverse.
Sorry, I've gotten a bit lost in the nostalgia here. My point is that after these moves, Jobs also acted fast to cut the product lines – perhaps most notably, killing off the Mac clones. One can't help but see parallels here between Xbox putting their titles on other systems and the Mac clones. On paper, it sounds like expanding the addressable market and getting paid to do so. In practice, it nearly destroyed the soul of Apple and perhaps was doing the same to Xbox.
Yes, I just compared Sharma's early efforts at Xbox to the magic of both Satya Nadella and Steve Jobs. That's unfair – to them and to her. It's early – just 100 days! – we'll see where this goes. But certainly her first moves have been impressive and have completely transformed the vibes around the brand in short order.1 But now comes the hard part. The layoffs and getting the business actually in order.
While the strategy sucked, Xbox also got blindsided by component prices – of course, fueled in part by Microsoft's own role in the AI arms race... That perhaps puts 'Project Helix' – the next Xbox – in jeopardy, or maybe just makes it more likely that they rely more on third party manufacturers for the hardware. Uh oh, that sounds a lot like Xbox Clones... What's the plan for Game Pass? Mysterious new business models? How long until they spin out Activision Blizzard?
Speaking of disastrous massive acquisitions... While Ballmer handed Nadella a range of issues – cough, Nokia, cough – Microsoft's underlying business remained in great shape. Xbox's business is perhaps more like Apple's back when Steve Jobs came back: on the brink. The big difference, of course, is that Xbox is under Microsoft. So it's sort of a hybrid of those two situations. Xbox is not going to die tomorrow, but they still need to figure out the correct path forward to be viable.
A bunch of good will has seemingly been restored, fast. A smart move ahead of some major, but necessary hard calls. A full spin-off? Hang on...
Update June 13, 2026: A new report by Aaron Holmes for The Information notes that Microsoft is weighing making Xbox into its own, wholly-owned company under the parent, much like they have with LinkedIn and GitHub (two companies they acquired, of course). But the bigger option: spinning the unit off entirely...
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
1 Especially when you consider that she was thought to be the assassin sent by Microsoft to terminate Xbox. Perhaps death by AI, was the general feared given her previous role. Good on her for quickly changing that narrative. ↩
2026-06-11 00:56:01
The trailer just hit so the take is especially hot, but I'm fairly concerned about where The Social Reckoning – the sequel/"companion" to The Social Network – is going to go. I'm worried no one was around to check some of Aaron Sorkin's worst instincts that often surface in some of his more charged work. And this seems to be especially charged. I'm mildly surprised he didn't title this "Fuck Facebook".
Truly great voice work out of Jeremy Strong though. Will it be enough to make us forget Jesse Eisenberg? And a nice call-back to the original's soundtrack in the title card – ruined by "she's disrupting". Some interesting wardrobe choices too... Aside: where's the trailer for Artificial – aka the OpenAI movie, which wrapped filming months ago?!
Inklings is a newsletter featuring links and commentary from M.G. Siegler on timely topics found around the web.
☁️ Apple's Models in Google's Cloud on NVIDIA's Chips – The biggest surprise out of WWDC may have been the acknowledgement by Apple that they're not only using Google Cloud to run their larger models (i.e. those that can't fit on device), but that they're doing so on NVIDIA chips (which had been rumored, but no one expected Apple to confirm directly). This is sort of wild both because Apple and NVIDIA have a contentious history going back years. Something which may or may not have played a role in Apple not getting into the AI arms races to begin with... But also because given the Google partnership already in place, why not just use TPUs? Especially since Apple went out of their way to train their models on TPUs – again, bypassing NVIDIA GPUs – in the past. This new set up is clearly about inference, but still, Google has TPUs built just for that! The answer seems to be in a feature called 'Nvidia Confidential Computing' and "ambiguous confidential compute" which Apple specifically called out in their Q&A after the keynote. Clearly, this was the way Apple felt most comfortable extending their Private Cloud Compute initiative (and branding) beyond their own servers. And it's a nice way to diversify a bit from the pure Google reliance, I suppose. Still, you can bet Apple would prefer to do this all on their own servers with their own chips. Perhaps someday... For now, another Big Tech AI Infinity Stone for Jensen. [CNBC]
🇪🇺 No Siri AI for EU – Perhaps the most unintentionally funny moment of the WWDC keynote was when Craig Federighi was trying to keep a straight face while announcing during his walk & talk that sadly, all of the new AI features that Apple had just unveiled would not be coming to the EU at this time. Why? The DMA of course. No one will be surprised that I side firmly with Apple here because it's both ridiculous to think that a government body should pre-regulate product feature development, but also because in this particular matter, the entire world is currently worried about the AI security nightmares starting to happen while acknowledging that they're completely unprepared for what is to come. Meanwhile, the EU would seemingly like to pour gasoline on such concerns. Obviously, that's not their intent but they're also obviously not smart enough – years into the DMA – to recognize what the second-order effects might be of say, allowing any AI provider to have deep and full access to all the content of your iPhone. EU to OpenClaw: hold my lobster. So while EU politicians think they look great as the competition police standing up to Apple, I just see a bunch of smug, naive fire starters. The bloc is constantly complaining that they don't have their own tech companies to rival those from America and Asia and yet they can't quite understand why that might be. Or worse, they do, but they'd rather take some lame political victory laps without realizing that they're running backwards and taking 450M people with them. (China is another matter, of course, which will now fall firmly at the feet of Tim Cook in his new ambassador-in-chief role at Apple.) I'm sure this blurb will inspire those living with acute cases of Stockholm syndrome in Europe to respond conveying their happiness in regulation slavery. May you enjoy the pop-ups forever and ever. [MacRumors]
📽️ 'Scary Movie' Screams, 'Masters of the Universe' Bombs – This latest box office battle seems quite different on the surface than the whole Backrooms/Obsession phenomenon. But actually, it may not be all that different. While by most accounts Masters is actually pretty good and Scary is actually pretty bad, one key driver here may have been demographics once again. That is, a younger group had nostalgia for the Scary Movie franchise, which is about 20 to 25 years old, while the Masters nostalgia is calling back more like 40 years. One cohort showed up, the other didn't. There are other audience variables as well here – horror movies, pure satire, R-rated, anti-woke stuff, black audiences, etc – still, it feels like we're going to see a fast shift to cater to those younger demographics since the olds seem to being staying home. Personally, I'm right in the Masters demo – it was my favorite toy and cartoon when I was a kid – as I've somewhat embarrassingly written about a number of times! So I rushed out to see the movie, right? Well, no. I want to, but well, now I have kids! And I suspect a lot of the Masters demo is in that boat too – it's just a lot of time and effort (and money) to coordinate going to a movie that solely for my enjoyment. (The flipside: I suspect streaming will salvage this one as well for Amazon.) That said, I did take my oldest to go see The Mandalorian and Grogu, but in week three of release for similar reasons. We liked it! But not something we needed to rush out to see... [NYT]
M.G. Siegler
"It may be a while because there are things we want to do that are likely easier as a private company. But it’s a complicated set of trade-offs, and this gives us the option to go public sooner if that ends up being best."
– OpenAI's official statement given to The New York Times alongside the news that they had confidentially filed for an IPO. Normally, such events are a cause for celebration, but this must be the most timid such announcement of all time.
It obviously suggests that the company doesn't actually intend to go public any time soon and clearly would prefer not to. But they've been sort of backed into a corner by their main rival, Anthropic, filing. And if the IPO of another rival, xAI (by way of SpaceX) founded by one of their co-founders (who just got done suing them), goes well, it might be the most prudent thing to tap the market now before any such window comes crashing closed.
At the same time, the best thing for OpenAI to do may be to wait a bit, to distance themselves from Anthropic which will clearly be going out with better metrics, certainly on the business-front. And perhaps to give them time to morph the products and get the ads business working and built out. It's a very complicated tension, obviously.
Below, members of The Inner Ring will find thoughts on:
• OpenAI's 'Third Phase'
• A Stargate Reborn in Ohio
2026-06-10 23:36:58
In the midst of Big Tech conference season, Alex Kantrowitz and I used our monthly discussion on his Big Technology Podcast to mainly go over Google I/O and preview WWDC.
Basically, it felt like I/O underwhelmed because it centered around a lot of stuff that wasn't ready to roll – namely, their new flagship model, Gemini 3.5 Pro. But there wasn't a risk this would be like Apple two years ago at WWDC with vaporware galore, it was more just strange to have a big event with many of your announcements not yet ready. Perhaps it's time to re-think such events in the Age of AI as the cadence of releases is just different, clearly.
Alex is worried that Google is once again falling behind in AI, and Sundar Pichai sort of admitted as much at least when it comes to the all-important coding capabilities at the moment. This matters because it could be the key to powerful agents and perhaps even AGI eventually thanks to recursive self-improvement. I mean, Google doesn't even have a "Super App" yet. What are they doing?
The answer seems to be working on "Omni Models" – read: "World Models". But those too aren't quite ready to roll, so... Instead, we got a lot of updates to Google Search, which are interesting, but there's a real concern that Google won't be able to fully push into uncharted AI territory because of their myriad legacy products. Is the PM on Gmail going to let their product die in favor of Gemini simply doing email on your behalf? No. While Google has done an incredible job righting there ship after the Bard stumbles out of the AI gate, Big Company issues will always persist on some level...
Meanwhile, with WWDC also now in the rearview, our preview and discussion seems to hold up well. I noted we weren't likely to see any hardware and that a lot of people would view the event as underwhelming because it would basically be a do-over – or mulligan – of the WWDC AI promises from two years ago.
I was curious how they would play up (or not) the new Google partnership, and to the surprise of many, it did get a nice, juicy mention during the keynote. As did Visual Intelligence, which may be the key to Apple's AI future on the iPhone and beyond. For now though, it will be more about voice, which again, the keynote made clear.
Alex is very interested in the iPhone Fold/Ultra and while I didn't think there was any chance they'd show that off early – which they didn't, the first betas of iOS 27 do actually give some major hints about it in the code. But we'll have to wait until early September for John Ternus' first keynote to actually see and hear about the device and it's perhaps funky new form-factor.
Maybe the most wild part of the entire show is that Ternus wasn't a part of it, at all! Instead, Tim Cook signed off one final time with a nice message. So if Ternus is going to pull a Satya Nadella and do something big to signal the start of his era – like, say, changing the App Store fees? – that will have to wait until the Fall as well.
For the last segment, we talked a bit about Meta's messy new premium tiers for their social networks and what the strategy is here (hint: operation diversify from their ads business, which is 98% of Meta's revenues, as we move towards the AI future). Will they actually roll out some sort of cloud offering as Mark Zuckerberg has suggested, or was that simply to throw Wall Street a bone amidst all the continued CapEx? I mean, if SpaceX is now a "neocloud"...
But wait, there was one more thing for us as well. While we were recording, news broke that Anthropic had filed confidentially to go public. This was a legitimate surprise since the word has already leaked out that OpenAI was about to file, but their rival beat them to the punch! And that's potentially a big problem for OpenAI as it makes for a very tricky narrative on their own would-be roadshow. They're now behind in both top-line and bottom-line numbers versus Anthropic, and Google has pulled even in terms of Gemini monthly active users.
Maybe the SpaceX listing goes so well that it raises all AI boats, as it were.1 But we're a long way from when Anthropic and/or OpenAI would list. A lot can happen between now and then. We'll see!
1 While we did talk about inclusion in the indicies almost immediately boosting these stocks, I did note that "maybe not the S&P 500" – and sure enough, they later rejected the notion of fast-tracking companies for inclusion (which is a good call). ↩