2025-12-04 21:57:34
With the news that Alan Dye is jumping ship from Apple, leaving his design post to join Meta, I couldn't decide on the proper punny headline. For Apple was it 'No Time to Dye'? Or for Meta was it 'Dye Another Day'? What about 'Tomorrow Never Dyes'? Do we get really crazy and go with 'Dyemonds Are Forever'? Or we could even get tangential with 'The Dye Who Loved Me'! 'Dyefall'?! We've gone too far.1 Keep it simple.2
Alan Dye is moving on from Apple and John Gruber, for one, seems thrilled. In fact, the only person being more unflinchingly honest in their assessment of another this week may be Quentin Tarantino's thoughts about Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood. Both are absolutely brutal. A taste from Gruber:
It remains worrisome that Apple needed to luck into Dye leaving the company. But fortune favors the prepared, and Apple remains prepared by having an inordinate number of longtime talented HI designers at the company. The oddest thing about Alan Dye’s stint leading software design is that there are, effectively, zero design critics who’ve been on his side. The debate regarding Apple’s software design over the last decade isn’t between those on Dye’s side and those against. It’s only a matter of debating how bad it’s been, and how far it’s fallen from its previous remarkable heights. It’s rather extraordinary in today’s hyper-partisan world that there’s nearly universal agreement amongst actual practitioners of user-interface design that Alan Dye is a fraud who led the company deeply astray. It was a big problem inside the company too. I’m aware of dozens of designers who’ve left Apple, out of frustration over the company’s direction, to work at places like LoveFrom, OpenAI, and their secretive joint venture io.
While Mark Gurman framed this as a major coup for Meta in breaking the news for Bloomberg, Gruber notes that the mood amongst those that he's talked to within Apple is "happy – if not downright giddy". In particular because Stephen Lemay is the one replacing Dye. That's because Lemay, beyond his 25+ years of experience at Apple, is actually an interface (and interaction) designer, unlike Dye, who had a brand and fashion background (which is probably what led to his ascent under Jony Ive around the time the Apple Watch was shipping – as a fashion device).
But really, this all goes back further than that, to when Scott Forstall was ousted and Ive was put in charge of both hardware and software design for the first time. As Jason Snell notes in Six Colors:
The firing of Scott Forstall in 2012 handed human interface design to Jony Ive. Again, I can’t say for sure, but it certainly feels like a man who had a brilliant run designing hardware might not have been the best choice functionally to lead that part of the operation. But in a time of crisis, it was a good time for Apple to say that its world-famous design chief was on it and everything would be fine.
With the benefit of hindsight, the merging of hardware and software design within Apple felt like a mistake that was born out of necessity, and perhaps convenience, at the time. While it's natural to think that within a company "design" should encompass both areas, Apple was clearly build differently – until it wasn't.
And while, as Gruber notes, there's perhaps some fear that Lemay is still more of a "safe" choice because he clearly won't bolt to Meta (or presumably elsewhere any time soon) the move to put a UI guy back in charge of the actual UI obviously can't hurt – certainly not more than the UI has already been hurt under the guidance of Dye in recent years. I'm in the camp that doesn't mind "Liquid Glass", but I know a lot of people who absolutely hate it, quite viscerally. And some that are putting off upgrading OSes because of it.
It's obviously insanely hard to overhaul a UI – let alone across multiple major operating systems – but I'm going to go ahead an guess that Liquid Glass will transform to be both less liquid-y and less glass-y starting in relative short order. I mean, that was already happening with the necessitated "tinting" sliders – a concession in and of itself that seemed awfully damning of the design work here.
But beyond all of that, this Dye move is fascinating at a higher level. Both things can be true here: Dye probably needed to go from Apple and yet it was still a huge coup for Meta, least of which because Dye was pretty clearly not being pushed out the door by Apple. The fact that he was a focal point of this year's WWDC keynote to unveil Liquid Glass suggested that he was clearly "the guy", at least in terms of Apple's UI,3 who we'd be seeing a lot more of in the coming years. How quickly things change...
The fact that Apple has now lost two key presenters of recent marquee product unveils in the past few weeks alone, with Abidur Chowdhury (who was tasked with unveiling the iPhone Air in the all-important iPhone keynote!) also bolting for a startup, seems like an issue as well. Apple clearly – clearly – has a retention problem at the moment, something which historically has been one of the company's main strengths. And to me, that speaks to larger issues up top.
But part of that is also clearly because Mark Zuckerberg, undoubtedly sensing the vulnerability within Apple, has swooped in like a vulture finding a carcass. The fact that he's poaching from Apple must be especially tasty for Zuck as he clearly hates the company with a passion not reserved for other rivals. So when he saw an opportunity to poach one of their key, and perhaps highest profile, designers...
And this is undoubtedly why Apple felt the need not only to respond to Gurman's report about the news, but have no less than Tim Cook weigh in with the following:
"Steve Lemay has played a key role in the design of every major Apple interface since 1999. He has always set an extraordinarily high bar for excellence and embodies Apple’s culture of collaboration and creativity. Design is fundamental to who we are at Apple, and today, we have an extraordinary design team working on the most innovative product lineup in our history."
You'll note nothing about Alan Dye there – not one word. Not the typical vanilla "we thank Alan for all his hard work and wish him well" – nothing. Please let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
But also, "since 1999" – that's just one year after Cook himself got to Apple. And just two years after Steve Jobs returned. As if to say: Lemay is loyal and Apple to the core. "Every major Apple interface" – and I would just highlight "interface" there in particular. As in, Lemay has been doing this core work since before Apple perhaps muddied the UI waters and an implied return to greatness may indeed be the focus in such a statement. Lemay "embodies Apple’s culture of collaboration and creativity" – implying (and maybe acknowledging for employees) that perhaps Dye didn't foster such things. "Design is fundamental" – echoing the recent messaging Apple and Cook have been delivering, which reads a lot like a mission statement to return to their strengths (after the AI debacle) and to implore people to stay for the great work ahead.
Back to Gruber:
The most galling moment in Dye’s entire tenure was the opening of this year’s iPhone event keynote in September, which began with a title card showing the oft-cited Jobs quote “Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” The whole problem with the Dye era of HI design at Apple is that it has so largely—not entirely, but largely—been driven purely by how things look. There are a lot of things in Apple’s software—like app icons—that don’t even look good any more. But it’s the “how it works” part that has gone so horribly off the rails. Alan Dye seems like exactly the sort of person Jobs was describing in the first part of that quote: “People think it’s this veneer—that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’”
Ouch.
Back in July, after the news that COO Jeff Williams would be retiring broke, I tried to think through the design team ramifications – since Williams, sort of oddly, oversaw that team. Would they finally elevate another Chief Design Officer for the first time since Ive left?
It's certainly possible that Apple is going to try to spend these next five months finding that design executive. It's also possible that they promote Dye to such a role – he did have one of the most prominent slots at the WWDC keynote this year thanks to "Liquid Glass" – though as Gruber notes, in hindsight, it may have been a mistake to have one person overseeing hardware and software design – something that only happened because Ive stepped in on the software side after Scott Forstall was forced out in 2012. And Dye is firmly on the software side.
There was clearly a reason Dye never got that role and Apple certainly must be happy about that fact now. Again, the Lemay appointment seems to be just as much about clearly splitting those sides of design back in two.
As for Dye's prospects at Meta, here's Gruber:
Alan Dye is not untalented. But his talents at Apple were in politics. His political skill was so profound that it was his decision to leave, despite the fact that his tenure is considered a disaster by actual designers inside and outside the company. He obviously figured out how to please Apple’s senior leadership. His departure today landed as a total surprise because his stature within the company seemed so secure. And so I think he might do very well at Meta. Not because he can bring world-class interaction design expertise—because he obviously can’t—but because the path to success at Meta has never been driven by design. It’s about getting done what Zuck wants done. Dye might excel at that. Dye was an anchor holding Apple back, but might elevate design at Meta.
And he seemingly has a very specific job there, not leading all of Meta's design, but specifically the design within Reality Labs, the infamous money pit that Meta is trying to reorient around AI (alongside the whole company). Dye will report to Andrew Bosworth, Meta's CTO (who also runs that group), in charge of a new "creative studio", which all sounds a bit convoluted and yes, political.
At the same time, it's interesting and noteworthy that Dye will be tasked with the future of Meta's wearables, notably their smart glasses, which Apple is apparently sprinting towards as well. Perhaps that's one reason for the Cook statement snub... We're lining up for a world in the not-too-distant future where Apple's wearables are competing against Alan Dye-designed wearables from Meta – oh yes, and newfangled AI devices from OpenAI designed by Jony Ive... At least Humane didn't work out, I guess.
As for Dye's lasting legacy at Apple... it could very well be Liquid Glass reminding everyone that yes, design is how it works.
1 "Choose your next witticism carefully Mr Bond, it may be your last." ↩
2 "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to Dye!" ↩
3 The last time I recalled seeing him in a keynote video was in 2022 when he was unveiling the Dynamic – Dyenamic, for shame – Island as a part of the iPhone 14 unveil... ↩
2025-12-03 21:27:06
At this point last year, OpenAI was firing on all cylinders which culminated in the "12 Days of OpenAI" – better known as the "12 Days of Shipmas": a dozen consecutive days of product updates and announcements. A real shock & awe campaign of execution. This year, it's unclear if we're going to get the same level of holiday spirit as the company is the one under assault on multiple fronts, challenging their long-held leadership position in AI. If anything, it may be more like the "12 Days of Oh Shitmas"...
2025-12-03 06:00:08
In case it wasn’t already obvious that 2026 is going to be a wild year for AI, just look at the end of 2025. Currently the biggest story in tech is that Sam Altman has issued a “Code Red” at OpenAI, aiming to light a fire under the company as they’re seemingly under attack for their leadership position in AI for the first time. And that hasn't even been the leading story atop Techmeme most of the day. Because with said AI war in full swing, Apple’s AI chief, John Giannandrea, is out.
He’s “retiring” which is optically the right thing for him and Apple to announce. But come on. It’s one thing for the CEO of Apple to be thinking about retirement with a brief lull in the action (for Apple, at least), while the company is near their peak in terms of sales and market cap, it’s another for the leader of what many would assume is the single most important technology for any company going forward to decide it’s a good time to retire. He’s retiring because Apple has been operating like the entire company is retired, at least when it comes to AI.
He’s retiring after a complete shake-up of his group both above him and below him as the company aims to reorient themselves for the coming AI battle. And he’s doing so ahead of any larger shake-ups so it’s not total chaos with so many people likely leaving in 2026. Including, perhaps, that aforementioned CEO.
Anyway, the writing was clearly on the wall with Giannandrea — just as it was with Yann LeCun, Meta’s former head of AI… Meta, um, decided to go in another direction, completely leaning in to LLMs as LeCun keeps leaning away towards "World Models". Which may or may not be the future...
Meanwhile, over at Amazon, they're releasing not only their own, new frontier LLMs, they're also releasing their new Trainium chips to help build said models. As well as the models from Anthropic, which makes models they both now compete with and use. Because the models from Anthropic are also going to be trained with TPUs from Google. And GPUs from NVIDIA too, it seems. Which is interesting since Amazon owns 20-something percent of Anthropic. And Google owns another double-digit percentage. Of course, NVIDIA will now be a smaller owner too.
They're also partnering with Microsoft, which is also working on their own, new frontier models, now free from the constraints of the previous deal with OpenAI which prevented them from going after AGI. They can now fully compete with those models, but also use them, since they own 27 percent of said company. While Microsoft is also working on their own chips, both they and OpenAI currently train on NVIDIA GPUs. At least until OpenAI also builds their own chips with Broadcom. Also, they're going to work with AMD's chips in some capacity too. But at least for now, they're not training on Google's TPUs, as a $100B commitment from NVIDIA may have snuffed that possibility out.
For now.
And that alignment makes sense because the main reason for the actual "Code Red" at OpenAI and the de-facto "Code Red" at NVIDIA in recent weeks is seemingly mostly about Google. Gemini has not only gotten good enough as a model, but is clearly getting good enough as an actual product to eat into ChatGPT. And there's real fear that the models are improving in ways that have surprised OpenAI on the pre-training front, and that may have something to do with said TPUs. Which is also potentially a problem for NVIDIA. Is "Garlic" a remedy? Nobody knows.
Regardless, the fact that Google is able to train cutting-edge frontier models without GPUs is clearly not a narrative NVIDIA likes floating around out there. Especially the talk of others using the TPUs. But even worse than Anthropic using them in Google's Cloud would be the notion of Google selling their chips to Meta to use in their own infrastructure. In some ways, this is worse for NVIDIA than the debate around chip depreciation and even circular financing. Because margins tend to get less fat and profits tend to get skinnier as competition enters the picture. And everyone that NVIDIA partners with is also seemingly trying to enter that picture.
As they continue to hammer money into NVIDIA...
And so we're entering 2026 with the broader AI landscape perhaps even more unsettled than it was entering 2025. That was, of course, right before DeepSeek entered the picture – well, technically right after, as that bomb landed and yet didn't explode for a few weeks. Once it did, it sent all of the players above scrambling. But they also soon realized that practically speaking, not much had changed. Still, it caused a mentality shift simply around the notion that things could quickly change. (And maybe to some extent about "open source" models – unless you're Meta – and certainly MoE techniques – sorry, Meta) And that has continued throughout the year.
So in a way, it's fitting that we're ending the year with things more chaotic than ever. Google, which had been depressed much of the year – at least from a stock price perspective – seemingly woke up at Google I/O and slammed their foot on the gas. The ramification of which we're just seeing now with Gemini 3's release.
And it's the first time that OpenAI's general lead in the space has felt threatened, perhaps outside of the DeepSeek blip. They started out strong from a product perspective and kept getting stronger with viral hit after viral hit spurring more usage. But Code Reds don't lie, and even Colonel Jessup can't lie about them. Such an order worked for Google a few years ago. Will it work for OpenAI?
It's weird timing for such an order, given that the company had just brought on a new "CEO" of their product division. Now seemingly everything that Fidji Simo was brought on board to oversee is taking a backseat to getting back to the fundamentals. And the actual CEO is seemingly back to overseeing those, and issuing Code Reds.
From the outside, it has long felt like OpenAI may be trying to do too much. This is seemingly an indication that the company also now agrees. The shopping agent stuff takes a backseat, as does the daily briefing work, as do the ads. The latter wasn't actually rolled out yet, but code leaks suggested it was coming imminently – and that was undoubtedly another key element of Simo's involvement, given her previous work with both Facebook and Instacart. Awkwardly, these product initiatives were likely three of the key pillars of ramping revenue. If those are paused, is burn about to get even hotter?
And none of this even speaks to the ongoing issues with AI safety, and China, and the myriad other things in motion and in play...
Things feel... tense at the moment, to put it lightly. I mean, NVIDIA is just blurting out "ENRON!" at this point, coprolalia-style. If the markets start turning against AI spend, that's going to be a big problem, to say the least. Even though OpenAI isn't – yet – public, the trickle-down effects will be very real here. Talk of spending "trillions" could quickly morph back into mere "billions". An Age of AI Austerity.
If that comes in 2026 and the AI Bubble starts to deflate – it doesn't even have to burst – we might be seeing a lot more Code Reds.
Can the tech industry handle this truth?
2025-12-02 21:19:29
Yesterday, Alex Kantrowitz and I sat down to record our monthly chat for his Big Technology Podcast, and we kicked off talking about the possibility that Tim Cook could be contemplating retiring from his CEO role at Apple. My thought remains that the timing seemingly is perfect right now, and assuming he's thinking about it, he might not get a better opportunity...
Speaking of timing, about 20 minutes into our chat, talking through the situation at Apple that Cook may be handing to John Ternus, his would-be successor, I was trying to think through the main things to focus on with that transition:
Say Ternus is elevated to be CEO. Who’s in charge of AI? They need someone to be in charge. Right now it’s been John Giannandrea. I think everything you read and hear, similar to the Yann LeCun situation at Meta, it sort of feels like the writing is on the wall there. That he will probably not be there for very much longer.
Well, "very much longer" turned out to be a few hours. Right after the podcast went live, Apple announced that Giannandrea would be retiring from Apple.
The rest of the discussion centers around Cook's tenure and how any succession might parallel the ones that took place at Amazon and/or Disney. Is Cook waiting for that "one more thing" to unveil hardware-wise in the form of Smart Glasses? And speaking of hardware, with the seeming pivot back to that being Apple's main narrative (in the face of the AI struggles), does that make Ternus the right guy at the right time, or does his hardware focus hold him back in some way given that Apple is increasingly becoming a Services company?
Continuing on the Giannandrea thread, I noted that it felt like they still needed to bring in someone from the outside to give new life to that group, and that M&A could be the framework for how they refresh their talent (which continues to bleed over to Meta). Well, they're not doing M&A yet, but it seems like they poached AI researcher Amar Subramanya from Microsoft to lead the group. Granted he was at Microsoft less than six months because most of his time was actually spent at Google, much like Giannandrea before him. But JG came from a Google focused on ML – the element of AI that everyone talked about before LLMs came along – Subramanya was seemingly working in the heart of Gemini.
Is is also interesting that he's reporting to Craig Federighi and not Cook (as Giannandrea was). This makes Federighi the de-facto true head of AI, which I put out there as a possibility given the post-Siri shakeup which saw him take over those groups alongside Mike Rockwell.
Alex wanted me to sell him on the new iPhone 17 Pro, which I think I successfully did. Certainly over the iPhone Air, which was just positioned oddly by Apple in the market.
We go on to talk through the Great Big Tech Market Cap Race taking place between NVIDIA, Apple, Google, and Microsoft. And how the ever-shifting narratives around AI are altering that and seemingly bringing those four companies together at the top. Google's "comeback" has impacted not just OpenAI, but NVIDIA and perhaps Microsoft as a result. And, if Google and Apple are truly about to partner to bring Gemini in to help power Siri, the resurgence could help Cupertino's narrative too.
Next up in AI narrative shifts – well, once NVIDIA stops putting their foot in their own mouth – world models? Is that a window for Tesla to come back into the equation? Clearly Elon Musk is angling for that with Optimus...
Who would I bet on? I would do what these companies are doing and bet on all of them – bet on each other, to hedge. But if I had to pick one, probably Google for the reasons I laid out previously before the current stock run. Though I remain intrigued by OpenAI's "AGI or Bust" bet – if they can find enough places to get enough capital to keep going... It's obviously the biggest wildcard in all of this and will be until the capital wells start to dry up.
But I do think it's interesting/worth noting that Google seems to be doing some great product work on top of AI, long OpenAI's strong suit. The new "Dynamic View" mode of Gemini – awful name aside – is incredibly impressive.
Finally, if the worm really is turning with regard to AI spend, is Anthropic's move to focus on profitability in the face of OpenAI's continued growing spend an especially savvy play? Sure, they still need to invest a lot of money to work towards the future of AI, but perhaps mere tens of billions is enough and not hundreds of billions – or trillions.
2025-12-01 17:54:10
Where there's a will, there's a way. Here's Ming-Chi Kuo:
Intel expected to begin shipping Apple’s lowest-end M processor as early as 2027
There have long been market rumors that Intel could become an advanced-node foundry supplier to Apple, but visibility around this had remained low. My latest industry surveys, however, indicate that visibility on Intel becoming an advanced-node supplier to Apple has recently improved significantly.
Apple previously signed an NDA with Intel and obtained the advanced-node 18AP PDK 0.9.1GA. The key simulation and research projects (such as PPA) are tracking in line with expectations, and Apple is now waiting for Intel to release PDK 1.0/1.1, currently scheduled for 1Q26. Apple's plan is for Intel to begin shipping its lowest-end M processor, utilizing the 18AP advanced node, as early as 2Q–3Q27, but the actual timeline remains contingent on development progress following the receipt of PDK 1.0/1.1.
While Kuo's track record is hit-or-miss, that's usually only when he tries to veer outside of his wheelhouse in Apple's supply-chain. He seemingly has good details for this shift here. And, of course, this follows other reports from earlier this year that Apple might through Intel that foundry bone they so desperately need.
To be clear, this wouldn't be Apple handing a big chunk of their chip manufacturing to Intel – it's a tiny sliver of the work TSMC does for the company. That's in line with how I guessed such a partnership might play out back in September:
I say "tall" because it also feels unlikely given the tight relationship between Apple and TSMC – with the former often first in line for the newest processes coming out of the latter. But again, maybe if Trump specifically asks Apple, Tim Cook will figure out a way to use Intel to fab some of their chips. Apple has a lot of them these days, beyond just their CPUs. If you squint, you can almost see a world in which Intel helps Apple make their 'C' line of chips, which would be an extra nice narrative since their modem chips were born out of Apple buying Intel's modem business...
Well, per this report, it's not the 'C' chips – at least not yet – but the lowest end of the 'M' lineup probably makes more sense given both the relative low volumes (and thus, lower stakes – whereas 'C' chips are increasingly going into Apple's cutting edge devices) and the fact that Apple has been making such chips for years.
Back to Kuo:
Apple’s lowest-end M processor is currently used in the MacBook Air and iPad Pro mainly, with combined shipments of roughly 20 million units for 2025. As MacBook Air shipments in 2026 may be impacted by a new more-affordable MacBook model using an iPhone-class processor, shipments of lowest-end M processor in both 2026 and 2027 are expected to be 15–20 million units.
I think he means iPad Air here, not iPad Pro, as the Pro models use the top-of-the-line M chips, of course. If Apple + Intel could hit this second half of 2027 timetable, presumably the "low-end" M chip at the time would be an M4 or M5 chip – yes, the top-of-the-line right now. Currently, the iPad Air ships with an M3 chip and presuming that gets updated early next year to an M4 chip, there's a world in which the 2027 model gets an M5 chip (though who knows about exact product timing by then, obviously).
Meanwhile, the current Mac lineup has the last-generation M4 as the lowest-end chip (well, technically, the Mac Studio still has the M3 Ultra, while the Mac Pro still uses the M2 Ultra (!), but those are obviously higher-end chips). But then there's that interesting Walmart MacBook Air, which is still very much for sale (and, in fact, down to $549 for the holidays) using the M1. You have to believe that this chip, as great as it has been for Apple, will be end-of-life'd sometime soon and it will be interesting if Apple gives Walmart access to say, the M2 or M3 chips to continue selling the product. If so, it's possible that this is the lowest end M chip that Apple intends to make with Intel.
But it's perhaps just as likely that Apple lets that partnership run out with the rumors that they're about to launch their own affordable MacBook early next year. Interestingly enough, this new product apparently wouldn't run on an M chip, but instead on Apple's A-series, built to date for iPhones (and the more affordable iPad). Kuo's report specifically notes the M chip, so presumably this would-be Intel partnership isn't about these chips – and certainly not the ones due soon, of course.
If Apple is about to move towards only using their lowest-end M chips in the iPad Air (with the lowest-end of the MacBook lineup shifting to the A chips), this might make even more sense volume-wise to try Intel's hand here.
But why is Apple throwing Intel, their old CPU partner who they famously parted with on not the best terms when they spanked them with the introduction of the M-series itself several years back, a bone here? Well, presumably they like the notion of continuing to diversify their manufacturing away from single points of failure – which TSMC very much is right now. Intel clearly isn't ready or able to take over all of Apple's chip business – but they likely never will, as in an ideal world, Apple would have multiple fab partners, all around the world, for making their chips.
Speaking of the world, this Intel partnership would obviously also give Apple a nice "made in America" narrative once again – and give Tim Cook something else to hand to President Trump on a golden platter. You'll recall that the current largest owner of Intel is... the US Government.
But the biggest question mark here remains if Intel can use such a deal to truly ramp their fab business into an actual rival to TSMC. This deal would be a nice, marquee name, of course, but it's mainly for the optics right now. Can Apple help them whip the actual chip-making processes into shape? Will it give others the confidence to go with Intel? Amazon? Microsoft? AMD?!
One more thing: sort of humorous to think of this news in the context of Intel's old "Intel Inside" marketing campaigns. If Intel starts producing Apple chips, there would technically be Intel inside, though not the chip itself, but the process.
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
2025-11-30 07:33:13
There I was with a dinner to eat and a couple hours to kill. Oh look, Flight Risk freshly available on HBO Max. I hadn't heard great things – I hadn't heard much of anything. But Mark Wahlberg, Michelle Dockery, and Topher Grace directed by Mel Gibson, how bad can it possibly be?
Bad.
I honestly can't think of a worse movie I've seen in recent memory. Granted, I tend to avoid overtly bad movies and had I just looked at the Metacritic score ahead of time, I probably would have avoided this one. Instead, I just went for it. My god.
The premise is fine, I guess. The person who is the reason for the flight is a flight risk, but also the flight itself turns into the risk. Get it? And I sort of like the notion of having a small group of actors naturally contained in one space for an entire movie. And I even like all of the actors involved here individually!
But put together, they just don't work. Part of it is the accents – more Dockery's American accent than Wahlberg's faux redneck one (because it was part of the plot) – but a bigger part was Wahlberg's hair situation. I mean, did he insist on shaving his head so there would be stubble so people wouldn't dare think he's actually bald or something? It just looks ridiculous.
From there, it only gets worse. Topher Grace tries to do Topher Grace stuff but it doesn't work here. Comically obvious plot points are revealed with zero subtlety – "how did you know we were going to Seattle?" The whole fear-of-flying angle, which is actually the one thing that might make sense for the plot, quickly flies out the window, though sadly no one else does until the end. I quite enjoyed how the autopilot on the tiny prop plane flying over mountains in Alaska was super smooth and flew perfect for most of the flight, but when the pilots were in control, that's when the shit hit the fan.
I also loved the warning not to fire the gun in the plane lest it take the whole thing down, followed by endless firing in the plane, including of a flare gun.
I'm sorry, but nothing can possibly top when the nice man over the radio helping the person who has never flown before (yet keeps reading off altitude measurements as if she's an experienced pilot?) tells her that she should do a trial run at the landing, knowing she's running out of fuel – and not to mention that one of the characters is dying from blood loss. They only don't because she refuses and sure enough, when she goes to do the actual landing, there's no more fuel. In other words, had she done the trial run of the landing, they'd all be dead. This is never addressed.
Oh look, a perfectly prepared syringe of morphine!
But at least they addressed the fact that the flight risk guy knew one random payment he helped orchestrate for the mob or whomever was going to a specific area of New York where, as it turns out, the head of the FBI or whomever also happens to live, as he discloses while telling his agent to make sure to call him at home, and very specifically says to call him at his home in that very specific area of New York. What a twist!
The same FBI director or whomever takes about five seconds to admit to murdering his subordinates when the accusation is made. Oh yes, and then he's of course on the phone with the would-be assassin at the (mercifully short) end.1 AND I WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY FOR IT TOO, IF IT WEREN'T FOR YOU PESKY KIDS.
Honestly, I'm embarrassed for everyone involved in this movie. I'm also embarrassed that anyone would give this film a rating above zero. Mel Gibson, for all his faults, has directed some great movies. Some truly great ones, even. What the fuck was this?
