2026-03-06 20:05:42
The stakes have been raised. While AI has been the key topic of discussion in all of my past chats with Alex Kantrowitz on his Big Technology Podcast, the latest angles including, of course, war, are obviously more important than ever.
I had not yet written about the Anthropic vs. Department of War situation when we recorded this on Monday, but the conversation helped form some thoughts to write about. Notably, while it's wild that this "battle" is unfolding during actual battles in the Middle East, that's also undoubtedly related. Because as we now know, Anthropic's models are pretty crucial to the execution of the operation overseas.
At the same time, how much of this spat actually stems from the fact that the administration and Anthropic clearly just don't like one another, largely due to philosophical differences across the board? That has been made pretty clear over time and so this situation may just have been the straw that broke the camel's back (undoubtedly exacerbated by the aforementioned stakes here). And so while Dario Amodei may clearly be open to (and hoping to) talk about this more, the President may be done. We'll see...
One thing to look to: Anthropic's Big Tech benefactors. They'll be heavily incentivized to lobby on Anthropic's behalf – and they already are.
Of course, all of this is helping to drive some level of growth for Anthropic – with Claude now the number one app in the App Store for the first time, ever. And obviously while this is mostly bad for Anthropic's core enterprise business, it seems to have some benefits on the consumer side – even if it's just virtue signaling. Alex was reminded of when Apple stood up to the FBI a decade ago around device encryption and security. Here, beyond the actual war use cases, mass surveillance is obviously Anthropic's key talking point.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, here comes Sam Altman ready and willing to do a deal for OpenAI. That was entirely predictable – as was the subsequent backlash to Altman's maneuver. He has tried to spin them as peace brokers here, but clearly Amodei isn't buying that! "Mendacious" is his word.
From there, we switch gears a bit to talk about the latest with regard to Apple and AI. Yes, Siri seems a bit behind schedule – yes, again – and so we're not seeing any signs of "New Siri", powered by Gemini, in the wild yet. But I'm still fairly optimistic that Apple is actually on the right path now, and may end up looking quite strong in their overall AI position thanks to their device strategy.
It's not just that they're said to be working on three new AI-focused wearables, it's that the iPhone will be the key to making them actually work well. And that's an advantage that no one else, except maybe Google and Samsung, have. As more devices start rolling out, we can probably expect Mark Zuckerberg to keep bringing this up, hoping to draw the eye of regulators. Perhaps Sam Altman will get involved here as well, as OpenAI's first device nears...
As for Apple's rumored new AI devices, I would expect the AirPods (with cameras) to be the most popular, if they can figure out how to implement the camera system well, without making them too much more expensive than they already are. Apple should also be able to one-up Humane (RIP). And yes, perhaps Meta, the current clubhouse leaders thanks to their Ray-Ban partnership. There's already some backlash bubbling up there as Meta tries to cram more AI into the wearables. Can we avoid a "Glasshole" 2.0 situation? Or will it take Apple, a company far more trusted, to come into the market...
And what's Amazon doing with OpenAI? Is the play for Alexa to become a sort of layer above a bunch of LLMs, including from both Anthropic and OpenAI? Amazon the AI aggregator?
But it can't all be about AI all the time as we close by quickly running through what happened with Paramount Skydance snatching Warner Bros away from Netflix. Was this just great deal-making by WBD CEO David Zaslav, or something else? Certainly, Paramount needs Warner Bros more than Netflix does – and in a way, it was good to see them walk away so quickly. It shows real discipline.
That's something Hollywood could use more of, but I fear will not get it with this deal – even with the inevitable wave of layoffs coming. I suspect Hollywood will look back upon this and wish Netflix would have won. And who knows, perhaps a future DoJ will look back upon this deal. But there might not be much to look at by then, as Hollywood continues to shrink...
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
2026-03-06 01:23:23
There's a lot going on in the world at the moment. Still, I'm sort of surprised that one story hasn't gotten more play this week: Google completely upended the business model for mobile apps.
Granted, they sort of had to do this because they lost a court case (and subsequent appeal) against Epic, and as a result, the judge was forcing them to change the Play Store in pretty fundamental ways. Still, they're actually making changes ahead of when they technically need to – because the judge has not yet approved these proposed changes. And yes, that move seems tied to ensuring that he does accept the changes (and yes, they've already altered them once to make them more likely to be accepted). Still, it's a big deal! With potentially bigger ramifications down the road. The 30% cut is now effectively dead...
2026-03-05 01:56:43
My initial gut reaction upon seeing the details of the new MacBook Neo was that this was the smartest thing Apple has done in years. While I noted that it was not an overstatement, it was also noted on social media. The takes are necessarily hot. So I've sat on it for a few hours and allowed the take too cool a bit. Out of the oven, I still stand by it: this is the smartest move Apple has made in years.
Very specifically one element of the MacBook Neo: $599.
When the product was first rumored in June of last year, my guess was that it would be priced at $799. Not shockingly low, but at $200 below their then-entry level MacBook Air, it felt very Apple. Yes, their M1 MacBook Air sold in partnership with Walmart was $699, but that was a different (older) product in a different (wider) channel.1 After years and years of watching Apple, I felt confident enough in the $799 price that I doubled down on it in November:
While no specific price is given in this report aside from "well under $1,000", the big question is how low Apple will go here. They have a lot of room below the current $999 M4 MacBook Air – which is $899 with a student discount. Is $799 low enough for this product? Do they have to meet the $699 price of the Walmart MacBooks? Could they do $599 to get it in line with the iPad + Keyboards? *Do they dare do $499* to get their machines actually competitive with Chromebooks?
Let's not get carried away.
I guessed the $799 price point back in June and I'm sticking to that. Perhaps $699 with that student discount. And Apple would frame it, as they always do, as "not the cheapest, but the best" (in that general segment).
Well, Apple can still surprise me, as it turns out.2 And they seemingly swallowed their pride – and margins – and went with $599.3
Actually, let's get carried away: it's $499 for students. Boom.
And that's key because this is a machine built for students. This isn't a MacBook for you or me – we already have plenty of those – this is clearly for our children and perhaps parents. I know it sounds belittling to call it "My First MacBook" but the colored aluminum sort of fits... Apple made this a no-brainer buy for so many.
I've long been baffled by the notion that Apple would cede the education market – one they long dominated when I was a kid – to cheap Windows devices and more recently, Chromebooks. Yes, they clearly thought the iPad could be the answer there. But that always felt a bit off. Sure, the iPad is a brilliant device and great for some things in classrooms. But for a lot of work, including school work, you're going to want a "real" computer. Try as they might with keyboards and trackpads, Apple has not been able to morph the iPad into that real computer. And they keep insisting they don't want to! (Even if their constant tweaks suggest otherwise.)
That's fine. But again, it doesn't work in the classroom. Even if it works 90% of the time, it needs to work 100% of the time for students. And the MacBook Neo can. Finally.
A few more quick thoughts as I await the machine to actually give it a go. These are mostly nits, and they don't matter – again, all the really matters is the price...
First and foremost, I wish there was an option to upgrade to 16GB of RAM. I know I'm not the target audience for this, but I suspect that a lot of the students buying these may want to play around with some localized AI in the not-too-distant future, and I doubt 8GB is going to cut it. While 8GB has never seemed like an issue on the many iPhones that have it,4 I'm genuinely curious how it feels on a Mac (when paired with the A18 Pro iPhone chip). I suspect I'll feel it, but mainly because I'm coming from 32GB – if I were at 16GB, perhaps not as much.
Also, I don't do too much on my portable machine beyond using the web browser and an AI app here or there, so... we'll see!
While I've long hoped for a return to the 12" MacBook form factor, I suspect this will be close enough. It's smaller than the 13.6" screen on the MacBook Air and the footprint is obviously going to be a bit smaller. The weight is the same – the exact same – as the smaller MacBook Air, which is clearly on purpose. I guess Apple didn't want to make that some sort of debate.
I'm happy about the return to colorful portable machines – exactly what I hoped for/wrote about two years ago. I might have liked to see them a bit more bold – perhaps even NEOn? – but this is a good start. Obviously, I'm going with "Citrus".
No green machine though, as had been rumored...5 (And really, how much different is "Blush" from Rose Gold and Citrus from "Gold" – "Indigo" just gives Apple yet another shade of blue/gray/black?)
Sort of strange to only put Touch ID on the 512GB storage upgraded model (at $699)? It's such a key feature for not just convenience but security too? I guess we know where Apple drew the margin line!
While the battery life trade-off (versus the Air) is only said to be two hours on Apple's main specs, drilling down, it seems like it may be up to 4 hours less time doing regular "wireless web" stuff. 11 hours still should be enough for most people, but it's worth calling out. Again, we'll see!
As for the name, I like it. I think 'MacBook' would have made a lot of sense for this machine too, but it's a bit old school and bland. I like trying something new and it will clearly help with marketing. As Don Draper would tell you, the most important idea in advertising is "new". So why not put it in the name?
That plus being priced to move... Apple is going to sell a shit ton of the MacBook Neo.
One more thing: No Tim Cook? No problem. If you still had any questions about who is up next to lead Apple, consider those put to rest. John Ternus was up there, on stage, live. (At least in NYC.) Sure, it was a smaller event, but an important one! This little colorful thing is gonna be huge for Apple. The first true Ternus Mac?
1 Is that product/partnership now done? They obviously never upgraded it to the M2, let alone M3 chip and we're now on the M5 so... Maybe that deal gave Apple all the data points they needed to make this machine... ↩
2 I'm reminded when everyone was sure that the original iPad was going to launch around $1,000, then Steve Jobs comes out on stage with $499. A true "boom". ↩
3 One suspects their margins are going to do just fine here... To quote Jared from The Big Short, "Let's not talk about my margins by the way being nice and fat." ↩
4 And perhaps the 8GB of RAM is directly tied to the A18 Pro chip and the system surrounding it? Again, it was built as an iPhone chip... ↩
5 For the 20th year in a row, everyone read a bit too much into the invite – yes, there's yellow, but there's a lot of green there too... I might note: it was also glowing, sadly no return to those lovely glowing logos, it seems... ↩
2026-03-04 21:56:00
In recent times when we talk about bubbles bursting or total economic collapses, we seem to tie them to so-called "Black Swan Events". Singular, unforeseen situations that bring a seemingly strong system to its knees. COVID. Bear Stearns. 9/11. Etc. But what if this time is different™ – but really, in that it won't be one thing, but a series of events that brings it all down?
Because of recent history, we're all currently trained to look for that one thing. As such, we may be looking right past the many things building up before our very eyes...
2026-03-03 21:22:34
In a way, it feels like the endless talk about AI over the past few years has been leading up to this moment. The discussions have always ranged from 'is AI just a silly toy?' to 'is AI the end of humanity?' but such talk has flowed between intellectual backroom gatherings, to internet chat rooms, to dinner parties, to comment sections, to company town halls, to social media, and back again. Now here we are with the United States and several other countries actively engaged in armed confrontation – many would call this "war" though no one has declared it – and the AI debate swirls around it.
The timing is odd. We now know with certainty that last week the US was preparing to preemptively strike Iran. At the same time, the key cog in that machine, the Department of War (the artist formerly known as the Department of Defense), was also actively engaged in discussions with Anthropic – yes, the AI startup – over the usage of their models for purposes related to national security. I mean maybe, just maybe, punt the conversation until a better time?
But perhaps it's related, because the US knew these strikes were coming and that some level of Anthropic's technology would be used in them. And because there had been talk that Anthropic was questioning the use of their models in the raid to oust Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela a couple months prior, maybe the DoW wanted to get any usage squared away ahead of this new operation. Or perhaps Anthropic was pressing and the Pentagon, knowing what was in motion, got fed up. Or perhaps they viewed it as a potential point of leverage in such conversations. Who knows. Subsequent reporting will undoubtedly make all the timelines more clear once the smoke literally settles. But for now, this all just seems wild. As the US was ramping up to battle Iran, they were also battling one of their own technology companies.
Talking through the situation with Alex Kantrowitz on his Big Technology Podcast yesterday shook loose a few thoughts that I wanted to jot down. First and foremost, at the highest level, this all really might be as simple as the fact that the current administration and the leadership team at Anthropic, led by co-founder Dario Amodei, just really don't like each other. This disdain isn't a secret, there are plenty of public comments on the matter – in particular from administration officials noting their problems with Amodei's overall ideologies.
And in that light, it's even more strange that all of this is happening! Why on Earth is the DoW using Anthropic's models if they're so uncertain about the people building them – in control of them? The answer there may lay in their use of other technology from Palantir and Amazon, which integrates Claude. Or it may simply be that the technology is that good. Or, perhaps, the government has just been looking for the right excuse to shove them out the door. The timing wasn't great, but this squabbling over legal terms during a build up to war was the final straw.
Let's put aside Occam's razor here a moment, because there's also been an escalation of the argument to a far higher level: that this really is about private company rights, government control, democracy itself, and, of course, nuclear war.
Again, I suspect this is more likely a fairly straightforward culture clash and I think the fact that the Pentagon was so quick to sign a deal with OpenAI showcases that further. Again, in the middle of war, they're hashing out new contracts with AI players. Perhaps because all they really needed was someone they deemed more palatable to sign their existing contract. In walks Sam Altman...
The fact that OpenAI felt the need to quickly amend those documents – undoubtedly after rather immense and immediate public backlash – also points to this idea. Altman said he was simply trying to de-escalate the whole situation by, um, stepping in and taking over the contract from his biggest rival, but he also admits now how bad that looked. "Sloppy," as he puts it.
Though, naturally, they'll be keeping the contract...
Anyway, everyone – including Altman and Amodei – clearly wants to make this into something more than a contract dispute and an inevitable conscious uncoupling between two parties that simply don't like each other. And there are certainly interesting debates to be had there. But I also think it doesn't serve anyone's real interest to blow this completely out of proportion.
But that keeps happening with AI because it's AI. Depending on the situation and your own vantage point and bias, it's either the answer to or the problem with everything. AI will solve productivity. AI will displace jobs. AI will cure disease. AI will lead to more suicide. AI will free us. AI will enslave us. It literally slots in everywhere in both directions depending on the argument to be made.
It's the Rorschach um, tech.
Reading over the reactions to this latest brouhaha, it seems to me that it may be time to lay to rest one analogy that's very much top of mind and at the center of this again right now: that AI is the new nuclear weapon.
From Altman talking about the Manhattan Project. To magazines comparing him to Oppenheimer. To Amodei explicitly comparing selling NVIDIA chips to China as selling nukes to North Korea.1 The entire analogy has escalated too far. And it's clearly a big part of what is fueling this most recent debate.
But the comparison breaks down immediately at the most fundamental level. A nuclear weapon is just that, a weapon. It has one purpose – well, maybe two if you consider deterrence a purpose – and that is to destroy. Sure, we could argue that nuclear technology has other purposes, notably power, but come on, that's not the argument or comparison anyone is actually making here – aside from, historically, Iran! This is saying that AI is the biggest threat the world has faced since the advent of the atom bomb during World War II.
The difference, of course, is that AI has positive uses as well as negative ones. What is the positive usage of an atom bomb? Even if you want to say deterrence, that's decidedly the opposite of the usage of it. Ending the war with Japan? Sure, but that wasn't the initial goal and point of the project. It was simply to beat others – notably Germany – to ensure such power didn't end up in the wrong hands.
And that's exactly why the comparisons with AI keep getting drawn. Obviously, there are parallels in the build out of AI and the race to AGI – the atom bomb in this scenario. But again, AGI would presumably have good uses as well as bad – perhaps even profoundly so. Sure, some people view the race as ensuring that America gets control of such technology first for defensive reasons (which may shift into offensive reasons just as the aforementioned Department of Defense has shifted back into the Department of War). But most of those building it view it as simply trying to move technological and thus, societal, progress forward.
Yes, many disagree with those notions. But certainly no one would say that there aren't any good, positive uses for AI. Those who are so worried about it simply view the negatives as outweighing the positives – ranging from day-to-day usage to again, all the way up to the end of humanity. But even the so-called "doomers" would not deny the potential for positive usage too. Again, what is the positive use case of a nuclear bomb?
So can we please de-escalate from that analogy? It just makes everyone crazed – on both sides of such debates. Even now, it's what's guiding a lot of the back-and-forth around if a private company should have some say over what a government can or cannot do. The hypothetical is what if a company controlled a nuke? Or mass produced them?
That is, of course, illegal. But we're not talking about making the creation or advancement of AI illegal. We are talking about putting some level of guardrails in place, and yes, governments are undoubtedly far behind the ability to reliably to so simply because they act far too slowly and AI moves far too quickly. Still, no one wants to deem work on AI illegal – well, perhaps some do, but no one serious – and that is just not the case with nuclear weapons.
So if people really want to use that analogy, they should also be saying that the government should take over control of the build-out of the technology. Many think they should be more involved – including the companies themselves, not least of which because they need money and red tape cut – but no one (again, no one serious) is suggesting the government takes over full control of production.
And while some have suggested an actual Manhattan-like Project for AI, it's too late for that. Again, the technology is moving far too fast and any government would move far too slow.
I know it's tempting to use the nuclear analogy especially given the current conflicts – both actual conflicts around the world in which the US is engaged at the moment and the political ones happening within the United States itself – and the natural adjacencies. But it also just doesn't seem helpful, in part because of those actual conflicts. AI is not a nuclear weapon and we shouldn't portray it as such.
I don't know if the better analogy is electricity or the internet or some other profound breakthrough with both good and bad implications. And I want to acknowledge that it's entirely possible that AI ends up in a state where the bad does outweigh the good. I personally don't believe that will be likely, but it's certainly possible. But I do know there are no good variables with nuclear weapons. We now start wars over such beliefs...
1 Two sub-problems here. First, North Korea already has nuclear weapons, of course. Second, this splinters the analogy because here it's NVIDIA chips which are the nukes, not AI itself, which of course is the byproduct of those chips. ↩
2026-03-02 20:59:26
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. For all the endless talk about both Big Tech and Big AI, it seems wild how little talk there is around the fact that increasingly, Big Tech owns Big AI. I mean this quite literally, as in ownerships stakes. True, they're not controlling positions, but undoubtedly only because that would actually raise red flags. Instead, these are massive, growing bets that are clear hedges on their own internal AI work, and to try to counter competitors own similar deals.
I've actually written about this a number of times. But with the latest OpenAI and Anthropic funding rounds, it's probably worth updating and spelling it out again. Perhaps a bit more clearly this time, with math...