2026-08-04 04:38:19
If you live online, you'll have noticed the vibe has shifted pretty substantially against Anthropic in recent weeks. Whereas even just a few months ago, the company was seen as the more scrappy, idealistic underdog – one which happened to be formed by founders who left the seemingly unstoppable foe in OpenAI – that tide has now turned.
Certainly part of it is just the shift from underdog to presumed leader in AI. But a lot of it has to do with the way Anthropic carries itself as a company. Whereas the strong stances and rhetoric were once seen as almost endearing, now they're seen more as a problem. From the US Government to Big Tech and many in between.
The mood now feels so negative against Anthropic that it seems worth asking the obvious question that no one wants to bother with any longer: what if they're right?
2026-08-03 18:00:45
Look, the numbers are great. Perhaps even incredible given where the box office has been in the last few years post-pandemic. But what they aren't are actual records. At least if we're being honest with ourselves.
A powerful one-two punch from “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” and “The Odyssey” has fueled the biggest collective weekend in box office history, with roughly $430 million across all movies in the marketplace.
Prior to this, the top three weekends were led by 2019’s “Avengers: Endgame” ($402 million collectively), 2018’s “Avengers: Infinity War” ($314 million collectively) and 2015’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” ($313 million collectively). It’s a particularly exciting benchmark for the recently married Tom Holland and Zendaya, who star in “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” and “The Odyssey.”
I personally find it odd that these headlines keep coming unabated despite the fact that perhaps the only topic on which more ink has been spilled in the past few years than the death of the movie theater has been on the concept of inflation. Because of the way that money and time work, this is simply not a real comparison. It's not exactly apples-to-oranges, but it's certainly not dollars-to-dollars!
I harp on this a lot, and have for years, but I feel the need to dumb it down even further to make it clear:
Yes, $430M is more than $402M in 2026. But the problem is that only the $430M number is from 2026. The $402M number is from 2019. Thanks to said inflation, $402M earned in 2019 is actually closer to $525M in 2026 if you simply adjust using the consumer pricing index numbers. The reality is slightly more nuanced because movie ticket prices don't track exactly to this number, and actually overall inflation has caused the CPI to rise faster than ticket prices. Still, the 2019 number is almost certainly closer to $500M when adjusting for 2026 movie ticket prices.
$525M – or even just $500M – is still more than $430M. So what we're really celebrating here is that things are more expensive with time. That includes milk. That includes movie tickets. Congrats, everyone.
“We have conquered a box-office milestone that seemed forever out of reach,” says Paul Dergarabedian, Rentrak’s head of marketplace trends. “This is now only the second $400 million-plus weekend in box office history.”
$400M today is likely to look something more like $750M - $800M in 2050, so one imagines we won't be touting such "forever out of reach" numbers by then. Calm down, dude.
You know what other metric is at or near a record? The number of theaters that movies are opening in. When Batman set a record opening in 1989, it did so in just under 2,200 locations. Brand New Day just opened in 4,487,1 just shy of Top Gun: Maverick's 2022 record of 4,735 locations.
Look, again, it was a great weekend! But I don't see the point of not putting it into the actual, appropriate context. I mean, I certainly do if you're Hollywood! And I guess I do if you're a Hollywood trade publication. (Though, to be fair, another article about the weekend not fully centered around the "record" does caveat that the numbers are not inflation-adjusted.) Still, readers outside of the industry might want at least a dose of reality in such reporting.
The 2018 $314M weekend number adjusted with CPI ends up being about $418M, so this new "record" weekend would hold there, just barely. However the 2015 $313M weekend translates to $441M in 2026 money, so the "record" again falls there, just barely. But don't you think it's curious how every record weekend before this one occurred in a four year span from 2015 to 2019? Again, that's inflation!
The actual box office records for individual movies illustrates this point well. Gone with the Wind, which was released in 1939, remains the all-time leader at $1.85B. Second is Star Wars (aka A New Hope – the first of the first trilogy), released in 1977 at $1.63B. The Sound of Music, released in 1965 is third at $1.3B. In fact, to find a movie released after 2000, you have to go down to #11, The Force Awakens, the first of the third Star Wars trilogies which yes, powered the 2015 weekend mentioned above.
And wait a minute, it's sort of buried by Box Office Mojo, but those adjusted numbers are only updated for 2019 ticket prices! Updated to 2026 prices, $1.85B becomes... $2.4B for Gone with the Wind!Star Wars' 2019 figure would look more like $2.13B now. The Sound of Music would be at $1.7B today. That's just domestic.
In that regard, for context, the biggest movie released all of last year was either Zootopia 2 or The Minecraft Movie (depending on if you only include 2025 domestic box office), both around $430M. This year's crop will for sure finish far higher – Toy Story 5 is already past that number, Super Mario Galaxy is inches away, The Odyssey should surpass it this week – but let's just say the winner ends up being this new Spider-Man, and let's try to extrapolate out to say that it might end up in the $750M - $900M range (which is likely generous as it probably won't have the holding power of The Odyssey – superhero movies tend to be far more front-loaded and fall faster). That could come close to the current all-time box office champ (when not accounting for inflation): the aforementioned The Force Awakens at $937M.
But wait, actually, that Force Awakens number would be more like $1.3B in 2026 dollars. There's that pesky inflation again!
The only movie on that non-adjusted all-time list released before 2000 is 1997's Titanic at #9. Beyond that, there's only one other movie released in the 90s – 1999's The Phantom Menace, the first of the second trilogy – at #23. To find a movie not released in the past 30 years, you have to go to #28 where, yes, the first Star Wars again resides (after a few re-releases). To finally find a non-Star Wars movie to make the cut, you have to go to #34 with 1982's E.T (also after several re-releases).
Again, all of this is just meant to illustrate the roll inflation and ticket prices play in these numbers. We're celebrating an all-time weekend, but that's simply because money's value is also at an all-time high. If we wanted a more honest measurement, we'd use tickets sold or even something like per-capita filmgoing. But Hollywood would prefer we don't look at those numbers, for obvious reasons.
At the end of the day, I suppose the most important thing is unlike many of its high-grossing brethren, Spider-Man: Brand New Day will actually turn a profit at the box office. In fact, it undoubtedly already has! Ditto with The Odyssey and several other movies this year, thus far. That's great! And certainly better than years past. But it's also undoubtedly not that great when compared to the type of profit margins that the actual highest grossing movies of all time used to pull.
For those margins and profits, we probably have to turn to the talent streaming in from YouTube...
One more thing: sure, let's call this a new hope or a brand new day. And movie theaters and Hollywood will take whatever wins they can get. But just to keep the wet blanket wrapped around the narrative for a moment, I'll note that despite the shocked euphoria that Hollywood now seems to be expressing over these numbers, this was entirely predictable. In fact, it was one of my predictions for 2026! But it came with a warning:
A box office boom, but... – Spider-Man, Avengers, Hunger Games, Jumanji, Toy Story, Shrek, Mandalorian (and Grogu), Mario, Minions, Moana, Michael Jackson, Narnia, Odyssey, Dune, Steven Spielberg back with aliens – even if all of them don't hit (Supergirl?), enough of them will to boost the box office results for 2026, perhaps even past the pre-pandemic levels finally (not counting for inflation, because Hollywood ridiculously never seems to...). Everyone will trumpet the return of movie theaters, and yet it won't change any of the longer-term trends and issues with the industry. Of course, we won't be able to see that fully until 2027 and beyond...
Yeah... (Also, nailed it with the Supergirl sub-prediction there!)
Update: I've now seen Spider-Man: Brand New Day and I will just say, it's very good. Regardless of the money funny business with records, I feel like it's important to note that a huge reason for its success is that it's good, plain and simple.
1 Honestly, the most impressive think about Spider-Man's opening here is that it posted the numbers without IMAX, because those screens are still tied up showing The Odyssey. Of course, given their clearly maximum utilization, it doesn't change any point about the overall weekend numbers. ↩
2026-08-03 03:56:06
When I first wrote about The Bear four years ago, I had just finished season one and almost couldn't believe how well it worked despite it's almost comically short length. But really as the season went on, it felt like that's why it worked: each episode was exactly as long as it needed to be and not a minute more.1 All killer no filler.2
I'm happy to report that having just finished the fifth (and final) season,3 it ends just as it began – right up to the point of having a penultimate intense episode followed by a more meditative coda for the finale. After some up-and-down middle seasons,4 it's nice to know they once again stuck the landing.5
And it's also nice to know that I wasn't alone in thinking this. I've written before about the site TVCharts, which uses IMDb's star review system to give you a sense of how each episode (and season) of a show was received. Yes, yes, the IMDb ratings are sometimes gamed at first and have at times been a hotbed of weird and/or problematic behavior. But over time, I found them to be a fairly accurate representation of how "good" or "bad" movies or shows are, at least directionally. Perhaps that means my taste are to vanilla or mainstream, but I've long found such aggregated opinions to guide me fairly well.
But actually, more recently, I've been using a site called Series Graph to track such things. The idea is the same – IMDb scores aggregated – but their data is far more up-to-date. I'll often now consult these sites before diving into a new series to see if it's likely worth my time. But I started The Bear before I found such sites, so I didn't want to "spoil" the ending – meaning, knowing if they stuck that landing or not.
Anyway, it was nice to see The Bear close out those final two episodes with a 9.7 and 9.1 (out of 10) rating, respectively. Truly great scores to wrap up a series.
And this took me down a rabbit hole of looking at just how many series stuck the landing versus "shit the landing" as it were.
Game of Thrones is the most obvious and famous example, and it's showcased well by Series Graph. Over the first seven seasons, the series had eleven episodes that are currently rated 9.7 or above – three that are 9.9! Then came season 8...
Boy did they shit the bed.
Per these ratings, the season starts out troublesome – episodes that would be considered fine for any other show, but are way below the average for Game of Thrones. But the final three episodes are well... we've been over this. It's so clear that they ran out of runway or steam or ideas – or all three. It's honestly a travesty given how good and iconic the overall series was and is. I still wish they would re-do them, because at some point soon, you know someone is going to use AI to do just that.
Okay, focus. Some other fun ones:
I could go on and on. It's such a deep rabbit hole. And now I have a half dozen old series I feel like I need to watch. At least with The Bear wrapped, there's a slot.
1 As opposed to Ted Lasso, which always felt far too short in that first season. We'll see what format/lenght they go with when it returns this week! ↩
2 Honestly, my main nit would be the release strategy here. I continue to think it's dumb that once a show is established, as The Bear clearly is, to just dump all the episodes at once rather than let them build over several weeks/months, with conversations around each episode. And it's not even Netflix that made and streamed The Bear, but FX/Hulu/Disney! ↩
3 Yes, they managed to do five seasons in four years. That's basically unheard of in our era of streaming, though, see below... ↩
4 Perhaps in part because they broke up season 3 into season 3 and 4 rather than just trimming the fat to make one season. Interestingly, almost the opposite problem that House of the Dragon ran into in season two (as the scores confirm!). ↩
5 One thing I found curious and notably absent versus the first couple of seasons: there was far less (popular) music used. Maybe I just didn't notice it as much because there was no Pearl Jam. And I love Pearl Jam. But obviously season 1 ends with that great use of "Let Down" by Radiohead, and I was surprised they didn't do something similar with the finale given how the structure mimicks the end of that first season. Were the rights too expensive given the success of the show?! ↩
2026-07-30 20:31:54
It's that time of year again: quarterly earnings for Big Tech. And you know what that means... time for Wall Street to freak out over CapEx spend related to AI build-out once again. Sure enough, Google went first and upped their forecasted spend pushing the range past $200B for the first time. The market puked. Next up, Meta. They simply raised the low-end of their previous guidance (to $130B up from $125B). The market puked.1 Then there's Microsoft...
2026-07-29 20:28:40
When Apple jacked up their prices across several products last month, there was a curious absence – a big one, the biggest one: the iPhone. As I noted at the time, it seemed like a strategy so as not to shock the system – read: Wall Street – all at once. The iPhone remains the most vital aspect of Apple's business, so while Tim Cook had already signaled – step one – the price increases were coming, pushing them first across nearly the entire product lineup aside from the iPhone clearly seemed like step two in this easement strategy.
Step three would likely be to announce the new iPhone pricing alongside unveiling the new premium iPhone models – including, for the first time, the 'iPhone Ultra', the first foldable, and undoubtedly most expensive, iPhone. And even that was clever/lucky since Apple has long been believed to be breaking up the iPhone launches starting this year, with the "regular" iPhones 18 coming in the Spring of 2027. And that would have been a step four of the strategy, since the buyers of the non-Pro devices are more likely to be price conscious. So Apple would have guided towards that outcome and postponed that pain as long as possible.
Well, as it turns out, this is a five step strategy!
Before that all-important step three of unveiling the new iPhones in September, Apple had a trick up their sleeve: a new way to pay! Say hello to Apple Upgrade:
Apple Upgrade offers 12- and 24-month leasing options for iPhone and Apple Watch, and 24- and 36-month leasing options for Mac and iPad. Leasing prices start as low as $17.99 per month for iPhone, $11.99 for Apple Watch, $24.99 for Mac, and $11.99 for iPad. When customers first enroll in Apple Upgrade, they can further lower their monthly lease payments by trading in their currently owned device through Apple Trade In. Customers can also earn 3 percent Daily Cash back when making their lease payments with Apple Card.
While Apple still didn't raise iPhone prices alongside this move, it's clearly another lever to pull getting ahead of that inevitable increase in a few weeks. Now a $100 or $200 price increase on the iPhone 18 Pro – perhaps soon to start at $1,299? – will look far less daunting when Apple can also tout the option to pay, say, $33.99/month.1
And even better will be for those aforementioned "regular" iPhone 18 models coming in the Spring, which could start at just say, $19.99/month (again, assuming some increase in the monthly price alongside an actual iPhone price increase).
Apple, of course, has long had a way for some customers to pay for an iPhone monthly with the 'iPhone Upgrade Program', but as the name indicates, it was mostly geared around those who upgraded every year and allowed them to save a lot in terms of up-front costs and a bit in terms overall costs for a single iPhone – but with the rub being that they would have to pay in perpetuity!
Given that I upgrade my iPhone each year, I was an early member of this program, but found it a bit of a mess by Apple's standards, at least in those early days. A big part of that is because Apple partnered with a third-party bank on the financing element. For a while, it seemed like Apple would try to bring this all in-house as they slowly but surely grew their payments prowess with first Apple Card, and then their own 'Pay Later' service. But, well, both have been sort of a nightmare. Apple partnered with Goldman Sachs to launch the Card and the two quickly had a falling out and it took well over a year to find a new home with JPMorgan (which is still in process). Meanwhile, Apple Pay Later only made it a year before they pulled the plug entirely, seemingly not enjoying holding the debt on their balance sheet. So much for the Apple Bank!
Apple went back to partnering. And they're doing so here as well, with Klarna. And yes, the iPhone Upgrade Program is going away.2 This is a far more robust offering for more Apple products. Yes, you can still do the monthly installment option with Apple Card, but that's only that card and that's only to fully buy the device over time.
Anyway, as someone who has long been on the lookout for an 'Apple Prime' or 'iPhone Prime' offering – that is, a way to "subscribe" to pay for your iPhone just as you subscribe to Amazon Prime – this is the closest thing yet. Yes, Apple has the 'Apple One' subscription but it only bundles their software offerings, not the iPhone (or any other hardware). Still, it seemed inevitable given the ever-rising costs of the iPhone, as Apple pushed more and more premium models. And now it's here, a true 'Apple-as-a-Service'.
Yes, it would be a bit nicer to rope this into Apple One itself. Or for it to be fully run through Apple without any partners needing to do third-party credit checks and whatnot. But Apple will presumably make this as seamless as they possibly can. Because again, I think it's a big part of their strategy to alleviate (and in a way, obfuscate) the price rises that have been forced upon Apple by the current market dynamics.
One imagines we'll see that familiar iPhone pricing slide during Apple's next keynote – the first undoubtedly to be fully MC'd by John Ternus – but with a new element: "the iPhone 18 Pro starts at just $1,299 or you can sign up for 'Apple Upgrade' and pay just $33.99/month for 24 months (or more if you want a 12 month term). And at the end of that term, you can opt to pay a bit more to buy the device outright, or simply choose a new model! This will be offered in the US to start, but we're working to bring it to other parts of the world soon."3
And just like that, Apple will have kicked 'AaaS' out the door. Curious to see how they account for this – literally. Do they still book the full device price at time of sale, or just the portion covered by the lease? It then perhaps technically becomes Klarna's iPhone for which to collect the monthly installments? Or is it some sort of hybrid?
But that's too in the weeds. For consumers, this will just look like you can buy an iPhone (or Mac, or iPad, or Apple Watch) from Apple for a relatively low monthly fee. And given where Apple's prices are heading, that's going to look awfully enticing to many.
1 Unless Apple already baked-in the upcoming iPhone price increases into these monthly rates? It's possible but probably unlikely? That would be a nice "surprise" though if they don't have to raise these just-announced monthly prices! ↩
2 And with it, sadly, the inclusion of AppleCare in such programs, it seems. That will be extra. Services, FTW (for Apple's bottom line). ↩
3 Which may be a part of why they picked Klarna here, a company headquartered in Stockholm but that operates in the US as well... ↩
2026-07-28 05:17:41
With the impending – well, or possibly imploding – merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros Discovery, there was clearly an odd man out in the big streaming race: Peacock. Thanks largely to recent massive sporting events like the Olympics, it wasn't dying, but it also wasn't thriving. It simply was not in a position to compete with Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, and soon, HBO Max + Paramount+. So it could keep going, scraping and clawing to barely eek out a profit, as it finally did this past quarter, or it could find a new home.
With the news that Comcast was splitting itself in two – again – it felt like the ground was being laid for just that. But we were all of us deceived. For another option was on the table. A big one.
Here's Lillian Rizzo for CNBC:
NBCUniversal’s Peacock is officially landing on YouTube.
All of the streaming service’s content — including NBC Sports’ portfolio of the NFL and NBA, Universal films like the Minions franchise, and original Peacock and Bravo content like the Real Housewives franchise and “Love Island USA” — will be included in YouTube Premium subscriptions in the U.S. starting early next year.
Google’s YouTube Premium is the subscription version of the streaming platform that offers videos without ads and the ability to download most videos, depending on the subscription tier. The service offers a variety of plans beginning at $8.99 per month. Peacock Premium currently costs $10.99 per month.
While we don't yet know all the details in terms of the financial arrangements between the two sides, on the surface, this is a wild deal. It sure looks like Comcast is selling Peacock to YouTube without actually selling Peacock to YouTube. Yes, it seems like sort of a "hackquisition" but for the media world.
You know, effectively buying something without the headache of actually buying it.
Perhaps that is the point here as well. Would regulators allow YouTube to buy Peacock? Maybe, but probably only if they spun-off YouTube TV? The key would obviously be who actually owned NBC and Universal, but if Comcast kept those, what's the point of owning Peacock? Regardless, any such deal would be bogged down in hearings and challenges for months, if not years. Again, see: Paramount/Warner Bros.
So yeah, this seemingly makes more sense. Certainly for YouTube. Who now quickly gets to offer their Premium subscribers – long held as one of the best deals in streaming thanks to the removal of YouTube ads – a whole new bundle of carrots.
Honestly, it looks like such a good deal that you have to believe YouTube is going to raise the Premium price, pronto.1
As for why you’d now sign up for Peacock stand-alone versus YouTube Premium? I don’t know. We‘ll have to see if there are new pricing tiers, I guess. But again, this just sort of looks like YouTube de facto bought Peacock and is now tying it into their offering.
Yes, it's a bundle. But it's likely bigger and better than your typical bundle because it sure sounds like all the Peacock content will be deeply integrated within YouTube itself. It even sounds more integrated than your typical "Channel" offering, since again, it's included with your YouTube Premium package, no separate subscription required.
All of this also further blurs the lines with the aforementioned YouTube TV. But I suspect Google is fine to simply keep that as the mechanism with which to bleed the other cable companies – including Comcast – dry until cable itself is fully dead. And Comcast, knowing that's coming, smartly hitched the wagon:
The partnership announced Monday also extends NBCUniversal’s multiyear distribution agreement with YouTube TV, the streaming-only TV bundle run by YouTube, as well as distribution of YouTube, YouTube TV and Premium on Comcast’s Xfinity-branded cable TV and Xumo platforms.
It will also see enhance the advertising partnership and capabilities between the two companies, allowing NBCUniversal to monetize advertising for its Peacock content on YouTube’s platform. Advertising has become a key driver of streaming growth across media companies.
So yeah, this seems pretty good for Comcast too, if they're simply reading where all of this is heading and getting ahead of it. And that's sort of the framing here:
NBCUniversal’s partnership with YouTube was formed after Comcast co-CEO Brian Roberts reached out to YouTube CEO Neal Mohan about nine months ago, according to a person familiar with the matter. Following a meeting between the executive teams that took place at Google offices, the two companies began to brainstorm partnerships such as this, the person added.
The biggest question remains how the actual deal is structured. Beyond direct monetization of their content on YouTube, presumably there's a broader revenue share in place too. The bigger question is if there was some sort of up front, lump-sum payment, or ongoing licensing payments. That feels likely, but we'll see. And if so, that may give some level of exclusivity to YouTube? Maybe Comcast can keep their existing partnerships in place as long as they're more of the aforementioned "Channels" or straightforward bundle variety? Maybe YouTube would even prefer that lest they draw the eye of regulators here. But this type of deep integration may be exclusive to YouTube?
Or maybe YouTube is feeling confident enough in their offering that they don't care about any level of exclusivity here. And maybe they should given that they have 125M Premium subscribers and can upsell the over 2.5B – that's billion – monthly active users of YouTube itself. No one can compete with that. It will be interesting to see how YouTube brands this new premium Peacock content and tries to upsell it.
It will naturally move YouTube into more direct competition with Netflix, shocking no one. That "UGC" label, long affixed as an almost Scarlet Letter on the service is fading, fast. YouTube will now get premium shows and movies but without having to directly commission them. Oh yes, and sports:
Live sports nab the biggest audiences for both streaming and linear TV. YouTube has been increasingly getting into the mix acquiring live sports rights. Last year it aired its first ever live NFL game, and since then the NFL has continued to hold talks with non-traditional media companies like YouTube and Netflix.
YouTube has become a platform for both sports leagues and media companies to host highlights and other game-related content in a bid to attract younger audiences. NBCUniversal’s sports-heavy streaming portfolio could complement that effort.
As part of partnership between YouTube and NBCUniversal, NBC Sports will be a production partner for select live sports on YouTube, such as it was for the NFL game last year.
Will this help YouTube attract more NFL games? It certainly can't hurt! And even if they don't, they'll now have access to those on Peacock/NBC! That's on top of the Sunday Ticket which is tied to YouTube TV, but is actually available on YouTube itself as well.
All of this is clearly not great news for Netflix. Not only were they said to be exploring a Peacock add-on option – which still could happen, again presumably as a "Channel" within Netflix as a way for Comcast to continue to hedge – but the bigger issue is that this seemingly vaults YouTube into pole position as the default UI for streaming.
As I wrote just 11 days ago, it felt like that was the real battle brewing between the two – with YouTube now surging ahead. And actually, about five weeks ago, I had an, um, inkling that something like this deal could be the next shoe to drop:
As YouTube TV continues to eat traditional cable's lunch, might we see other regional cable providers in the US hand over the keys to Netflix? Comcast, the largest, would presumably try to do it through Peacock? But Peacock remains a far smaller player. More interesting would be if YouTube tries to get into this game. There's probably too much conflict with YouTube TV, but it increasingly feels like Netflix and YouTube are on a collision course to be the main hub/UI of streaming. I mean, they already are in many ways, but with others' content – including perhaps Peacock and the like.
And here we are. It's beginning to look a lot like Comcast, indeed.
One more thing: This tie-up will certainly help Paramount make the case that they should be allowed to buy WBD. Then again, I’ve felt that way before...
1 Sigh. Though I guess removing one potential bill from the current streaming insanity is worth it. Hopefully literally! ↩
