2026-08-23 22:42:40
As if a leaked video of the AirPods with Cameras – which I wish they'd call 'EyePods' but I'm guessing they're going to call 'AirPods Pro 4 with Visual Intelligence' – wasn't enough, some leaked code also within the release candidate of macOS Tahoe 26.7 now seems to give away a few more intriguing details about the device. Namely, how the cameras may actually work.
And actually, this leak could be somewhat useful to Apple because the last one – again, the video of them in action – had people concerned that Apple was about to release some surveillance tech for the masses. Which is a nicer way of saying "PervPods", as the internet has so wonderfully coined.
Apple, of course, prides themselves on their reputation with regard to user trust and security. Two traits which Meta, Apple's would-be main competitor in the nascent AI wearable space, decidedly lacks. Was Apple really going to risk throwing away such trust to put some cameras on your ears? This latest leak points to how Apple is clearly trying to get around this issue. As discovered by MacRumors forum member mactracker and summarized by Tim Hardwick, a few key bits:
AirPods support periodic image capture but not video: The cameras take internal still frames for Visual Intelligence to process, rather than "taking pictures" or recording video. In "active" mode, the framework can request a synced pair of images, or it can receive a capture rate, where pairs of stills are continually sent at the specified rate.
I repeat: no video. In my column last week I suspected exactly this scenario. While Apple will downplay the "picture taking" capabilities of such a device, the reality is that they have to capture some sort of image to make their systems work. But video seems a bridge too far, at least for now.
Active and passive capture modes use different resolutions: In "active" mode, likely triggered by the user via Siri, the AirPods capture a 640x640 image and return a processed 1024x1024 image. "That's about 0.4 megapixels of sampled image data, and a little over 1 megapixel for the output frame," mactracker explains. In "passive" mode, they capture a 320x320 image that can return a 320×320 or 512×512 output. "These are capture-specific resolutions, and the physical sensor's native resolution may be larger," adds mactracker.
640x640 is a comically small, low-resolution image. Technically, it's 0.41 megapixels. For comparison, the main camera on the iPhone 17 Pro is 48 megapixels. That's a full two orders of magnitude. Yes, the processing pushes that image to just over one megapixel – a threshold that was state of the art in... 1991.
Interestingly, the "passive" mode cuts such small resolutions in half. Now we're talking early web graphics sizes for images. The kind of images that wouldn't completely clog a 14.4 baud dial-up modem.
In other words, if people intend to use these AirPods as surveillance tech, it's going to be pretty shitty surveillance tech. There are literal kids toys that will take far better images. A Fisher-Price spy cam would do an infinitely better job.
Some processing happens directly on AirPods: The code mentions "peripheral inference," or on-device detection of whether a person is in view.
If true, given the sheer literal size of the AirPods, this would be insanely impressive. But again, those image sizes help! And this will certainly help that privacy narrative if you don't have to send all of those images – even if their comically low resolution state – to your iPhone. Or worse, the cloud.
Each AirPod likely has a capture indicator light: The framework contains code that allows it to remotely control a hardware indicator and its brightness, suggesting the AirPods have a light to let other people know when they are capturing still images.
Yeah, I also assumed this would be the case, as it's sort of the bare-minimum privacy norm if you have any sort of capture capabilities on a wearable. And this points directly to an issue Apple still could have here...
While they'll downplay any talk of "capture" and certainly not frame these as "cameras", the reality remains that – assuming the above capabilities ship – both categorizations are technically true. Apple can and will talk up the low-resolution and on-device work, but some people will still just hear and see wearable cameras here. And while I suspect that society will eventually grow numb to such tech, just as we have with cameras capturing/recording most things thanks to our phones, it's going to take some time.1
In that regard, perhaps it's good that these newfangled AirPods were apparently delayed until 2027 (despite the leak). Apple can let Meta keep taking the early backlash as the industry still grapples with 'Glasshole' scars.
1 With the AI element of all this just further exaccerbating the issues... ↩
2026-08-22 01:49:51
Did you miss me while I was away? Not that I wasn't busy still writing in between planes and pools. But I come back bearing gifts. Well, a gift – albeit one long requested by many of you... full RSS feeds for paid members of The Inner Ring. Yes, over two years in the making – well, more like a few hours, thanks to our AI overlords helping me out – I finally cracked the code. Unfortunately, it still needs a fairly manual deployment at the moment – which is to say, if you're interested and a paid member, shoot a note to subs [at] spyglass.org. If not, carry on. The current RSS feed will continue to work just fine, albeit truncated.
Happy last days of Summer. And Friday.
Inklings is a newsletter featuring links and commentary from M.G. Siegler on timely topics found around the web.
💸 Yet Another New Flavor of Hackquisition – NVIDIA is paying $6B to the investors in Poolside for... something. Technically, it sounds like a license to access their "open" model "factory", which sounds a lot like technology created – perhaps after a couple pivots – to be acquired by NVIDIA. After all, Jensen Huang's two favorite words of late are "open" and "factory". Not on that list is "acquired" – this is the word that shall never be mentioned in such deals, lest regulators come calling. Again, this is just a licensing deal and some job offers – 109 of them, to be exact. But interestingly, unlike most other "hackquistions" to date, this one explicitly does not include the founders. In fact, they're staying back with the remaining parts (if any) of the company, and raising $1B from NVIDIA at a new $12B (pre) valuation for their troubles. I mean, what?! What could possibly go wrong? The only thing that is clear here is that NVIDIA has way too much money on their hands, and they seemingly can't give it away fast enough. [Newcomer 🔒]
💨 Pissing in the Wind – While I've largely been on the side of Epic's Tim Sweeney over many years now with regard to the App Store rules – and I think I correctly read long ago the game he seemed to be playing to continuously bait Apple – his comments the last few days in light of Apple and the EC seemingly reaching a detente over the rules in the EU seem disingenuous at best and unhinged at worst. This would seem to be some last-ditch effort to keep the EC fighting, but come on, it's over dude. You got some of what you wanted! Distribution outside of the App Store is here and payments on the web are mandated – including, importantly, in the US, which was largely you're doing! It's true that those payments won't be completely free of charge, and I get that the EC de facto accepting that makes the US case even harder, but come on, this was never going to be some sort of flawless victory. Take the W. Or sell to Disney. [Xitter]
⚖️ Meta's Make Or Break Trial – "Big Techbacco" indeed. Unlike with the silly antitrust case against Meta, it feels like the stakes can't get much higher for the company here. Four states (representing 25 others) are more or less trying to take down social media (represented by Meta) much as yes, the tobacco companies were once taken down. While $200B is the headline potential damages number here, technically the fines could reach $1.4T – which is exactly Meta's market cap. So yeah, that feels pretty existential. More importantly, it could completely upend Meta's actual business, in a time when they need it to be pumping out cash more than ever so they can pump it into AI. While there is an 8-person jury here, they're merely meant to be advisory to the judge who will issue the verdict and award any would-be damages. That judge? Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, whose name may look awfully familiar to anyone who has followed the Apple/Epic ongoing situation (see: above). Meta should probably hope they don't piss her off as Apple did! So far, things seem up and down. [NYT]
💬 OpenAI Keeps Right On Poking the Bear – ChatGPT for Apple Messages support seems interesting, it also sounds like something Apple will absolutely hate. Given that this is on the Mac, and the ChatGPT app (clearly) isn't distributed through the Mac App Store, I'm not sure what they can actually do here – certainly send some strongly worded messages to OpenAI and perhaps the public about security – while noting that Apple will be happy to do such AI things for you shortly, with new Siri – but if this was an iOS feature, well, such an app would never get approved. Add this to (allegedly) threatening to sue Apple, then Apple (actually) suing OpenAI, and you have quite the situationship here. I'm reminded when Twitter tried to connect to Facebook's Friend Graph back in the day. That didn't last long. Nor did Instagram images on Twitter, after the sale. [9to5Mac]
🪙 'The Stripe of AI' Joins Stripe – With the clear disclosure that I invested in Stripe back in the day so of course I'm biased here, I found Ben Thompson's thoughts on the (then still rumored) OpenRouter deal insightful. This seemingly makes sense on a number of fronts – first and foremost if you consider tokens to be the currency for companies building with AI, as Patrick Collison clearly does. But at the highest level, nearly anyone else (who could afford to) buying OpenRouter would ruin, at least in part, their value proposition by destroying the "Switzerland" nature of the product. Stripe just enhances it. [Stratechery 🔒]
🥒 The Vision Pro Pickle – Beyond the layoffs within the group – following the defection of their leader to, where else: OpenAI, a couple months back – it's really pretty wild just how bad Apple's timing was here. I mean, I've been saying this from the get-go, but that was simply around product/market fit. Arguably worse is the fact that they released their most expensive device (at least from a starting-point perspective) just as the world of component prices were set to explode due to the AI boom. They couldn't have known that, of course. But also, maybe they should have? In a weird way, Apple is probably happy they're not selling too many because the price to manufacture them must have gone up dramatically. And while there was a price increase ($3,500 is now $3,700), they also can't afford to raise it too much here – again, it was already the most expensive device and clearly wasn't selling in no small part due to that price. Also, can you imagine a world where Apple would prioritize chips and memory for the Vision Pro versus, say, the iPhone, iPad, or Mac? Given the component issues are likely to last into 2027 and beyond, it's increasingly fair to wonder if the device will ever get another refresh (especially with so much else going on). Apple will support it as best they can given the numbers, but I'm fairly worried about true support here, even if they won't admit it right now. Which is too bad, as it was finally coming into its own, content-wise. [AppleInsider]
🔗 Pushing or Pacing or Pulling Back From the AI Frontier? • Spyglass
"If Mark makes something a priority, mountains move in months."
– Arturo Bejar, a former Facebook safety engineer and Instagram consultant, testifying against Meta in the opening of the aforementioned trial. Notably, he also testified in the New Mexico case which Meta lost.
I saved this chart a couple months ago, and it remains wild. The top 20 companies in terms of wealth creation over the past century in the stock market are... completely dominated by tech companies. Perhaps not too surprising given the state of the world right now. But this is since 1926!
Even crazier, as recently as 2016, Exxon still topped the list. Now they're all the way down at #7, with Apple having more than 3x'd them in that regard. Apple and Exxon – remember when that was a race? I do!
NVIDIA only went public in 1999 and is #2. Again of all public companies over the past 100 years. To highlight just how bonkers the recent run-up has been, SpaceX, which went public a whole two months ago, was briefly in the top 30 (before the slide post IPO pop).
🎶 Listening to Doors (Live) by Noah Kahan
🍺 Enjoying a Time Better Spent IPA by Tap Social
🇬🇧 Sent from London, England
2026-08-21 20:44:45
He-Man has the power! Well, on streaming at least. After (rather predictably) bombing at the box office, Amazon smartly, quickly, pivoted Masters of the Universe to Prime Video and by the power of Grayskull... As Rick Porter (Ri-Porter?) reports:
The movie based on the 1980s cartoon series and toys scored the No. 1 overall ranking in Nielsen’s streaming ratings for July 20-26, its first week of streaming. It debuted July 22 on Prime Video, less than weeks after its theatrical premiere; it has made a little under $114 million worldwide at the box office against a $170 million budget. Masters of the Universe scored 1.17 billion minutes of watch time for the week and was one of just two titles to cross the billion-minute threshold.
Let's not get too carried away, it barely beat The Big Bang Theory, content which is – checks notes – nearly two decades old. Still, that's a show with 281 episodes versus a single movie (I'm still not sure why they bother comparing such things, which is insanely unfair to movies, but I guess time glued to screen is time glued).
Anyway, if the movie can hold well on streaming, it will be interesting if Amazon moves forward with the sequel, which – quasi-spoiler1 – they obviously aimed to do given the tease at the end. There had been some talk that they would despite the box office disappointment, and I think that's perhaps a promising sign that Amazon understands that box office is increasingly just one element of how this can work. To be clear, they would have loved a big box office here, but they've also run this playbook before, salvaging big budget "bombs" on streaming.
The key is to move relatively quickly, as Amazon did, going to Prime Video just six weeks after the opening – notably, skipping any SVOD window.
This is smart. You can take advantage of/recoup some of the theatrical marketing, which is a trick Netflix has stubbornly refused to learn with their anti-theater stance – but that's obviously changing too. Yes, even post-Warner Bros deal blowing up.
It helps that Masters of the Universe was decent. Not great, but not awful. Not as good as Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves – seriously! – was, but in a similar tongue-firmly-in-cheek vein. The fact that it looked a little too Thor-y,2 but with worse CGI didn't help. But it seemed to find some footing as it went on.
So yeah, definitely watchable in a nostalgic sort of way. Which, I was the, um, prime audience for. As I've written about – probably far too much – I grew up obsessed with the He-Man toys and cartoon. Did I know that it was created by Mattel as a way to combat Star Wars (after they passed on those toys)? No. Would I have cared? No – have you seen the Castle Greyskull toy?3 It's still awesome.4
I also loved the first Masters of the Universe movie even though it was scary as shit – especially if you're, I don't know, five years old, as I was when it came out. Frank Langella, FTW.
Anyway, the fact that I wasn't there on opening night for this new one probably wasn't a great sign for its box office prospects. Worse, I didn't see it in theaters at all! A big part of the problem is that I now have young kids of my own. It's hard to find time to break away to go see a movie (well, one that's not in their wheelhouse at least). Sure, you do it for The Odyssey and Spider-Man (especially since my wife was interested in the former and my older child interested in the latter!), but Masters of the Universe? Sorry, He-Man. And I suspect I wasn't alone in my demographic – again, perhaps the key demographic here...
But did I watch this new Masters of the Universe immediately when it came to streaming? You bet your Skeletor I did!5
So what might Amazon do here for a sequel, strategy-wise? It's early, but I think the right idea would probably be a wide, but limited theatrical run. Make it a two-or-three-week-only engagement – ideally with IMAX – to try to drive super-fans to theaters. Then go even faster to streaming. And ideally augment all of this with some killer toy sales! You're Amazon for Teela's sake!
1 And I don't mean Orko, who obviously also needs to be a focal point of any sequel! ↩
2 Not helped by the role that Idris Elba plays in both. He's good in Masters, but come on... ↩
3 As the popcorn buckets can attest! ↩
4 I couldn't have been the only kid who was confused that the castle shaped like a skull wasn't the home of the villain with the skull face... ↩
5 The movie also probably wasn't helped by some level of Jared Leto backlash, though the most recent allegations came out well after the movie was already bombing. Also, he was pretty widely considered to be the best part/performance of the movie (not that you can tell it's him). Though shout out to Alison Brie as Evil Lyn! ↩
2026-08-21 06:04:39
🔗 YouTube Offers Creators Millions to Not Work With Netflix • Bloomberg
YouTube and Netflix have seemed like they were on a slow-motion collision course for years. Now things are speeding up. Here's Lucas Shaw:
YouTube is offering millions of dollars to popular channels if they upload their videos to the site exclusively for a certain period of time, in an effort to halt Netflix's pursuit of its biggest stars, according to people familiar with the conversations.
The payment would come in a couple of different forms. YouTube has discussed directly financing some programs, and it has also offered to allot a portion of major brand deals to creators. Though YouTube hasn’t finalized deals with any creators, it is close an agreement with several partners, said the people, who declined to be identified because the negotiations are sensitive and ongoing.
These are carrots. But there are also sticks:
Creators who do sign deals with Netflix face consequences, YouTube has said, according to the people. YouTube will be less likely to feature them in marketing campaigns or at events if they release videos on Netflix at the same time. YouTube would also exclude those creators from collecting a share of proceeds from some major brand campaigns.
Clearly, Netflix's various efforts to pick-off top YouTube talent to "take them pro' as it were, is pissing off YouTube. A number of other services from Facebook to Twitch to dozens of startups have tried to do this over the years, but these moves might seem to suggest that Netflix is getting some traction here.
Or that YouTube really doesn't want them to.
To me, a few things are going on here. First, YouTube made the jump from the computer to the couch and took over the living room. This clearly freaked out Netflix because not only did they overrun their home turf, they did so, fast. YouTube did something similar to the podcast industry and seemingly singlehandedly took video podcasts from a niche to arguably the most important element of the industry. Spotify, the former leader there – oh, Apple – had to respond, and did by partnering with Netflix. At the same time, both services started ramping their efforts in more "traditional" television like awards shows and yes, sports.
The latter has pretty much every player in tech fighting because it's obviously the most important element – the NFL in particular – when it comes to actual viewership and the all-important appointment – read: live – viewing. And that matters, of course, for ads. The area where YouTube, thanks in no small part to parent Google, dominates. But Netflix has been ramping here fast. And because they have more premium content, it's an easier sell straight from television in many ways.
So yeah, Netflix has been shifting towards YouTube just as YouTube is shifting towards Netflix. But the real prize for both is to be the one main hub for content. What's "UGC" and what's "professional" is blurring, fast. Both want it all because both want to be the UI that unites all content, including from partners.
It's a two-horse race. But lately, YouTube has seemingly been kicking Netflix's ass – I wrote about this just a month ago (with the url slug "netflix-vs-youtube"). Acquiring Warner Bros may have changed that narrative but, well... YouTube's Peacock deal was just salt in the wound.
So again, it's interesting that YouTube feels the need to respond here – with both carrots and sticks. I'm still waiting for Netflix to pull their next rabbit out of their hat – buying IMAX? Universal? Could they make another run at Warner Bros if the Paramount deal collapses under its own weight?
Anyway, killer picture of Neal Mohan here. Who looks like the Terminator. With a target.
2026-08-19 23:42:10
This is a strange moment in time for AI. I mean, things are always sort of strange simply given the breakneck speed at which the technology is evolving. But that's the thing about right now: we're sort of paused? At least at the all-important frontier.
We're used to a race. The various parties racing don't like to frame it that way publicly, but come on. It's a race. To AGI. Or RSI. For talent. Or the best models. Or to the models that simply score best on various tests. But in the past few weeks, it almost seems like it's more of a caution flag situation, to extend the metaphor. When the yellow flag is out in an F1 race, drivers must slow down and get behind a safety car. No overtaking is allowed. All drivers adhere to this for the integrity of the race – and so no one gets killed in moments of uncertainty...
2026-08-19 05:03:12
🔗 Apple Announces Changes for Apps in the EU • Apple Newsroom
Peace in Europe for Apple? Well, at least on one front, it seems:
Apple today announced changes to its business terms for apps in the European Union, following close collaboration with the European Commission. These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution. They also reduce complexity by moving every developer that distributes apps in the EU to a single set of business terms. Developers can sign the new terms today, and changes will go into effect on October 1.
Notably, this isn't a proposal, it's the announcement of actual changes that Apple will implement (starting October 1) after "close collaboration" with the EC. And lest we think Apple is overplaying that last aspect, that group gave a statement to Bloomberg backing up the assertion:
A spokesperson for the commission said it “welcomes Apple’s changes to their business terms, which follow a close dialogue” with the company. “Following today’s announcement, the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new terms,“ the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
So what are the changes? At the highest level, the biggest ones are the change in app distribution and in-app payment fees.
It's actually pretty straightforward. I suspect people will still complain that 26% is too high,1 but again for most developers, it will actually be 15%. This feels like mainly a way to keep the all-important big gaming fees – which make up most of in-app payments, and as such, most App Store fees – mostly intact.
Many will also complain about the 5% "Core Technology Commission" but this seems like a relatively simple way for Apple to retain some level of compensation for ongoing device platform work – aka, the platform which allows all apps to work on iOS, iPadOS, etc.
But to me, the most interesting thing about this is how neatly it lines up with Apple's recent proposal in the US when it comes to the link-out payments. We just went over this, but quickly: as a result of the Epic trial, Apple was forced to allow apps to link out to the web for payments. Apple tried to take a 27% commission for those payments – which actually would have resulted in a higher cut than Apple's standard 30% in many cases – which pissed off the judge, who then threw the book at Apple and said they had to allow for web payments without taking a cut. An appeals court kept the link-out option intact, but said Apple should be allowed to collect some sort of commission. Apple tried to delay all of this while they appealed to the Supreme Court, but eventually they had to make a proposal, this time ideally in good faith. The number they landed on? 15%.
That does not seem like a coincidence. It seems coordinated.
It sure looks like Apple knew this EU deal was coming down the pike and that the bloc agreeing to their terms would bolster the case that these are "fair". The US judge still gets to decide that, and Epic has already pushed back as Apple seeks to negotiate directly. One big reason for pushing? Epic wants to ensure any changes Apple tries to negotiate be put in place for all developers.
With that in mind, the EC framework sure seems like a potential proposal Apple would be willing to make and take. They technically don't have to, but aligning with these new EU rules would simplify/streamline the App Store rules and potentially alleviate some of the long-mounting pressure on those rules – which are far out of date at best and out of touch at worst.
If I'm right, it will be up to Epic to agree and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to decide. Both remain clearly pissed off at Apple so there's certainly no guarantee of any such agreement. But again, the EU signing off on this is an interesting signal, if nothing else. Might Apple want to announce such a new deal at a big, upcoming event that every app developer in the world will be watching? We'll see!
Update August 19, 2026: Well it sure doesn't look like Tim Sweeney will have Epic settling with Apple anytime soon! What's most odd about his tweet though is how overtly disingenuous it is – sure, it may not technically be a "settlement", but clearly the EC was in the loop with Apple on these changes and again, they're publicly talking about how pleased they are with them.
Sweeney seems pretty upset about this possible detente in Europe. One read might be, per above, that these new rules would likely keep the rate for gaming commerce flowing fully through the App Store at the still pretty high 26%. Though, of course, Epic would have other options now to route would-be players and payers elsewhere!
He also clearly has the company account tweeting about this and those tweets are also strange in the way they're matter-of-factly interpreting the DMA in a way that the DMA itself doesn't seem to around link-out payments (seemingly conflating it with the current situation in the US, which is obviously different). And again, the EC has already given an on-the-record comment on all of this!
1 Sort of fun/interesting/weird that Apple set it exactly 1% below the 27% which got them into trouble in the first place. Apple would handle the payment processing in this case, so it's different. But 26% is an oddly specific number. Why not, say, 25%? Just optics off that 27% rejection? ↩