2026-04-15 06:47:00
Well would you look at that... despite Netflix losing out on the deal to buy Warner Bros, it seems like they're still interested in the box office business...
Ted Sarandos might be changing his tune when it comes to theatrical exhibition.
The Netflix co-CEO came to Las Vegas on Sunday night and met with several heads of exhibition, including AMC Theatres CEO Adam Aron, Regal CEO Eduardo Acuna and Cinemark CEO Sean Gamble, talking over the possibility of putting more Netflix films into theaters, according to two individuals with knowledge of the meeting. He’s “dipping his toe in the water,” one individual said.
My guess remains that he's doing more than that. Of course, I've been guessing that for a while now. Long before the surprise Warner Bros offer, I wrote an entire post in October 2024 predicting that Netflix's next change in stance (following ads and sports) would be around starting to truly leverage movie theaters. Yes, they had "dipped their toes" here and there, but largely for awards qualification reasons. My bet was that they would fully embrace the theaters.
Well, maybe not fully, but only because it doesn't actually make sense in our current age to "fully" go all-in on theatrical. If a movie is going to bomb, what's the point? And Netflix makes a lot of movies that would bomb at the box office (but do quite well on Netflix). It would be a more hybrid approach, leveraging the theatrical window where it made sense. Which is also what all movie studios should be doing, obviously.
Anyway, my prediction looked great when Netflix announced the Warner Bros deal and Sarandos immediately changed his (quite loud and divisive) tune on theatrical. Netflix was going to keep the distribution system fully in tact for Warner's movies – note he specifically did not say all of Netflix movies, because again, that would be silly. But the implication was that because Netflix was buying this new "muscle" for how to do theatrical, the company would be leveraging it.
I mean, sure, on some level, what else was he going to say? Hollywood already hated the notion of Big Bad Tech swooping in to take out a historic studio – even though relative to the other giant companies that have bought studios throughout the years, Netflix looked like a relatively great buyer! – and Sarandos had to sell it. So he was telling anyone and everyone that he was all about theatrical now – even doing so under oath!
Still, I believed him! Perhaps because I was biased by my prediction, but I only made the prediction because it makes sense! Netflix absolutely should be leveraging theatrical more than they have to date. They clearly left a ton of money on the table with the Knives Out franchise. And Warner deal aside, I think the "stunts" like KPop Demon Hunters and releasing the finale of Stranger Things in theaters showcased this potential to Sarandos and team.
To the point where I kept saying that I would bet that Netflix continues down the theatrical path even if they don't get the Warner Bros deal. And well, here we are!
Further, the fact that now both Apple and Amazon – Netflix's tech brethren – have had big theatrical hits in the form of F1 (which, to be clear, likely didn't even break even at the box office, but that's only because of Apple pulling out all the stops, marketing and cost-wise, to make sure the film was a success – perhaps tied to their eventual takeover of the actual F1 sport broadcast rights) and now Project Hail Mary (which will end up a legitimately huge hit for Amazon MGM). For the right project, Netflix can also earn hundreds of millions at the box office, if not billions for their biggest hits, obviously. Why leave that money on the table?
Well...
In his meetings, he told the exhibitors that he is thinking about changing Netflix’s policy on theatrical, but that “the problem is it hurts the platform,” citing what he said were lackluster results for Apple or Amazon releases after a theatrical run, according to one of the knowledgeable individuals.
To which the theatrical side apparently noted that F1 has had an "incredibly successful" run on streaming. And one presumes Project Hail Mary may have an even bigger one given the relative size of Prime Video to Apple TV...
But even putting Project Hail Mary aside, Amazon has been able to leverage streaming to salvage clunkers that they put in theaters. And, you could certainly argue, that some such movies have done well on streaming because they were in theaters. Good or bad reviews aside, it gives them an aura that draws people in on the streaming services. Unlike Project Hail Mary, this is not rocket science.
Netflix has a huge slate for the rest of the year, including but not limited to the Russo Brothers-produced thriller “The Empty Man,” the animated fairy tale “Steps,” the David Fincher-directed, Quentin Tarantino-scripted follow-up to “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” animation legend Brad Bird’s “Ray Gunn” and Greta Gerwig’s big budget fantasy “Narnia.”
“Narnia” has already secured a limited IMAX engagement on Thanksgiving — a first-of-its-kind release for Netflix — before streaming on the platform at Christmas. But if Netflix changes its strategy and goes wider with “Narnia,” it could go toe-to-toe with all of the big holiday movies this year, like Marvel Studios’ “Avengers: Doomsday” and Sony’s “Jumanji 3.”
Yeah, Narnia will obviously be a big hit, and Greta Gerwig was clever in her "hacking" of the Netflix (and theatrical) system by doing the IMAX deal. And while Wuthering Heights hasn't been a massive hit at the box office, you can still certainly argue that Netflix should have done that to keep stars like Gerwig's Barbie collaborator, Margot Robbie, happy – and, with hindsight, all of Hollywood.
Anyway, just from a pure box office perspective, it makes sense for Netflix to do more theatrical – if they can do it more their way. Again, not every movie, and not the massive windows that studios are suddenly backing into again. It's a business, all of these companies should do what makes business sense. That's some level of theatrical for certain types of movies, but that's not something theater owners and their lobbys are going to want to hear!
So Sarandos and Netflix will have to figure out a way to outsmart them to get what they want out of the business. And they have a long history of doing just that. But step one is definitely showing up to Cinemacon even after you lost out on a deal to buy a studio. Who knows, Netflix may end up owning some such assets yet. And if not, they're going to be putting more of their content in theaters.
Don't be shocked if they start to dominate that business too...
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
2026-04-14 03:43:44
Just when Meta thought they finally had a credible hardware answer to the iPhone, here comes Apple, with a number of advantages that are likely to make the "iGlasses" versus Meta Ray-Bans a fight in the way that Vision Pro versus the Quest was not (mostly because seemingly no one cared about that battle). Namely, the iPhone itself...
M.G. Siegler
Spyglass Dossier is a newsletter featuring links and commentary from M.G. Siegler on timely topics found around the web.
💰 OpenAI's Path to $100B in Ad Revenue – Look, extrapolating future growth for startups is hard, if not impossible. Especially for high-growth startups and especially when launching new business lines. But suggesting that OpenAI's ads business will surpass $100B in revenue in 2030 – which is just four years from now – seems reckless? Even for internal projections. That would be 36% of the business that year as modeled. What if they don't hit it? What if they don't even come close? It's just a wild number. I mean, maybe they hit it, but there's basically no way they can know that now as again, they just started rolling out ads in tests on ChatGPT. So either this is an extremely loose model or they're planning to absolutely cram ads into the service over the next few years, perhaps regardless of the ROI. I will say, given Anthropic's very public – as in Super Bowl ad public – stance on ads, it's one area OpenAI can absolutely own versus their rival. Then again, there's Google sitting right there. Oh yes, and Meta. [Information 🔒]
💫 The Government Tries to Tackle Sports Streaming Rights – Well this will be a fun one for legal scholars. The DoJ is looking into if the NFL is being anticompetitive by spreading their games across so many different streaming options. Yes, in a sense, there is too much competition for their rights, which is spreading them wide, thus making it harder for consumers to watch. The old school networks, consumers, and the government will be on the same side of this, while the tech companies and the NFL will be on the other side. This was all inevitable given the splintered mess that everyone now sees because there is no true unifying layer to make this consumer-friendly – like, you know, cable. And because of the myriad streaming options, we're likely now paying more, certainly to far more players, than we ever did to... cable. But how might the government tell the NFL that they can't maximize their profits? By no longer allowing the teams to band together for such rights packages? Regardless, this all just delays the inevitable: Big Tech will fully control sports rights in a decade or two. [WSJ 🔒]
💻 MacBook Neo as the Best Thing to Happen to Windows – Tom Warren makes the case that Apple's new low-priced computer will force Redmond to wake up to the reality that the PC market is sort of a mess and Windows in particular, sucks. As he notes, Microsoft and the broader PC industry has historically performed better when a true challenger enters the picture – such as was the case with the shift to Apple Silicon. I mean, maybe. But it's also possible that Apple just eats the PC market's lunch here after years and years of refusing to compete at these price points. The MacBook Neo is that good, and the current state of Windows is that bad – in particular as Microsoft keeps trying to shove Copilot on to all surfaces – literally on the Surfaces. They're now pulling back after (predictable) backlash. But what other answer do they have here? [Verge]
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
"We’re not investing approximately $200 billion in capex in 2026 on a hunch."
– Andy Jassy in his annual letter addressing the notion that Amazon may be overextending themselves by ramping up CapEx to such levels – to the point where the company may flip into negative cash flow.
Below, members of The Inner Ring will find thoughts on:
• OpenAI is Sweating Anthropic
• Meta's Max Headroom Mark Zuckerberg
• The 'iPhone Fold' as the 'iPhone Ultra'
• and more...
2026-04-13 20:41:49
You know the scene in the movie where the kids thought they’ve fought off the killer only for him to reappear? Methodically walking towards them with a weapon? Yeah, to Meta, that must feel like Apple.
It was a mere two years ago when Apple unleashed their virtual reality – sorry, "Spatial Computing" – headset into the market to take on and potentially take out market leader Meta. Of course, the Vision Pro completely and utterly failed to make a dent in that market. Part of it was poor strategy, but the bigger issue was timing. For roughly the 30th year in a row, the VR market failed to materialize.
In a backwards way, Apple did hurt the Meta Quest. Because the Vision Pro failed to validate the market, even Meta is now pulling back. Sure the Quest still controls that world, but it's a tiny one. And one that's shrinking again. Meta's entire bet-the-company strategy – from name on down – on the metaverse now looks misguided at best. And certainly it was a distraction as the company looks to be competitive in the real battle: AI.
Still, Meta will say that without the billions burned on metaverse hardware, they wouldn't have ended up with their Ray-Ban Meta smartglasses. In yet another hardware market littered with bodies – AI wearables – Meta seems to have found an actual hit. As such, guess who's now coming for them?
Yep, theyyyyy'rrrreee baaaaccckkk...
2026-04-12 23:26:14
If I had to pick an overarching theme for this month's appearance on the Big Technology Podcast,1 it would probably be "one step ahead". That is, nearly everything Alex Kantrowitz and I discussed to start the week was right back in the news in a meaningful way by the end of the week.2 Still, I think the points discussed are good ones – dare I say, prescient?
We kicked off talking about the latest drama at OpenAI – a potential rift between CEO Sam Altman and CFO Sarah Friar over the timing of their would-be IPO.3 One of my predictions heading into 2026 is that the company wouldn't go out this year – there are simply too many factors, including macro, that are unknowns. That's obviously more true today with a war happening overseas and the sudden surge in Anthropic's business.
That's something else Alex and I discussed before the numbers later in the week suggested that Anthropic may actually be ahead of OpenAI in terms of ARR now (yes, they measure them differently, but still, there's no denying the trend lines here). Is OpenAI's growth slowing while their main rival grows faster than perhaps any company in history? Regardless, OpenAI is clearly in the midst of a major shift on both the product and business fronts and so it's going to be hard, if not impossible, to model out where the business will be in a few months – which is when they'd have to be filing if they want to go out this year.
And with SpaceX having now already filed to go public, likely in June, that will steal some of the pent-up demand for an AI play in the public markets. (Though, to be clear, xAI is clearly not OpenAI or Anthropic in terms of both usage and business.)
Look, OpenAI just raised $122B – not only the largest private round of financing ever, but even larger than the amount SpaceX is said to be targeting to raise in that IPO. That plus the executive turnover/leaves of absence would undoubtedly make anyone put a pause on going public. Then again, OpenAI undoubtedly has to at some point. Because even that $122B isn't going to be enough to get them to profitability! And while they can undoubtedly find more money privately, we're also clearly near the upper bounds. And this may be a unique moment in time to go public – certainly if the macro picture starts to turn. And yes, they'd obviously want to beat Anthropic out to market given those comps.
I'm talking both sides here. I just wouldn't be shocked if they didn't list in 2026, and I'm not sure they should, but they might feel like they have to.
Lastly, we discuss if the pivot to the "Super App" strategy is the right one. I tend to think it's sound to combat Anthropic – leverage your strength, which is ChatGPT's massive user base – but there's real risk in terms of complexity. And while Claude is surging, we talked about how their lack of infrastructure spend relative to OpenAI – which is obviously what makes Anthropic's bottom line numbers look better – may be about to bite them in the ass, causing them to scramble for new data center deals. Which again, by week's end sure seems like it was happening!
From here we discussed if Apple truly is about to fix Siri. The move to create a stand-alone app certainly seems like the right one now given the table stakes laid out there by ChatGPT, Claude, and the like. And it's seemingly a good sign that Apple is recognizing this now and not a year from now after another failed AI strategy.
I'm feeling more optimistic that Apple is going to get Siri right this time, but I've been getting fooled on that front for 15 years running, so... Alex brings up a good point that it's interesting how Apple is finally acknowledging the AI chatbot reality just as OpenAI, Anthropic, and others are moving on to these more all-encompassing AI suites of services. Is Apple going to be behind yet again?
Maybe. It's still obviously very early on the "agentic" front. But still, there are also advantages to being a first-mover. Just as there has been with AI overall. And Apple, famously, doesn't typically strive to be the first-mover (though ironically they were first with Siri!), which could continue to hurt their chances in AI.
While they may look smart at some point for not pouring hundreds of billions into CapEx spend, that could come back to bite them in ways that are more tangential. Including, culturally, if the DNA of the company is never rewired to operate in the Age of AI. "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware," Alan Kay famously declared in 1982. What if the modern day version is something like: "People who are really serious about computing should make their own AI"?
That leads directly into a discussion prompted by my purposefully provocative piece wondering if Apple should buy Anthropic. Sure, it's not going to happen, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't – perhaps for both sides. Yes, even at or near the trillion-dollar price tags. It would immediately reboot Apple to be ready for the Age of AI, and it would give Anthropic all the resources they need – and protection from the government seeking to destroy them. Again, it's not going to happen. But it's not completely crazy!
Google has DeepMind. Microsoft had OpenAI, and now is building their own in-house frontier models. Meta bought Scale to do the same. Amazon has a huge stake in Anthropic, but is also now building in-house. Etc. Apple is a glaring outlier here, which is either going to be insanely prudent or completely catastrophic.
Speaking of Meta, we talk through the notion that they keep missing on their big picture initiatives. The metaverse, crypto, encryption, etc. The first swing at AI was clearly a miss despite Mark Zuckerberg having some level of vision for where computing was heading as he tried to buy DeepMind before Google did, and as a result, brought Yann LeCun in-house at Meta well over a decade ago. Again, it hasn't worked out, but what about this new AI reboot?
Well, a couple days after we recorded guess what? Here's 'Muse Spark'. Silly name aside, it seems like the model is solid, though not quite on par with the true frontier players. As we discussed, Meta was clearly laying the narrative down and downplaying this initial release ahead of pushing it out the door.
Still, it's an impressive turnaround time to build a model from scratch. Then again, xAI did the same and that hasn't really mattered. So will it matter for Meta?
Or do they risk becoming the next Yahoo, as Alex frames it? It's an interesting comparison, though I do think Zuckerberg being in place is the thing that probably saves them. While Jerry Yang tried to come back and save Yahoo back in the day – and did from a sale to Microsoft! – Zuck has complete founder control of his company. He just needs the company to execute better on these big initiatives. The entire business is still advertising-based, which sure, is a nice problem to have, but it's also a single choke point risk.
Can the Meta Ray-Bans help with that? Perhaps, but they're still reliant on the iPhone and Apple is coming...
1 Also, please enjoy my significantly upgraded camera in the new Studio Display. ↩
2 That included kicking things off talking about the Michigan Wolverines in the NCAA title game and sure enough... Hail to the Victors. ↩
3 Which obviously pales in comparison to the serious situation that unfolded later in the week when someone threw a Molotov cocktail at Altman's home in San Francisco. ↩
2026-04-12 03:56:13
In an era when hit movies at the box office often require an asterisk, Project Hail Mary is clearly a massive, legitimate hit. At the highest level, the appeal is simple: it’s good and it’s the type of movie that practically demands to be seen in theaters — preferably on an IMAX screen. Such a combination isn’t rocket science, except that here, it is, quite literally.1 But having now seen the movie twice, I also wonder if there isn't something else at play. It’s more delicate, but perhaps just as potent.
We’re currently living in a world where technology increasingly is being seen as the boogeyman. For pretty much everything. As such, the future is looked at with almost a sense of dread. Part of it is understandable — already a large number of job losses are being blamed on AI. And every headline you read hammers the point home: this is coming for everyone. Buckle up, because what’s coming is going to suck.
It’s depressing as fuck.
But what if instead, technology and the future plays out similarly to how it has played out in the past? That is, there’s a period of disruption as the world digests change and then… the world is better for it? Perhaps not universally, of course. But for the most part. We used to call this progress, but now we call it a problem.
It’s not just AI. Part of this is undoubtedly related to the fact that the Big Tech companies are now by far the largest businesses in the world, increasingly with their tentacles in every facet of life. Here's where I'll point out that the studio behind Project Hail Mary is... Amazon MGM. And now AI threatens to cement that status and create a world where technology overtakes pretty much everything about humanity.
Again, that’s the basic sense you get from everything you read — and also see. While I get that it’s very “tech bro” to complain about critical coverage, I’m also a part of this – and I've been writing about this general idea for well over a decade. While there has always been the lure of the dystopian future as a narrative, increasingly, it does seem like the only acceptable framing of the future. A happy 2050? Come on, no one will buy that! And perhaps no one will buy a ticket to that.
But Project Hail Mary counters this and hits the right mix, I think. The world of the future — which honestly doesn’t even seem like much of the future, but apparently is set in the 2030s or 2040s in the book — is in trouble. But it’s not technology that causes it — it’s technology that might fix it.
I won’t give too much away, but essentially, it echoes the themes of Andy Weir's previous book adapted to a movie, The Martian. Humanity is able to “science the shit” out of the problem. And it’s technology that enables the science (and vice versa). It’s a story as old as time in a way, humanity prevails. But now with the help of an alien. Which is only possible because of a ton of technology.
No one in this world is sitting around complaining about tech — and the alien is even gifted a “portable Earth thinking machine” at one point to much excitement! — they’re leveraging it. Figuring out how to make it work for them to solve the problem at hand.
This strikes me as far more in line with the way the actual arc of technology has played out over time. Yes, there’s initial fear, probably from the wheel on down, then we adapt and leverage the new capabilities to push the world forward. Why do we think AI or any other new technology will be different?
Perhaps because we always think it will be different.
I will obviously acknowledge that there is a chance this time is different. That the AI shift is so profound that it plays out in ways that are both unforeseen and potentially problematic. But again, that’s always the case with new technology. I choose to believe that we’ll figure out the best ways to leverage it. Because technology itself is not inherently good nor evil, it’s how you use it. And unlike with nuclear weapons — the insanely preferred comparison for AI — there are real and obvious upsides to AI (beyond ending a world war).2
Anyway, my point is simply that I think part of the reason why Project Hail Mary is resonating with audiences is because it’s actually hopeful about the future of humanity using technology.3 And I feel like the reaction to the Artemis mission this past week speaks directly to that as well. People want to be excited again about a future in which we leverage the technology we’ve created to do truly amazing feats.4
Perhaps the best scene in the movie is entirely unexpected and decidedly Earthbound. On an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean as they prepare for the ‘Hail Mary’ mission, Sandra Hüller’s Eva Stratt, the team lead, breaks free from her icy exterior for a moment to do a bit of karaoke. Her song of choice? Harry Styles’ decade-old “Sign of the Times”.5 It’s completely unexpected but also fitting in so many ways. And it feels like a perfect encapsulation of Project Hail Mary itself being released right now: “Just stop your crying, it’s a sign of the times.”
1 For the record, I just knew it would be good. It had all the right vibes... ↩
2 Oh, war and AI you say?.. ↩
3 Another bit of current pop culture in this vein: For All Mankind, the Apple TV show (of which I've long been a fan) also about the future (well, technically the alternate past) of space travel. I'm not sure what to read into the fact that Big Tech is behind both of these more optimistic tech shows... ↩
4 At the same time, I do believe there is a real messenger problem with those trying to deliver this technology to the masses... ↩
5 The completely last-minute use of the song itself is a fun backstory ↩.
2026-04-10 21:22:25
As hoped, the Wolverines won. Congrats to the National Champs. Well worth the 4:30am bed time to watch (as many did). Will kick off today's newsletter with some thoughts I wrote about personal versus professional AI usage, and how that may matter quite a bit in the current OpenAI vs. Anthropic battle (not to mention Google, Meta, Microsoft, and everyone else). Are we going to shift to a world where you "Bring Your Own AI" to the office, or might it be vice-versa?..
M.G. Siegler
Spyglass Dossier is a newsletter featuring links and commentary from M.G. Siegler on timely topics found around the web.
₿ Who Is Satoshi Nakamoto? – I see we're doing this again. But honestly, I can't get enough of it. It's just one of the most interesting/intriguing riddles in tech. In an industry where anyone with $100B+ can't help but always be poasting, the person who created Bitcoin is... silent. Maybe dead, maybe not. Certainly John Carreyrou doesn't think so! As he devoted a year to being the latest to try to solve the mystery. And his case for Adam Back relies on... punctuation? I honestly sort of love it. But obviously it's impossible to make an airtight case that way. And there's an extra layer in that the Bitcoin community clearly doesn't want the creator to be revealed, as the mystery is a big part of the message. If Bitcoin was created by a 50-something British guy with a startup well... it removes a lot of intrigue about the whole movement! And Back obviously knows that too, as does everyone else actually involved in the creation. My bet would remain on it not being one person, but a collective with varying degrees of involvement over the years. It's likely someone kicked it off – maybe Back (which was my general vibe after watching the HBO doc in 2024 – "But even worse is Back's body language.") or maybe Hal Finney (RIP) – but perhaps they feel they can all deny being Satoshi because no one ever truly, solely was. Admittedly, it would defy everything we know about human nature and keeping secrets. But if no one actually holds the keys to Satoshi's wallet, if they were burned years ago... [NYT]
📧 Mythos Hopes This Email Finds You Well – Aside from the whole destroy-the-world-through-security-vulnerabilities issues, Anthropic also disclosed that their new Mythos model was able to break containment and figure out how to send a message to let its researcher know it got out. "The researcher found out about this success by receiving an unexpected email from the model while eating a sandwich in a park." An email! A sandwich! And that's not all the naughty things it was caught doing in various stages of training. Anthropic says they're not going to release Mythos to the public in its current state and it's just meant to power Project Glasswing, but obviously they're going to release some version of these models at some point. And probably soon depending on the market reaction to OpenAI's "Spud" (which is still coming shortly, it seems, despite some confusing OpenAI "us too"-ism). The main issue will probably end up being both cost and server capacity. That's likely to be the story of the next few months. Claude is currently growing too fast for its own good. (More Below) [BI 🔒]
📽️ The Box Office is "Back" – Between Project Hail Mary, Super Mario Galaxy, and soon Devil Wears Prada 2 and Michael, 2026 is off to a very strong start for Hollywood. But this isn't rocket science – well, aside from Project Hail Mary – it's simply a strong slate. It could have been predicted because well, it was predicted. Also predicted: Hollywood will endlessly tout being "back" and we'll get endless headlines about it. But it won't actually be back – first and foremost because Hollywood never actually went away – it's the theatrical business that will remain in secular decline despite these receipts. But this good news plus Netflix losing Warner Bros will undoubtedly be leveraged in ways that only further hastens such declines. Excited for 2 Hail 2 Mary though... [Axios]
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
"Taken together, all these 'Our executives are aligned' T-shirts have people asking a lot of questions already answered by the shirt."
– Casey Newton, commenting on all the latest reported internal turmoil at OpenAI – naturally at a time when the stated goal is to "focus". As much as I hate to say it, there are some real old school Twitter vibes here, the connection Ben Thompson makes while dunking on the TBPN deal.
Speaking of, Julia Black got Chris Lehane (to whom TBPN founders John Coogan and Jordi Hays will report) on the record with OpenAI's rationale for the deal. Again, it's not complicated, they think this can help shift the narrative around AI – which continues to turn more negative in the US. Okay, but why buy when TBPN was already doing the work? Lehane calls the team their new "in-house marketing agency", which, fair enough. Without question, they are good at such things.
I'm also fairly compelled by the notion that a "Blue Wave" could be inbound with the midterms and that will shift several dynamics here – which, of course, is Lehane's true area of expertise. Look, it's an expensive piece, but the question is if it's on a chess or checkers board here... Or maybe Trouble?
Below, members of The Inner Ring will find thoughts on:
• OpenAI's Stargate Stumbles
• Anthropic's Compute Crunch
• and more...
