2025-04-02 07:02:48
It feels like “launches” is doing a lot of work in this title. As best anyone can tell, no one who is actually on social media was a part of the group graced with access. As I quipped to Joanna Stern, who has been looking into the matter for two days across several social media networks with no luck, perhaps this “roll-out” was to one user for one second on 3/31 at 11:59:59 to qualify for “next month”.
During the Alexa+ event in February – for which there is still no video, by the way — Amazon’s hardware chief Panos Panay said that the service he was busy hyping to no end would start to roll out in March. We got right to the cusp of that deadline before Amazon clearly started to alert the media that the roll-out had started. And still, seemingly no one has it.
To be clear and fair, I’m sure someone has it. It’s hard to believe Amazon would actually lie in this way. But the truth seems nearly as directionally dishonest in calling this a “launch”. Not only is the roll-out comically limited, many of the features touted on stage at the event aren’t going to be live any time soon.
Some of the new features Amazon previewed at the February event won’t become available for two months after Monday’s launch, and some will take even longer, according to internal company documents seen by The Washington Post. At the event held in New York, Amazon head of devices Panos Panay said Alexa+ would “start to roll out” in March “and in waves over the subsequent months.”
The delayed features that documents say don’t yet meet Amazon’s standards for public release include the ability to order takeout on Grubhub based on a conversation with Alexa+ about what you’re craving, or for Alexa+ to visually identify family members and remind them to do specific chores like walking the dog.
Other Alexa+ features — like brainstorming a gift idea or generating a story to entertain your kids — also won’t be released until later, the documents said.
Are you feeling deja vu or is it just me? Doesn’t this sound a lot like what Apple has been getting raked over the coals about with regard to Siri? Of course, this should hardly be a surprise — especially if you’re a regular reader of Spyglass. As I’ve written several posts expressing skepticism that these new upgrades are going to work in the ways promised, just as happened with Siri. In particular, Alexa, I’m Skeptical, which was immediately following the Alexa+ event just based on the reports — namely word of the very limited roll-out strategy.
But then I started listening to Panay and others doing the rounds after the events on podcasts and I was actually even more skeptical about the prospects of Alexa+ any time soon. It all just sounded a bit too rosy… to put it nicely. I put it less nicely in: Is Amazon Writing Checks That Alexa+ Can't Cash? As I wrote:
It was nothing Panay said – actually, almost the opposite. He spoke a lot of words in the hour-long interview but didn't really say much of anything. It was a lot of praise for his team and Amazon itself. Normally, you might chalk it up to being both a good boss and team player. But honestly, it was too much. It was his way to deflect nearly every question while making grandiose yet vague claims about how they nailed it.
Panay's style of talking about the products he oversees has never really been my cup of tea, dating back to his days at Microsoft overseeing Surface, but doing that type of stuff on stage is sort of understandable. It's a presentation. But for him to be over-the-top effusive with nary a mention of any of the real challenges that the team may have had in getting to this point felt... off. Too lightweight. Too breezy. Like he was breezing right past some things that perhaps he prefer not talk about. Some things perhaps not quite ready for prime time yet – nor particularly close.
My product spidey-senses, in so far as I have them, were going off left and right.
And I was immediately reminded of the feeling I had about the "revamped" Siri after Apple unveiled Apple Intelligence at WWDC last year. To be clear, the Alexa situation doesn't seem to be as bad as it is with Siri, but there are obviously quite a few similarities. Including the fact that both were the first-movers in the market, which is likely what is now hampering their transformations in ways big and small. But hey, at least Alexa+ was able to launch – or, presumably will in a few weeks – as we approach a year since that new Siri unveil, we still don't even have a beta of her new functionality. Yes, we've gotten small updates here and there, namely to the Siri UI (which is nice!), but the real promise was a completely overhauled Siri that would just work, this time.
And:
But going back, when will we actually see Alexa+? Amazon is starting by rolling the upgrade out to a pretty small subset of the Alexa user base later this month, they say. It will be just four devices, all with screens and all far more expensive than the undoubtedly far more ubiquitous cheaper smart speakers. And just in the US. And even then, it may be further gated by the waitlist you have to sign up for. It feels like Amazon is slow-rolling this because they clearly are. And you can't help but wonder if that's in no small part because Alexa+, too, isn't really ready to roll. But Amazon knew that they couldn't wait any longer to show her off after first promising these upgrades a year and a half ago, while watching her 10th anniversary – the perfect and natural unveiling point – slip by without a mention.
Finally:
To his and their credit, they did live demos on stage, not just on pre-recorded videos as Apple did. In hindsight, it's pretty clear that Apple was nowhere near the point of using Siri to get your mom home from the airport, but it seems like Alexa may actually be closer to that. But how long will it be until a wide swath of Alexa users are able to do this? It's anyone's guess right now. Panay certainly didn't slip up on a date other than implying that it would be coming soon. We'll see.
After all, "coming soon" ended up meaning nearly 18 months the last time Amazon brought up the vague timeframe. It feels like if it was really "soon", they'd commit to the first half of this year. But oddly, they're not even committing to "this year" at all, which is mildly worrying. I suspect we're going to see a very slow roll-out with four devices becoming eight or ten. Then expanding via new devices in the fall. But still, all the promised features may not yet be live, those will come "soon"...
The question then becomes: is it worse to completely delay a launch or roll it out in such a comically small way that it’s basically meaningless? Of course, Amazon already delayed this whole thing once, so couldn’t really do so again. Then again, Apple has also been doing the piecemeal rollout for months now. Both situations seem not great. And as noted above multiple times — both situations are likely caused by the same basic issues: early success in the space!
For now, Amazon is handling the PR around all of this better. We’ll see if that continues…
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
2025-04-02 03:27:36
CinemaCon seems to have a lot going on — the new Spider-Man (no word on if he’ll be in Avengers: Doomsday), the new Karate Kid post-Cobra Kai, a fifth John Wick (and an animated prequel, both with Keanu Reeves back), etc — but the star of the show, so far, has to be Sony’s official announcement of The Beatles movies:
Director Sam Mendes took the stage at CinemaCon in Las Vegas to reveal the cast for the features and said that all four films are set for theatrical release in April 2028. The surprising plans to make four films — one for each member of the famed band — were first announced last year.
Drumroll, please: Mendes also brought the cast onstage. Set to star in the films are Paul Mescal as Paul McCartney, Harris Dickinson as John Lennon, Joseph Quinn as George Harrison, and Barry Keoghan as Ringo Starr. Each of the four movies will focus on one of the members of the Fab Four.
The fact that Mendes would be directing four separate movies about the band members was known, and the cast was widly rumored, but the fact that all four films will come out at the same time is… wild. And I think I love it?
To be clear, it sounds like they aim to do one a week in each of the four weekends of April 2028 — I double checked, there are four Fridays: April 7, April 14, April 21, April 28. How they decide the order there, I don’t know. But it will definitely be fun watching die-hards see all four in multiple orders to figure out the “best” way to watch, not unlike with Star Wars and other fan-obsessed films.
Honestly, I sort of hope they take the idea one step further and release all four at once on the same day in April. Could you imagine the chaos that would cause? How many theaters would be booking out 8+ hour viewings? (They presumably still will after all four are out by the end of April.) The fans would have to pick which one to see first. Do they go with their favorite Beatle or save their favorite for the finale?
Regardless, this is exactly the type of event and spectacle that movie theaters need more of. It’s going to make a zillion dollars for Sony.
First, the movies have to actually get made and be made well. But Mendes is a steady hand here. The idea of trying to shoot and edit four movies at once sounds insane, but the shooting part should actually be somewhat easier given they can do it all at once (helpful too since obviously all the core actors will be in the other actors’ films as well). It’s sort of like how they shot the Lord of the Rings trilogy at once, in an effort to save money and time. But they won’t be able to do reshoots here after one is released since again, they’ll all be out at once.
“We’re not just making one film about the Beatles — we’re making four,” Mendes said. “Perhaps this is a chance to understand them a little more deeply.”
Mendes claimed that Sony film boss Tom Rothman called the projects “the first binge-able theatrical experience.” After hitting the stage, all four actors recited lyrics from the band’s song “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” and then took a Beatles-style synchronized bow.
The movie’s news closed out Sony’s presentation with a true mic-drop moment that left the auditorium stunned by the release date news and then, of course, by the surprise visits from the four stars.
I’m sort of surprised Apple didn’t attempt to do this given their long history with the band — dating to their dispute over their very name with Apple Corp, The Beatles record label. But once that got resolved, Apple, of course, ushered the band into the digital era under the guidance of Steve Jobs himself. Maybe they’ll figure out a way to pick up the streaming rights since Sony, famously, is the one studio without a streaming service. Then again, their deal with Netflix makes even more sense here. This is the first truly “bingeable” set of movies…
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
2025-04-01 05:34:21
There are the deals, and then there is the fine print. Three deals in particular recently stand out for one thing: their complicated relationship with debt.
Xitter. CoreWeave. OpenAI. They are all different situations, but all complicated by the same thing…
2025-04-01 05:18:47
They did it. Those crazy sonofabitches did it. The logo for ‘Max’, the artist formerly known as ‘HBO Max’, which was the artist formerly known as ‘HBO’, has come full circle. Max’s logo is now basically HBO’s logo from back in the day.
It’s not HBO, it’s Max — but the new standalone logo for Warner Bros. Discovery‘s streamer now certainly looks like HBO’s at a glance. The Max streaming service has quietly launched a fresh look, ditching its shiny blue user interface for a new monochrome color palette that, either purposefully or not, evokes the longtime branding of HBO.
Look, it’s fine. It’s not great, but it could be worse — far worse, even. I continue to take issue more with the ‘Max’ name — far too generic — than the logo, but whatever. Mainly this just reminds me that I still miss the old school HBO, where I knew that what I was watching would be good. HBO still has mostly good content — though I’m now slightly worried about the future of The White Lotus — but it’s buried in a bunch of other stuff included with Max.
The rebrand, which was updated on the service and its social media outlets Sunday morning, now matches Max with the same palette of the HBO logo, which may help consumers associate the two brands with one another. (Both Warner banners share the same CEO in Casey Bloys.) The new look also resembles the monochrome branding of Apple TV+, another streamer that is largely associated with mature programming. The palette will continue to be rolled out on marketing material over the next few months.
It definitely does recall Apple TV+ and so, the student has become the master (at least with regard to television content)! Overall, these companies are so funny with their subtle color tweaks — from Disney on down. Whatever will make consumers click on their apps more, I suppose.
“There’s different types of blue, and if you put us in juxtaposition to Disney or Paramount or Prime, they look different,” Spagnoletto said at the time. “With our blue and the way that the logo is designed, what we were going for is a combination of premium but accessible.”
Spagnoletto also acknowledged that, “Consumers will tell us if we got it right, and we think we did. But there’s enough room in the world of blue to still differentiate ourselves.” Now, just under two years later, consumers, or some other parties, have convinced Max that it may have not “got it right.”
That just leads me to wonder if WBD isn’t considering taking the entire brand back to ‘HBO’ and away from ‘Max’? Did they get that right? Maybe they should merge the entire thing with Paramount+ and call the app ‘Showtime’.
2025-03-30 21:52:33
The best thing I can say for Netflix about The Electric State is that I spent the first half certain that I was watching an Amazon movie. I think I was conflating it with Chris Pratt in The Tomorrow War – another science fiction film in which he stars as... the same basic character he tends to play. A lot. But I also had just read the news that Jennifer Salke was ousted as the head of Amazon MGM Studios and kept thinking, "no wonder, with stuff like this." But as it turns out, The Electric State is a Netflix movie, as such, completely unrelated to Salke – well, perhaps not completely (more on this in a minute). The worse news is that it’s bad. Like really bad. But the worst news is that it apparently cost $320M to make.
That's not a typo,1 as much as Netflix might wish it were. It's an incredible amount of money to spend on any movie, let alone one for a streamer, let alone one this bad. How the hell did it cost that much? Nobody knows.2 But unlike with the Salke situation at Amazon, it's wild that seemingly no one was fired over this. I mean, people might lose their jobs at Disney over the Snow White box office results. Had Electric State been released in theaters, it may have made Waterworld look like the next great franchise.
Of course, it wasn’t released in theaters (well, beyond a couple for premieres). Netflix doesn’t do theaters (except when they do).3 Without a theatrical release, no one can hear your studio head scream. And a movie like this can basically do as well as Netflix wants it to when it comes to its position on the streaming charts, thanks to their all-important algorithms. And so a “bomb” because just another bad movie. But while that may be subjective in real life, on Netflix, it’s just another data point, at worst.
And I mean, it may even be doing well for Netflix. But it’s not doing well for me.
Last week I dove into Apple's strategy for TV+, noting in particular how blunders let them to overpay for certain content – in particular, movies – time and time again. But also it generally felt like no one was actually checking in on the quality of those films. But Apple, to their credit, has not made a movie as bad as this one.
Undoubtedly the decision to buy these rights was tied directly to the Russo Brothers – they of Avengers fame and fortune – but the reality there is that they seem to have a very particular skillset that’s either around very low budget sitcoms or absolutely massive Marvel movies. There seemingly is no in between. Maybe Netflix thought if they could mix Star-Lord with arguably their own biggest homegrown star lord in the form of Millie Bobby Brown,4 they could pull off, well, not just the biggest Netflix movie ever, but one of the biggest movies ever, period. Sadly, it just doesn't work on any level.
Back to Salke, who again, has nothing actually to do with this film, but have I mentioned that it sounds like she may have ultimately been fired over the nightmare that was Citadel for Amazon? Everyone was quick to blame James Bond – and undoubtedly, that fiasco played a role – but Citadel was her massive swing to create a new franchise around... yes, spy IP. Starring a guy who I've long thought might make for a good Bond, no less, in Richard Madden. But the first season ended up being a total disaster – with multiple versions by different creatives being made, apparently. And then Salke greenlit a second season. Which has also apparently gone through a nightmarish production. And now, with the Salke news, it's being postponed, perhaps indefinitely, which does not seem coincidental.
But what on earth does this have to do with The Electric State? Well, the same duo behind that disaster is behind this one: the Russo Brothers.
Again, they've directed a handful of the largest movies of all time – including two in the top ten. When you do that, you can basically do what you want – just ask James Cameron, who is in the midst of making his 15 Avatar movies or whatever. But this is giving me quite a bit of anxiety about the potential for the next two Avengers movies – both of which are being directed by the Russos. Both of which may cost upwards of $500M to make given the casting alone.
Again, they've done this before. But then again, The Electric State is that bad.
It's so bad that it's almost not even worth mentioning much of anything about the actual film. It's sort of a very bad version of Ready Player One mixed with a very bad version of The Creator. Ready Player One wasn't perfect either, but it was directed by Steven Spielberg, who is able to elevate even just okay adaptations with his filmmaking skill. I watched it again last night just to make sure – after I watched the second half of The Electric State, because I couldn't even make it through the full movie in one sitting – and yeah, it's far superior to The Electric State. There are similar themes, of course, and similar usage of popular, nostalgic music. Ready Player One just does it all better – though shout-out to the use of Danzig's "Mother" in Electric State, which was honestly the highlight for me.5
There are also some similarities to Wall-E, of course, with the humans being nearly literally glued to their devices and living in literal fantasy worlds. And the concepts of AI/robot rights, which again, The Creator handles far better than Electric State. It is interesting just how little this movie actually has to say with regard to AI given the reality we're all actually living in. Speilberg's A.I., now 25 years old and released long before our current age, says far more interesting things.
I do appreciate that the visor device that all the humans wear here is Vision Pro-like. Not so much in its design, more so in the way it transfers human faces to the robots, in a way that looks almost exactly like Apple's comically ill-conceived EyeSight feature. But that was only my second favorite bit of tech from Electric State. The first was the life-support/brain-upload machine powering all of Sentre – how Spectre like! – which could be completely disabled and destroyed by... touching three very well-labeled buttons. It took Millie Bobby Brown about 3 seconds to win the war. And she probably could have done it in 1 second if she hit all the buttons at once. No security. No fail safes.
A 3 button problem. A $320M problem. A Russo Brothers problem. But not a Jen Salke problem. And oddly, not a Netflix problem.
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
1 I can't trackdown an actual source for that exact amount -- nor could AI -- but this Matt Belloni newsletter at Puck last year put it at costing "closer to $300M". Since then, there are many reports just matter-of-factly putting the number at the very specific $320M.
2 Well, okay someone knows. It sounds like it was a fairly insane base price (which Universal balked at) mixed with special effects overruns (which were fine, but not all that... special). And perhaps bigger bonuses due to Netflix's lack of theatrical exposure...
3 And, I suspect, will be doing a lot more of this for both marketing and talent rentation.
4 Who, it must be said, is really bad here. There's no sugar-coating it.
5 Though I honestly did enjoy Brian Cox as the weird baseball bot guy. These are serious people.
2025-03-30 04:31:56
I obviously get what Bloomberg is trying to do with these – it's similar to the "key bullet points" that CNN and others have long put at the top of their stories as a sort of 'TL;DR' for those who either don't want to read the full article or are trying to decide if they should. But the implementation is pretty bad. They're way, way, way too large at the top of the page. And perhaps related, the AI blurbs themselves are too long.
It's almost as if their Editor in Chief wrote an essay and then made his publication come up with how to implement it.
Anyway, beyond how these summaries look, there are other issues:
The news outlet has had to correct at least three dozen A.I.-generated summaries of articles published this year. One happened on Wednesday, when Bloomberg broke news about President Trump’s auto tariffs.
The article correctly reported that Mr. Trump would announce the tariffs as soon as that day. But the bullet-point summary of the article written by A.I. inaccurately said when a broader tariff action would take place.
TL;DRs don't work very well if the AI didn't even R.
While the article about the situation notes that the LA Times also had issues with their AI summaries, which caused them to pull them back they oddly don't mention maybe the most (in)famous example of this: Apple News. The tech giant shoved this feature in everyones' faces in a clear effort to ship at least some AI features and it completely backfired by serving up a ton of nonsense. As such, it was tweaked and ultimately rolled back – and remains rolled back.
I much prefer the way that The Washington Post implements AI:
Bloomberg is not alone in trying A.I. — many news outlets are figuring out how best to embrace the new technology and use it in their reporting and editing. The newspaper chain Gannett uses similar A.I.-generated summaries on its articles, and The Washington Post has a tool called “Ask the Post” that generates answers to questions from published Post articles.
This is similar to what Matter, a startup where I've long been an investor, does with their "Co-Reader" AI feature. It's not there in your face, it's there in the background if you want to ask a question or go deeper on a topic. It's really useful! It's like the baked-in definition capabilities that Apple's operating systems have long had, but on steroids.
Bloomberg News said in a statement that it publishes thousands of articles each day, and “currently 99 percent of A.I. summaries meet our editorial standards.”
“We’re transparent when stories are updated or corrected, and when A.I. has been used,” a spokeswoman said. “Journalists have full control over whether a summary appears — both before and after publication — and can remove any that don’t meet our standards.”
The A.I. summaries are “meant to complement our journalism, not replace it,” the statement added.
I think my friend John Gruber would take issue with the notion that Bloomberg is transparent when it comes to updating or correcting their stories.
I just don't understand why you roll this effort out so broadly and so in-your-face if it fails even 1% of the time. It undercuts the actual work done by actual reporters. The ultracrepidarians strike again! It feels a lot like an initiative to appear to be at the forefront of AI in this world, but really it's more like a solution in search of a problem – while creating its own different problem instead.
But really, this is just a post to ask Bloomberg to make these AI summaries optional. And, if nothing else, smaller.
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
