2025-01-03 06:35:42
Because it was released the day after Christmas and just a few days before New Years – aka The Bermuda Triangle of news dumps – I feel as if not nearly enough was said about the filing Apple made in a recent court case. You may have heard of the case, it's a big one focused on a monopoly. No, not the one about Apple. Another one, around an Apple frenemy: The United States of America v. Google.
Yes, Apple is wading into the Google antitrust case. The one Google already lost, and is now in the remedy recommendation phase. That is exactly why Apple is trying to inject themselves here. Those remedies are very likely to include the altering of the search agreements that Google has traditionally struck with web browser makers to ensure that their search engine is the default. And with Apple specifically, the government views this to be a problem because of the iPhone's position of power. If the government gets their way, those deals are over.
And as has been clear from the get-go, this is just as much of a problem for Apple as it is for Google. And that's why we have no less than Apple SVP Eddy Cue – the person who oversees Services and who has been at Apple since Taylor Swift was born, which he goes out of his way to note in the filing, well, the year anyway: 1989 – making a formal "declaration" in support of Apple's "motion to intervene".
Yes, this is Apple riding in to try to help Google. Sort of. It's really more Apple riding in to help themselves because they believe Google cannot (and really, will not) help them here. After all, if these deals go away, it's not clear much would change other than Google no longer paying Apple "roughly $20 billion" a year – a number which has been widely reported thanks to other court proceedings, but that Cue specifically confirms here.
From Apple's point of view, the government has it wrong in thinking that the end of such an agreement would lead to more competition in the search market because Apple would be more enticed to compete. As Cue pretty directly tells it, Apple is not going to get into search – web search, at least – because it "would cost billions of dollars and take many years".
He is, of course, not wrong here. But the same was true with Google Maps, when Apple decided they wanted to compete there (which, yes, started out poorly, but now is pretty competitive). The real reason Apple is unlikely to go down a web search path is because they believe – as many now do – that web search is yesterday's technology. Today is all about AI. And if Apple were to go down the rabbit hole of web search, it would be "economically risky" – especially because the only way to actually make such a product viable as a business would be through "targeted advertising, which is not a core business of Apple".
Said another way, if this were ten to fifteen years ago, Apple may indeed be compelled to go after web search on their own with such a remedy. But in 2025, it makes basically no sense and it would be an expensive distraction at best from what Apple needs to be working on.
At the same time, Google has the best search engine. Everyone agrees with this, including no less than Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and others, testifying under oath that Bing, despite also being backed and run by a $3T+ company, can't really compete with Google. So why would we think an Apple offering could? Because it would look nicer?
I mean the real answer there is again, the iPhone. But again, that's the real answer ten or fifteen years ago. I agree that this would just be a huge distraction when Apple should be focused on what's next after web search – specifically, AI. But it's not like Apple can just rip out Google, or any other web search product, from the iPhone. As Cue notes, that would make Apple's product experience worse. And so they won't. Which again leads to the notion that little would likely change if the judge were to accept this remedy in the case – except, again, for those $20B+ yearly payments. Money so large that it even matters to Apple.
It's a sort of weird, "why buy the cow, when you're getting the milk for free?" situation the government would set up here. Only it's more like, "you're not allowed to buy the cow, you simply must enjoy the milk for free."
Hence, Eddy Cue does declare in support of Apple's motion to intervene.
While it remains pretty clear that these default search agreements are over – something that Google has even now stated they're in support of when it comes to remedies (no surprise there given the above, and undoubtedly why Apple filed this declaration now) – as I've said from the get-go, there probably still needs to be some sort of revenue sharing agreement in place. Sure, part of it is what's fair to Apple – though no one will shed any tears over the most valuable company in the world being starved of $20B – but a bigger part is how much such payments matter to the broader ecosystem. Specifically, Firefox. Without such deals – and specifically, payments – it's hard to see how Mozilla can survive.
The Apple element of this is arguably just as interesting as the Google element, because as everyone is well aware by now, a massive percentage of Apple's now-all-important Services business – not to mention overall profit – is their search deal with Google. To the tune of $20B+ a year.
While Su suggest the revenue sharing would stop, I imagine it would just change. No more paying for default placement in lump sums and instead perhaps paying out a share for actual usage. The argument here might be that this would still give Google too much power because they could afford to pay more than anyone else, but an equalized market rate would incentivize product over payment.
And on the topic of Apple (or others) building a new search engine as a result:
Sure, they would be free to do so, but would they? This would seem to really undersell just how hard it is to build a search engine. Maybe AI helps change that equation a bit, but it's not something that's going to change overnight or even in the time horizon we're talking about with these remedies, I suspect. Maybe it entices Apple to finally buy Bing? But would they even be allowed to?! That would seemingly put them in a bad bundling bucket eventually!
And so if we instead assume some sort of "choice screen", it may hurt Apple more than Google because of the end of the default payment. Again, I sill envision some sort of revenue share for search, but it would perhaps be less massive and certainly more lumpy. And yes, Mozilla might be in more trouble than they already are as well in such a world because the revenue would be less constant and predictable, and possibly just less.
It's a weird position for the government to be in. They want these deals to be over, but killing these deals completely will probably only hurt Google's search share marginally, if at all. But it will help Google's bottom line! Money that Google can then plow back into making their search engine better, continuing the cycle.
But really, it's money Google will undoubtedly plow into AI, thus helping to ensure they're a key player – if not the key player – in the aforementioned next technology wave and cycle. This case isn't about that, so the judge technically shouldn't weigh that – unless you think that technology will play a key role in web search going forward. Which... pretty much everyone does at this point?
Anyway, maybe Apple should probably just buy Perplexity?
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
2025-01-01 07:54:31
There was a time, many years ago, when I used to do predictions for the upcoming year. Once I even won an award for accuracy!1 These days, I tend to look down at such things, as most are simply obvious year-end content filler. But here I am, on December 31, as a dad of two young children who is trying to stay up until midnight. And so it's time to fill some content. But really, I realize that most of these are too grandiose and unlikely to happen – most years are relatively boring as it turns out when it comes to what we think will happen (and far more exciting when it comes to things we'd never even think to predict) – but hitting just one would be a win, I think.
So, 10 big things that could happen this year:
One more thing: My bet would be that after some strong initial buzz amongst the Apple diehards – including myself – Apple's new 'FacePod' home hub thing fails to catch on in a major way as well. Beyond people who buy everything Apple – again, that's me – it's not clear what it will be used for. Though I'm not sure how much it will matter as it's just an initial attempt to enter the home in a major way (well, beyond HomePod, I guess), but still, if it's not a hit out of the gate, there will be pressure on Apple following the fizzle of the first Vision Pro as well...
1 It's true, I still have the trophy in my office to prove it.
2024-12-30 22:35:21
The worst-kept secret of the past year in the world of tech has now been spelled out more explicitly by the company: OpenAI aims to restructure itself as a for-profit entity. Not only has basically every major news outlet reported on this shift over the past many months, the company itself hasn't really shied away from talking about it in public, albeit more indirectly. But as we enter 2025 – the 10 year anniversary of OpenAI – the company is now making it quite clear: it's for-profit or bust, perhaps quite literally.
The reason for those earlier indirect confirmations seemed pretty clear: given the high-profile nature of OpenAI, arguably the most-important company working in the most important field at the moment, everyone was always going to be up-in-arms with such a shift. On paper, the move from a non-profit to a for-profit has some real bait-and-switch vibes. And that's why the company has kept repeating over and over and over again that no matter what ultimate form the company takes, the non-profit will always be a part of the equation. And beyond the potential for bad press, there are very real legal matters involved in moving from a non-profit to a for-profit, as the latter entails certain promises made to the public – promises which would need to be altered, if not broken, to make such a shift.
That is going to play out over the next many months. And this new post from OpenAI essentially lays out their high-level case for not only why they should be allowed to do this, but why they need to do this. And, in fact, the two elements, they argue, are related. Essentially: a lot has changed in the past decade. And whereas OpenAI thought that not only could they operate within the non-profit confines back then, they thought it would perhaps be a better structure to attract the best talent working on world-changing technology for the benefit of humanity.
At the very least, with the benefit of hindsight, that was naive. Of course, with the benefit of emails shared via legal discovery, we also now know that there were many more shades of gray in all of this. OpenAI wasn't without competition in 2015, in fact, they were specifically set up to compete with Google which had just acquired DeepMind, the true pioneering startup in the field. One of the original investors in that team was Elon Musk, who knew what the company was building and seemingly knew what Google scale and resources could do to such a mission. Again, this isn't speculation, this is all explicitly spelled out in emails.
And so Sam Altman's notion of an AI subsidiary of Y Combinator was turned into a new entity. And again, the non-profit element seemed just as much about being able to compete with Google's DeepMind from the name on down, OpenAI.
To be fair, many of those emails revealed that there was um, alignment, around creating an entity that wouldn't be controlled by Big Tech™ . But those emails also reveal that people like Ilya Sutskever, who had come from working on AI at Google (via an earlier acquisition), and Greg Brockman, who had been the CTO of Stripe, were more dogmatic about the mission, at least in those early days. Musk seemed to quickly realize that the only way to truly compete in the coming AI wars was to become a "real" company, albeit one he controlled. Altman seemed open-minded on either approach, but quickly realized that sticking with the non-profit structure gave him the path to lead the entity. And once Musk cut ties, Altman was clearly the right person to come up with some unconventional ideas to keep the non-profit going without Musk's money.
Enter, Big Tech™ . Specifically, Microsoft.
This was pretty clearly the moment when OpenAI actually changed from a non-profit. The convoluted "capped profit" structure was a clever "hack" around the obvious: OpenAI was now a non-profit in name only. And even their name was now misleading, as there wouldn't be much that was particularly "open" about OpenAI going forward. That was five years ago.
With that context, it's no wonder that nearly all of the founding team – beyond Altman and Brockman (and researcher Wojciech Zaremba) – left in the subsequent years. Oh yes, and that whole unfortunate coup business a year ago. OpenAI was simply not the same entity that was founded back in 2015. And after that break-up with Musk – and really, even before then – it couldn't be. People don't want to hear this, most notably many of the idealists involved in the early days of OpenAI, but it's simply hard to see a world in which OpenAI could compete right now as a non-profit. Hence, the formal shift towards becoming a for-profit!
To that end, unlike many other commentators on the subject, I find OpenAI's case for their metamorphosis compelling. Yes, it's a huge shift. Yes, it goes against many of their founding ideals. Yes, it's complicated and messy. But it's the only way they're going to be able to ultimately compete with the largest companies in the world who have now shifted essentially all of their resources into AI.
Musk is upset about this for a myriad of very obvious and very conflicted reasons – beyond the history, now there's xAI, of course. Meta also doesn't want the shift to happen for comically conflicted reasons – and their posturing that their worried about the precedent and public here is truly laughable. Both clearly know the obvious truth: if OpenAI doesn't make this shift, they're dead in the water. The end state would only be a full bail-out by Microsoft in the form of an acquisition, assuming we're allowed to do such deals again in post-Lina Khan America (still not entirely clear when it comes to Big Tech™, to be fair).
I also don't think OpenAI's stance that the remaining non-profit arm of the company would benefit from this shift is total bullshit. Depending on the structure, they will certainly be one of the most well-capitalized non-profits ever. Assuming they can sell off their eventual equity position in the broader OpenAI in tender offers over time, they'll have billions upon billions of dollars to work with on their mission. Maybe they can even bring back some of the more idealist original team members to steer said mission.
Clearly, this is all complicated, to say the least. But it doesn't mean OpenAI is aiming for the wrong thing here. There's some slight disingenuousness via the sin of omission simply given what we know about the history of the company thanks to those emails, but they're also not wrong in pointing out that for the company to compete right now – in arguably the most competitive environment ever – they need to make this shift. And yes, there's a world in which the new non-profit benefits immensely from such a shift too.
That still does not guarantee success, of course. Again, they're going up against the biggest companies in the world, all of whom are specifically focused on their prize. And that includes their own major partner, Microsoft. This new structure simply gives OpenAI a shot.
We can all joke about the billions burned and the lack of a path to profitability, but we've seen this story play out hundreds of times before. Sometimes it works out – Uber, Airbnb, etc – more often, it does not. OpenAI, right now, is still in the former camp, in my book. But the scale is above and beyond even those two others mentioned. OpenAI is likely going to need something more than $20B still to get to those elusive profits. It's just the reality of the situation right now. The others can afford to play with their profits, OpenAI cannot without help. And that help will only keep coming if there's real upside potential for the helpers. Love it or hate it, this is the game on the field right now. They have to play the game on the field.
And that game is going to change a lot in 2025, just as it did in 2024, just as it did in 2023, in 2022... We can all guesstimate how much money OpenAI will need to achieve profitability, let alone "AGI" (whatever that means), but it's going to be wrong. That includes estimates from the company itself. There are just too many variables and unknowns even now. And to combat that, OpenAI needs flexibility. Otherwise, they're just a failed non-profit. And who does that benefit?
One more thing: the Microsoft part of this equation remains the most interesting outstanding element to watch. Not only because of that relationship which is, um, complicated. But because of the position where it ultimately places Microsoft in the AI arms race. With an undoubtedly large and actual equity stake, do they kiss and make up with OpenAI? Rip up that AGI prenup? Does this morph more directly into a Microsoft/OpenAI vs. Google/DeepMind battle? Does the relationship go the other way as a result, with OpenAI getting even more independence from Microsoft (and vice versa)?
2024-12-27 04:08:36
For years and years at this point, all we've heard is that Netflix is not interested in sports because it's a form of live entertainment best viewed elsewhere which has a short shelf life. The latter part is true. The first part, I'm now convinced, is a lie.
There have been signs. But none bigger than the NFL deal that Netflix secured for their Christmas Day games this year. Again, after that deal was signed, Netflix kept insisting that it was a one-off. Or that they may do some "special events" here and there. But having watched those NFL games yesterday on Netflix I now believe that this is something they're not only going to keep doing, but that they'll ramp up as quickly as they can. The production, some small nits aside, was great. Honestly, I think they're already very close to the best way overall to watch football in our modern age.
I know that's a bold statement to make, and I'll get to that. But really, first and foremost, the takeaway here should be that while "lie" may be a bit aggressive, I do believe Netflix has at least been misleading here. I think they fully intend to keep bidding on and taking on more lives sporting events – eventually with the NFL in particular – I just think they don't want that to be so obvious as to create a million little bidding wars. Or worse, a situation where they're bidding against themselves for said rights.
I say all this because again, the presentation was that good. Yes, we can credit CBS (and the NFL itself) with a lot of the look and feel, since Netflix (smartly) opted to heavily partner on this first foray into football. And yes, there were issues with people constantly switching away and not being given an easy way to go back to "live". And I ran into this myself when I stopped watching the Chiefs/Steelers game and then came back to watch Ravens/Titans later on, only to be continually served up that Chiefs/Steelers game which had already ended. Call it a hiccup. Clearly, the "continue watching" streaming gods were being a bit too overzealous here when they should have known that live is a different beast that needs to be handled differently.
The good news is that leading up to the game, Netflix already learned a far more important lesson in the form of live streaming itself. The Mike Tyson/Jake Paul match was silly, but allowed Netflix to work out the kinks, as it were. Sure, they were surprised by demand, but such is the nature of live – you never fully know how many people are going to show up at once in real time. And by the time these NFL games came around, Netflix was clearly stress tested.1
My streams were flawless. Even better than that, they seemed to be of a higher quality than I'm used to seeing on other streaming services such as Prime TV or YouTube TV.2 And if there's one thing Netflix is good at,3 it's making content quickly accessible from everywhere. When I had to switch from watching the aforementioned Chiefs/Steelers game on my TV to my phone, it could not have been easier. There was no hunting and pecking around to find the game. It was right there, front and center on the most-used streaming app.
This is simple, but shouldn't be overlooked. Such simplicity is never the case with any other streaming service, let alone cable. Again, Netflix was too overzealous in wanting to make you pick up where you left off, but that's an easy tweak. Overall, the whole presentation was great. From the game itself to the breaks in between.4 It looked and felt natural. And it just worked.
It was so impressive that it completely overshadowed the fact that the two games, which looked enticing on paper, were duds. Didn't matter. Netflix won the night.
Which is why it's obvious that they'll keep doing such "events", until they're not events at all, but instead just another natural piece of Netflix. In our age of streaming inundation, "live" is yet another reason to open the app. And a reason to keep it installed and subscribed to. And a massive springboard from which to boost your other content. If Netflix truly is the new cable, live is clearly going to be a slice of the pie.
And that's the thing, Netflix has never been shy about their broader ambitions. They view their competition not as Prime Video, but sleep.5 If live content gets you or keeps you watching Netflix, there will be live content! It's not that complicated.
The other actual "why" is also key: ads. Netflix is an incredible business. But they're also running into law of large numbers problems when it comes to revenue growth. Worldwide expansion will continue to be the main driver for some time – these live events will help with that as well, by the way, assuming they can secure worldwide rights as they did here – but eventually, advertising will be the critical component to the growth of their business. And the single best way to spur that is sports.
Specifically, live sports.
This should all be obvious, but it's less obvious because Netflix keeps denying that it's the plan. But again, after this week, my bet is that this is simply misdirection. Netflix is increasingly going to be the home of live sports. And to get around the shelf-life issue, they'll strike deals as they did with these NFL games to only host them for a few days, after which they'll go back to the NFL to re-disperse as they see fit. As an aside: it seems that the half-time shows – well, at least those featuring Beyonce – may have a far longer shelf-life and as such, are of more interest to Netflix in this regard. Makes sense.
Yeah, yeah, all of this goes against the no-ads ethos on which Netflix was originally started (at least when it comes to streaming), but it's actually a rather ingenious way to start pumping in ads in a major way. With sports, given the natural break in action,6 the alternative is sitting through commentary or just silence, I guess.
Actually you could have seen this in action depending on where in the world you watched the games. Clearly, Netflix didn't sell ads worldwide, just in the US. So aside from their own trailers – which there were plenty of, of course, and I think worked well – those of us abroad got a lot of commentary breaks, similar to what you get with Red Zone right now. Eventually, we'll get worldwide ads here, but for now, it added to the nice experience in watching these games on Netflix.
Everyone is well aware by now the NFL is the ultimate sport when it comes to television. There's a reason it utterly dominates the most-watched programming lists each and every year. And there's no reason why that shouldn't transfer over to streaming as well. Seemingly, that has been working for the aforementioned likes of Prime Video and YouTube TV to date, but Netflix is the king of streaming for a reason. They do it better than anyone else. These two were always going to meet on the field of play.
Assuming I'm right, the main issue is that Netflix doesn't actually have any of the major NFL rights beyond this small special package and so it will be years before they can truly be a player with the NFL. But I think that works well for them too, as they can slowly but surely ramp up other sports content – while continuing to deny their broader ambitions – until the next NFL rights become available and then boom goes the dynamite.
Netflix will be a major player in sports. And I'd bet they'll be battling at that point with Amazon and ESPN to be the major player.7
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
1 Yes, as a one-time boxing spectacle, Tyson/Paul likely drew far more viewers than these football games did, but we'll see how close they were when the numbers are formally announced. I imagine this could be bigger than people think thanks to international. Like me!
2 The reactions online to the quality of the stream seemed more mixed. Perhaps I was just on a better server and/or one under less strain here in the UK.
3 They are, of course, good at many things. And have been seemingly one step ahead for years -- I'm glad my title here got to call back to a post I wrote about Netflix's strategy shift (to original content!) almost 14 years ago -- live is the latest shift. But won't be the last.
4 Some, it seems, did not like the pre-game show, however. I missed it.
5 Okay, but really probably YouTube, the ever-growing eater of eyeballs.
6 Though many, myself included, would be quick to note just how unnatural so, so, so many of the breaks in action are, so as to allow for more commercials to be shown, naturally.
7 We'll see what happens with Venu. Lol, nah. I mean YouTube. Obviously they have the Sunday Ticket deal now, but Google has a long history of going down one path and then abruptly turning around. That's my working assumption here until proven otherwise. Also, that deal is leading to an untenable situation with pricing. Apple remains a bigger wild card here. The MLS deal has seemingly worked out well for them -- thanks Messi! -- but it was a unique situation where they could have near total control. They won't be getting that with the NFL...
2024-12-22 07:10:54
At first, I thought Apple had a marketing problem. After all, Fly Me to the Moon had two bankable movie stars working with historical events in an era they could have fun with. Think: Mad Men meets the Space Race.1 So when the movie bombed at the box office, I assume it was simply because no one knew about it. It's really strange, but as good as Apple is at marketing their products – many would say the best in the world – they're not great at getting the word out there about their content. It's almost as if they don't know how. So yeah, that's a problem. But it's not the problem here. The problem here is that Fly Me to the Moon is bad.
I finally got around to watching the movie this weekend – on Apple TV+, naturally – and I can now confidently say that the reason it bombed is because it deserved to bomb. This movie should not have been released as-is. It's a lethal combination of poor plot mixed with the wrong stars with bad chemistry mixed with sub-par acting mixed with... honestly, nothing works. It doesn't even look particularly good. It looks like a staged version of 1969. And no one is believable in that world.
Anyway, who cares? Well, Apple probably does. By most accounts, it's the movie that led them to re-think they're entire theatrical strategy. That, in turn, led to the pulling of Wolfs out of theaters and the pissing off of the even bigger stars involved in that movie. That movie, it must be noted, also wasn't great. Not nearly as bad as Fly Me to the Moon, but just okay. And so it probably shouldn't have gone to theaters because it also would have bombed. So perhaps we can cut Apple some slack there for making a call they should have made with Moon. Of course, the way they handled Wolfs was stupid, but maybe Moon just got in their head that much.
But both of these, and Apple's general under-performance in movies – certainly relative to their television content, much of which is really strong – makes you wonder what is going on here? On the surface, they seemingly have a pretty big starfucker problem. That is, they just seem to greenlight anything and everything as long as the right acting talent is attached. They often have to bid for such projects and as everyone in Hollywood is well aware, keep paying top dollar. But that move keeps blowing up in their faces.
So presumably the theatrical pull-back is just as big of a signal to Hollywood itself that Apple's time as the over-paying sucker is over.2 Maybe. But again, if they really re-worked their strategy simply on the heels of this movie's performance, well, that was dumb. There's not much to take from Fly Me to the Moon other than that the path to box office success is not often paved by bad movies.
Look, I'm still hopeful for F1. That's the type of movie meant for the big screen – and actually, the biggest screen, in the form of IMAX. But I'm going to look at every other film project from Apple now differently. I'm just not sure those running the studio are actually minding the shop. Fly Me to the Moon is that bad. And obviously so. And Apple still released it – in theaters, no less. They ruined a goddamn perfect Frank Sinatra song.
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
1 This is all made more strange by the fact that For All Mankind, one of the first Apple TV+ shows, which happens to be in a similar vein, is great.
2 More generally, I do think it aligns Apple better with the right strategy for their films. But again, first and foremost, they have to actually be good.3 Apple simply hasn't proven their marketing prowess enough in theatrical to be able to write off stinkers as lead gen for their streamer.
3 And don't give me Coda here. Apple full-on acquired that one for a zillion dollars specifically to plant a flag and win awards (which worked!). You know where that strategy didn't work? Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon.
2024-12-21 00:23:47
One goal I had this year was to ramp up to a daily newsletter – mission: accomplished. What started as weekly in January, moved to daily in August, and after 85 weekdays in a row if my math is right (well, if ChatGPT's math is right – and as we all know by now, math is not exactly an AI strong suit), now it's time for a bit of a break for the holidays. I'll still plan to write various posts here and there on Spyglass, but I'll keep my notes on what I'm reading to myself until we're all back in January 2025.
Happy Holidays and New Year to all. Thanks for reading. 🥳
Spyglass Dispatch is a newsletter sent on weekdays featuring links and commentary from M.G. Siegler on timely topics found around the web.
🔎 Google Plans to Add ‘AI Mode’ Option to Search – If accurate, this would be a big deal. While I've noted that one issue with Gemini is that it has been a bit buried relative to other Google products (though not as badly as their image and video generation tools!), that would change quickly if Google were to, say, put a toggle to switch over to 'AI Mode' on the main Google Search page. Right now, my own workflow is to use Google for web search and ChatGPT for queries where I want a direct answer. If I could simply toggle between those two use cases on the same page... But, as the article notes, they'd would have to be pretty careful with that. Just as Frodo putting on the Ring of Power draws the Eye of Sauron, Google putting anything on their main search page would draw the eyes of regulators, fast. ChatGPT may have mindshare and some amount of scale, but not Google Search scale... [Information 🔒]
💍 Billionaire Rivals Bezos and Musk Are Said to Have Dined With Trump at Mar-a-Lago – That headline is a bit gracious. As noted in the piece, Elon Musk was a surprise guest at this dinner, which chief rival Jeff Bezos must have loved. But don't take my snark for it, take a report on the ground at Mar-a-Lago of the "cock-block" (the original poster deleted, for obvious reasons, but social media never forgets). This popping-out-of-the-cake follows similar Musk power plays on Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai. There is no way all of this ends well. It's just a matter of which sides get burned the worst and how (I'm including Musk and Trump in that list as well). Sort of fun to watch unfold though. [NYT]
🕹️ The Nintendo Switch 2 and Its Dock – While this is all still very much in the unconfirmed rumor camp, there's starting to be quite a bit of smoke billowing... A recent Reddit AMA with a would-be leaker claims the next Nintendo console will be announced in January (early side of the stated timeline!) as the, wait for it: 'Switch 2' (come on, 'Super Switch' was right there!). Beyond that, the biggest news may be the use of magnetic Joy-Cons to replace the rails of the last generation. Oh, and the ability to draw more power (and thus, fun faster?) when docked? This plus those wider and taller case renders... [Verge]
While the world has been waiting for a new James Bond to be chosen, that's perhaps not the actual hold up in the continuation of the franchise. It's perhaps something far more problematic: the relationship with Amazon...
M.G. Siegler
"The problem is, neither the Scaling Laws nor Moore’s Law are immutable laws of nature. They’re simply smart observations."
-- Cade Metz and Tripp Mickle, in their year-end story for NYT summarizing the debate on if AI is slowing down – i.e. hitting a wall – or if it's just a temporary blip. Seems like a fitting quote to end the year.
From the NYT article linked above, below, find Elon Musk meeting with members of Congress and Rogue from the X-Men.
A daily newsletter by M.G. Siegler
Sent from afar on weekdays...