2026-04-28 03:36:07
"The Clause" is dead. Long live, the clause.
That's the easy read of this out-of-the-blue update to the agreement between OpenAI and Microsoft. I say out-of-the-blue because the two sides just spend months hammering out an updated agreement that was finalized just six months ago. This is an update to that update.
Of course, it wasn't really out of the blue. This update is all about letting OpenAI offer their models on AWS. For proof of that, look no further than Amazon CEO Andy Jassy tweeting, "Very interesting announcement from OpenAI this morning." As he notes, there's an AWS event in San Francisco tomorrow. So yeah, they wanted to get this squared away before that.
Why would Microsoft agree to that? Clearly, OpenAI finally agreed to kill "The Clause". Long a main point in the relationship between the two, it basically gave OpenAI a position of power over Microsoft because it allowed them to pull back their AI if and when they achieved "AGI". Of course, this was also a main sticking point in that aforementioned last update to their agreement, but while Microsoft successfully defanged it at that point – notably by ensuring OpenAI's nonprofit board could no longer unilaterally declare AGI achieved, but also by maintain rights to some models and technology even after AGI is achieved – it didn't fully go away. Now it's going away. It's simply replaced by a date: 2032.
That date was also a part of the last negotiations, but this makes it cleaner. It's hard to tell if it's some sort of acknowledgement that AGI might not be here by then or that it really no longer matters – at least for business purposes. Regardless, what matters is OpenAI having more optionality when it comes to offering up their products on other clouds. This is one big way in which Anthropic has started to eat their lunch. Now fresh clouds are back on the menu.
Sort of. Maybe. Probably.
The weirdest part of the announcement – which is a mere 242 words, and because there can't be any sort of announcement between these two without a weird part, it's just the rule – is the following:
Microsoft remains OpenAI’s primary cloud partner, and OpenAI products will ship first on Azure, unless Microsoft cannot and chooses not to support the necessary capabilities. OpenAI can now serve all its products to customers across any cloud provider.
That's seemingly a pretty important "and" there. In other words, as least in this telling, Microsoft still has a right of first refusal of sorts here. It's not enough for them to not be able to support something that OpenAI wants to do with some new offering on another cloud provider, Microsoft has to explicitly say they will not support it, making it seemingly okay if OpenAI looks elsewhere.
In practice, this probably means that Microsoft will continue to get first look rights to all of OpenAI's models in Azure, but over time, Microsoft will be okay with those models trickling down elsewhere.
I can't wait to see what trips up this new clause! Because you just know something will. OpenAI will work on something with Google or Amazon that they'll say Microsoft can't technically offer – perhaps around TPUs and/or Trainium chips? – and Microsoft will get pissed.
But for now, clearly Microsoft signed off on OpenAI's deal with Amazon here – otherwise we wouldn't get that Jassy tweet – though kind of a dick move not to acknowledge Microsoft there? Then again, Microsoft had been threatening to sue over the new OpenAI/Amazon deal, believing it violated their exclusive OpenAI rights. So...
It's still somewhat surprising that Microsoft is giving in here seeing as it's Amazon, owners of the only cloud bigger than their own. But it's also sort of a win/win. Beyond the aforementioned removal of The Clause, Microsoft still owns upwards of 27% of OpenAI (perhaps more like 25% after the dilution of the last mega round). OpenAI getting access to AWS definitely boosts the value of OpenAI because it should massively boost the business of OpenAI. Again, not only against Anthropic, but overall as the company tries to go public.
For all the bickering between OpenAI and Microsoft over their relationship for years now, Microsoft would probably rather own their percentage of a larger number rather than a smaller one. On some level, it's just math. Yes, even between these two star-crossed lovers.
And yes, the two will have to keep working together – at least for the next six years or so.1 Though you have to believe Microsoft will appreciate even more distance from their old bedfellow. Especially as they work towards AGI/Superintelligence fully on their own now. And they'll certainly enjoy not having to send back a 20% cut to OpenAI any longer – and you can imagine Wall Street will like that too, ahead of Microsoft's earnings later this week.
OpenAI will still be paying their 20% cut for sales of services hosted on Azure, but they get to pull that end date forward a couple years, to 2030. And it's also now apparently capped at some level, but they're not sharing what that level is. This is a smaller win for OpenAI which had wanted to bring this rev share down, and it will be a better story for the IPO roadshow.
Anyway, I'm no divorce lawyer, but that's my read. While OpenAI was somewhat free to see other people under their last updated agreement, this gives them much more freedom (provided Microsoft doesn't fall back in love with OpenAI and/or isn't spiteful of their new relationship potential – famous last clause). And Microsoft, in turn, gets to rip-up that pesky AGI prenup once and for all.
One more thing: while this actually doesn't seem to have anything to do with the trial between Elon Musk and OpenAI/Microsoft, it's interesting timing giving that it just kicked off today. Might some of this come up? In particular, the AGI bit?
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
1 I think we can easily predict when Microsoft may dump their stake in OpenAI – though they might do so in chunks before then depending how the IPO goes! ↩
2026-04-27 22:00:07
Just when you thought OpenAI and Microsoft couldn't possibly further consciously uncouple, they find a way, it seems. This is just breaking as I publish this – and there's seemingly some weird/vague wording in here – so I'll have more thoughts later. But it definitely seems like something OpenAI wanted – to be able to fully date other clouds. While Microsoft gets even more distance and to keep more money.
Weird timing too with the trial in which OpenAI and Microsoft are defendants vs. Elon Musk just kicking off (more below). Perhaps related?
Update: some thoughts!
M.G. Siegler
Inklings is a newsletter featuring links and commentary from M.G. Siegler on timely topics found around the web.
💰 Google's (Up To) $40B Anthropic Investment – You know how I know that Anthropic is freaking out over being compute-constrained? In the past week, they've now agreed to sell (up to) $65B worth of equity to the investors which are already their two largest backers in Amazon and Google. And they're doing it – well, at least the first tranches – at the price of the last funding round, even though they have offers to raise at far higher valuations already. This will mean Google has around $13B invested into Anthropic now, and up to $33B if milestones are hit. Amazon, meanwhile, also has $13B invested now, and up to... $33B. These numbers align so nicely that they don't seem like coincidences. But then again, Amazon has more money at lower entry prices, so their ownership stake should still be higher than Google's. This would buy Amazon another 1.3% now and Google another 2.5%. [NYT]
📱 The OpenAiPhone? – First, are we sure this isn't a chip meant for another piece of OpenAI hardware? Obviously, Ming-Chi Kuo would check on that but still, the report is weird enough. Not because the idea is bad – as I've stated before, of course Amazon and everyone else would still want to control their own smartphone as it means controlling their own destiny. (This is why I suspect Meta, the most annoyed about the Apple/Google stranglehold in the space, will try again at some point.) OpenAI, on the verge of their own hardware, would obviously want such control for the same reasons. The difference, of course, is that they're a "startup", one that's trying to focus after years of "side quests". A smartphone would be the ultimate – and ultimately expensive – side quest. Maybe it's just something to explore if the true AI device – undoubtedly tethered to the iPhone – is a massive hit? Mainly I want to ensure we see that device, with so many billions yet to be burned on just model training and inference alone. [@mingchikuo]
💬 XChat – While I think I was asking for a stand-alone Twitter DM app in the past, that was at least a dozen years ago. I don't really understand why it exists now. There are way too many chat apps and this is seemingly just a carbon-copy of direct messages already within Xitter, but more buggy (I guess more iOS-native). Further, Elon has long talked up the notion of X as the "everything app" which seems more complicated when you need three or four apps for the everything app. Speaking of, it sounds like the X Money app is coming shortly too – though perhaps "a day late and dollar short". Zero surprise there. Porn-y names aside, this is like watching Meta's obsession with bundling and unbundling their apps, but in slow motion. Yes, XChat app hit #1 in the App Store for a day or so, but obviously you can do that on the back of the parent app with millions of users. The fact that it's fallen into the 20s just a couple days later seems like a bad sign. Who is this app for? Even the security folks are skeptical of that angle. As is Grok! [TechCrunch]
Below, members of The Inner Ring will find thoughts on:
• Elon vs. OpenAI, the Trial
• China Blocks Meta's Manus Deal
• and more...
2026-04-25 03:07:10
Everybody already assumed that after Xitter merged with xAI and xAI with SpaceX that Tesla would be next. But Cursor – and possibly Mistral – throw some interesting new wrenches into these bonkers equations to build this Voltron of a company...
M.G. Siegler
Inklings is a newsletter featuring links and commentary from M.G. Siegler on timely topics found around the web.
🍁 Cohere + Aleph Alpha – Begun, the great AI consolidation has. The newly combined $20B AI startup seemingly has a better shot at government and business contracts across the EU now, given Aleph's German roots and Cohere's bigger scale and more well-known pedigree. Still, beyond OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, and everyone else (all the "open" Chinese models and players?), they'll presumably be running head into Europe's bigger AI champion: Mistral. That is, unless Elon Musk can successfully buy them as well, which, while perhaps good for Mistral's tech and fundraising capabilities would immediately shove them into the US 'Big AI' bucket. And that plus the Musk factor would likely push more business Cohere's way. We'll see. Regardless, this is clearly the start of more consolidation in the space, following the news that SpaceX has a call option to buy Cursor later this year. Cohere – by my count, backed by AMD, Cisco, NVIDIA, Oracle, and Salesforce clearly needed an answer beyond being Canada's AI champion, and they found one, but is even that enough? [FT 🔒]
🥔 GPT 5.5 – "Spud" seems nice and fast thus far. Greg Brockman, when not constantly saying "I see things a little differently..." to every single (good) question put forth by Alex Kantrowitz still gave a pretty good overview of the state of the model – generally how it can do more with less guidance. And it puts OpenAI back at the top of most (but not all) of the key AI benchmarks, beating out last week's Anthropic Opus 4.7 and even the mythical Mythos here and there (but Mythos still seems like it will be ahead if and when it's released broadly). Of course, that performance comes at a cost, quite literally, a higher cost on the API (though OpenAI is saying it's far more "token efficient" which should negate that). Mainly, I want to see how/if this alters the perception of OpenAI vs. Anthropic. Does this (plus the impressive new image model) help them regain momentum? 5.5 will apparently power the forthcoming "Super App". More importantly for them, does it help power Codex versus Claude Code? It also sure feels like there's an effort to change the tone and tenor when talking about such releases by OpenAI's outward facing folks from Sam Altman on down? Though that could be just as much about the fact that Altman (and Brockman) are about to be thrown head-first into a very public trial against Elon Musk next week... [Axios]
🐳 DeepSeek V4 – Do you hear that? No you don't hear anything? That is the sound of everybody talking about the latest version of DeepSeek. "No one cares." That's not fair, of course – it may end up another step for open source models with regard to coding and agentic usage – but relative to the "DeepSeek Moment" last year, it's sort of wild how few shits anyone gives now. The stock market is not only not crashing, it's up at the moment. All of this is undoubtedly because of what ended up being the actual fallout from the famous "Sputnik Moment" – which was... not a whole lot. Some cheaper models, sure. But it's not like the top model makers were displaced, let alone world economies. If anything, it just opened up Big Tech's eyes to the potential problems of distillation and the US government to looking into the situation, including, potentially, with unauthorized usage of NVIDIA chips. Anyway, a couple new DeepSeek models are here now in preview. One seems to be the largest open model ever and the other is perhaps the cheapest. But they're also not on par with the top frontier models – which unlike DeepSeek, are getting updated left and right at the moment (see: above). So... the question remains if open models truly reach "good enough" status for their cost advantages to eat into frontier's take. Meanwhile, some key models in China are following Meta and going the other way, locking down the cutting edge... [Bloomberg 🔒]
📈 Intel's Bounce Back – With the stock up – checks ticker – 25% today, Intel share price is now past its Dot Com era peak. This is wild any way you slice it – that was 26 years ago – but especially given how downtrodden Intel has been over the past many years after famously failing to capitalize on the shift to mobile and then, at first, to AI. But the broader chip boom is raising all boats. Intel may not make GPUs, but their CPUs are still vital for data centers (and yes, some PCs) and now it seems like Pat Gelsinger's big foundry bet may be starting to pay off, with Tesla signed on to use their advanced '14A' node (eventually). Sadly, Gelsinger didn't survive the Board and Lip-Bu Tan was smart in playing the game on the field, as it were – which meant giving the government a taste of the upside here. That $8.9B for around a 10% stake is now worth around $40B.Might Apple get back on board with using Intel for at least some of their chip needs – maybe modems, the business they bought from Intel? Even just packaging? Seems like Amazon and Microsoft are hanging around the rim. Intel isn't quite back at their peak market cap, which was just over $500B in August 2000, but they're close. The only problem? NVIDIA's market cap just shot past $5T again today by taking advantage of an opportunity Intel missed at first. [NYT]
"When I got the call I said, wow, it’s Tim Apple (Cook!) calling, how big is that? I was very impressed with myself to have the head of Apple calling to 'kiss my ass'."
– The President of the United States of America, giving his honest assessment of the power dynamic between himself and the CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world who just announced he's stepping down from the role – but not fully leaving Apple as he'll still be in charge of interacting with said President.
With new leadership in place, Microsoft is very clearly trying to make Xbox great again. "Microsoft Gaming"? Goodbye. Game Pass prices? Cut. Call of Duty? Back to being sold to start – perhaps for a year or more, which just makes sense. Exclusive titles? May be back too. I would still put some of the games on other systems after an exclusive window as it could entice players to switch to your platform for sequels, etc. This is all so obvious, it makes you wonder what the hell Microsoft was going for these past few years. The answer, I fear, is nobody knows.
Below, members of The Inner Ring will find thoughts on:
• OpenClaw Struggles
• Big Tech Layoffs Amidst AI Boom
• and more...
2026-04-23 21:22:08
Well, it won't be a small bet. In fact, in the Age of AI, with the biggest bets ever around technology unfurling in front of our eyes, it may end up the biggest of all. I guess you'd expect nothing less from Elon Musk.
I speak, of course, about SpaceX, and xAI, and maybe Cursor, and maybe Mistral, and probably Tesla. And fine, I guess even Xitter too. As much as I hate to invoke it, we may be seeing an almost Jobsian-unveiling of a grand plan here: these are not three (or four, or five, or six) separate companies. These are one company. And we're calling it... SpaceXaiCursorMistralTesla.
Honestly, he should probably just call it all X, fulfilling the prophecy. One I've been writing about for nearly a decade, mind you...
2026-04-22 22:01:29
Yes, yes, another new title and format tweak. But this time, I'm fairly confident in the path forward here. As I've said from the get-go, the aim of the newsletter component of Spyglass is for it to be a less formal, more parseable delivery mechanism of links and thoughts. And as the Spyglass columns have crept longer, so too has the newsletter, as the email size-limit overflow indicators have made me acutely aware of over time. So I'm trying to whittle it back a bit to the basics. I aim for it to be something simple to open, scan, digest, and close. And then repeat on regular intervals at regular times.
Inklings is a newsletter featuring links and commentary from M.G. Siegler on timely topics found around the web.
💫 Cursor + SpaceX – In noting a compute deal between the two last week, I wrote, "Would be very curious how this deal came together/was structured" – because while the high level notion made some level of sense, it sure felt like there would need to be a lot of structure around it for both sides. As it turns out, that structure is a $60B call option for SpaceX to buy the entire company! And if they don't, they'll pay a "mere" $10B – sort of a de-facto break-up fee, albeit tied to compute deals. Price aside, this actually makes more sense to me. Cursor is under immense pressure from the foundation labs who have decided their space is the most important one to own at the moment. They clearly had an option on the table to keep going, which seems to say a lot (though also perhaps bullishness around SpaceX pre-IPO shares, obviously). And SpaceX – meaning, the xAI subsidiary – is under immense pressure because they can't compete in that um, space, yet. And why buy two utters when you can get the whole cow? Next question: will Anthropic and/or OpenAI now fully pull their models from Cursor? Sure, that means forgoing money, but Anthropic in particular could undoubtedly use the capacity back at the moment. The real loser here may be Meta, which has no viable coding option yet. Forget Space Twitter, and Space Data Centers, now we have Space Vibe Coding! [NYT]
🐦 Xitter Custom Timelines – This feels a lot like a feature created to try to put Grok to use rather than any sort of actual user demand. Xitter would undoubtedly say this is the holy grail for casual users, but I think it's sort of the opposite: they want one feed built for them, not 75 they have to hunt and peck between. But really, are "casual" users still even on Xitter? I guess they want to try to lure them, and the growth hacks seem to be doing that to some extent, but this would also seem to be an indicator that they still don't stick around. The service still has an edge in breaking news (and sports) but Threads now eats their lunch algorithmically for those non-vital times. If Meta can bridge that gap... Xitter is increasingly a mess content-wise. They keep insisting links aren't being "de-boosted" (anymore), but then they do things like jack up the price of posting links by those using the APIs (so, news orgs) by – checks notes – 1,900%. But that's just to combat spam, you see. How about you task Grok with that. Mainly, it's nice to see that from Twitter to X, the people building the product are continuing the legacy of not understanding what the user base actually wants and instead focusing on random stuff to try to win battles they lost years ago. [@nikitabier]
🖼️ ChatGPT Images 2.0 – It's good. Very good. Does it eat 'Nano Banana'? Time will tell – presumably, Google has an answer in the works... will they save it for Google I/O in a month or move it up? – but in general, it's good to see OpenAI back on offense, product-wise after the past few months playing full-on defense. And it's obviously smart to play up image capabilities as it's something that Anthropic simply does not offer with Claude. You might say that focus has helped them – and certainly, OpenAI was doing far too much a few months ago – but image generation feels like a fairly core competency – including in the enterprise, by the way – that Anthropic will likely have to match at some point. For now, it's OpenAI vs. Google (and yes, xAI, Microsoft, Midjourney, Black Forest Labs, and others to lesser extents), and it feels like OpenAI is back out front again. (Though I do miss the 'DALL-E' name – we've come a long way – it seems like this is a new set of models, including with "Thinking" and web search capabilities.) [TechCrunch]
🍏 Tim Cook's "Textbook Succession" – One focal point of my piece about Cook's transition from CEO was "why now?" and in his town hall with Apple employees, he seemingly confirmed the notion that it was a convergence of factors, notably: the business doing great, a robust pipeline of products, and John Ternus being ready. I'm still guessing the 50th anniversary of the company was at play too (as well as his 15th anniversary as CEO, which he'll pass in late August just before he steps down – and the fact that he'll get to perform his new role on the Board for a nice, round 10 years, if Apple still cares about the 75 age limit at that point), but I do generally believe the blockbuster Q1 earnings (and the market cap being back above $4T – a proxy for investor confidence) with so much uncertainty looming made this a sort of a perfect storm, in a good way for Cook. You don't want to exit when everything is going to hell – just ask Bob Iger, which (as a former Apple board member) Cook probably did! In his remarks, Cook also clearly wanted to get in front of any health whispers – which as I noted in a footnote, have been out there, but seemingly not addressed... I have many more thoughts on the Ternus side of this equation. Likely for a post tomorrow. [Bloomberg 🔒]
Below, members of The Inner Ring will find thoughts on:
• OpenAI's Forward-Deployment Company
• Amazon's $25B Anthropic Investment
• Google Falling Behind in AI Coding
• and more...
2026-04-21 18:59:28
I remember the last time Apple transitioned CEOs quite well. The date was August 24, 2011.1 It was a Wednesday. Steve Jobs issued a press release. It was so short and shocking that I simply posted it to TechCrunch in full under the headline: Steve Jobs Resigns As CEO Of Apple.2 Here it is:
To the Apple Board of Directors and the Apple Community:
I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.
I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.
As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.
I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.
I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you.
Steve
Yes, that's right, Jobs issued the statement ahead of the Board formally voting on Tim Cook to be Jobs' successor (though, as noted, the succession plan was in place and Cook, of course, had to step in before when Jobs was previously ill). Nor had they appointed him as Chairman of the Board yet. He was simply recommending these changes alongside resigning, effective immediately.3
As Cook now makes his transition out of that same CEO role – which yes, that Board did appoint him to later that day in 2011, as well as adding him to said Board while making Jobs the Chairman – the contrast could not be any more clear.
First and foremost, Apple issued a release (and 8-K filing) on a Monday, a bit after market close.4 And actually, the Board met last Friday, April 17, to formally vote on these changes. Yes, they somehow, for once, executed a major course of action without it leaking. Of course, it was also widely believed that John Ternus was the successor, and Apple played their part in telegraphing that by raising his profile throughout the past few years, but stepped it up with profiles and the like in the past few months.
There was a parallel to the Jobs transition in that Cook is also being elevated to Chairman of the Board with his move out of the CEO role, and Ternus is being appointed to the Board – all effective at the same time: September 1, 2026. Again, this is not the abrupt Jobs exit, it's an actual transition, executed in orderly fashion.
The current Chairman is Arthur Levinson, who has held that title since shortly after Jobs passed away in 2011 (and has himself served on the board since 2000, shortly after Cook joined the company). When Cook is elevated, Levinson will shift to become the lead independent director. In fact, this bit is why I was pretty certain that Cook would be stepping down as CEO soon.
In January, Apple waived the guidelines which have long stated that Board members should step down at age 75. This impacted Ronald Sugar (77) but undoubtedly more importantly, Levinson, who was 75 at the time (and has since turned 76). Apple has had a lot of turnover at the top in recent months – including at the Board level with other retirements – and they clearly wanted to keep some stability, undoubtedly knowing Cook's reign was winding down. It would have been awkward to elect a new Board Chair if Cook would soon be stepping into that role. And it would have been weird to appoint new members if Ternus would soon be elevated. So yeah, I think I successfully read those tea leaves.
Still, Cook misdirected a bit about the shift in recent interviews. But I read that as Cook just being Cook. After years of honing the art of deflecting about Apple's future products, he finally got a chance to use the skill when it came to his own future. As I wrote last November, there were several reasons to think Cook was contemplating retiring this coming year, including undoubtedly wanting to go out on a high note. Sure enough, Apple issued truly blockbuster, record-breaking Q1 results in late January. And the stock is back at the $4T market cap threshold.
As for why exactly now, two more thoughts:
First, we're less than two weeks away from Apple's next earnings results, on April 30. I wouldn't read this as an indication on if they'll be bad or good, but Q2 is simply never as good as Q1, which includes the all-important holiday quarter. So again, Cook gets to announce at the top.
Second, and probably more importantly, Apple celebrated their 50th birthday on April 1. If there was any question how much that mattered to Cook, look no further than every single interview he gave and appearance he made where he was quick to note that while Apple, historically, never looks back, they were making an exception here. He was making an exception here. A well-deserved victory lap for the company and a sort of subtle parting gift from and for Cook himself.
As for September 1, the actual transition date. It's almost exactly one week after Cook's CEO start date 15 years ago. Again, August 24, 2011. More importantly, it's likely a week or two before Apple's next iPhone event. What better way to usher in a new CEO than on the biggest stage imaginable? Will John Ternus lead an in-person event, live from Cupertino, for the first time in years? I wouldn't rule it out!
And it gives Cook one final keynote as well, at this June's WWDC. He will obviously be there in person, so actually might we see one last Cook live keynote? Maybe, but I also wouldn't be surprised if that ship has sailed for Cook. Clearly, he prefers the recorded keynotes, and who can blame him, as he had to fill the shoes of perhaps the greatest ever to grace such a stage...
Speaking of, I already talked about Cook's legacy in that post from back in November. I mean, the numbers are incredible. He nearly quadrupled revenue from an already insanely large base to over $400B. And he more than quadrupled profit over the same span to over $100B in the most recent fiscal year. Apple's market cap was just over $350B when Cook came in to the role. As noted, by that count, he has more than 10x'd Apple's value. Talk about insanely great.
Of course, the reign hasn't been perfect. In particular, there are complaints on the developer side (and the courts!) in recent years. Meanwhile, on the product side, while Cook has unquestionably helped to make the Apple Watch and AirPods two huge hits, his true business legacy within Apple will be the continued growth of the iPhone base and wrapping a Services business around it that will one day surpass the device as Apple's biggest business.
Cook will undoubtedly want to be remembered for all the health initiatives, mainly tied to the Watch, and those are amazing, but history will probably look back to the numbers and the products. Again, the numbers are great, the products... less so. The two major would-be Next Big Things™, were to be the Apple Car and the Vision Pro. The Car, of course, never left the garage after a decade of work and shifts in strategy. The Vision Pro, meanwhile, could have used more time in the shop. It launched into a market that simply wasn't ready with a price that failed to move any needles. Maybe, like the Watch, Apple is able to whittle it into a good business, but it's going to take years.
And then there's AI. I probably don't need to write any more about that. Apple fumbled the bag badly here, though it's TBD how much that actually will matter in the long run. Apple could end up looking prescient in not spending hundreds of billions of dollars on their own data centers – or they could look foolish. The boring reality will probably be somewhere in the middle. For now, Apple seems to be sitting pretty with a new Google partnership in place and ready to roll-out soon – perhaps announced by Cook at WWDC and actually ushered into reality under Ternus during the iPhone event in the Fall.
Regardless, this will be on Ternus' shoulders now. Well, and Craig Federighi's, the other key Apple executive who is young enough to likely be around for a while, assuming he stays to correct Apple's AI woes.
Definitely staying will be Ternus' hardware counterpart Johny Srouji – aka the father of Apple Silicon. Clearly there was some truth to the notion that he was thinking about leaving Apple – which was reported, but denied – otherwise you wouldn't get a big elevation and press release at the same time the CEO change is announced. Apple needed to keep Srouji happy to keep him around, and they clearly have. And that will be vital for all of Apple's future products as Apple's silicon expertise – beyond just their CPUs – is arguably their greatest strength right now. And what if – just what if – they eventually parlay that into some kind of true AI business as well?
Back to Cook. Another key difference from the last Apple CEO change is that 'Executive Chair' role Cook will fill. But actually he won't fill it, he'll make it, because it's a different title than either Levinson or even Jobs commanded as Chair. It's important because it means that Cook very much intends to remain working at the company, just in a different capacity. It's right there in the second paragraph of the press release:
Cook will continue in his role as CEO through the summer as he works closely with Ternus on a smooth transition. As executive chairman, Cook will assist with certain aspects of the company, including engaging with policymakers around the world.
I mean, Apple didn't write, "including engaging with Donald Trump", but they may as well have. This was always clearly going to be a part of Cook's future with Apple. For better or worse, Cook has been able to engage President Trump in a way that few other business leaders have. This has helped Apple immensely at times. And hurt them at others. Live by "Tim Apple", die by "Tim Apple" as it were.
It's hard to imagine John Ternus filling this role, because it's hard to imagine anyone filling this role. Because it's hard to imagine Cook wanting to burden anyone else at Apple with such a role. Again, I believe he's taken up this cause as his own burden to bear for the sake of the company. Yes, it simply must be soul-sucking at times – when you have to present a gold trinket for all to see in the Oval Office, or when you have to go to a movie screening at the White House just as citizens are being murdered on the streets – and Cook will have to live with that legacy, which undoubtedly will further tarnish when Trump is out of office.
But Cook also sort of did some soul-selling much earlier in his career when he basically bet all of Apple on China – not the market for sales (though that's obviously vital for Apple now as well), but for manufacturing. It was insanely prescient when Cook was still COO in charge of such things, but it became more problematic over time as China itself changed and America's stance towards it as well. Still, Cook has managed to balance that situation to date – certainly better than, say NVIDIA has! – and presumably he'll continue to in his new role as Apple's Diplomat.
And just because I'm laying into him here, I will note that Cook deserves a lot of credit for standing up to the FBI when it came to iPhone device privacy. Something which has been playing out more recently in the UK as well. You have to pick your battles, as Cook has.5
And now his watch has ended. Or will, soon enough. I'll close with something I wrote back in August 2011, a few days after Jobs stepped down:
This fall is shaping up to be a great first act for Cook. All set up by the timing of Jobs’ resignation. The only real question is: is it Cook or Jobs that takes the stage at their event next month to announce these things? Will it be a “hello” or a “goodbye”?
Sadly, it was the "hello" for Cook, who oversaw his first keynote as CEO, introducing the iPhone 4S – the first device built around Siri – while Jobs passed away the following day. As I closed that piece on Cook's ascension from 2011:
Steve Jobs is a remarkable person. He’ll go down as perhaps the greatest business leader and one of the greatest innovators of not just our time, but of any time. But he is just a man. What he’s built in Apple is much bigger. We’re emotionally tied to Jobs because of the belief that Apple is tied to him. His last act is to show us that it’s not. That would be truly amazing.
In that way, Tim Cook successfully executed Steve Jobs' strategy, one last time.
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
1 TechCrunch itself was in a bad state at the time, with founder Michael Arrington about to leave. Per my calendar at the time, I was meeting with VCs – not to fundraise, but to become one, just a few weeks later. ↩
2 For a time, I believe this post had the most traffic across all of TechCrunch. That's how shocking it was and how beloved/revered Jobs was within Silicon Valley and beyond. ↩
3 Jobs' last official Apple event ended up being WWDC 2011, where the focus was on the iCloud, and getting it right this time. Making sure, "it just works." This was also, incidentally, the first and only time I got a chance to meet and sit down with Jobs, just after the keynote. ↩
4 Jobs announcement was also after the markets were closed, but it was such a shock that the stock had to be halted for a brief period in after-hours trading that day. So far, Cook's announcement has Apple's stock little changed... ↩
5 Lastly, on a much more somber note, but it simply must be mentioned because seemingly no one else is calling it out... Around the time of the initial Cook retirement reports, not one but two different stories at two different publications reported that Cook had been seen with a slight tremor in his hands and that some people internally and externally were worried about it. Apple has not officially denied such reports, but seems to be operating on background suggesting that they are not true, or that there's nothing to worry about. So it's hard to know what to make of that. But again, it's worth mentioning given Apple's history with CEO changes and health. Tremor or not, Cook is clearly not in the dire state Jobs was in when he (again, abruptly) stepped down. And again, he's clearly going to be continuing on in this new capacity and so now perhaps it's a moot point. Once he's no longer CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world, his health can be his own private matter again (there are no firm rules about public Board members and health disclosures, though if Cook is truly acting as a diplomat of sorts that is material to Apple's business, there may be some gray area there). Anyway, hopefully there's nothing there. But it's weird that no one is even mentioning it – even if to firmly deny it – after the initial reports. ↩