2026-03-10 23:21:01
Look, do I realistically think Apple is going to buy Anthropic? I mean, no. It would be by far the largest M&A deal of all time – undoubtedly more than double the next largest deal,1 and certainly more than triple the recently insanely large (and insanely leveraged) Paramount Skydance/Warner Bros Discovery deal. Anthropic is currently valued at $380B. Apple's largest deal ever was two orders of magnitude below that. And that deal, Beats, was done over a decade ago.2 This is simply not a deal that Apple – or probably anyone – does in a normal environment.
But we're not in a normal environment...
2026-03-10 17:57:44
The beatings will continue until Siri improves, it seems:
Apple Inc.’s artificial intelligence struggles are rippling through its product plans, forcing the company to delay a long-in-the-works smart home display until later this year, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
The product, code-named J490, was first scheduled for spring 2025 but was postponed to let the company finish work on a new Siri digital assistant — an integral piece of the device’s interface.
Apple had then planned to release the display this month, when it hoped the new Siri would be ready, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the deliberations are private. With Siri delayed again, Apple is now postponing the smart home device once more.
Likely until the fall, Gurman reports. Perhaps tied to iOS/tvOS 27. Yes, a device initially targeted for 2025 will likely end up shipping with an OS tied to 2027. And not because the hardware isn't ready – always the hardest part of shipping any product, of course – but because of the software. And not even really the OS, but rather one aspect of the OS: Siri.
And it hardly seems like the 'HomePad' is alone in this regard. Previous reports had updated Apple TV and HomePod hardware ready to roll, only not to roll because Siri is not ready to roll. Heads have already rolled as a result of this debacle years in the making, so we'll have to settle for eyes rolling here.
Look, I remain cautiously optimistic about the updated version of Siri, solely because Google is providing the underlying AI technology and they've proven to be more than competent in this regard. But clearly – clearly – Apple is still having issues implementing it. Which, as previously discussed, probably shouldn't have been a huge surprise – you can't just swap and slot this stuff in, as there are about a million edge cases that will break, as Amazon clearly learned the hard way too – but it does lead to the question of why Apple thought they could still ship something like this so soon after the Siri brain transplant?
Of course, they might say that there weren't announced plans to ship any of this. Which is technically true, but really just continues to point to why the constant, detailed leaks, mainly from Gurman, are such a black eye and problem for the company. Gurman has a high enough hit rate on both grand and granular plans within Apple that's there's simply no reason not to trust his reporting on matters such as product launch strategies and timing. And so the world – at least the business/Apple fan world that watches the company closely – fully believes that Apple intended to ship the 'HomePad' in Spring 2025. But Siri issues saw this slip until Spring 2026, with the first Gemini-powered version of Siri. But with that delayed, now we're looking at the Fall of 2026. And it's certainly reasonable to wonder if we won't see any kind of updated Siri functionality until then (though presumably still talked about at WWDC in June – after decidedly not being talked about at last year's WWDC – after the fiasco that was WWDC 2024).
Anyway, this clearly showcases the very real downsides and downstream effects of bad strategic decisions made years ago. Because Apple so badly bungled their AI strategy in 2023 and 2024, they're missing shipping targets for actual products in 2025 and 2026.
Are they going to have to upgrade the 'HomePad' with a newer chip than they intended to use for the product because two generations of Apple Silicon will have passed? Ditto with the new HomePods and Apple TV? That obviously has very real bottom line impact.
This also puts a lot more pressure on the 'HomePad' device itself, which a new category for Apple. Because they've held back for so long to get it right, it better be right? I'm still not clear what the actual use case is supposed to be. Seemingly an iPad designed to be the main computing hub in the home, but many already use regular iPads – and iPhones for this. The ability to apparently use FaceID to tailor the device to who is nearby seems clever, but they could have and should have added such account switching to the iPad years ago. It also sounds like a HomePod with a screen to mirror what Amazon and Google have been offering, but it's not like the HomePod itself has blown the doors off the smart home, with a bad initial strategy there also forcing Apple to retrench and reboot once.
Oh but this will have AI! I mean... I hope so?
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
2026-03-09 23:00:38
Greetings and crustaceans from 'ClawCon', as relayed by Hayden Field for The Verge:
The woman at the door wore a plush lobster headdress.
She sat in the front hallway of a multistory event venue in Manhattan, beside a bundle of wristbands. If she granted you one, the world of ClawCon beckoned behind her — full of vibey pink and purple lighting, lobster claw headbands, multicolored name tags, sponsor information stations, and a demo stage underneath a skylight. Hundreds of people were gathered to celebrate OpenClaw, the AI assistant platform created by Peter Steinberger in November 2025.
I always enjoy these boots-on-the-ground reports from such events. They tend to overemphasize the ridiculousness of them for obvious reasons – and that seems especially easy and apt when the movement has both a mascot and when that mascot is as ridiculous as a lobster.
OpenClaw (previously known as Clawdbot and Moltbolt) has quickly become popular in the tech industry for being open-source, in contrast with AI agent services from big labs like Google, OpenAI, and others. Practically, it’s still an unpredictable tool that can pose major security risks. But this community sees it as a grassroots crusade and a noble pursuit, offering an escape hatch from an industry controlled by a handful of people at leading AI companies.
Reading this report, I'm thrown back in time to a few different eras of tech. In recent times there was all the silliness around "web3" – and the brief "NFT" craze was perhaps most symbolic of the situation. It undoubtedly started out as earnest and innocent enough, but quickly – as expected – it was overtaken by a lot of grifters trying to make quick bucks. And the whole thing sank under the weight of the various schemes as rugs were pulled.
This OpenClaw movement certainly seems far more legitimate, and it feels like an interesting and in some ways natural offshoot of the broader AI revolution. Some people want to be excited about AI (to be clear, others absolutely do not want to be excited about AI, which is also an interesting dynamic at play) but are wary of Big Tech (and "Big AI" – the OpenAIs, Anthropics, and xAIs valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars as "startups") controlling the situation and potentially the entire future. OpenClaw has slipped right in as an ointment for that ailment – to the point where it has even survived those comical branding shifts.
Still, I'm reminded more of an earlier era, when social networks were rising in prominence and power. Once Facebook overtook MySpace, in came OpenSocial to try to combat their inevitability.
Granted, that project arose out of Google itself. And the cynical read at the time – including my own – was that they were backing it mainly to ensure that Facebook didn't overtake them as the main character of the internet thus hurting their rising dominance over advertising. Still, there were many "true believers" in the movement to try to combat Facebook and ensure that social networking wasn't locked down and in to one company. And the fact that Peter Steinberger has now gone to work at OpenAI (with the promise that OpenClaw itself would remain open source and supported) brings the parallels a bit closer.
All of that is to say: as was the case with OpenSocial, I'm skeptical that this movement lasts and gets any real legs beyond these sort of fun, quirky stories.
This sentiment will make people angry, because such things tend to almost be more religious in nature. And I know and like a lot of the people involved in this particular movement. And I even like the overall sentiment here, about putting the future of AI in the hands of the people – I mean, how could you not? (Well, actually a number of players would undoubtedly consider this dangerous, and certainly we've already seen some of the dangers made possible by a tool like OpenClaw.) I'm just trying to give an honest read and prediction for how this all plays out.
On paper, people love "open". It naturally sounds "winning" to the masses. Power to the people and not the corporations, and all that. But in reality, we see open get pummeled by closed, perfected systems time and time again. Not always, but often. And especially, when the stakes and the scale are at AI levels.
People tend to fall in love with great movements but end up marrying great products. And great products tend to rise out of companies with a greater control over the technology. The "open" stuff built by a community may start strong but often degrades into a mess of contradictory ideas and simply slow progress. Open also has a funny way of coming back to bite time and time again. There's a reason why Meta is turning their back on "open". And why "OpenAI" is anything but...1
Perhaps it will be different with AI going forward because there are so many good models created by so many different players – some of which are open and some of which are closed. It does feel like there's a window here for others who can aggregate and orchestrate on top of these models right now, which is something we're seeing at the moment even beyond OpenClaw. But such things also tend to shift over time and we may end up with just a few "winning" models as the costs become untenable – especially if and when there's some sort of downturn in the market.
Obviously, it could shift the other way if the "open" models themselves win out and proliferate. But we've also been hearing that for a few years at this point. And despite DeepSeek being a "moment", it hardly ended up being one of the "Sputnik" variety. We'll see if their new, impending model changes any equations. But my bet would be that a year from now, pretty much everyone is still using ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. Because again, those are great products.
And I also imagine that each of those "Big" players has their own answers for some of the elements of OpenClaw that prove popular. We're already seeing it with Anthropic – perhaps because they fumbled the ball a bit with the artist formerly known as 'Clawdbot', which was called that, and had to change that name, for a reason... While the OpenClaw movement is fun, headlines aside, the masses are simply not going to be rushing out to buy Mac minis on which to run their own instances. Just like 99.99999% of people don't run their own web servers even though they technically could.
And again, most people should not be running their own OpenClaw bots, as it's a recipe for various security disasters. That mixed with the aforementioned tendency for people to gravitate towards good, easy-to-use products makes the end game fairly obvious here.
And it's not a social network for OpenClaw bots.
The only wild card may be the aforementioned feelings about AI in general. Again, more so than perhaps any other technology in the past – aside from maybe Google Glass – there's seemingly a real natural hesitancy here. Certainly in the US market, which is obviously at the forefront of the technology and at the same time, nearly every story you read about AI is about the fear over job displacement...
But I still have a hard time thinking that cohort of people is going to gravitate towards OpenClaw as the answer. In a way, we may be seeing a shift towards Claude itself because of the blow up between the government and Anthropic. As a result of that, people may be starting to see Anthropic as the more "ethical" solution in AI, which may help some over that initial hump of skepticism...
As we go further down the path of this AI revolution, I continue to wonder if and when we're all going to settle down with our one true AI. It's possible we end up in a world where we use one for work and one for play, as it were, but given that the aforementioned big players are increasingly trying to do it all, I think picking one seems more likely.
Though if the ClawCon attendees are forced into such relationships, perhaps they'll revolt and instead demand to be turned into an animal of their choosing. Just like the plot for a certain absurdist movie...
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
1 Yes, yes, they still sort of have some efforts. ↩
2026-03-09 07:15:33
As painful as it is to watch Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei in this clip with Economist editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes, you have to imagine it's infinitely more painful for him to be there, giving the interview. A few days ago, he was out there – well, on Slack – shooting off defiant messages like he's Theon Greyjoy. Then, as if before our eyes, he transforms into Reek.
That's harsh. But the transformation is that, um, stark. The reality here is that Amodei had no choice. His mistake was in thinking that he did...
2026-03-06 20:05:42
The stakes have been raised. While AI has been the key topic of discussion in all of my past chats with Alex Kantrowitz on his Big Technology Podcast, the latest angles including, of course, war, are obviously more important than ever.
I had not yet written about the Anthropic vs. Department of War situation when we recorded this on Monday, but the conversation helped form some thoughts to write about. Notably, while it's wild that this "battle" is unfolding during actual battles in the Middle East, that's also undoubtedly related. Because as we now know, Anthropic's models are pretty crucial to the execution of the operation overseas.
At the same time, how much of this spat actually stems from the fact that the administration and Anthropic clearly just don't like one another, largely due to philosophical differences across the board? That has been made pretty clear over time and so this situation may just have been the straw that broke the camel's back (undoubtedly exacerbated by the aforementioned stakes here). And so while Dario Amodei may clearly be open to (and hoping to) talk about this more, the President may be done. We'll see...
One thing to look to: Anthropic's Big Tech benefactors. They'll be heavily incentivized to lobby on Anthropic's behalf – and they already are.
Of course, all of this is helping to drive some level of growth for Anthropic – with Claude now the number one app in the App Store for the first time, ever. And obviously while this is mostly bad for Anthropic's core enterprise business, it seems to have some benefits on the consumer side – even if it's just virtue signaling. Alex was reminded of when Apple stood up to the FBI a decade ago around device encryption and security. Here, beyond the actual war use cases, mass surveillance is obviously Anthropic's key talking point.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, here comes Sam Altman ready and willing to do a deal for OpenAI. That was entirely predictable – as was the subsequent backlash to Altman's maneuver. He has tried to spin them as peace brokers here, but clearly Amodei isn't buying that! "Mendacious" is his word.
From there, we switch gears a bit to talk about the latest with regard to Apple and AI. Yes, Siri seems a bit behind schedule – yes, again – and so we're not seeing any signs of "New Siri", powered by Gemini, in the wild yet. But I'm still fairly optimistic that Apple is actually on the right path now, and may end up looking quite strong in their overall AI position thanks to their device strategy.
It's not just that they're said to be working on three new AI-focused wearables, it's that the iPhone will be the key to making them actually work well. And that's an advantage that no one else, except maybe Google and Samsung, have. As more devices start rolling out, we can probably expect Mark Zuckerberg to keep bringing this up, hoping to draw the eye of regulators. Perhaps Sam Altman will get involved here as well, as OpenAI's first device nears...
As for Apple's rumored new AI devices, I would expect the AirPods (with cameras) to be the most popular, if they can figure out how to implement the camera system well, without making them too much more expensive than they already are. Apple should also be able to one-up Humane (RIP). And yes, perhaps Meta, the current clubhouse leaders thanks to their Ray-Ban partnership. There's already some backlash bubbling up there as Meta tries to cram more AI into the wearables. Can we avoid a "Glasshole" 2.0 situation? Or will it take Apple, a company far more trusted, to come into the market...
And what's Amazon doing with OpenAI? Is the play for Alexa to become a sort of layer above a bunch of LLMs, including from both Anthropic and OpenAI? Amazon the AI aggregator?
But it can't all be about AI all the time as we close by quickly running through what happened with Paramount Skydance snatching Warner Bros away from Netflix. Was this just great deal-making by WBD CEO David Zaslav, or something else? Certainly, Paramount needs Warner Bros more than Netflix does – and in a way, it was good to see them walk away so quickly. It shows real discipline.
That's something Hollywood could use more of, but I fear will not get it with this deal – even with the inevitable wave of layoffs coming. I suspect Hollywood will look back upon this and wish Netflix would have won. And who knows, perhaps a future DoJ will look back upon this deal. But there might not be much to look at by then, as Hollywood continues to shrink...
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
2026-03-06 01:23:23
There's a lot going on in the world at the moment. Still, I'm sort of surprised that one story hasn't gotten more play this week: Google completely upended the business model for mobile apps.
Granted, they sort of had to do this because they lost a court case (and subsequent appeal) against Epic, and as a result, the judge was forcing them to change the Play Store in pretty fundamental ways. Still, they're actually making changes ahead of when they technically need to – because the judge has not yet approved these proposed changes. And yes, that move seems tied to ensuring that he does accept the changes (and yes, they've already altered them once to make them more likely to be accepted). Still, it's a big deal! With potentially bigger ramifications down the road. The 30% cut is now effectively dead...
