Here are the best pieces of tech I used all year:

AirPods Pro 3

This isn’t even close. Of all the headphones I’ve ever tried, there’s a simple reason I always come back to the AirPods Pro: they’re just better than everything else for how I actually work and live. They sound great, the noise cancellation is top-notch, and connecting them to your Apple devices is easy and frictionless. The AirPods Pro 3 are my favorite pair of earbuds and are easily the best tech I use every day.

The newest version didn’t reinvent the product, and that’s kind of the point. They continue to be comfortable enough to wear for hours, and adaptive transparency mode feels like magic as you use them throughout the day.

Apple did, however, improve the noise cancellation and overall sound quality. Plus, the new hearing aid assistance and heart rate features show that Apple isn’t done making one of its best products even better.

ReMarkable Paper Pro Move

If I’m going to replace a notebook, it has to feel like a notebook—and it has to be the kind of thing I’ll actually carry. That’s what the ReMarkable Paper Pro Move gets right. It’s compact enough to bring everywhere, but it still delivers that “paper-like” writing experience reMarkable is known for.

I use it for meeting notes, outlining, and capturing ideas when I want the focus of pen and paper without the distraction of a full-on tablet. There are no notifications, no app rabbit holes, no temptation to multitask. It’s just writing, reading, and thinking—exactly what I want in that moment. 

iPhone Air

I don’t know if the iPhone Air is a disappointment for Apple, though there have been plenty of rumors to that effect. I do, however, know that it’s not a disappointment for anyone who has used it.

I think it’s safe to say the iPhone Air is the most interesting and exciting smartphone in a long time—especially from Apple. It is so thin and light that it will surprise you every time you pick it up and hold it in your hand. And, for what it’s worth, you really do have to pick it up and hold it in your hand to appreciate just how delightful Apple managed to make a smartphone in 2025.

Sure, the battery leaves a bit to be desired, but it’s manageable. The only real drawback is the camera—which lacks the ultra wide and telephoto options. If you can live without those, the iPhone Air makes its case for one of the best pieces of tech I used all year.

M5 iPad Pro 11-inch

Everything about the M5 iPad Pro is overkill. The processor is just plain showing off for a device most people use for watching Netflix or browsing the web. The Tandem OLED screen is the best display Apple has ever made. In every way, the iPad Pro is better than it needs to be.

But, it makes this list because it’s essential to my workflow. The iPad Pro is where I edit podcasts (using Ferrite), read and research for my column, and do a fair amount of photo editing (using Lightroom CC). It’s also the perfect writing device when I want to reduce distractions and focus on getting words out of my brain.

Mac mini M4 Pro

I’m mostly a laptop person. I love my M4 MacBook Air, and it’s still the Mac I’d recommend for pretty much anyone who needs a great laptop at a reasonable price. But this year, I started using an M4 Pro Mac mini, and I love it. Paired with an Apple Studio Display, it might be my favorite computer I’ve used in a long time.

It’s my primary podcasting machine, which means I use it for audio recording, transcribing audio and video files, and a lot of photo editing. The M4 Pro Mac mini never feels like it’s breaking a sweat and has more than enough power for the AI-powered De-Noise and Assisted Culling features. Plus, it’s quiet, powerful, and takes almost no space on my desk.

Nomad 65W Slim Charger

I have a lot of chargers—more than anyone needs. Most of them sit in a drawer to be occasionally pulled out when I’m traveling. The one that stays in my bag all the time, however, is the 65W Slim Charger from Nomad.

It has two USB-C ports and will charge a MacBook Air and an iPhone 17 Pro without a problem. It’s also incredibly thin, which makes it perfect for pretty much any backpack or bag situation.

Anker PowerBank Nano

Along with chargers, battery packs are another thing I have far too many of are battery packs. I suppose that makes sense—I never want to be stuck with a device I can’t use because it runs out of battery. If I can’t plug it in, having a battery pack is the next best thing.

The Anker PowerBank Nano is a 10,000 mAh battery pack with a built-in, retractable USB-C cable. It also has a USB-C and a USB-A port for connecting additional devices. The reason it makes this list is that it’s small and packed with enough battery to charge an iPhone twice. It also puts out 45W, meaning it’ll power a MacBook Air while you’re using it.

Sonos Arc Ultra + Sub Gen 4

For years, we’ve used a pair of original HomePods as a part of our home theater system. Connected to an AppleTV, it’s a simple setup that works incredibly well. This fall, however, we set up a Sonos Arc Ultra and a Sub Gen 4, and it’s impressive.

It’s not quite as simple as using a pair of HomePods, but eARC support means you just connect an HDMI cable to your TV and it works great. For a relatively simple home theater setup, it’s hard to beat the Arc Ultra and Sub Gen 4.

Third-Generation Apple Wireless Keyboard

Yes, my favorite keyboard is more than 16 years old and takes two AA batteries. I’ve tried dozens of keyboards, trying to find something that I like enough to have ready for the day that my Apple Wireless Keyboard inevitably stops working. The thing is, I’ve been using it almost daily since 2009, and it still works just as reliably as it did when it was brand new.

I stick with it for one simple reason—I just prefer the way it feels. For someone who writes as many words as I do, that’s really the only thing that matters. Sure, it’s annoying that I have to swap out the batteries every six months or so, but it’s a small price to pay for a piece of tech I enjoy using as much as this keyboard.

Apple Watch Ultra 2

Continuing with the idea that great tech doesn’t need to be new, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 continues to be what I wear almost every day. Mine was one of the originals that has a fully functional blood oxygen sensor, which happens to be a thing I use pretty regularly.

The real reason this is on the list is that, even after two years, my Ultra 2 is still rocking 92 percent battery health. I never have to think about charging it, or worry whether I’ll make it through the day. It’s my favorite version of the Apple Watch, and I plan to keep this one until it won’t hold a charge anymore.

Nespresso Vertuo

We care a lot about coffee at our house, and we have a half dozen or so preferred ways of making it. Our go-to is a Breville Barista Pro, which is how we make our morning Americano most days. But it’s not at all uncommon for us to make a French Press, or AeroPress, or Pour Over.

For a quick cup, especially on the go, we recently added a Nespresso Vertuo Plus to our counter coffee station. That “on the go” part is especially important since we’re almost always running to an event or sports practice for one of our four kids. The Vertuo Plus does a great job making everything from a double espresso to an Americano or a full cup of coffee. It’s not going to replace the Breville, but its ability to make a variety of different drinks makes it one of our favorites this year.

This issue was first published at my Inc.com column.

An update and something new.

You’ve no doubt noticed that this newsletter has been pretty quiet. It’s been more than a year since I wrote regularly here, but I wanted to share this last piece in hopes that you’ll find something valuable to add to your tech-life balance.

I also want to let you know about something new I’m working on called Creative Effort.

Launching in January, Creative Effort is a newsletter, podcast, and—eventually—community, all designed to unpack the answer to one question:

Where do creative ideas start, and how do they become something real in the world?

Specifically, I’m interviewing some of the most creative people in the world to learn more about how they take ideas and turn them into something real.

The Newsletter

Creative Effort will publish three times a week:

1. Creative Process

Stories, frameworks, and lessons that help you do your best work.

2. Creative Tools

Practical guides to the tools, workflows, and systems that make creative work possible.

3. The Interview

Longform conversations with people who make things for a living. This edition doubles as the weekly Creative Effort Podcast.

The free tier includes the weekly interview and podcast episode.

Subscribers to the paid tier get two additional weekly newsletters, a monthly bonus podcast, and guides, templates, and other resources.

The Podcast

The Creative Effort Podcast features in-depth interviews with creators, founders, artists, technologists, and storytellers. Guests include people whose work is gettable—names you already know from the worlds of tech, media, photography, and storytelling—as well as emerging voices whose ideas deserve a bigger stage.

I’m incredibly excited about the lineup of people who have already agreed to be a part, and I wanted to give all of you a heads-up before it launches to the public next week.

Thanks for being a subscriber, and I hope to see you there.

Subscribe to Creative Effort

Despite the bad news, the company's stock price jumped on the promise that Tesla still plans to launch a lower-priced electric vehicle (EV) in the next year. That would, presumably, allow Tesla to sell more vehicles since the company could reach new customers who are leery of the higher price of EVs compared with their traditional counterparts. 

Look, Tesla has sold lots of cars. The Model Y, after all, is already the most popular car sold that isn't a pickup truck. Add in the Model 3, and Tesla has not only the two best-selling EVs, but two of the top five best-selling cars, period. 

It's not that Tesla isn't able to sell cars. It's that the automaker is pushing up against the limit of the number of customers willing to spend $40,000 to $80,000 on a high-end vehicle. That's just simple math. 

Now, the promise is that Tesla will make a low-end, more affordable EV, presumably called Model 2. That promise is important because it's pretty key to Tesla's future. The idea is that it would sell for around $25,000 and appeal to a far wider market of people, most of whom aren't currently driving an EV. 

On the other hand, there's some question about whether that vehicle will ever actually ship, or if Tesla's CEO, Elon Musk, is just making the promises investors want to hear. It's not as if Musk has never done that before. 

For example, there was the time he promised that Tesla owners could recoup the cost of their purchase by renting out their vehicles as robotaxis. Or the time when he claimed that autonomous driving was coming in a matter of weeks with one more software release. 

Musk seems to operate from the principle of "say whatever sounds good and figure out later how to make it true." But the thing about making promises is that if you don't keep them, eventually, you lose out on your most valuable asset: your credibility. 

None of this is to say that Tesla doesn't make good cars. I also happen to think that if it made a $25,000 EV, it would sell as many of them as it could make. 

The thing is, eventually you have to ship some stuff. Lately, the stuff Tesla has been shipping hasn't been great. Take the Cybertruck. Sure, there are plenty of fans, but I think we can all agree it's divisive. It's definitely not for everyone. 

Also, it was two years late, and every Cybertruck the company shipped has been recalled over an issue where the accelerator pedal could get stuck, which seems to be not ideal. The low-cost model is another example. It's hard to know what really happened, but reports as recently as earlier this month suggested the entire product had been canceled. That's apparently not true, but it's hard to know what to believe until something actually ships to customers. 

The entire thing is a powerful lesson about incentives. If you're managing for a stock price, you make promises your investors will like. You say things like "we have a product that lots of people will buy and no one can compete with." If that's true, it's not just good for your stock price, it's great for your business. 

But Musk seems to make a lot of promises and then cajole people into trying to make them true, or hope everyone forgets when he makes an even more fantastic promise later. 

That, ultimately, is Tesla's biggest problem. Its CEO is making promises the company can't keep, instead of just focusing on building the best products it can. 

The Best Vision Pro App: Gucci?

I'm not going to pretend like Gucci is my thing. It isn't. As my children can attest, I'm not into fashion, and I don't have the kind of money to spend on any of the things Gucci sells.

So, when I heard a recommendation to download the Gucci app for Apple Vision Pro, I was skeptical at first. I don't know what the point of a fashion brand having an app on a virtual reality headset would be, but, it's a free app, and I have a Vision Pro that I'm trying to figure out different ways to use, so I downloaded it. 

When you first open the app, you're presented with a documentary video telling the story of the brand's new creative director, Sabato De Sarno. Again, I didn't know anything about De Sarno, and had never heard of him before watching this video. That, to be clear, isn't the point.

The point is that Gucci invested the time and energy required to build an app for Vision Pro, not to sell you anything, but to tell a story. The video itself is probably what you'd expect from a fashion house making a film about its creative director. And, 

What you might not expect is the way Gucci designed the experience of watching the video. When you open the app, you're simply presented with the question "Who Is Sabato De Sarno?," and an option to "Watch now." When you select that option, a normal two-dimensional movie begins playing in a window in front of you. You can even watch the film on MUBI, a subscription movie service.

It doesn't stay that way for long, however. 

I'm not going to give away all of the details because--if you have access to a Vision Pro, you should definitely download the free app, and you should definitely watch the documentary. I don't want to spoil it for you.

What I will say is that the Gucci app manages to take advantage of the Vision Pro in a way that few other apps do. It's not like other immersive experiences that surround you with, say, Avenger's Tower or the Iron Throne Room. 

I will say that there's a moment when the movie starts to explain the setting for De Sarno's first runway show--a street outside a church in Brera--when you realize that suddenly you've been transported there. The environment around you has faded away and been replaced by that street. It's done in such a subtle, yet convincing way.

At various points, the movie highlights different products, giving you the ability to interact with, and manipulate them. It's all very good. In fact, it's the first app I've used that allows you to manipulate objects directly with both hands. 

The most impressive thing is that the entire app is just the video and the surrounding experience. There isn't a store or product pages, and there isn't even a link to a website. It's just the story.

And, as a story, it's incredibly compelling. Honestly, the most remarkable thing about the entire experience is that it made me care about something I very much did not care about. That's the power of storytelling, and Gucci did a great job of using a new format of technology to tell a story to an audience who otherwise might not have paid attention at all.

I know this isn't going to be a reason to buy a Vision Pro, but that's also not the point. The point is that we should want more companies to try more things. We should want them to come up with new ways to tell stories, especially when technology offers compelling opportunities to do just that. Kudos to Gucci for creating the best experience I've seen yet. 

Other Stories You Might Like

Google had a good quarter (NBC News)

AI seems to be paying off for Microsoft (New York Times)

Netflix is taking after Apple (Variety)

Spotify’s CEO says layoffs were tough on the company. (Business Insider)

Tesla’s layoffs did not go well (Inc.)

It seems pretty clear, reading through the 88-page complaint, that the DOJ really wanted to make a very different argument than what is on the page. The complaint begins with a very strange telling of the history of the iPod, which, in DOJ's telling, apparently had no chance of success except for the fact the government sued Microsoft which apparently paved the way for the iTunes Store on Windows. That's neither true nor is it relevant. It's just a thing the government likes to tout because it was the last time it won a major antitrust case against a tech company. 

I'm guessing the government wanted to make a case about the way Apple manages the App Store, and the fact that it doesn't allow developers to use their own payment methods to avoid paying Apple's commission. The complaint starts with a narrative about how Apple charges a 30 percent commission on app purchases and then charges another 30 percent on in-app transactions. 

Here's the relevant part of the complaint:

When developers imagine a new product or service for iPhone consumers, Apple demands up to 30 percent of the price of an app whose content, product, or service it did not create. Then when a consumer wants to buy some additional service within that app, Apple extracts up to another 30 percent, again for a service Apple does not create or develop.

Never mind that almost no app in the App Store monetizes in that way, the case the government is actually bringing isn't about that at all. Instead, it's about five things that have almost nothing to do with the App Store: 

• Apple prevented the creation of cloud game streaming services.

• Apple won't let third-party apps have access to the NFC chip for digital wallet payments. 

• Apple restricted the ability for developers to create SuperApps. 

• Apple won't let third-party messaging apps use the API for SMS text messages.

• Apple won't let you use a third-party smartwatch and still get Messages. 

Aside from the first thing on that list--which Apple has already addressed by allowing game streaming--it's hard to find something on that list that most people care about. Yes, it would be easier to use a third-party smartwatch with your iPhone. And, it makes sense that Apple should allow third-party banking and payment apps to use the NFC chip for contactless payments (it is already doing this in the EU as a result of the DMA). But, does anyone besides Elon Musk care about Super Apps at this point? More importantly, are those really the most important issues the government could find?

Well, no. It's just that a federal judge has already said in its decision in Epic versus Apple, that the iPhone maker is entitled to control over its platform, is entitled to charge a commission to monetize its intellectual property, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case. That means there isn't much the DOJ can challenge in terms of the way it runs the App Store. Congress will have to pass new laws for that to change. 

It's a shame, because the complaint does make a few good points. For example, the government points out that Apple uses "privacy and security" as its justification for many things that are mostly about ways the company is able to make more money.

"Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct," the government says. "Indeed, it spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers' privacy and security interests... In the end, Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple's financial and business interests."

Apple, as you can imagine, disagrees with the lawsuit and says it "threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets." In its defense, the company says it focuses on "designing products that work seamlessly together, protect people's privacy and security, and create a magical experience for our users."

I think it's fair to say Apple could have avoided all of this had it been willing to give up a small amount of its control over the App Store. Even though this lawsuit isn't really about commissions or App Store review, had Apple been more generous and gracious with developers, there's a reasonable chance it wouldn't now be defending itself in court. 

The fact that the case isn't about the App Store, which is arguably the thing that has made Apple the target of so much criticism, shows that even though the government couldn't pursue what it really wanted, it's still motivated to come after Apple. The company that gave the world the single greatest consumer device--and should be one of America's greatest business success stories--is instead a target of the government because it has made more enemies than friends.

Ultimately, that's on Tim Cook as CEO. There's no question he has added incredible value during his time leading Apple. At the same time, it's not hard to see that--as the App Store grew as a business--Cook pushed Apple in a direction where it pursued profit even when it came at a great cost to the company's reputation and goodwill. It's telling that Cook was able to navigate Apple through former President Trump's trade war with China, but can't navigate better relationships with developers. 

The strategy of refusing to give an inch until you're forced to move has led Apple to a place where it's just daring lawmakers to do something. For all of his strengths as a leader, it's hard to figure out how Cook has let Apple get to this point. I say that as someone who very much loves my iPhone, and all of the other Apple products I use every day. 

Apple--under Cook's leadership--has taken the position that it isn't going to budge until it has to. This lawsuit doesn't seem likely to make much difference--as I said, it'll probably take a change to the law to force the company to loosen its grip. On the other hand, even if Apple wins this case, I imagine that's exactly what will happen. 

More about US vs Apple

The Department of Justice comes for Apple (Platformer)

Why the US keeps talking about Microsoft (The Verge)

Apple is making the future worse to protect its business (Wired)

Apple and its smartphone monopoly (Washington Post)

An overview of the government’s case (New York Times)

This Week’s Primary Technology

Be sure to check out this week’s show as Stephen and I touch on the upcoming case (we recorded before it had actually been filed and hadn’t had a chance to read it). Still, we got the basic ideas right. We also talk about Apple’s partnership with Google, and some thoughts about Mr. Beast’s deal with Amazon.

Be sure to follow the show wherever you listen to podcasts: Apple Podcasts / Spotify / PocketCasts / Overcast / primarytech.fm

Mr. Beast’s $100 Million Deal with Amazon

On Tuesday, Jimmy Donaldson, aka Mr. Beast, confirmed that he is making a show for Amazon. The deal, which was previously reported to be worth $100 million, involves what Donaldson calls the biggest game show ever, including 1,000 contestants and a $5 million prize.

Believe it or not, I don't think the money was the main reason Donaldson signed a deal with Amazon MGM Studios. Sure, $100 million is a lot of money, but there are surely other studios that would pay whatever he wanted. If you believe Donaldson, however, it came down to something else that might just be more important. 

"Amazon will give us the most creative control, and--by most--I mean all creative control, and they'll let me do whatever we want," Donaldson said on the Colin and Samir Show. "Other platforms, you know, didn't." 

"Creative control."

Those are two powerful words if you are someone who likes to make things. They're even more powerful when you're someone who makes things that someone else is paying for. Usually, the person with the money gets to make the decisions. In this case, however, Donaldson says that his top priority was being able to make the show the way he wanted, without giving up control of the final product to someone else. 

Throughout the interview, Donaldson frequently refers to another streaming platform that wasn't willing to give up control. He also refers to other unnamed creators who attempted to make the jump from YouTube to a studio streaming service and those projects failed. The implication is that the reason they failed is that they weren't authentic to the creator. 

While he didn't mention Netflix by name, it seems pretty obvious that's who he was referring to. And, that's a big problem for the world's largest streaming service. See, Netflix used to be the place creative types went when they wanted to get away from the control of a Hollywood studio and do something different.

In a recent interview at New York Times' Dealbook Summit, Shonda Rhimes talked about how she felt that Netflix gave her control she wouldn't otherwise have had. 

"I've been making television at one place for such a long time," Rhimes told Andrew Ross Sorkin. "And at the time, I remember The Crown was on Netflix. And I remember looking at that, and someone telling me that they spent $12 million an episode on The Crown. And I thought, like, that's an insane, amazing creative budget... you can really do stuff. And you could see that they could do things there that you can't do on network television. I liked the challenge of that."

Compared to network television, sure, Netflix is probably a lot more freeing. But, compared with YouTube, that's not necessarily the case. The content rules on YouTube are basically, don't break the law and don't make the music companies mad.  

"There's no way I'm coming from YouTube where I can just do whatever I want in the videos, and then to a world where someone else tells me," Donaldson says. "There's a reason we went with Amazon. They're awesome." 

Netflix, however, is a lot more like a studio now that it's all grown up. It has a particular view on the type of content it wants on its platform, and it isn't going to just give anyone $100 million, even if you are the most-watched YouTube creator with over 240 million subscribers. More importantly, Netflix has a lot more to lose. It has a position to defend, and it's less willing to take risks. 

That should be a pretty big warning for a company like Netflix. I mean, Donaldson is one of the few YouTube creators who can say they have more subscribers than Netflix. Sure, the difference is that it doesn't cost you anything to subscribe to a YouTube channel, but this seems like the type of show Netflix would want on its platform. 

Amazon definitely wanted it on theirs.

"MrBeast has captured the attention and imagination of fans of all ages, from all walks of life, and all over the world," said Jennifer Salke, head of Amazon MGM Studios, in a statement. "We are excited to work with Jimmy and his talented team to bring his brilliant, high production, and stakes-raising concepts to Beast Games for our global customers to experience."

So, here's the thing--$100 million isn't a lot of money to Amazon, but it's still a lot of money to hand someone to make something you have no control over. On the other hand, you can compare that with the $715 million the studio spent to make its Lord of the Rings Series, which was not just expensive, but bad. Reports suggest that two-thirds of people who started watching bailed before the season was over. I don't think that's going to be a problem with Beast Games. 

"We're reinventing everything," Donaldson says. He's talking--of course--about the show he's making and how it's going to be bigger and more extreme than anything he's made so far. He might as well have been talking about the model for letting creative people make great things. That should have Netflix very worried.

For most of its life, the MacBook Air has been the best set of compromises for most people. There's a reason it is, as Apple is fond of reminding us, the "world's most popular laptop. It's an incredibly lightweight and thin laptop, while still getting great battery life and enough performance for the things that most users care about. 

With the introduction of Apple Silicon, it seemed as though those compromises started to fade away. The M1 MacBook Air was so much more powerful than the Intel models it replaced--while also being vastly more efficient--it was as though Apple had figured out how to make a compromise-free laptop. 

Of course, there were still compromises. The M1 MacBook Air only had two ports, one of which you had to use to power the device. Even the M2 version, which Apple says is the first product it built specifically for Apple Silicon, wasn't perfect. To keep the design as thin as possible, you still are stuck with those two USB-C ports, though the M2 added MagSafe for power. Oh, and it only supported a single external display. 

For most people, that doesn't seem like much of a compromise, but it meant that there are people for whom a MacBook Air could never be an option--even if it was otherwise the perfect laptop for their needs. If you needed a laptop that could support two different external monitors, you would have had to spend $2000 on a MacBook Pro with M3 Pro. 

The M1 and M2 supported two displays; it's just that they always considered the built-in display one of those--even if it wasn't being used. Now, however, the MacBook Air with M3 can support two external displays with the lid closed. Specifically, it can drive one display up to 6K and one up to 5 K. (Apple says that the base MacBook Pro with M3 will gain the same display support with a future software update.) 

Look, you might ask why I spent so much time discussing a feature that most people could not care less about. Most people do not have two external displays sitting on their desks. I get it, but I think there are two reasons this is a big deal.  

The first is that Apple is clearly listening to what customers say they care about. Sure, the number of people who are thinking of buying a MacBook Air to use with two displays seems likely to be very small. But, before now, they couldn't even consider the MacBook Air because its biggest compromise was that it wouldn't support them. 

It was really the only real complaint anyone had about the M2, and Apple could have just said "Hey, buy a MacBook Pro," but it didn't. It turns out that there are a lot of people who don't need a MacBook Pro but might still want to be able to use two displays.

I don't know whether it was challenging to figure out technically, but I think it's notable that Apple is solving that problem. I think Apple is at its best when it listens to the things customers really want and figures out how to build that into its products--even if those things are different from what Apple believes they should want.

The other reason is that everything else about the M3 MacBook Air is exactly what you expect. It's the exact same design, with the same display and keyboard. That's not a bad thing, by the way. The M2 MacBook Air was an incredibly good laptop, which means there's not a lot to change. Obviously, the M3 is faster than the M2, but that's what you expect. 

That isn't to say the M2 MacBook Air wasn't great. It was. It might be the best laptop I've ever reviewed. That's not to say it's the most powerful--that would be the MacBook Pro with M3 Max that I've spent a few months using. It is, however, the best overall for most people.

In my experience over the past few days, the M3 definitely does not lack for speed. There wasn't anything I asked it to do that made it feel as though the M3 couldn't keep up. Even applying and rendering effects in Adobe Audition, or Izotope RX10 was fast enough that you could definitely use the MacBook Air for those tasks. Yes, a MacBook Pro or Mac Studio is going to be faster, but for occasional use, the Air is definitely capable. 

Oh, it does have WiFi 6E, which isn't WiFi 7, but is an improvement over WiFi 6. Also, the Midnight color gets the same anti-fingerprint treatment as the Space Black MacBook Pro. It still seems more prone to fingerprints compared with the Space Grey or Silver versions, but it is definitely better than the M2 version of this color. 

Ultimately, the M3 MacBook Air would have been my recommendation as the best laptop for most people even if nothing else had changed but replacing the M2 with the M3. Now, however, Apple has made a lightweight, powerful laptop with even fewer compromises--making it a very good choice for almost anyone.

A version of this review first appeared in my column at Inc.com

Latest Episode of Primary Technology Is Here

Stephen and I talked about the M3 MacBook Air on the latest episode of Primary Technology, our show about the tech news that matters. We also covered Apple’s fights with Spotify, Epic, and basically all of Europe. Watch us on YouTube, or get the show wherever you listen to podcasts:

Apple Podcasts / Spotify / PocketCasts / Overcast / primarytech.fm

Rivian’s Surprise Vehicle Announcement

On Thursday, Rivian held an event to announce its newest model, the R2. The company's CEO, RJ Scaringe, talked about the features of what looks a lot like a smaller version of its R1S SUV and what will most certainly be the electric vehicle (EV) maker's most important product.

While the R1T and R1S have been successful--at least, in terms of customer impression and reviews--the company has struggled to make money. Rivian needs a more affordable hit to make a meaningful dent as overall demand for $75,000 EVs has cooled. The R2, which starts at $45,000, could certainly be that product, though it isn't expected to start delivering orders until 2026. 

Overall, the R2 looks like a fantastic option that will likely appeal to a wider audience than the R1 lineup. There are only so many people willing to spend what can end up close to $100,000 for an electric pickup or SUV. What Rivian really needs is a mass-market product that can compete with Tesla's Model 3 and Model Y, which are the two most popular EVs in the world. Actually, the Model Y is the most popular vehicle that isn't a Big Three pickup truck. 

The R2 could definitely be that vehicle. It's a smaller and less expensive vehicle that maintains Rivian's attention to detail and style. However, it was what Scaringe did after the R2 announcement that got most of the attention. 

I'm so excited about this vehicle. I'm so excited about what it represents for us as a company in terms of achieving scale, what it represents for us in terms of our collective learning, being embodied into one vehicle as the, you know, the follow product to what we did with our flagship product with R1. But it's important to note, R2 represents not just a vehicle, but it also represents a platform. And that platform, as I said—the performance, the capabilities, but also the flexibility for a manufacturing point of view—is really important for us. And I'm really, really excited to talk about R2's sibling, which we call R3. So you didn't expect that one more thing here.

That's right, at an event to unveil the R2, Rivian surprised everyone by dropping another vehicle, the R3. Not only that, but Scaringe took a page directly out of Steve Jobs' playbook with the "one more thing" reference. 

Then, after walking the audience through a demo of the R3, he did it again. "But there's one more thing," Scaringe said. "And looking at our R3, we wanted to take everything that's embodied and put it into an even higher performance package. And this is something we call R3X."

I want to come back to the "one more thing" piece in just a minute, but first, I think it's important to consider that Rivian is probably going to sell as many R3s as it can make. It's a crossover with a smaller wheelbase than the R2--which means it will likely be less expensive--but with the same Rivian styling. 

Scaringe didn't say anything about availability or pricing information, only that the R3 would come "after" the R2. Presumably, that means we won't start seeing them on the road until 2027 or later. I don't think it is a mistake that the company wanted to announce them now. Rivian is at a make-or-break point. It is selling vehicles that are widely beloved, it just isn't selling enough of them.

The company continues to lose money on its vehicles, but that just means it hasn't sold enough of them to cover the cost of design and production. The most obvious way to address this is to have smaller, more affordable options. The R2, and to an even greater extent, the R3, could very well be the solution to that problem.

Apple vs Spotify

On Monday, the European Commission (EC) fined Apple roughly $2 billion over a complaint filed by Spotify that Apple was unfairly using the App Store to make it hard for streaming music services to compete. Apple has its own service, Apple Music, which doesn’t have to pay a commission on subscriptions in the way that Spotify or other services do.

Apple responded with a post on its Newsroom that disagreed with the fine—as you might expect—but then directed most of its ire not toward the EC, but toward Spotify. Seriously, Apple’s post is a little over 1,500 words. Less than 100 of them are about the decision. The rest of those words are about Apple’s anger with Spotify. Four words, in particular, get to the heart of Apple’s position: “Spotify pays Apple nothing.”

There’s an entire section in Apple’s response with those four words as the heading:

“Spotify has grown their company into the largest digital music business in the world… Despite that success, and the App Store’s role in making it possible, Spotify pays Apple nothing. That’s because Spotify — like many developers on the App Store — made a choice. Instead of selling subscriptions in their app, they sell them on their website. And Apple doesn’t collect a commission on those purchases.”

When you think about it, it’s pretty clear that Apple sees itself as entitled to a commission for every dollar that is generated in proximity to the iPhone. Not only that, it seems clear that the fact that companies like Spotify don’t pay anything is a particular source of consternation at Apple.

Apple vs Epic (Again)

In other Apple vs. everyone news, the company terminated Epic’s developer account in the EU. Shortly after Apple announced its plan to comply with the DMA, Epic said it had obtained a developer account and planned to open a third-party app store. At the same time, Epic’s CEO, Tim Sweeney, made it clear he wasn’t a fan of what he called “malicious compliance” by Apple. Apparently, Apple took exception to this and revoked Epic’s developer account.

I honestly cannot think of a reason Apple wants to keep having this fight. I mean, we’ve been through this all. There was a lawsuit, a trial where we got to see Tim Cook on the stand, we got to read the emails, and then a judge said Apple could basically do what it wanted. Well, except the part where it prevents developers from telling customers that they can subscribe or buy stuff on the web. That it had to allow.

But, now, Apple and Epic are at it again, and I just don’t see how this is worth it for Apple. Is Epic a trustworthy partner? Probably not, but this just seems like far more headache for Apple than it’s worth—especially after the $2 billion fine.

Elon Musk vs OpenAI

Speaking of fights that don’t make a lot of sense, Elon Musk is suing OpenAI because—I think—he’s mad that the company wouldn’t let him be the boss. He used other words in the lawsuit—like the fact that OpenAI was started as a non-profit, but changed its mind, and the fact that it’s not actually, well, open at all.

Emails published by OpenAI, however, make it pretty clear that Musk was cool with all of it until he proposed that OpenAI build its tech within Tesla, or let him have 51 percent of the company and run the show. OpenAI said no, and Musk said “I’m out.” Now that he’s building his own AI tech, he’s back to throw a wrench in things.

The lawsuit mostly seems like trolling. I haven’t read a single legal expert that thinks there’s any chance Musk could win (he doesn’t even appear to have standing to sue in the first place, and a breach of contract lawsuit requires—you know—a contract, which doesn’t exist in this case).

Still, the case highlights a very real question about OpenAI, which is “What does the ‘open’ really mean anyway?” Musk might not have legal standing to demand an answer, but it does seem like the company owes the world an answer.

Until now, most of the way most people interact with generative AI has been through experiences like ChatGPT or Google's Gemini which allow users to enter text into a prompt and get back a text response. Or, perhaps you've used a tool like Dall-E or Midjourney to create images. 

This feels different, not just because of the technical aspects of pulling off convincing video, but also because of what it means for all of us. It doesn’t seem like it will be long before we’re asking ourselves whether this is a tool we should have unleashed.

Video is--for obvious reasons--a much harder problem to solve. Still, what OpenAI has shown of Sora so far is pretty wild. The video above was created from the prompt "Beautiful, snowy Tokyo city is bustling. The camera moves through the bustling city street, following several people enjoying the beautiful snowy weather and shopping at nearby stalls. Gorgeous sakura petals are flying through the wind along with snowflakes."

In addition to the videos, the company included in its announcement, Altman was taking prompts on X and sharing the results all afternoon. The idea that you can type words into a browser window and a computer will give you back a 60-second photorealistic video is mind-blowing. 

But--and this is an important point--these are highly controlled demos. No one outside of OpenAI is able to type prompts in to test its abilities. Journalists who were briefed on the demos were not able to try it for themselves, probably because Sora isn't yet at a point where it consistently produces good results. Even Altman's examples from user prompts were curated. 

There are really two very different things here, and both are worth considering. The first is that this is an entirely new front for AI. The fact that Sora can produce these results--even occasionally--is both compelling and concerning. OpenAI says it is allowing safety researchers to use Sora in order to create boundaries and limits--presumably because we're about to enter what is surely going to be the most contentious presidential election season ever, and Altman does not want to be sitting before Congress explaining why it isn't OpenAI's fault that its product was used to influence the outcome.

The other is that I have a lot of questions. How long do these videos take to generate? Hours? How consistent is Sora at producing the kind of results the company is showing off as demos? And, maybe more importantly, how will OpenAI prevent them from being used for the inevitable: misinformation and abuse?

I guess there's another obvious question: What is OpenAI using to train Sora? In a statement to Wired, Bill Peebles, who co-led the project, said, "The training data is from content we've licensed and also publicly available content." He did not say what "publicly available content" means, or whether that includes copyrighted material that happens to be on the internet. 

While most people will, rightfully, be focused on the questions of copyright infringement and misinformation, I actually think the second question is more interesting--at least from the perspective of the promise OpenAI is making. Generative AI is notoriously bad at getting the details right. That's true if you're typing things into ChatGPT or Google's Gemini, both of which will just make things up with no relationship to reality. It's also true for photos--and now videos.

One of the examples shown was of an older woman and a cake, presumably for her birthday. Around her are other people clapping. Except, one of the women in the video isn't actually clapping, and her hands move in ways that could only be possible if she has no bones in her fingers. You don't notice it at first, but once you do, you cannot unsee it. 

I'm not criticizing Sora for not being perfect. It isn't even available as a product yet, and when you think about what it's doing, the results so far really are incredible. I do think, however, that OpenAI is creating an expectation, and it'll be very interesting to see whether it can live up to the promise it is making. 

That's just a thing that happens with almost every new product. The company that makes it will roll out very controlled demos to show off its best capabilities. That just makes sense, but it risks a letdown if the finished product doesn't live up to those expectations every time.

Apple's Vision Pro headset is a great example. I was one of the people who had a chance to use it back in June at Apple's developer conference, WWDC, and I was blown away by how good it was. That impression came after a 30-minute demo, however. I only saw what Apple wanted me to see. 

Now that the product is available to anyone, people are poking at its limits and finding out where it doesn't live up to the expectations. Sure, it's still a pretty incredible piece of technology, but the story has gone from how mind-blowing it is, to how people are returning them en masse because they can't see themselves using it.

Ultimately, the lesson here is simple: be careful with the expectations you set. It's not surprising that OpenAI wants to show off how impressive Sora is, but once it's in the hands of 100 million users, their experience is going to be wildly different. If that experience doesn't live up to the promise, that's a lot of disappointed users. 

This first appeared at my Inc.com column.

Primary Technology Episode 008

Be sure to check out the latest episode of Primary Technology the show Stephen Robles and I do each week, where we talk about the tech stories that matter.

You can also listen wherever you get podcasts:

Apple Podcasts / Spotify / PocketCasts / Overcast / primarytech.fm

Mark Zuckerberg Responds to Vision Pro

There are two things you can learn from Mark Zuckerberg's video review of the Vision Pro that he shared on Instagram. The first is that Zuckerberg seems a little worried that people might think Vision Pro is a better version of Meta's Quest headset. Why else does he bother making this video highlighting the contrast between the two devices and proclaiming the Quest is the better product?

The second and more interesting thing is that Zuckerberg is right. At least, he's right about one important assertion he makes at the beginning. 

"I have to say that, before this, I expected that Quest would be the better value for most people since it's really good and it's like seven times less expensive," Zuckerberg begins. "After using it, I don't just think that Quest is the better value; I think Quest is the better product, period."

That, to be fair, is the type of thing you'd expect to hear from a competitor talking about their own product. But Zuckerberg goes on to explain why, and this is where I don't think there's any question he is right:

"Quest is better for the vast majority of things that people use mixed reality for," Zuckerberg says. 

Look, that's obviously true because most of the people who use mixed reality are using a Quest 2 or a Quest 3. They are, without question, the most popular consumer headsets you can buy. They may not be the highest quality, but they are fine for what people use them for, and Meta has established itself as the biggest platform. 

The things people use mixed-reality or virtual reality (VR) headsets for are naturally going to be limited by the fact that you have to wear them on your head, and most people aren't going to do that for anything but playing games or maybe watching a movie. They're not going to replace our laptops or smartphones anytime soon because those devices are just better at what they do. Also, they're less awkward to use.

Smartphones (for the most part) are still a thing that fits in your pocket. Smartwatches became mainstream because they are a thing you wear on your wrist, which is a place people are already used to wearing something. Headsets are a computer you wear on your face, which is just not a thing most people are going to want to do, meaning that the market for them is always going to be smaller.

The obvious exception to that is if someone eventually figures out how to miniaturize the technology enough that it fits into a pair of reasonable-looking glasses that provide a sort of heads-up display with information that augments the real world you're looking at. That, however, is just not something we're going to see anytime soon. 

Of course, Zuckerberg also couldn't help but take a few, not-so-subtle digs at Vision Pro's biggest weaknesses. "There are no wires that get in the way when you move around," Zuckerberg said about the Quest 3. "It's a big deal."

But those criticisms aside, the core problem of the Apple Vision Pro isn't that it has an external battery, but that it's a very expensive product for something most people don't know what to do with. It is, by all accounts, the very best version of this type of product that has ever been made, at least, in terms of technology. But that alone doesn't make it useful. That's a tough sell for something that costs $3,500.

The Apple Watch didn't do much well when it first came out besides tell time. The software was bad, and Apple hadn't yet figured out that its strength was as a health device. It was also only $350, and, well, it did tell time. It was expensive for a digital watch, but it wasn't prohibitively expensive. It wasn't a terrible expense if you weren't sure what to do with it.

The Vision Pro is different. If you don't already have a plan for something, $3,500 is a lot of money to spend. Also, if you're considering buying a Vision Pro, there is a good chance you already have an iPhone and a Mac, both of which you know what to do with, and both of which do a lot of things better. If you just want a nice headset for the types of things people use headsets for, Zuckerberg is probably right, the Quest is a better product.

But I don't think Apple thinks of it as a device people buy to do typical VR things like play Beat Saber. In fact, playing games on Vision Pro would be a nightmare for the most part. There isn't even a great input interface for playing games. You can pair it to a Bluetooth controller, but the reason people like playing games on the Quest 3 is that it includes hand controllers and the games are designed around that input device. 

I think Apple means it when it talks about Vision Pro as a spatial computing device. The thing is, that sounds very cool, but it's not a thing people do. At least, not yet. And getting people to buy a device to do something they don't already do is hard when that device is $3,500. Apparently, if reports that buyers are returning their Vision Pros are true, getting them to keep them is also a real challenge. That's not great news for Apple.

Other stories you might like:

Lyft’s CEO apologizes for $2B oops. (Business Insider)

Meta and Apple are trading words over the App Store… again. (TechCrunch)

Apple released a paper on its own text-to animation AI model. (The Verge)

Apple is also removing Home Screen apps in the EU (9to5Mac)

Microsoft is bringing Xbox games to Playstation and Switch (Daring Fireball)

It all seems like a great deal. Until, of course, you remember that Apple spent much of the last two years warning people that the DMA was going to be very bad for the security and privacy of users. It wasn’t going to go quietly when it came time to comply.

From Apple’s press release and documentation, here’s a summary of the changes the company is making:

1. Alternative App Distribution: Developers will have the option to distribute their iOS apps through alternative app marketplaces​​.

2. Alternative Payment Processors: Developers can choose to use alternative payment processors in their EU apps on the App Store​​.

3. Reduced Commission Rates: Apple is reducing the commission rates for iOS apps on the App Store to either 17 percent on transactions for digital goods and services, or 10 percent for the vast majority of developers and subscriptions following their first year​​​​.

4. Payment Processing Fee: An additional 3 percent payment processing fee will be charged for iOS apps on the App Store that choose to use Apple's payment processing. Developers have the option to use a third-party payment processor with no additional fee to Apple​​​​.

5. Core Technology Fee: A new "Core Technology Fee" of €0.50 will be charged for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold for iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace​​​​.

6. Notarization for iOS Apps: All iOS and iPadOS apps have to be notarized, regardless of where they are distributed. This includes checks for malware and a base level of human review​​.

7. New App Installation Sheets: Users will see a new sheet design for app installation from other sources, containing basic details about the app​​.

8. Third-Party Payment Options: Developers can offer third-party payment processing or link out for purchasing options​​.

9. Expanded App Analytics: Apple is providing over 50 new reports for developers to track engagement, commerce metrics, app usage, and more, available worldwide​​.

10. New Default Browser Picker: A new default browser picker in Safari for EU users, allowing them to choose an alternative browser​​. More importantly, those browsers don’t have to use WebKit. That means Chrome can now run its native mobile browser.

The biggest change is that developers will have the option to distribute their iOS apps through alternative app marketplaces or to use alternative payment processors within their apps on the App Store. This is essentially what developers like Epic Games have been asking for. Except, Epic’s CEO, Tim Sweeny is not at all happy. He shared his unhappiness in a post on X.

There’s always a catch

The problem for Sweeney (and for other large developers) is that Apple is imposing a new "Core Technology Fee" of €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold. This fee applies to developers who opt into the new terms and means they will pay the fee for any apps distributed from the App Store, as well as any alternative app marketplace—including free apps. That means Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger, would pay that amount for each of those apps, for every single user in the EU.

You can’t set up an alternative marketplace without agreeing to the new terms, but why would a company like Meta want to start paying hundreds of millions of dollars for apps it doesn’t charge for?

It definitely seems like Apple is complying with the letter of the law while ensuring that no one takes advantage of the new option. That, of course, is exactly how Apple would like it—things stay pretty much exactly the same, while getting regulators off its back.

Then again, it’s not clear this will accomplish the later.

Considering that the only companies that realistically have a chance to build, market, and distribute an alternative app marketplace are companies like Meta and Epic—which clearly surpass the 1 million download threshold—the clear target of the Core Technology Fee is ensuring that it is economically unviable to host an alternative app marketplace. Since the majority of apps are free with in-app purchases, the burden of paying €0.50 for each unique installation, every year, forever, just does not make sense.

Apple is giving developers a choice that is really no choice at all (you can stick with the system we build, or you can opt out and essentially sabatoge your business).

A bad look for everyone

Ultimately, no one really looks that great. Mostly, that’s because it doesn’t seem like anyone is spending any effort thinking about what should be the most important thing: The experiene of users.

Sure, everyone uses words that sound like they care about users, without actually making the experience better for anyone. For example, take this quote from Apple Fellow, Phil Schiller:

“The changes we’re announcing today comply with the Digital Markets Act’s requirements in the European Union, while helping to protect EU users from the unavoidable increased privacy and security threats this regulation brings. Our priority remains creating the best, most secure possible experience for our users in the EU and around the world.”

It’s clear that Apple is very unhappy about being forced to make these changes. No company wants to be forced to do anything, but it’s interesting that—in some ways—Apple brought this on itself by refusing to give any ground at all. Now that the DMA is law, Apple is still expressing its pure disdain by making it clear that not only is this law a bad idea, but that it will make the experience worse for users.

Specifically, Apple talks about privacy and security. Those are real concerns, but there are very few people who will ever use an alternative app marketplace. Sideloading, or installing apps from outside of the platform app store, has been an option on Android for years, but almost no one does it.

From a users’ perspective, it’s just not worth it. Downloading apps from Apple’s App Store will always be easier and more seamless. Most users already have a credit card on file, and they don’t have to jump through any hoops or set up payment on a third-party store.

Ultimately, the most interesting thing about these changes—taken with Apple’s previous update to allow developers in the U.S. to add a link to alternative methods of making purchases or signing up for a subscription—is that the conversation was never about giving users freedom over the software on their devices. It has always been about the money.

The thing developers care about the most is not paying Apple 30 percent of all transactions on the iPhone. Apple is never going to make that change on its own, so developers have lobbied lawmakers to get them to pass laws to force Apple’s hand. Those efforts haven’t been successful on this side of the Atlantic, but the EU has been eager to impose regulations on big tech companies.

Of course, neither the developers or regulators are really thinking about the thing that actually matters. They’re thinking about making more money and exerting control. That doesn’t make the experience any better for anyone.

The message is clear

Mostly, for Apple, I think this is about sending a message. The company is telling developers that they can stick with the system Apple built and keep paying the commission, or you can opt out and essentially sabatoge your business. It’s putting them on notice that even when forced to make changes, it will ensure they don’t actually change much of anything (despite the 10,000 or so words needed to explain the new terms).

I think Apple is also sending a message to other governments. The last thing it wanted is for, say, the U.S. Congress to look at what the EU is doing and get any ideas. It’s letting lawmakers know that Apple has very smart lawyers who will figure out how to comply with your rules in the way that continues to benefit Apple.

More coverage of Apple’s changes:

From Apple’s Newsroom

Sideloading is coming to the iPhone… in Europe (The Verge)

Apple finally responds to the DMA (The New York Times)

A detailed explanation of the changes Apple is making (MacStories)

Apple lowers commissions on App Store in EU (Bloomberg)

On January 22, 1984, Apple ran what is still one of the most iconic commercials of all time. Two days later, it introduced what would become one of the world's most beloved products. It is certainly Apple's.

It's hard to express the extent to which there was a time when the Macintosh was one of the most aspirational and inspirational products there was. There's a reason Steven Levy called it "the computer that changed everything" in his 2000 book, Insanely Great. It really did change everything, both for Apple and for personal computers as a whole. 

Unlike any other personal computer, it included a graphical user interface (GUI), a mouse for navigation, and a built-in display, all of which were revolutionary at the time. It also endeared its users in a way few other consumer products ever have.

So much of Apple's identity today is driven by the iPhone, but for the last 40 years, the Mac has remained the most beloved product Apple ever gave the world. I know that's a big claim. I also know a lot of people reading that will dismiss it as an exaggeration, but I stand behind the idea that the Mac is far more valuable to Apple as a part of its brand than anything else it has ever made.

Look, I know the Mac is no longer the primary driver of Apple's revenue--or even its reputation. For all intents and purposes, most people view Apple as the iPhone company. That's understandable, considering the iPhone might be the single most important consumer tech product ever. It's certainly the most successful.

While the Mac has had a better-than-average run over the past few years, it's still just a fraction of what the iPhone sells. In the last year, it was less than half of what Apple generates in Services revenue and roughly the same as the iPad. Still, it's hard to overstate the importance of the Mac to the existence of Apple as a company, and as a consumer brand.

Look, I know iPhone users love their iPhones, and there are plenty of people who love their AirPods or Apple Watches, but it is not the same. People who use Macs just think differently about their computers. They may be a (relatively) small group of users, but they are disproportionately passionate about using their computers. 

The original Macintosh 128k. The colorful G3 iMac. The playful G4 model version that looked like a Pixar character. The impossibly thin original MacBook Air. These are iconic computers that defined their respective categories, and the people who use them wouldn't trade them for anything, except, maybe a newer Mac. 

This is especially relevant on the eve of Apple shipping its first new major product category in eight years, Vision Pro. Apple, as a company, is far less beloved than it once was, largely because it has gotten so big because of the iPhone, that it's hard not to think it has lost a sense of what people love.

The success of the iPhone has distorted two of its most important relationships--with its customers and developers. Apple used to view its customers almost as partners. It often felt as though Apple saw its mission as making computers its customers could use to make whatever it is they make. 

Now, however, it seems like when you buy an iPhone, the primary objective is to get you to sign up for a cascade of Apple's services. The company even shows you ads, poorly disguised as helpful suggestions, right in the settings app. 

As for developers, Apple seems to have completely lost the plot. Many of Apple's largest developers appear to be sitting out the Vision Pro launch altogether. 

The Mac is still the one platform that Apple continues to allow to remain open. It's open for developers to create interesting and delightful software. Unlike the iPhone, iPad, Watch, and (presumably) Vision Pro, you can install whatever you want on the Mac, from anywhere you want. 

You can use a Mac to make movies, watch YouTube videos, design brochures, edit photos, write novels, or do your homework. Sure, you can do all of those things on a hundred different types of devices, but--for someone who does them on a Mac, it's just better.

Here's an interesting test: ask someone who has used a Mac for more than 15 years which they would give up if they could keep only one: their iPhone or their Mac. If it were me, I'd keep my Mac. There are plenty of Android phones that would be just fine. I wouldn't love giving up my iPhone, but--if I had to--I could make it work. There is no way I would give up my Mac, however. 

The Mac may no longer be the most important product to Apple's bottom line, but I don't know how anyone could argue it isn't important to its brand. There's a simple lesson, which is that designing products that delight your customers is the single best way to earning their affection and loyalty. Sure, Apple makes a lot of money collecting commissions on apps people install on their iPhone, but there's nothing delightful about that. It's the Mac that remains the most beloved product Apple has ever made.

A version of this first appeared in my column at Inc.com

More on the 40th Anniversary of the Mac

• The Upgrade guys (Myke Hurley and Jason Snell) had a great group of guests talking about the 40th anniversary of the Mac on their most recent episode. You can catch a video version of it on YouTube.

• My friend and co-host, Stephen Robles, was on MacBreak Weekly, which also covered the occasion

My first Mac

While I was around when the first Mac came out, I was not old enough to own one—or any computer for that matter.

When I was growing up, we did not have a Mac. My dad was (and still is) a PC guy. We had some Packard Bell something or other. That said, I am old enough to have had friends who had an original Macintosh 128k, and I can remember thinking it was the most amazing thing ever.

We had Macintosh Performas at school, but I didn’t buy my first Mac until I was out of college, a Titanium PowerBook G4. Like my first impression of the original Mac, I thought the PowerBook G4 was the most amazing thing ever. I bought it to use Final Cut Pro and Photoshop, and it was the Mac that got me forever hooked on Macs.

Since then, I’ve had a series of Macs, including an Aluminum 15-inch PowerBook G4, various versions of the MacBook Air, a 27-inch iMac, and now a 14-inch M3 Max MacBook Pro. In all, I counted eight (maybe nine) different Macs I’ve owned since 2001.

My current Mac gives me the same feeling—it’s amazing. It’s by far the fastest computer I’ve ever used, and—to be fair—it’s way overkill for what I do. If you subscribe to the member content of my new podcast, Primary Technology, you can hear Stephen and I talk about which Apple devices we’d pick if we could only have two, and the MacBook Pro is not one of my picks.

You can also listen to our regular episodes in your favorite podcast player:

Apple Podcasts / Spotify / PocketCasts / Overcast / primarytech.fm

Other 40th Mac-related news:

The Mac is immortal (Dan Moren at Six Colors)

History of the Mac (Cult of Mac)

40 Facts about the Mac (iMore)

The weirdest and rarest Macs (ArsTechnica)

On Tuesday, Apple responded by updating its Developer Agreement, making it clear that even if developers decide to bypass Apple's in-app payment system, the world's wealthiest company still plans to collect its commission--27 percent (or 12 percent for developers in its small business program), to be exact. Not only that, it also intends to collect that fee if a user makes a purchase within seven days of clicking on a link to a developer's website. 

From the updated agreement:

Apple is charging a commission on digital purchases initiated within seven days from link out, as described below. This will not capture all transactions that Apple has facilitated through the App Store, but is a reasonable means to account for the substantial value Apple provides developers, including in facilitating linked transactions.

Apple's commission will be 27% on proceeds you earn from sales ("transactions") to the user for digital goods or services on your website after a link out (i.e., they tap "Continue" on the system disclosure sheet), provided that the sale was initiated within seven days and the digital goods or services can be used in an app. This includes (a) any applicable taxes and (b) any adjustments for refunds, reversals and chargebacks. For auto-renewing subscriptions, (i) a sale initiated, including with a free trial or offer, within seven days after a link out is a transaction; and (ii) each subsequent auto-renewal after the subscription is initiated is also a transaction.

This is definitely one of those things that, when you read about it, makes you think, "They're really doing what?" Then, you remember that this is Apple, a company that will defend--at almost any cost--its ability to collect 30 percent of everything that happens on the iPhone. It really isn't that surprising at all.

It's also worth mentioning that Apple is absolutely within its rights to do this. It's also within the law. The judge in the Epic versus Apple case made it clear the company was entitled to charge for the use of its intellectual property. Since it didn't say what amount was reasonable, it's hard to imagine a scenario where Apple isn't going to try to collect as much as it could from developers who chose to use their own payment methods. 

Oh, and just because you decide you want to add a link to your own payment option, you still have to offer Apple's in-app payment system as an option.

"Your app must offer in-app purchases in accordance with the Developer Program License Agreement and App Store Review Guidelines, and may not discourage end-users from making in-app purchases," the agreement says. There is also a screen that pops up to let users know they are leaving the safety of Apple's system and are at the mercy of the developer when they make a transaction.

Finally, developers must submit a monthly report with their transactions. "If you adopt this entitlement, you will be required to provide transaction reports within 15 calendar days following the end of each calendar month," the agreement says. You'll also have to allow Apple to audit those reports to verify the "accuracy of your record of digital transactions, ensuring the appropriate commission has been paid to Apple."

Ugh.

The thing is, it shouldn't do this. It's one of the most basic rules of business and, well, common decency: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. In this case, it seems pretty clear that Apple is missing some pretty important points. 

Look, I understand that being the most valuable company on earth means that you see things differently from the rest of us. I also understand that Apple has very strong beliefs about the App Store. But there are two specific reasons Apple shouldn't do this. 

The first is that developers are not its enemy. They just aren't. Yes, Apple created a platform that has generated billions of dollars of value for developers, but those developers create incredible value for Apple. Of the 25 apps on my iPhone that I use most often, 21 of them are made by third-party developers, including my calendar and email app of choice (Fantastical and Spark). 

Sure, I would still use an iPhone if those apps didn't exist, but using an iPhone is so much better because they do. It's not always clear that Apple thinks that way. Sometimes, it seems as though Apple thinks of itself as a landlord leasing out space to tenants, as opposed to seeing developers as partners. 

The other reason is that Apple is just daring Congress to rein in its control over iOS and the App Store. The Open Markets Act isn't law yet, but the more Apple exerts its leverage over developers in this way, the more likely it is that lawmakers and regulators will force it to make some pretty uncomfortable changes. 

"It is precisely this type of abusive, monopolistic behavior that makes it imperative for Congress to pass the Open App Markets Act," said Rick VanMeter, executive director of the Coalition for App Fairness. 

There's a pretty good chance that in the next 18 months, Apple will be forced to allow things it abhors--like third-party app stores. Congress and the Department of Justice already have their sights on the company, and if it continues to push, there's a good chance it could lose a lot more than the revenue generated when a customer decides to click on those external links to sign up for a calendar app or to-do app. 

When you think about what it costs the company in terms of goodwill and user experience, and what it could cost the company in control--the thing it values most--it's hard to see how any of it is worth it. 

Apple Vision Pro Launch

On this week’s episode of Primary Technology, the show I co-host with Stephen Robles, we talked about the Apple Vision Pro pre-order process.

You can catch the show on YouTube, or in your favorite podcast player:

Apple Podcasts / Spotify / PocketCasts / Overcast / primarytech.fm

Samsung Galaxy Unpacked Highlights

Last week, Samsung had its Galaxy Unpacked event in San Jose, California, where it rolled out the latest versions of its Galaxy smartphones. I think the phones are interesting for a number of reasons, including the fact that they are the best Android devices you can buy--at least here in the United States. More importantly, however, Samsung is doing things that Apple hasn't yet included in the iPhone, but it should. 

In fact, I think there are five things Samsung added to the S24 Ultra that Apple absolutely must include in the iPhone 16:

1. WiFi 7

This one is easy. Now that it's officially here, more devices will start supporting WiFi 7, which means more people will start experiencing the benefits of the faster standard. Samsung added WiFi 7 to all of the new S24 devices, and hopefully, Apple will follow suit.

To be clear, most people won't notice much of a benefit immediately. There are only a handful of routers that support WiFi 7 at this point, and unless you have gigabit or faster internet speeds at home, it won't matter anyway. But, considering most people buy and keep their phones for three to five years, a little bit of future-proofing goes a long way.

Notably, Apple did not include WiFi 7 when it introduced the iPhone 15 series. It was understandable at the time since the standard hadn't been officially certified, and Apple plans and designs its products far in advance. Also, Apple has never been a company to adopt things like this. However, now that it's here, let's hope Apple follows Samsung's lead with the iPhone 16.

2. 50MP Telephoto

A far more immediately impressive feature of the S24 Ultra is the 50MP, 5x telephoto camera. You'll remember that the iPhone 15 Pro Max has a 5x "tetraprism" lens on its telephoto camera, but that only has a 12 MP sensor. As a result, you aren't able to crop in much before you start having a significant loss of quality. 

By giving its 5x telephoto camera a 50MP sensor, Samsung is stepping up the quality in a big way. In fact, the company told The Verge that its 5X telephoto will produce better quality images when cropped in, than its previous 10x telephoto did. 

I love the 5x camera on the iPhone 15 Pro Max, and I use it all the time. It would be great, however, if Apple would be a little more generous with the resolution of its sensors, especially on what I think is its best new camera feature in a long time.

3. Brighter screen

Samsung increased the brightness of the S24 Ultra to 2,600 nits. For comparison, the S23 Ultra was 1750 nits, and the iPhone 15 Pro Max is 2,000 nits. While the iPhone screen is plenty bright enough for most uses, the extra range is especially useful when using your iPhone outdoors in bright sunlight. 

By the way, the fact that Samsung also added a better cooling system on the S24 means that your phone won't have to dim the screen as often in bright sunlight just because it overheated. Apple's displays are some of the very best in the business, but as our devices become capable of doing more things, it only means that we'll want them to perform in any situation, including when the sun is out.

4. On-Device LLM

Samsung worked with Google to include its Gemini Large Language Model (LLM), which runs on-device. That allows it to do all sorts of powerful things without having to send your information to a server in the cloud and wait for a response. For example, Samsung showed off its Live Translation feature that will automatically detect the language between participants in a phone call and translate their conversation in real time.

Apple has a neural engine built into its A-series processors but hasn't introduced an on-device LLM. There are reports that Apple is working on its own LLM, and building it in a way that it is able to run on-device would go a long way towards solving several of Apple's problems, including making Siri smarter, more responsible, and more reliable. 

5. AI-powered photo editing.

One of the most obvious benefits of having AI on-device is being able to do things like use it to edit photos. Samsung is leaning into the capabilities Google has been working on for a while. The Pixel series has had several AI-editing tools for a few years, but this is the first time we've seen them at this scale on an Android device not made by Google.

The S24 series can remove distracting elements, use generative fill to add in corners when you adjust the horizon of an image, and even suggest edits. It also uses AI to improve things like night photography, and--in one of its more controversial features--convert a standard video into a 120fps slow-motion video. 

Sure, there are plenty of questions about what even is a photo anymore, but the reality is--for most people--they just want to be able to capture photos that look good. Apple has used what it refers to as machine learning to improve photos, but not nearly to the extent that Google and Samsung have. If it's true that people really just want their photos to look better, it's time for Apple to make it a lot easier to do just that.

Other stories you might like

Apple’s developer-relations problems are affecting Vision Pro (Bloomberg)

You can unlink your Instagram and Facebook accounts, if you live in the EU (The Verge)

The Mac turns 40 this week. (Wired)

Microsoft Execs got hacked by Russians (CNBC)

In February, The Journal described an increase in sophisticated attacks where iPhone thieves swiped devices after observing the owner putting in their passcode. That step is the most important since the passcode is the literal key to everything on the device.

From The Journal:

With only the iPhone and its passcode, an interloper can within seconds change the password associated with the iPhone owner’s Apple ID. This would lock the victim out of their account, which includes anything stored in iCloud. The thief can also often loot the phone’s financial apps since the passcode can unlock access to all the device’s stored passwords.

The thieves were taking advantage of the fact that iOS allows you to reset your Apple ID with just the device passcode. If you know where to look, you could change that password in a matter of seconds, which is not enough time for a victim to do anything to stop it.

For a device that contains basically all of your personal information, it doesn’t make sense that it could be so easily compromised. On the other hand, there was a good reason Apple designed iOS this way—so that people who forget their AppleID password don’t lock themselves out. You could always use your iPhone to reset the password. People are a lot more likely to remember their iPhone passcode than a longer, more secure password.

Now, Apple is closing that threat by introducing a new optional Stolen Device Protection feature. The most significant difference is that changing your Apple ID password will now require biometric authentication (Face ID or Touch ID). Currently, you only have to enter your iPhone’s passcode to change what might be the most important password in most people’s digital lives. In addition, it introduces a one-hour delay after you make a request, at which time, a second Face ID scan is required to make the change.

This means that stealing an iPhone and shoulder-surfing the passcode will no longer be enough to take over someone’s entire digital life. Also, if your device is stolen, you now have more time before someone is able to do any damage.

The Journal’s article has this helpful charge that explains the changes:

Essentially, Apple has limited the scope of what you can do with just an iPhone passcode. Obviously, you can still unlock a device with just a passcode, meaning a thief would still have access to any information or app that isn’t protected with its own PIN. And, if you do lose your Apple ID password, you can still reset it with your iPhone, you just have to use Face ID, and wait an hour—which does seem like a small price to pay to ensure no one else can change it.

Stolen Device Protection is a part of the iOS 17.3 beta, and is an optional feature, meaning you have to turn it on in order to be protected. That makes sense—some people may not want the trade-off of having an extra layer of protection that comes with an inconvenience. If you feel confident that you won’t expose your passcode in public, maybe you don’t need the additional security. Regardless, it’s great that Apple has devised a clever way to stop thieves from exploiting what it meant to be a convenience for its users.

Netflix finally shares the numbers

On Tuesday, Netflix released a report detailing the total number of hours watched for more than 18,000 of its shows and movies between January and June of this year. Technically, it's not so much a report as it is a huge Excel spreadsheet with four columns: one each for the name of the show or movie, whether it was released globally, the release date, and something called "Hours Viewed." 

"Starting today we will publish What We Watched: A Netflix Engagement Report twice a year," the company said in a statement. "This is a comprehensive report of what people watched on Netflix over a six month period."  

I'm not sure whether I'd call the report comprehensive. Sure, it lists a lot of shows, and the view numbers are pretty big on some of them (more than 812 million hours viewed for The Night Agent: Season 1). Still, it doesn't say anything about how many people are actually watching a given show. Netflix, which has been notorious for not sharing much data at all, says that "hours viewed" is the right metric because it's the best representation of the popularity of a given show.

"It's easy to understand," said Netflix's co-CEO, Ted Sarandos. "It mirrors third parties like Nielsen in the US. It makes Netflix very easy to compare to other streaming services."

In its statement, Netflix suggested that it "provides more information about what people are watching than any other streamer except YouTube." That's a little misleading. I mean, YouTube literally posts view counts and "likes" on every video. That's a lot different than a spreadsheet with 18,000 shows and a column for "hours viewed." After all, it isn't It does not tell you anything about how many people are watching a given show. 

Despite what it says about its top-watched lists, the company has traditionally kept its numbers secret, including from its creative talent. In a recent interview at The New York Times Dealbook Summit, Shonda Rhymes said that even she doesn't get a look at the ratings for her Netflix shows. Considering that Bridgerton is widely considered to be one of the most successful TV Shows on streaming, that's surprising. 

Even now, the report says it includes every title with more than 50,000 hours of watch time, though it rounds all the titles to the nearest 100,000 hours. That means there could be a pretty wide range of view time for shows between 50,001 hours and 149,999 hours. In both cases, the report shows them as having 100,000 hours.

On the one hand, the obvious question is, why hasn't Netflix done this all along?

"In the earliest days, it really wasn't in our interest to be that transparent because we were building a new business, and we needed room to learn," said Sarandos. "The unintended consequence of not having more transparent data about our engagement was that it created an atmosphere of mistrust over time with producers and creators and the about what was happening on Netflix."

That's exactly what the Writer's Guild of America was asking for when it negotiated its most recent contract after a months-long strike. Netflix shouldn't be the only entity that knows how well a given show or movie is doing on the streaming service. If the company really wants to look to YouTube as the model, it has a long way to go, but more transparency is definitely better. 

Trust, it turns out, is your most valuable asset. And trust is a byproduct of transparency. The more Netflix is willing to share with its creative partners, the more trust they build. It's just hard to believe it took this long.

Other stories you might like

Google just made an important step to protect your privacy from the police. (Forbes)

An inside look at how LEGO designs its sets. (The Verge)

Intel unveiled its AI-focused chips. (CNBC)

Maybe your iPhone really is listening to you. (404 Media)

Google is working on an AI assistant for the Pixel. (Engadget)

Chrome will finally block cookies next month. (CNET)

Musk was referring to his reply to a message that spread an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory. The post generated immense pushback, including from advertisers, which have fled the platform. It's unclear whether his apology will change the minds of any of his advertisers, which seem to have largely decided that the reputational risk of advertising on X just isn't worth the potential return. 

When asked about the effect this has had on X, the company formerly known as Twitter, Musk's response was defiant.

"If someone's going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go   f--- yourself," said Musk. "Including Bob," he added, referring to Disney CEO Bob Iger who was onstage earlier during the event. When Ross Sorkin attempted to follow up, Musk doubled down, repeating again, "Go f--- yourself."

Musk went on to claim that advertisers are going to kill the company. Ross Sorkin attempted to push back, claiming that advertisers might argue that it was Musk's decisions and public actions that could kill the company. Musk disagreed, and suggested that "Earth will be the judge." 

The interview went a lot of places, including a tangent about whether there are really aliens. Despite all of it, there was a powerful lesson best illustrated by a follow-up by Ross Sorkin. 

"You're saying I don't care if anyone likes me or they hate me," Ross Sorkin responded. "But given your power, and given what you have amassed, and your importance you have, I would think you want to be trusted."

Musk suggested that being trusted personally is irrelevant if the rockets made by SpaceX are the most reliable in the world, or if the cars made by Tesla are the best in the world. The thing is, I don't think that's true. I think Musk greatly underestimates the long-term importance of being trusted.

Sure, Musk has been incredibly successful despite his personal flaws and drawbacks. 

As the interview neared its conclusion, Musk talked about the importance of humans becoming a multiplanet species, meaning, in his view, that the survival of the human race depends on our ability to eventually colonize other planets. It certainly seems like trust is a pretty valuable asset if the thing you're trying to do is convince people that they should get on a rocket ship and leave Earth. 

In fact, that might be the most important lesson of all, and the one Musk doesn't seem to understand. For all of his success, there are growing numbers of people who simply don't trust him. So far, that hasn't seemed to be a barrier to making cars or launching rockets. It's true that his companies have been not only successful, but transformational in their industries. Make whatever argument you want about Musk, but Tesla is the most successful car company of the past decade, and it has influenced every electric vehicle made during that time. 

It's becoming clear that Musk's tremendous business achievements come at a cost, however. I don't know how to measure that cost, but I'm sure that at some point, Musk will discover it. The only question will be how many more of his companies fail by that point. That would be the most brutal lesson of all.

Apple’s NameDrop Problem

From my column at Inc.com.

Every once in a while, a bunch of people get worked up over some tech-related product or feature because it sounds like it might be very bad. This happens when the collective awareness of some new technology or feature reaches a tipping point, usually because someone with a large audience says a thing that sounds really bad, whether it's true or not. 

Sometimes, the people sharing this are government, or law enforcement officials. When that happens, everyone else just assumes it must be both bad and true. In this case, a handful of police departments across the country have started warning parents that a new iPhone feature, released with iOS 17, is putting their children at risk.

The feature is NameDrop, which allows you to easily share your contact information with another iPhone user, just by bringing your devices close and pointing them at each other. Honestly, it's one of the best new features of iOS 17, even if it's just a copy of a feature that already existed in third-party apps 10 years ago. 

The problem here is that it's pretty clear that, while the people who are spreading this information are police officers, they lack a real understanding of the feature. NameDrop isn't even new--iOS 17 has been out since September. For some reason, it's just taking off now. It's as though someone at Thanksgiving dinner told them about a thing they heard online, and now it's become a big deal. 

Yes, it's true that iOS 17 includes the NameDrop feature. It's also true that it's on by default. Neither of those things should be especially concerning. I guess you could argue Apple shouldn't enable new features by default, but the fact that it is on doesn't put anyone at any more risk.

Plus, it's easy to turn the feature off. So, if you're worried about someone stealing your child's information (or your own, for that matter), you could change the setting. Just go to Settings > General > AirDrop and toggle off the switch for "Bring Devices Together."

More important, however, the feature doesn't actually let someone steal your information. You see, even when enabled, the NameDrop feature works only if you have the setting turned on, have both iPhones unlocked, and have them less than an inch apart. Then, you're given the option of choosing what information to share, or whether to share any information at all.

A lot has to happen there before any personal information is shared, and the biggest factor is that you have to be in extremely close proximity and actively engage in a NameDrop session. No one can trigger sharing your contact information just because they sat near you in a cafe or on a bus. 

Supposedly, the worry is that children will be coerced or persuaded to share their contact information using the new feature, though it seems easier to just ask them to tell you their phone number. And, if you're worried that your child is susceptible to being coerced into NameDropping their contact information to a stranger, I might suggest that there are several boundary-related things you might want to do. For example, maybe remind your children of what parents have been saying for a thousand years: Don't talk to strangers. 

Ultimately, the lesson here is that people will always make a big deal out of things they don't fully understand. That's why it's up to you to take the time to know what's happening with your devices and make the right choice for your family. Also, don't spread information just because it sounds scary and possibly true. 

Finally, Apple could have avoided all of this by simply letting people opt into using the feature instead of having it on by default. I get why they made the decision they did--more people will certainly use a feature if it just automatically works. On the other hand, giving people the choice of whether to use a feature respects their preferences and builds trust. That's really the point here: Trust, it turns out, may be your most valuable asset of all. 

Other Stories You Might Like:

How Satya Nadella pulled off a masterclass in leading through a crisis.

The CyberTruck is here. (The Verge)

Inside Apple’s chip lab. (CNBC)

Montana’s TikTok ban gets blocked. (Engadget)

Everything AWS announced at re:Invent. (TechCrunch)

There are a few reasons that things didn’t go as expected. First, it seems there just weren’t that many surface products to announce at this point. Microsoft got into the Surface as a product line in order to spur other computer makers to design better PCs that could compete with the Mac.

The other thing that happened was that just days before the event, Panos Panay, who was the head of the Surface division (as well as Windows) abruptly left Microsoft. Bloomberg is reporting that Panay is headed to Amazon to replace outgoing Alexa and Echo product line boss Dave Limp (who CNBC reported on Monday was headed to Blue Origin as CEO).

As a result, most of the event was spent talking not about new hardware devices, but about how Microsoft thinks its AI product will “fundamentally transform our relationship with technology and usher in the new era of personal computing.” That’s how CEO Satya Nadella explained it on stage.

On the one hand, every tech company wants to figure out a way to incorporate AI into its products. For some, there’s a case to be made that whatever flavor of AI a given company has baked into its products makes it more useful to customers. And, for others, AI is just a phrase that gets baked into marketing materials while the company hopes you aren’t paying enough attention to realize it’s all just hype.

In Microsoft’s case, it’s more useful than hype, but the more interesting question isn’t how Microsoft is building AI into its products, but why.

Back to the ‘90s

It’s hard to separate the story of Microsoft from the story of the personal computer, which—generally speaking—has been mostly dominated by one company: Microsoft. Windows was, for a long time, the single most valuable computing platform. It held a literal monopoly on desktop computing.

After a while came the internet and, with it, a huge change. Sure, Microsoft made a web browser, Internet Explorer, and sure, it was once the dominant way of visiting websites, but—for most people—the experience of using the Internet has been largely controlled not by Microsoft, but by a different tech giant: Google.

In so many ways, Google is—for all intents and purposes—the internet. It’s where people look for information, where they get their email, and where every website on the internet looks for the majority of its traffic. Yes, Microsoft has a search engine, Bing, but come on—the only people who use Bing are people who don’t know they can change the default search engine on Edge.

Then, a little over 15 years ago, Steve Jobs stood on a stage and introduced the world to the iPhone. The smartphone, which had until then been mostly an expensive novelty used by businesspeople and sales professionals, became the most personal of computers and again changed the internet.

What Windows was to desktop computing, the iPhone is to mobile computing. Of course, Microsoft never figured out a mobile strategy, mostly because it would have threatened its Windows dominance. As a result, as important as Windows is to desktop computing, iOS on the iPhone is far more important as a platform, at least if you measure by the perceived impact on most people’s lives.

Microsoft’s AI Play

Now, Microsoft is making a play to own what it thinks is as significant a technology as the PC was 40 years ago.

“This is as significant as the PC was to the ‘80s, the web in the ‘90s, mobile in the 2000s, cloud in the 2010s,” said Nadella. “Just like you boot up an operating system to access applications or use a browser to navigate websites, you will involve a Co-Pilot to do all these activities and more.”

It’s certainly understandable that Microsoft would want to go back. Few companies have ever dominated an industry more than Microsoft did with desktop computers in the 1990s. Even Google’s dominance over search (and the internet as a whole, for that matter) isn’t quite comparable. You can still use the internet without Google Search, even if it’s not a great experience.

With AI, Microsoft seems to see an opportunity to sort of bring back the glory days. Nadella alluded to as much during the keynote.

“I started in Microsoft when our mission was to put a PC in every home and every desk,” Nadella said. “Today, we have a vision for a Co-Pilot that can empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more.”

What he’s really saying is that when he started at Microsoft, it was the most important company in desktop computing and now he’d like for it to be the most dominant company in AI computing. And, the company might have a shot.

The thing that Microsoft is the best at is convincing companies to pay money for the productivity software their employees use to do their jobs. Millions of people use its productivity software for creating documents, presentations, spreadsheets, email, and collaboration. In every case, there are workflows that are the perfect fit for AI.

Co-Pilot is a great example. Don’t have time to read a report? Co-Pilot can summarize it for you. Need to turn it into a presentation? Again, Co-Pilot will help.

I’ve seen a lot of AI demos over the past 18 months, and the thing is, many of them seem magical, but not particularly useful. What Microsoft is trying to do is make AI a regular part of our work routines.

For example, you can ask Co-Pilot in Windows to turn on dark mode on your laptop. Or, you could ask Co-Pilot in Excel to analyze a data set and give you a summary of how your retail stores are performing compared with your competitors. All of it is very impressive, but more importantly, it’s very useful. And, for Microsoft, that’s the key. For more than a generation, the PC was indispensable for getting work done. Microsoft is trying to do the same thing with AI computing, and it just might work.

“It’s kind of like the ‘90s are back,” said Nadella during the keynote. Microsoft can only hope.

Other stories you might like

Amazon is going to start showing ads in Prime Video

No one likes Apple’s FineWoven cases.

The iPhone 15 Pro Action Button is a big deal. (The Verge)

Apple’s Eddie Cue will testify in Google’s antitrust case. (CNBC)

Now, however, it looks as though we'll have to settle for a battle of the platforms, with Instagram Threads launching Wednesday, a day earlier than expected. Calling it a Twitter competitor might be underselling the impact the new app could have. In reality, I imagine it's more likely to be a Twitter killer.

I know it seems a little dramatic to predict the end of Twitter, especially after all the things Musk has done--many of which seem to be trying to get as many people as possible to stop using his overpriced new toy--and yet, Twitter hasn't gone away yet. 

Of course, the last week has been especially rough for Twitter, with Musk saying that the company is implementing rate limits that restrict the total number of views users are able to see in a day. In fact, if Threads does put an end to Twitter, it'll be less about Zuckerberg capitalizing on the chaotic state of Twitter, and more about how we got here in the first place. 

Specifically, there are three reasons Threads might be the end of Twitter:

1. Expectations Are Everything

One of the biggest problems for Twitter is that people have no idea what to expect. At any given moment, it seems as though the company is making changes entirely based on whatever Musk is thinking. Not only that, the explanations for various changes don't always make sense.

One of the main reasons the people who have stopped using Twitter have fled to alternatives is that they don't care for the decisions Musk has made and the chaos that has ensued. People crave certainty, and nothing about Twitter is certain right now.

That doesn't mean there aren't problems with Threads: For example, in the iOS App Store, you can check out Threads' privacy nutrition label. The short version is, it's collecting all the data--just like Instagram or Facebook. It's as if whoever filled out the form with the app submission simply chose "Select All." 

That's definitely not great, but it's exactly what you might expect from Instagram and its parent company, Meta. It's a platform based on showing you ads based on what it thinks you like. Privacy is not going to be a thing on Threads.

Look. I'm not a Facebook apologist by any means, but I do think there's something to be said for a company being upfront about who it is and what it's trying to accomplish. At least you know what to expect.

More importantly, however, if you like Threads, you can be reasonably sure that it will continue to function as you expect it to for a while. I'm sure Meta will continue to develop the product, and sometimes it will make changes people disagree with, but for the most part, you'll know exactly what you're going to get. 

2. The Scale Advantage

For people who wanted something like Twitter, but couldn't bring themselves to keep using the Musk-owned version, the biggest problem with almost every alternative is that they lack the network effect. There just aren't nearly as many people using Mastodon, Bluesky, or Post.news. 

If the thing you liked about Twitter is that all the people you wanted to hear from were there, that's not necessarily the case for all of the other options. Some people started using Mastodon. Some people are using Post.news. Other people still use Twitter, which still has far more users than any of the alternatives.

That's not a problem for Threads, which piggy-backs on Instagram's social graph. That's a big deal considering Instagram has more than 2 billion active users every month. For comparison, Twitter has around 400 million. 

And, since Instagram made it effortless to create an account using your Instagram profile, the onboarding process is infinitely easier than, say, Mastodon, which involves a lot of work that most people won't bother with. It's not unrealistic that--in a short time--Threads will have more users than Twitter and its competitors combined.

3. Advertiser-Friendly For the Win

Finally, Twitter's biggest problem is that it has a huge amount of debt compared to the revenue it generates. To make money, Twitter needs advertisers. 

It's taken steps to become more advertiser-friendly after many of them fled post-Musk-acquisition. Hiring its new CEO, Linda Yaccarino, was an important step, but it might not be enough. Many brands still aren't certain whether Twitter is safe or not. 

On the other hand, there isn't another company on earth better at building relationships with brands and advertisers than Instagram and Meta. It doesn't seem like it will take much effort to convince advertisers to shift whatever budget they planned to spend on Twitter, over to Threads. 

It also doesn't seem like it would take much of a shift to provide a final blow to Twitter. It can't make enough just charging users $8 a month for a blue checkmark, and it can't afford to lost any more ad revenue. Ultimately, this doesn't even seem like a fair fight. 

Musk fights back

One way, or another, it seems destined that Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are going to fight. Now that Threads is live, it appears that instead of a cage match, we'll have to settle instead for a sternly-worded letter from Musk's attorney. The letter, which was first reported by Max Tani at Semafor, suggests that Meta hired former Twitter employees in order to use their knowledge of trade secrets to quickly launch a competing product:

Over the past year, Meta has hired dozens of former Twitter employees. Twitter knows that these employees previously worked at Twitter; that these employees had and continue to have access to Twitter's trade secrets and other highly confidential information; that these employees owe ongoing obligations to Twitter; and that many of these employees have improperly retained Twitter documents and electronic devices. With that knowledge, Meta deliberately assigned these employees to develop, in a matter of months, Meta's copycat "Threads" app with the specific intent that they use Twitter's trade secrets and other intellectual property in order to accelerate the development of Meta's competing app, in violation of both state and federal law as well as those employees' ongoing obligations to Twitter.

In response, Meta spokesperson Andy Stone says that "No one on the Threads engineering team is a former Twitter employee--that's just not a thing."

It's really not surprising that Musk would be upset by Threads, which launched Wednesday evening, and by Thursday morning had been downloaded more than 30 million times, making it the quickest app ever to reach that milestone. If you are the world's most avid Twitter user, and you spent $44 billion to buy the whole company and then spent the last nine-ish months breaking your very expensive new toy, that's very bad news. 

Still, the question of whether Threads is a copy of Twitter seems silly. As an idea, of course, it is. In both cases, you open the app, scroll through a feed of (mostly) text, along with links and photos, engage with things other people have posted, and share content of your own. It's the same idea--broadly speaking--as a handful of other platforms, like Bluesky, Mastodon, and Post.news. 

Here's the thing--Musk's biggest problem isn't ex-Twitter employees going to work for potential competitors. After all, they wouldn't be "former" employees had Musk not fired 80 percent of the people working for Twitter when he took over. Musk's real problem is that he opened this door. 

Twitter has been around for 17 years. It hasn't exactly been a secret that Zuckerberg often looked at the much smaller (by comparison) social network and envied its political, news, and cultural influence. For all of that time, Facebook, and then Meta never really made a serious effort to take it head on--until now.

Really, it wasn't until this past week that may have been the straw that broke the bird's back when Musk imposed rate limits that restricted the number of tweets you can view. If you aren't willing to pay for Twitter's $8 per month subscription, that number amounts to roughly a half hour of usage a day. And, you will no longer be able to use Tweetdeck without the monthly subscription to Twitter Blue.

It wasn't until Musk took over and started making changes that made a lot of people very angry (and many of them quit altogether), that Meta finally seized its opportunity. That opportunity did not exist during the previous 16 years of Twitter. Musk should worry less about sending cease and desist letters to Mark Zuckerberg, and spend a lot more time worrying about the product he owns.

The lesson is pretty simple: If you want to make sure no one copies your idea and steals all your customers, try building something that makes those users happy and leaves no opening for the competition. Instead of threatening to sue Meta for stealing Twitter's trade secrets, he should be working on the stuff that really matters.

An interview with Apple’s Laura Metz and Thomas Tan

Earlier this month, Apple introduced a new 15-inch MacBook Air. I've used one for a few weeks, and I stand by my earlier review, which is that it's exactly what you think it is -- and that's exactly what Apple needed it to be. It's a MacBook Air with a 25 percent larger display than the 13-inch version. If that sounds boring, I guess you could make that case, but sometimes boring is a good thing. More important, delivering on people's expectations is always a good thing.

There is, however, more to the story. The 15-inch MacBook Air says a lot about how Apple thinks about building the types of products its customers really want. It turns out, there's a valuable lesson for every company, which is that knowing what your customers want, and figuring out a way to give it to them without compromising on what makes them love your product in the first place is just good business.

I spoke with Laura Metz from Mac product marketing, and Thomas Tan, from Apple's enterprise product marketing, about why Apple Silicon is helping the company better serve its customers by building the products they really want. The 15-inch MacBook Air is a great example. 

"When we set out, we wanted to make a 15-inch MacBook Air," Metz told me. "But when you think of what the designs looked like previously, it just didn't work. It just did not say 'Air' to us. It was only with Apple Silicon where we were able to have all the right components to bring that larger display along with the battery life and performance that users would expect from a MacBook Air."

Those last few words are important--what matters is what "users would expect from a MacBook Air." If you can't make something that aligns with those expectations, you shouldn't make it at all. Of course, in the case of the 15-inch MacBook Air, there was a real hole in Apple's lineup.

"We knew there were users who wanted more screen real estate, but did not need the additional capabilities and performance of the 14- or 16-inch MacBook Pro," said Metz.  "We also know that the 15-inch PC laptop market is significant--that carries over into the enterprise space as well, where users are interested in having that larger display."

Read the rest of the interview in my column at Inc.com.

The short version is that Elon Musk appeared to challenge Mark Zuckerberg to a cage match in response to a Twitter user who posted about Meta’s plans to roll out its own text-based social media network, expected to be called “Threads.” The new service would be based on a user’s Instagram social graph.

Of course, with Musk, it’s hard to ever know whether anything he posts on Twitter is serious, or should be taken as random musings of a guy who appears to have a lot of extra time on his hands that he likes to spend using his new toy—the one for which he paid $44 billion. The entire thing probably would have faded into the pile of absurd things Musk tweets on a regular basis, until Zuckerberg posted a three-word response on his Instagram story.

“Send Me Location,” Zuck responded.

Alex Heath, of The Verge, confirmed that Zuck is serious:

Here we go.

After Elon Musk recently tweeted that he would be “up for a cage fight” with Zuckerberg, the Meta CEO shot back by posting a screenshot of Musk’s tweet with the caption “send me location.”

I’ve confirmed that Zuckerberg’s post on his Instagram account is, in fact, not a joke, which means the ball is now in Musk’s court. “The story speaks for itself,” Meta spokesperson Iska Saric told me.

My least favorite part of this story is that my money is on Zuckerberg, someone of whom I am generally not a fan. It’s true that Musk is taller and bigger than Zuck, but it’s also true that Facebook’s founder has been training and competing in Jujitsu for the past few years. Not only that, Zuck doesn’t really seem like the type that would accept a challenge like this unless he was very confident he would win.

Think about it, he had literally nothing to lose by just ignoring Musk’s “challenge” altogether. No one would have given it another thought. It would have just been another thing Musk tweeted. But, Zuckerberg didn’t let it slide by, he responded.

It probably doesn’t help that Musk has been basically taunting Zuckerberg since reports about Threads started to surface. That seems in line with how Musk usually responds to a perceived threat.

I don’t know if this is a thing that is going to happen, but Musk did respond by suggesting the Vegas Octogon. If it does happen, I get the sense most people would be pulling for Zuckerberg. Leave it to Elon Musk to make Mark Zuckerberg the hero of a story, for once.

The Reddit mess as a cautionary tail

This piece originally appeared in my Inc.com column.

The main takeaway from the Reddit debacle that has unfolded over the past few weeks is that if you give people a sense of ownership over a platform, they take it. That's a good thing if what you want is a powerful community where people are passionate about contributing and engaging with the platform.

Of course, if you try to exert some control or make big changes, don't be surprised if it doesn't go well. When people feel ownership of something, they generally don't react well to having it taken away. What you end up with is a mess. That's exactly where Reddit is now. 

Interestingly, one of the best pieces of advice comes from an unexpected place. Christian Selig is the developer of Apollo, an app that is--at least until the end of the month--the most popular third-party Reddit client app. As a result of a series of changes Reddit has made over the past few weeks, Selig says he's shutting down Apollo. We'll get to his advice in a minute, but first, some context seems helpful:

As a business, Reddit has always been built on the idea that users will contribute content (for free), other users will volunteer to moderate and manage the platform (again, for free), and Reddit will monetize that content by showing ads to those users. On paper, it seems like a great business model, which is why it's surprising that Reddit says it's never been profitable.

Now, however, the company wants very much to go public, which is a very different thing than building a passionate community of users. The things a company prioritizes when it wants to convince investors to buy its shares are not the same things it prioritizes when it's trying to convince people to devote hours of unpaid time to help build a platform. 

In Reddit's case, the company can't become profitable just by cutting costs. It already gets all of its content and moderation labor for free.

And, so, Reddit's CEO, Steve Huffman has been on what seems like a mission to get rid of third-party apps, which users love but Reddit does not because the company doesn't make any advertising revenue from them. Technically, Huffman says Reddit isn't trying to kill third-party apps, and that the company is more than willing to work with them. But, by "work with them," what it seems like he means is that developers of those apps will have to pay a lot of money for access to Reddit's API.

So much money that the most popular apps have all said they will have to shut down instead. Selig has said that Reddit's new API pricing would cost him $20 million a year to keep Apollo running. 

Selig has become something of a lightning rod. Huffman has referred to Selig and his app on a number of occasions, and not in a good way. The general message has been pretty clear: third-party apps aren't good for Reddit.

The problem is, people like those third-party apps. They might not be good for Reddit as a business, but they are an important part of Reddit the community, at least for its most engaged users.

Thousands of subreddits have protested the changes, first by making their communities private, effectively going dark. After facing threats from Reddit that moderators could be replaced, many subreddits reopened, but with alternative forms of protest. 

For his part, Huffman continues to double down on both the API changes, as well as his belief that third-party apps do not add value to Reddit as a platform. The company has also made it clear to moderators that they can be replaced if protests continue. 

On Monday, Selig posted a rebuttal to some of Huffman and Reddit's allegations about him, including that he had tried to blackmail the company. Near the end, Selig offers advice on how Huffman could have handled the situation differently and it's something every leader should take to heart. 

"Apologize, recognize that the process was not handled well, and pledge to do better, talking and listening to developers, moderators, and the community this time," Selig wrote.

Or, put another way, "have a little humility." 

United and flight cancelations

United is rolling out an update to its app that will make it easier to rebook when your flight is delayed or canceled. In the past, that meant standing in a long line at the airport or waiting on hold to be rebooked on another flight--hopefully, one that still made your trip worthwhile. Sometimes the next available flight isn't until the next morning, which means that instead of flying off to some fun location, you're spending the night in an airport hotel. 

For an airline, those disruptions aren't just an inconvenience. If your business is flying millions of people around the world, delays and cancellations mean a lot of disappointed and frustrated travelers. Even though the disruptions aren't always your fault, they're definitely a big problem, and how you handle them matters.

I spoke with Linda Jojo, United Airlines' chief customer officer, about a new feature the company is rolling out to solve one of the worst parts of traveling.

"For the last several years, we've been pretty obsessed with making sure that our mobile technology--especially our app--are really helping people through their day of travel," Jojo told Inc. "What we've been focused on for the last little bit has been the reality that airline flights don't exactly go exactly the way they're supposed to. A lot of times it's the weather--a lot of times it's other things. And so how do we help customers through that?"

According to United, if your flight is delayed more than 60 minutes or canceled, you'll see a new feature in the app where you can select from alternate flight options. If you aren't using the app, you can access the same options from United's website. You'll also be able to track the progress of your bags to your new flight and access any hotel or meal vouchers you might be eligible for. 

"When there's irregular operations or some type of flight disruption--either a long delay or a cancellation--we are in the app now doing automatic rebooking and giving you choices," says Jojo. "If you want to make a change to your flight or if you want to fly standby, we're just giving you more control when that disruption happens so that you can make a decision and get on your way."

United isn't the first airline to make it easy to change your travel plans within the app. I regularly fly Delta Air Lines, and any time there's a disruption, I'm automatically rebooked, and the app shows me other options in case I'd like to switch to a different flight. That said, the fact that you can now access things like hotel and food vouchers is super helpful. It's also a great example of making it easy as possible for your customers to recover when things go wrong.

Look, you can't control the weather, and you can't change the fact that sometimes parts on airplanes break. What you can do is change the experience your customers have when those things happen. 

People understand that disruptions happen. They don't like having their flight canceled, but they appreciate feeling like the airline cares and is doing its best to take care of them. United's new in-app features are a great example. There's no magic button in the app that can speed up a maintenance repair or make the weather go away, but there is now a section that gives you options for getting wherever you're traveling.

Microsoft’s last stand

Microsoft is defending itself this week against the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction that would put a hold on its acquisition of Activision Blizzard, the maker of games like Call of Duty and, well, Candy Crush. Many observers assume that if Microsoft loses in court this week, it will pay AB the $3 billion breakup fee and give up on the deal.

Of course, no one would be happier about that than Sony, the maker of the PlayStation 5. In fact, the testimony in the FTC case is almost entirely about a fight between the two companies including some juicy emails that show Sony isn’t being as honest about its reasons for opposing the deal as it would like you to think.

From Tom Warren at The Verge:

We’re only minutes into the FTC v. Microsoft hearing, and we’ve already had a bombshell revelation. Sony’s PlayStation chief, Jim Ryan, believed that Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard wasn’t about locking games as Xbox exclusives, according to a newly unsealed email. Microsoft counsel revealed the exchange between Ryan and Chris Deering, former CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment, discussing the announcement of the deal last year.

“It is not an exclusivity play at all,” said Ryan. “They’re thinking bigger than that and they have the cash to make moves like this. I’ve spent a fair amount of time with both Phil [Spencer] Bobby [Kotick] over the past day and I’m pretty sure we will continue to see Call of Duty on PlayStation for many years to come.”

The surprise revelation runs counter to Sony’s arguments against Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard deal and its filings with regulators. Sony has maintained it fears Microsoft could make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox or even sabotage the PlayStation versions of the game.

It’s really no surprise to see big companies fighting like this—it’s just surprising to see them be so transparent about it in writing.

Other Stories this week.

Meta won’t allow news links in Canada (from The Verge)

Amazon doesn’t want you to call the drivers who deliver Amazon Packages, Amazon Delivery Drivers.

Twitter started paying some of its bills again. (Business Insider)

Rivian will also adopt Tesla’s NACS (TechCrunch)

The Navy used secret listening equipment to detect the catastrophic event that killed 5 people aboard the Titan sub. (The Wall Street Journal)

Apple released the SDK for Vision Pro (Apple Newsroom), including design resources for Figma (9to5Mac)

If you make electric vehicles, your biggest challenge has always been overcoming the perception that they’re not great for driving more than a few miles around town. Anything more than that and you start to deal with range anxiety. Most people aren’t going to buy one vehicle for commuting to work, and another vehicle for family trips, so they just stick with the one they know can do both.

If you ask someone why they won’t buy an EV, you’ll probably hear some version of “I would but they don’t have enough battery range.” In reality, what they’re saying is that “figuring out how to charge my EV when I’m traveling seems complicated and scary.”

That’s a fair reaction. It’s true that charging your EV is different from filling up with gasoline. Mostly, that’s because it takes longer. You can fill up a gas tank in less than five minutes. Charging an EV to full takes a lot longer, but more importantly, if you’re on a road trip, you aren’t going to charge to full at all. It’s a very different way of thinking about traveling.

Solving that problem is why Tesla has been the dominant EV maker for the last decade. Look, that isn’t to say that Tesla doesn’t make good cars— it does. I personally drive a Model S every day, and it’s the best car I’ve ever owned. But, Tesla’s best asset has always been the Supercharger network.

In reality, most people do most of their vehicle charging at home. It's by far, a more convenient and the least expensive way to charge. But if you're taking a road trip, or just want to travel further than your regular commute, knowing that you can just plug in and charge when you arrive at a charging location is kind of important.

One of the biggest reasons driving an EV isn’t stressful for our family is that we know that when we travel, we don’t have to worry about charging. It’s why the majority of people who are considering an EV choose a Tesla—they know they’ll be able to find reliable charging pretty much anywhere they travel.

The problem

That’s not true for a lot of EV drivers. Almost every other automaker uses a standard called CCS. You would think that the fact that CCS is so widely used would mean there is a robust charging infrastructure for those vehicles. While it’s true there are a bunch of third-party charging networks, none of them come close to the size and availability of the Supercharger network. More importantly, none of them are nearly as reliable.

There are plenty of stories of people pulling into charging stations to find one or more units offline. Last month, while traveling in the San Francisco Bay area, I twice stopped at charging stations where only one unit (out of four or six) was working. It was, of course, in use. If I was traveling and needed to charge, I would have been stuck.

That’s obviously not a great experience, and even though those charging stations are operated by third-party companies (and not automakers), it very much diminishes the value of driving an EV—which is a problem for those automakers. Sure, some companies, like Rivian, are attempting to build their own network, but their drivers are—at this point—mostly dependent on CCS networks.

That, however, is changing.

The deals

Tesla, in the past few weeks, has announced that the two largest U.S. automakers, Ford and GM, will adopt its charging port, known as the North American Charging Standard (NACS). There are a number of reasons this is a big deal, and some of them are less obvious than others. Most importantly, it’s an acknowledgment that Tesla’s Supercharger network is its secret weapon.

In the short term, Ford and GM will provide Tesla adapters to allow their vehicles to plug into Superchargers. In the future, both carmakers plan to replace CCS with NACS on their new EVs.

If you're Tesla, this is a good thing for two reasons. The first is obvious--if more people use Superchargers, you make more money selling them electricity. According to the company's first-quarter earnings report, Supercharging is a "relatively small" but growing business. Opening the network up to non-Tesla vehicles is a big part of how it will continue to grow. Especially in areas where Superchargers have excess capacity, it makes sense to monetize that by making it easier for other EVs to plug in and charge.

The other reason this is good for Tesla is that there has been a push to standardize charging for all EVs. In Europe, for example, all vehicles use CCS, including Tesla. It certainly seems like the company would prefer that not happen here, especially considering it already has the largest charging network, by far. In addition, by making the network open to non-Tesla EVs, the company is eligible for funds under the Biden administration. 

Tesla has been headed in this direction for a while. Late last year, it announced that it was renaming its charging connector to the North American Charging Standard. The point was to not call it the “Tesla Charging Standard” since that doesn’t exactly sound like an open standard.

It’s also worth mentioning that the Ford Mustang Mach-E is the best-selling EV that isn't a Tesla. The fact that Ford is adopting NACS means that it's more likely other manufacturers will do the same. That will put pressure on third-party charging providers like Electrify America and ChargePoint to switch from CCS, creating more competition and a better experience for drivers.  

If there's only going to be one charging standard in the U.S., NACS is a significantly better option than CCS in almost every way. Now that any company can adopt it, it's better for existing Tesla drivers if all charging stations are compatible with their vehicles. 

The 15-inch MacBook Air

I've been using the 15-inch MacBook Air now for a week, and there isn't a lot to say about the new laptop, other than it's a larger version of the existing 13-inch M2 MacBook Air.

That's a good thing, by the way--the only differences are its size and it has two more speakers. Technically, it does have a slightly larger battery, but it's just enough to make up for the larger screen, giving it the same 18 hours of battery life as the 13-inch version as a result.

It is, for all intents and purposes, exactly what you think it is, and honestly, that's brilliant. Look, the 13-inch MacBook Air has--for years--been the best laptop for most people. I don't mean it's the best Mac laptop for most people--I mean it's the best laptop. Period. It's the best combination of battery life, performance, and portability that you can buy and it meets the needs of the widest range of people. I use a 13-inch M2 MacBook Air every single day. 

One of the main reasons I've chosen that as my primary Mac is that I take it with me everywhere. I travel a lot, and the extra pounds of a MacBook Pro add up. In fact, I used a 14-inch MacBook Pro for a short time, and while it was the best computer I've ever used, I ended up back with the Air because I just didn't want to carry around the extra weight. 

My biggest concern with the 15-inch was that it would be heavy. Sure, it's about a half pound heavier than the 13-inch version (3.3 pounds, instead of 2.7 pounds), but for its size, it still feels like an "Air." It's lighter and feels less dense than the 14-inch Pro.

The very first thing I did with the 15-inch MacBook Air is pick it up. In fact, after the keynote, when journalists were able to get a look at the new laptop, that's the first thing I saw everyone do. Ever since Steve Jobs pulled the very first MacBook Air out of a manilla envelope 16 years ago, the defining feature has been that it's a device that is thin and lightweight. It hasn't always been as capable as it is now, but it has always been an "Air." 

I still have a special place in my heart for the design of the M1 MacBook Air, since its tapered edge meant you could literally lift it off a table with just one hand. The 15-inch MacBook Air requires both hands to pick up, but it is definitely light enough to carry with just one hand. That's mostly a function of the current design.

Apple didn't overthink this product, and I think that's incredibly smart. There was no reason to change the form factor or create a feature gap with the 13-inch model. There's a reason the smaller model is the most popular laptop in the world, and this simply extends that to a larger form factor. 

Really, the smartest thing is that Apple introduced a new version and actually made the decision-making process easier for consumers. If you want the most portable and efficient laptop, you get a MacBook Air, and it now comes in regular or large size. There is no parsing through which feature set you might need--they are functionally the same.

The one thing I think Apple should have done, but didn't, is add 5G cellular, though I understand that would have killed battery life. I'm sure that's a hard problem to solve, but it's the only thing missing from what is otherwise the perfect laptop to take anywhere. Oh, and the webcam. It's still pretty lousy--just like the 13-inch model--though it's marginally better than what was on the older M1 MacBook Air.

The 13-inch version will probably remain the best option for most people, but the 15-inch is going to easily be the biggest hit from the WWDC keynote. It might be Vision Pro that is getting all the attention, but Apple is going to sell a ton of these 15-inch laptops. 

The Reddit Debacle

Last month, Reddit announced that, after 18 years, it would start charging for API access to its content. That doesn't seem like a particularly big deal--Twitter implemented the same policy change earlier this year. In both cases, one of the arguments is that companies like OpenAI, Google, and others are scooping up data on the internet in order to train large language models (LLMs) but aren't compensating the platforms where the content is created.

Companies like Twitter and Reddit want to share in the money being made by those services, and charging for API access is one way to do that. Of course, if the best argument someone can come up with for doing something is, "Well, Elon did it first," I'm not sure that's the defense you think it is.

The change also comes as Reddit is trying to cut costs and generate profits as it reportedly prepares to file for an initial public offering (IPO). According to CEO Steve Huffman, who hosted an Ask Me Anything (AMA) this afternoon, the company has never been profitable.

As a result of the decision to charge for API access, the developer of one of the most beloved Reddit apps, Apollo, announced it would be shutting down. In a post on Reddit, developer Christian Selig said he would sunset the app on June 30th since the fee Reddit says it will charge would cost him $20 million per year. For context, Apollo has about 2 million free users, and 50,000 paid users who each pay $10 a year. Disclosure: I am one of them. 

Earlier this week, more than 8,000 Subreddits went dark for 48 hours (some of them remain locked in a continued protest). The objective was to convince Reddit to change its position on the API access fees.

In an interview with The Verge, Huffman says it didn’t work.

“We’ve had blackouts in previous times where there’s a little more room for movement,” Huffman told The Verge’s Jay Peters. “But the core of this one is the API pricing change. That’s our business decision. And we’re not undoing that business decision.”

It’s not clear how this mess ends, but what seems obvious to anyone paying attention is that Huffman might be missing the point. Third-party apps provide a lot of value to Reddit, if for no other reason than those apps are used by many of its most engaged users. Making them angry doesn’t seem like a great business decision, especially if you’re trying to go public.

Other stories this week

Peloton told customers to stop using their bikes. Then, it told them they had to keep paying for their subscription

Google is threatening employees who don’t return to the office.

AI isn’t as smart as we think it is. (CNBC)

Note: This is long, and there are lots of photos. You may want to read it on the web instead.

Also, to be completely candid, I wanted to write this down because it’s an experience I expect to look back on in the future as a moment when a lot of my expectations of technology were challenged and expanded. More importantly, I’m going to try to explain why I think Apple got it exactly right with Vision Pro.

First, an acknowledgment: I’ve said several times that I have no idea if wearing a computer on your face is ever going to be cool. I still have no idea. Apple, however, does have an idea—at least, it has an idea about what that computer should be like. The result is a thing I would absolutely use. Would I spend $3,499 to use one every day? That’s a very difficult question.

Pre-Demo

On Monday, Apple announced the Vision Pro during its WWDC keynote. Then, over the next few days, the company did hands-on demos with some number of journalists and, I presume, other guests Apple wanted to experience the new device.

I tried out the headset Tuesday morning in a Field House Apple constructed specifically for the Vision Pro demos. When I arrived, the first step was to have two scans taken, similar to setting up FaceID on an iPhone. In fact, the scan was done on an iPhone. The first was of my face, which give Apple measurements for the light shield. The second involved moving my head from side to side to get a measurement of my ears for the Spatial Audio feature of the Vision Pro.

Once that was done, I gave my corrective eyeglass prescription to a second person who put them in the computer so that the Vision Pro could be fitted with a set of Zeiss lenses. For those who didn’t have their prescription handy, Apple had a device that would analyze their glasses and provide the data.

Once finished with those two steps, which took no more than five minutes, I was led into a room, maybe 200 to 300 square feet in total, or, about the size of a modest living room. I sat on a couch and two Apple representatives sat in armchairs on either side of the couch.

When you first put the headset on, it’s surreal. You’re definitely looking at two screens, but what you see is exactly what you saw before you put it on. It’s as though you’re looking through a pair of untinted ski goggles, not a computer on your face. I cannot say enough that it was the most incredible computing experience of my life.

I distinctly remember the first time I unboxed and set up an original iPhone in November of 2007. It was delightful in the way it just worked. As you held it in your hand and thought about what you might do with it—or how you might interact—it did exactly what you expected. If you wanted to scroll, you just dragged your finger up or down.

Nothing else had ever been quite like the iPhone, and it was transformative. It wasn’t a phone as much as it was a completely different type of device, something that had never existed before, but that unleashed entirely new ways of interacting with a computer.

The Vision Pro—even as a pre-production piece of hardware—is that, only more so.

The forward-facing cameras and displays do such a good job of providing pass-through video that it’s like you’re just looking at the room as you were before you put it on. There is no perceptible delay or lag. As the product manager from Apple gave me instructions, I turned to look at him, and there was no sense that anything was off.

The Experience

When you put it on, the device takes you through a short setup process. The first is to align the displays with your eyes, which the Vision Pro does on its own. Then, it calibrates the eye tracking by showing and asking you to follow a series of dots.

We have to talk for a minute about the Vision Pro’s eye tracking.

The entire interface of VisionOS, the software powering Vision Pro, is navigated using your eyes and a few simple hand gestures. You simply look at elements and they “pop,” to tell you they are active. Then, tap your forefinger to your thumb to select something. You can also use a pinch and toss motion to scroll. Finally, you can use voice to enter text or ask Siri to open apps.

The eye-tracking is so good it worked flawlessly every time. All I had to do to select something was to look at it. Even small elements, like a circle with an “x” that would close an app window, were easy to navigate simply by looking at it and tapping my fingers together.

I have tried to think of another way to describe the experience, but I keep coming back to one simple thought: it’s basically magic. My brain understands that it’s not magic, but it definitely feels like it. It is as intuitive and effective as a way of navigating a software interface as multi-touch on the iPhone, or the mouse on a Mac.

To accomplish all of this, Vision Pro has infrared LED illuminators, and two IR cameras pointed at each eye. There are also cameras on the front and underside of the Vision Pro that feed the pass-through video, but more importantly, they track the movements of your hand. I wrote before that the technology behind it all is impressive, but not nearly as much so as the experience.

Experiences

Admittedly, the demo I experienced was exactly what Apple wanted me to experience. There was no free time with the Vision Pro to poke around at things and see what it could do. Instead, I was guided through various apps and experiences. There are still things about Vision Pro that are clearly not done, but what is done is breathtaking.

Looking back, the half-hour clearly started with what is the least impressive part of the demo, which makes sense—if you want to show off your revolutionary platform, you build to the best part. I opened the photos app and swiped through a series of photos, ending with a panorama of Iceland that wrapped all the way around my field of view - as if I were standing there.

The thing I can’t quite shake is that even that, the least impressive part, was still more impressive than any other technology I can think of.

After the photos, I opened a Safari window and scrolled through a website. The text was clear and sharp despite the fact that the entire window was floating a half dozen feet in front of my face. I spend most of my working day with about a dozen or so tabs open at a given time reading, researching, and writing, and I’m very proficient at all of those things on a Mac, or even on an iPad.

Could I see myself doing that with a Vision Pro? I’m not sure. Certainly, a laptop with a keyboard seems like a better experience for those things. Of course, during the keynote, Apple showed that if you have a Mac in your workspace, you can simply look at it and the display will be transferred into your virtual view, and you can interact with a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse.

Then again, if your primary way of working is using your laptop in a virtual space that looks exactly like your physical space, it might just make more sense to use it in the physical space. The main advantage seems to be that your virtual display can be a lot larger than the 14-inch version on your MacBook Pro.

Next, I watched part of a 3D movie (Avatar: The Way of Water). I was able to view it as if it were a giant TV screen in the living room, or in a completely dark, theater-like setting. I also saw a demo of the 3D videos that the Vision Pro is capable of recording. It’s impossible to relate to this without experiencing it, but the sense of presence was palpable.

In one of the scenes, a group of children gather around a cake and blow out candles. As they did, I found myself moving my head to the side as the smoke came directly at me. The image above really doesn’t convey that feeling in a 2D still, but it was wild. That said, I’m not sure how I feel about the idea of wearing something over my face during a seven-year-old’s birthday party.

There were other parts of the demo that involved Apple’s new video format that places you in the center of a virtual scene, as well as what it calls Environments. If, say, you’d rather not be in your office, you can change your environment. For example, the one I experienced was of Mt. Hood.

Then came a sports demo, where it appeared that I was directly behind and slightly above the backboard at an NBA game between the Denver Nuggets and Phoenix Suns. Another scene was what appeared as though I was standing in a dugout during an MLB game. Sports is an incredibly compelling demo because there are a lot of people who would pay to feel as though they were sitting courtside at a basketball game.

At one point, I had a FaceTime call with another person wearing a Vision Pro. They appeared to me as what Apple calls a persona, which is its term for a digital avatar. I think Apple intentionally chose another word because most people think of an avatar as an animated cartoonish representation of a person, whereas Apple’s personas are an attempt to make your digital representation as lifelike as possible.

You set up your persona by scanning your face with the front cameras and Lidar scanner on the Vision Pro, which maps your face. Then, when you’re wearing the headset, the cameras facing your eyes, as well as the ones facing down in front of you, watch the movements of your face to animate your persona. The effect is a bit eerie, but it does mostly work.

As for other people, Vision Pro is definitely designed not to isolate you. If someone else walks into the room where you’re wearing the headset, Vision Pro recognizes that a person is nearby and they break through the user interface and appear slightly transparent. At the same time, your eyes appear on the front of the device to let them know you can see them.

During the keynote, when Tim Cook announced Vision Pro and an image appeared with the headset revealing the eyes of the woman wearing it, the audience gasped. I don’t know how I feel about the idea that there is an OLED screen on the front of the display to show other people your eyes, but I do get why Apple did it.

Finally, the pièce de résistance came at the end when Apple shared what it called Encounter Dinosaurs, which is exactly what you expect. It started with one of the two people from Apple encouraging me to stick out my finger, and a butterfly flew out and landed on it. Even if I moved my hand, it stayed on my finger.

Then, I stood up and approached the wall on the other side of the room as a dinosaur appeared. It was visceral. As I moved side to side, the dinosaur reacted and followed me. The closer I got, the more I could see the scales on its body, and the reflection of light in its eyes. If someone had blown a puff of air at me as it “breathed,” I might have fallen over.

After each part of the demo, a simple press of the digital crown took me back to the home screen of apps. A long press on the digital crown would re-center all of the open windows in my field of view. Aside from that, those apps remain exactly where you leave them. They don’t wobble or move around. They remain as fixed as the physical elements in the real room I was sitting in.

That alone is incredibly noteworthy because it’s what gives Vision Pro a sense of augmenting reality. The stability of the virtual interface overlayed on the physical world that you see is what makes spatial computing viable as a platform.

Impressions

If you’ve read this far, you probably sense that I was overwhelmed and impressed. That’s absolutely the case. This isn’t like any piece of technology I’ve experienced, and I’ve used most of the current VR headsets available to buy. We have a Quest 2 sitting—mostly unused—in our basement. It’s fine for the occasional game or experience, but it’s not compelling in a way that would make me get up and wear it on any kind of regular basis.

The Vision Pro is not that. The Vision Pro is compelling precisely because it does not feel like the experience of using a VR headset. It’s useful that Apple talks about spatial computing because it helps to create the context for what this thing really is. It’s a device that transforms the space around you into a canvas where you can do any number of different things.

I only used it for a half hour, but it didn’t feel like using a computer. It felt like stepping into a futuristic world where virtual and physical elements overlap and “computing” isn’t defined by a device, but by ambient interactions that you can place anywhere in your environment.

I’m not ready to say that Apple has a hit—the Vision Pro is too expensive to make that a sure thing. That said, it did not feel overpriced at $3,499. Several people I spoke with who also tried Vision Pro said they would have paid good money just for another 30 minutes with the device.

Also, the primary use case of almost every VR headset on the market is gaming, a topic Apple did not touch on at all beyond a quick throwaway line during the keynote. There was no gaming part of the demo I experienced.

There are other barriers to success for a computer you wear on your face—the most obvious being the fact that humans get very self-conscious about wearing things that attract attention. The bar is high if the success of your product requires people to get over any self-consciousness they might feel using it on a regular basis.

The original AirPods had the same problem—you looked kind of silly wearing little white stems hanging out of your ears. People quickly got over that because the experience of wearing AirPods is definitely a net benefit They continue to be the best Bluetooth earbuds not because they are the best sounding speakers but because of features enabled by their overall integration with Apple’s other products, as well as their ease of use.

Vision Pro has an even higher bar to clear because it does not hang out of your ears, it hangs on the front of your face. I think Apple has put a lot of effort into solving the problem of someone wearing this device around other people, and I give them credit for the attempt. I’m just not convinced that wearing a headset computer will ever become quite as normal as wearing little white earbuds.

That said, Apple has definitely done all of the things you would need to do to make that happen. The technology is compelling enough to enable an entirely new way of interacting with computers. Its success will largely depend on the software created to let people do that—which is why Apple rolled it out at a developer conference. I’m still not sure it’s a thing anyone needs in their life, but it was incredibly fun giving it a try

When I say it was what people expected, what I mean is that the biggest surprise was that Apple didn’t call it any of the names that had been rumored (like Reality Pro or XR Pro). Beyond that, many of the details had emerged in reports, mostly from Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman.

Still, the details are impressive. The Vision Pro includes two “postage-sized” displays that each pack more pixels than a 4K television, 23 million of them in total. It’s also powered by both an M2 system on a chip, as well as a new Apple Silicon processor known as R1, which handles real-time tasks like rendering the environment, and processing information from the device’s cameras.

The Vision Pro is different from previous VR headsets in that it is designed to keep you in your environment while letting you interact virtually with apps, documents, and services. Apple calls it a “spatial computing” device, because it envisions that you’ll use it while continuing to see and interact with the physical world.

It isn’t hard to see how Apple has been building the components that would someday let you put on a pair of what look like normal glasses while having virtual elements augment the experience. The problem, at least judging by what Apple rolled out, is, well, physics. All that technology still takes up too much space to cram into a small space, so Apple is selling a pair of goggles, for now.

I give Apple credit for trying to solve the biggest barrier to wearing a computer on your face, which is that you have to wear a computer on your face. In general, that’s a thing most people only do on their own because if you do it with people around you look foolish.

Apple’s solution is something it calls EyeSight, which involves showing your face on a display on the front of the Vision Pro, as though someone was looking at you through a pair of ski goggles. In the demo, it actually seems far more natural and less weird than it sounds.

It’s also functional. If you’re wearing Vision Pro, and someone walks into the room, they appear in your field of vision so you know they are there. And, that display on the front of the device serves to indicate to the people around you what you’re doing. If you can see them, your eyes appear. If you’re doing something immersive, the display lights up.

There’s no question Apple put a lot of thought into the story that goes with putting a computer on your face. For the most part, I think it succeeded in telling that story in a credible way that will make sense to most people.

That said, this isn’t a device for most people. I mean, it’s $3,499. That’s more than what most people spend on their main computer. It’s more than some families spend on all of the computers they own. For that money, you could buy an M2 MacBook Air, an iPhone, an Apple Watch, a pair of AirPods Pro, an Apple TV, and a pair of HomePod minis, and still have money left over.

My point is this isn’t a device you buy to let your kids play VR video games. It’s the first step in what Apple hopes will be an entirely new way of interacting with the stuff we do on computers.

Remember how Mark Zuckerberg tried to front-run Apple’s big reveal by pre-announcing the Meta Quest 3. The Vision Pro makes that look like some kind of silly toy. It also makes Zuckerberg’s attempt to ride along whatever wave Apple was making look, well, silly. There is no comparison.

To be fair, the Quest 3 will sell for $499 when it goes on sale sometime this fall. That’s a lot less than the Vision Pro, but it’s also a lot less capable device.

That’s because, for the most part, Meta has been building VR gaming devices that also were capable of a few other experiences. Apple, on the other hand, started from the idea that the device should let you control how immersive you want your experience to be. Apple built a device that doesn’t take you out of your environment but adds virtual elements within and around it.

I don’t know if the Vision Pro will end up being a thing people buy and use, let alone become a hit in the way the iPhone has, but there is no question that the Vision Pro is to every other headset what the iPhone was to every other smartphone. Even as a 1.0 version, it is what the headset is supposed to be.

What Else Apple Announced

The Vision Pro was the headline product, even earning a “One More Thing,” from CEO Tim Cook, but it wasn’t the only big announcement. Apple announced new hardware, as well as new versions of its major operating systems, iOS, iPadOS, macOS, and watchOS. I’ll be writing more about several of these announcements, but here are a few highlights:

• A 15-inch MacBook Air, which is exactly as you would expect: it’s a MacBook Air, but bigger. (It’s still VERY lightweight, which is obviously the point).

• An Apple Silicon-powered Mac Pro, which has a new chip, the M2 Ultra.

• The M2 Ultra is also now available in the Mac Studio.

• iOS 17, which includes new features like improved autocorrect, interactive widgets, the ability to leave a message when you make a FaceTime call, StandBy mode for the iPhone, and a new Journal app that can pull in suggestions based on things like photos or music.

• macOS Sonoma gets new features including desktop widgets, the ability to share passwords and passkeys, and some very cool new video conferencing features.

• watchOS gets widgets, which make it easier to quickly get information by scrolling the digital crown, as well as new watch faces and new workouts and health features.

WWDC Recaps Worth Your Time

Hands-on with the new 15-inch MacBook Air - The Verge

Everything Apple Announced at WWDC - CNBC

First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good. - TechCrunch

Apple Vision Pro: I Tried the New Mixed-Reality Headset - Wall Street Journal

This is the new Mac Pro - ArsTechnica

At first, some 600,000 people tried to listen in. I say tried, because the app kept crashing and the Twitter Space kept kicking people out--including the Governor and David Sacks, who was supposed to be hosting the event. 

"We are kind of melting the servers," Sacks said at one point. 

The server melting went on for 15 minutes or so before the Space ended. A new Space was opened up, this time under Sacks' account--presumably because fewer people would try to join if it weren’t Musk that started it. That’s good for the servers, but not great if you're Governor DeSantis and want to tell a lot of people you're running for President. 

DeSantis calculated that making the announcement in this way would help him control the narrative. As an added bonus, he got to make a statement about how the traditional media is biased or corrupt, bypassing it altogether. Well, at least until he went on Fox News later Wednesday night. 

The thing is, he didn't control the narrative. His calculation was wrong. Not only is the main story that Twitter had a meltdown, but even after they got it working, DeSantis spent at least 10 minutes listening to Musk and Sacks talk about Twitter and their thoughts on what a momentous event this was for "rooms on social media," whatever that means. 

If you go on Fox News or CNN to launch a campaign, you're not going to have to sit there and listen to Anderson Cooper marvel at the wonders of cable television distribution. You might face some pointed questions, but mostly the focus will be on you and the ideas you plan to campaign on. 

There really are three things you can take away from the whole thing:

• Gov. DeSantis chose to launch his campaign catering to the “very online” crowd and that says a lot about what influences his beliefs and—as a result—his campaign. Most people don’t use Twitter. They get their news from, you know, news outlets—most of which covered the event as a debacle.

• Twitter has never really been known for having a great tech stack. Still, the fact that no one thought to make sure it could handle the attention this was sure to generate is a big problem for the future of the platform.

• Elon Musk isn’t nearly as interested in the open exchange of ideas as he is in building and promoting his most expensive toy. He sees this as a win purely because of the attention it generated. That’s fine, but it should be a warning for anyone who might be thinking of leveraging Musk for their own benefit—you’ll probably get burned.

Social media gets a warning label

The United States surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, issued a public warning earlier this week about the risks of social media to young people. In a 19-page report, Dr. Murthy suggests steps to fully understand the possible "harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents."

The report included practical recommendations to help families guide children's social media use, such as keeping mealtimes and in-person gatherings free of devices and creating a "family media plan." The report could help encourage further research to understand whether social media use and the soaring rates of distress among adolescents are related.

Surgeon General Warns That Social Media May Harm Children and Adolescents

New York Times

The report recommends social media platforms take steps to minimize the harm to youth, including:

• Developing and implementing policies and practices that prioritize children’s and adolescents’ safety and well-being.

• Providing greater transparency about how algorithms work and how content is moderated.

• Investing in research to better understand the impact of social media on youth mental health.

• Collaborating with researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to develop evidence-based solutions.

ChatGPT and privacy on your iPhone

OpenAI released an iOS app for ChatGPT and it quickly became the most popular free app in the App Store. That's not surprising considering some reports suggest ChatGPT had more than 100 million users in January--just two months after it launched. That would make it the fastest-growing technology product of all time. 

For comparison, it took Facebook four and a half years to reach that number. Even TikTok took nine months. 

The iOS app does, however, come with one important tradeoff that users should be aware of. It's a big enough deal that the app prompts you the first time you open it. In addition to a caution that ChatGPT may just make things up, there's another warning about sharing personal information because "Anonymized chats may be reviewed by our Al trainers to improve our systems."

OpenAI's privacy policy says that when you "use our Services, we may collect Personal Information that is included in the input, file uploads, or feedback that you provide." Specifically, that means that if you ask ChatGPT questions that contain personal information, that information will be sent to OpenAI. That's a big deal when you realize your chat may be read by a human reviewer.

OpenAI launches ChatGPT app for iOS, Android coming soon

CNBC

The company says it anonymizes conversations before they are seen by a human, but that just means that it removes identifying information from the metadata of the file--not the content of your prompt. If you include personal information, that information will still be included.

The internet is not dead yet.

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States released opinions in two cases that had the potential to break the internet. The cases involved lawsuits against Twitter and Google alleging the two companies were liable for the spread of terrorism-related content posted on their platforms. Historically, platforms have been immune for the content generated by users under a law known as Section 230.

Supreme Court rules for Google, Twitter on terror-related content

The Washington Post

The law does two things. First, it shields platforms from liability for the content posted by users. Second, it gives platforms the right to moderate content as they see fit. A user can’t sue because Twitter suspends their account for posting racist content, for example. Likewise, Twitter can’t be sued if it doesn’t delete objectionable content.

There are some exceptions, but the basic idea that platforms aren’t liable for content posted by users has been the underpinning principle that has made the internet a thing. Without it, there would be no social media or blogs, and most websites would look very different.

In the cases decided Thursday, the court was asked to hold the two companies liable for content that was in violation of anti-terrorism laws. The Supreme Court essentially declined to decide anything on the question of platform immunity, but dismissed the cases on other grounds, leaving the internet as we know it intact, for now.

Montana is the first state to ban TikTok

Montana’s Governor signed a bill that prohibits TikTok from operating in the state, and prohibits users from downloading the app. Apple and Google would be required to remove the app from App Store availability in the state, though it’s not clear how Montana expects that to happen.

The law has already been challenged by a group of creators who say it infringes on their first amendment rights.

“The Act attempts to exercise powers over national security that Montana does not have and to ban speech Montana may not suppress,” the lawsuit says. While Congress has some leeway to impose restrictions for national security reasons, states don’t have the same power.

There are very real problems with TikTok, but it doesn’t seem like passing futile laws is the way to solve any of them. This one will almost certainly be struck down.

Instead, somewhere along the way the companies that make computers—and computer software—decided that the term could mean whatever they wanted, and so now it mostly just means “computers doing stuff.”

That doesn’t mean some of that “stuff” isn’t very cool. At Google I/O this week, the company announced a series of things that are both very cool and that will probably change the way you interact with computers.

Photos

Google Photos has always had computational photography as its main benefit. Now, with a feature called Magic Editor, you can use generative A.I. to edit your photos. So, if you didn’t quite get the framing right, Google Photos will reframe the image for you, and create parts of the image with generative A.I. to fill in the rest.

This isn’t just about filling in a new sky, or eliminating distracting elements from the background. In the demo, Google Photos recentered an image on the subject and generated a background. It begs the question “what even is a photo?”

Maps

Maps gets a new way to preview a route when asking for directions. Known as “Immersive View for Routes, you can now get a flythrough preview of the route you’re taking that uses Google’s satellite images.

If, for example, you were going for a bike ride, you could decide which route you prefer based on what you’ll see along the way. I imagine it would also be helpful if you’re in an unfamiliar city. You could preview the turn by turn directions as you’ll experience them. It’s limited to New York, London, San Francisco, and Tokyo for now, but if you happen to live or travel in one of those cities, it’s a cool way to see where you’re going.

Bard

Bard is Google’s chatbot, and it’s now available to everyone—there’s no more waitlist. Not only that, but Google says Bard will now integrate with Workspace. That means that if you use Bard to generate a list of items, you can send that directly to Google Sheets or Docs and it will know what you’re asking.

Duet

In addition to Bard, Google has brought the same kind of generative A.I. capabilities directly into Google Workspace and called it Duet. This seems like a direct answer to Microsoft Copilot, which allows you to take a Word Document of a marketing proposal, and turn it into a Powerpoint presentation.

Google is implementing the same type of capabilies into its own office productivity suite. The features have been available for a few months, but now they have a name.

Search

Search might be the biggest change of all, for two reasons. First, the internet is mostly organized around Google Search. It’s where the majority of people start their interactions online, and any change to the way search works affects literally billions of people.

The other reason is that Google Search is also one of the most effective and widely-used marketing tools. Businesses work hard to have their website show up in the list of blue links for a given search inquiry. Now, however, Google is building a more A.I.-centered search experience.

When you search for a given phrase, you’ll see an A.I. generated box at the top that will summarize an answer to your question, based on results across the internet. You can then ask a follow up question to refine the information.

Sure, Google says it will still show traditional links below that section, but the reality is that people simply don't scroll down below what they can see in their browser view. Also, interacting with an A.I. chat version of Google is far more engaging than scrolling through dozens or hundreds of links to websites--many of which only exist as SEO spam. 

It's one of the main reasons Google has been far more cautious in rolling out Bard, its A.I. chat feature. Google can't afford to get this wrong, both in terms of its reputation (A.I. chat robots tend to have a pretty loose relationship with the truth), and in terms of its business model. 

Pixel Fold

In addition to new features in existing products, there were a few new hardware devices. The first was the Pixel Fold, which Google itself had already sort of announced in a tweet ahead of time.

I only had a few minutes with the Pixel Fold, but my first impression is that it’s very well done. Compared to the Galaxy Fold, Google’s version feels just as premium. It’s clear Google has been working on both the hardware design challenges that come from making something with a screen that folds up, as well as tuning Android to work well on a device that is sometimes a phone, and sometimes a tablet.

It’s definitely the priciest Pixel ever at $1799, but Google does say that if you pre-order one, you’ll get a free Pixel watch.

Pixel Tablet

The bar for making an Android tablet is so low that Google didn’t have to do much to make something that isn’t terrible. In the world of tablets, Android-powered devies are almost all pretty bad. Partly that’s because people who want a tablet computing experience just buy iPads. Partly it’s because Android has never been good on a tablet form factor.

With the Pixel Tablet, Google has solved the problem by making what seems like a highly capable device running a version of Android that knows what it’s doing on a tablet. In addition, the Pixel Tablet has a very good party trick in that it comes with a docking speaker that turns it into a sort of home entertainment device.

In the hands-on area, the speaker sounded very good for something that size. It’s exactly the kind of thing a lot of people will love. It’s also something I wish Apple would make for the iPad.

Pixel 7a

The Pixel 7a is the affordable Pixel smartphone, and therefore, it’s the one most people are most likely to buy. For $499 you get a device with a good screen and a best-in-class camera system. I’ll have more to say when I have a chance to review one for myself, but if you’re looking for an affordable Android device, it certainly seems like a worthwhile option.

Other news

Twitter is getting a new CEO

In a Tweet, Elon Musk says he has found his replacement as CEO of Twitter, or X as the company is now known. You might remember that Musk promised in December to step down once he found someone "foolish enough to take the job." That came after a poll overwhelmingly said that he should resign. 

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that that person is Linda Yaccarino, the head of advertising at NBCUniversal. That would make sense considering Twitter is an ad business—though it’s never been particularly great at making money.

I covered this more for my column this morning at Inc.com.

Bill Gates was asked about A.I.

In an interview with ABC News, Bill Gates was asked about A.I., and specifically, fake images. In response, Gates suggested that everyone is responsible for figuring out what is fake and what is real.

"The reader, the viewer, every person has the responsibility to question,” Gates told Rebecca Jarvis. “Society is going to start to say, 'OK, this source is more of a trusted source.' It's not like we can say, 'Hey, please stop making fake images.'"

Gates is right that it's impossible to stop people from making fake images. That's been a thing since long before computers would do it for you all on their own.

The problem is, people generally aren't great at distinguishing whether something on the internet is from "more of a trusted source." Instead, a lot of people just look for whatever reinforces what they already believe. That's why misinformation online is so powerful. If you're predisposed to believe a thing, and then you see a photo of that thing, for example, it becomes very hard to filter through what is true and what isn't.

If nothing else, the political climate of the past six years has shown that just because information comes from what were once considered widely trusted sources, it doesn't mean everyone will believe it. The opposite is even worse. Even when information comes from sources that are obviously not credible, millions of people will believe it because it's what they want to hear, read, or see.

Two things I’ll just point out upfront. The first is that it seems as though Risher is genuine about his commitment to making Lyft a company that drivers want to work with. The other is that he seems acutely aware of the challenges the company faces in making that happen. That’s most likely due to the fact he has served on the company’s board since 2021.

It was a great conversation, and I’m excited to share it with you:

I saw the link to your LinkedIn post about driving. So, I would love to dive into that for a minute to start and talk about that experience that you had. Obviously, you were on the Board for Lyft, so it's not like the business was new to you necessarily. But I'm wondering what the experience of driving taught you about your customers, and about your drivers in general?

Yeah. So. So the first thing I should say is, it was awesome. And, by the way, it was also sort of spur of the moment. My wife was traveling a couple of Saturdays ago, and I'm like, ‘oh, let's just go out for a ride.’ So, my marketing group was a little bit like, ‘hey, next time, maybe give us a heads up on this beforehand.’

So I'll sort of tell you the story. You know, I drove for maybe two or maybe three hours or so. And here's what I learned very quickly. Number one, it's much more fun than you think it is.

Read more

The thing is, for the most part, Chat-GPT has been limited by the fact that people really have no idea what to do with it. Sure it's entertaining to ask a robot to write you a poem or tell you a story, but that's not necessarily useful. It certainly won't make you more productive.

Now, however, with a clever Shortcut, you can integrate Chat-GPT with the apps and services on your iPhone or Mac and it's amazing. I spoke with Federico Viticci, who is the Editor-in-Chief at MacStories.net, and the creator of the Shortcut, known as S-GPT. 

"I saw that a lot of people had put together these shortcuts called like Siri-GPT--or something along those lines--to just talk to Siri and use shortcuts to have conversations," Viticci told me. "And, I thought that was cool. Ultimately, I get the appeal, but I kind of felt like there should have been something a little more than that."

The point is that while it's fun that you might be able to ask Chat-GPT to write you a poem, you don't need a shortcut for that. It's just doing the same thing in a different interface. S-GPT changes that completely.

That's because where this technology is really useful is when you use it integrated with your own data and information. Microsoft is doing exactly this with Copilot, which will, say, take a marketing presentation and turn it into a Powerpoint presentation. With S-GPT, however, you can unleash the capabilities on your iPhone.

Here's how Viticci describes the shortcut on his website:

More than a simple bot to have a conversation with ChatGPT in Shortcuts, I set out to create a tool that would connect ChatGPT responses to native iOS, iPadOS, macOS, and watchOS functionalities. I wanted to create a ChatGPT-based utility that would help you process your data and make things happen on your computer rather than simply answer trivia questions or write poems.

So, for example, you can use it to summarize a webpage in Safari or to check the grammar of an email simply by copying it to the clipboard on your iPhone. You could also ask it to look at your calendar and help you schedule a meeting by telling you which days are most busy. You can even use it to summarize text from a photo using Apple's Live Text feature. One of the most fun capabilities is that you can ask it to create a playlist of, say, the most popular songs from the year you graduated high school and it will add it to Apple Music for you.

Viticci says he spent a few weeks working on the shortcut, which has more than 250 actions. As shortcuts go, this one is incredibly involved. And, he says he's already working on future changes. 

For example, with integration with the Mail app, you could take a photo of handwritten notes from a meeting, use S-GPT to read the text using Apple's Live Text feature, then summarize your notes and send them as an email to a colleague. 

While Viticci says that he doesn't have any analytics built into the shortcut, and can't know exactly how many people have installed it, more than 50,000 people have clicked the download link. 

"The response has been incredible," Viticci says. "I've been making shortcuts for eight or nine years, at this point. And, there have been some pretty successful ones. But, this one, I don't know if it's like a cultural zeitgeist thing at the moment...but it's been very surprising."

To be clear, setting up this shortcut does involve a few steps. First, you have to have at least a basic understanding of using Shortcuts on your devices. If that's foreign to you, I strongly recommend reading through Apple's official guide to get a basic understanding. 

Once you've downloaded S-GPT, you need an API Secret Key from OpenAi. Viticci explains it all in his article about the shortcut, but you get one by visiting OpenAI's developer site and setting up billing. You will have to pay for queries with the API, but even if you use it a lot, the cost is very minimal (as in, I've been using it regularly for a few days, and literally haven't even spent a penny). 

There are two things I love about S-GPT. The first is obvious, which is that it's incredibly useful and brings the power of Chat-GPT to your iPhone and other Apple devices in a way that hasn't existed. 

The other is that Viticci saw something that was happening and figured out how to make that technology useful. He would admit that he doesn't know how to write code, but he is a Shortcuts guru and figured out how to make the thing he knows do what he wanted. Not only that, but he's sharing it with anyone who wants to download it and use it for themselves

"The main shortcut is always free, it will remain free for everyone," says Viticci who says he is also working on offering more advanced paid integrations that will be available.  

"It will always have a lot of like free functionality in terms of integrations, but maybe some of the more advanced integrations or plugins--as I call them--maybe some of those will be paid plugins," he told me. "So, for example, I have a bunch of personalities that you can unlock with the membership program, one talks like Steve Jobs, one talks like Roy Kent from Ted Lasso, one talks like Super Mario."

That might be my favorite part. I mean, who doesn't want their S-GPT shortcut to talk to them like Roy Kent? Just because it's a productivity game-changer, doesn't mean it can't also be fun. 

You can download S-GPT from MacStories.net. 

Amazon Charging for Returns

One thing that has always been true about Amazon is that it tries to take the friction out of ordering things online, to make it easier than, say, going to a store to buy the same product. In some ways, this core principle might have been the single biggest reason Amazon became the world's largest online retailer. 

Take free shipping, for example. When Amazon started out, paying extra to have goods delivered to your doorstep was a major pain point for people. Who would want to shop online and wait for something to show up a few days or weeks later, especially if you had to pay $8 or $12 in shipping for a $20 order? Free shipping became the default expectation for consumers because that's what it took to get people to shop online in a significant way.

Now, however, Amazon is making a surprising change. The company will now charge a $1.00 fee to drop off returns at a UPS Store. Technically, the charge only applies if there is an alternative within the same distance. So, for example, if you live near a Kohl's or Whole Foods Store, you'll be able to drop it off there for free, but would have to pay the fee to drop your return at a UPS Store. 

Obviously, Amazon would prefer you never return anything. Returns are an expensive part of retail, and Amazon has been trying to cut costs. Recently, it has started to identify some items on its website as "frequently returned," the idea being that warning customers about items that often get returned may nudge them toward a different item instead.

My point is that Amazon is now charging customers to do something that had always been free.

Warren Buffett says you’ll never give up your iPhone, not even for $10,000

In every way you can measure it, the iPhone is the most valuable product ever created. It has certainly created the most shareholder wealth, making Apple the most valuable company on earth. It's also made it the most profitable. The iPhone is so valuable, that Warren Buffett believes that you wouldn't part with yours, not even for $10,000.

"If you're an Apple user and somebody offers you $10,000, but the only proviso is they'll take away your iPhone and you'll never be able to buy another, you're not going to take it," Buffett told CNBC in an interview.

Buffett believes Apple is such a great investment largely because of the way the company has created such loyalty for its most iconic product. "If they tell you if you buy another Ford motor car they'll give you $10,000 not to do that, you'll take the $10,000 and buy a Chevy instead."

Car people can be pretty loyal, and I'm sure there are more than a few Ford drivers who would not switch to a Chevy for $10,000. Still, there are a lot of great cars out there and even the most loyal Ford fans don't compare to iPhone users.

Most people would switch toothpaste or orange juice brands without hesitation for far less than $10,000. In fact, people switch all the time when an alternative product is on sale or more widely available. 

The same thing is true for every brand I can think of. There are plenty of great products or brands that I really like, but none of them so much that I would pass up $10,000 to quit using them. 

Stop plugging your iPhone into those USB plugs at the airport

On the one hand, the fact that USB charging ports have become ubiquitous is a helpful change from the days of panicked searching for an outlet to top up your iPhone. I can remember arriving at airports with a dead iPhone, and the challenge of trying to find a place to plug in, even for a few minutes, to have enough battery to look up my hotel or get an Uber. The fact that public spaces are now designed with easily accessible charging is generally a good thing.

On the other hand, any time you make technology easily accessible, it becomes a target. That's why the FBI is warning people not to plug their devices into USB charging ports at hotels, airports, shopping malls, or coffee shops. Why? Because hackers have figured out ways to use the ports to transfer malware onto devices.

Read more at my column at Inc.com

Other stories

If you’re using Chrome, update it immediately.

Twitter’s rules are blocking things like automated tornado alerts.

SpaceX is launching the largest rocket ever.

Netflix tried live streaming for the second time and it did not go well.

Google’s CEO says the push to AI could be problematic.