| ▲ | piker 5 hours ago |
| I'm suspicious of that take from Mark Gurman. That's a lot of detail around pricing and "holding Apple over a barrel" as relates to the Siri deal that seems like a nice PR spin from Anthropic. Anthropic probably couldn't give the uptime guarantees that Google can, right? |
|
| ▲ | Spooky23 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Apple is a pretty difficult company to deal with on a B2B basis. If you have terms that conflict with theirs, they aren’t very flexible. Anthropic can be similarly difficult, and their needs from a business perspective probably don’t align with Siri. I would imagine that Google has a more flexible/long term approach to absorbing some risk in a revenue share arrangement than anthropic who generally wants cash. Anthropic’s only purpose is to juice whatever KPI‘s are gonna increase their IPO market cap. |
| |
| ▲ | curiouscats 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Good thoughts. The last sentence doesn't make that much sense to me though. An agreement with Apple to be the lead AI partner would likely juice the IPO a great deal. The financial details wouldn't matter much for the IPO (as the initial financial commitments are going to be small but the halo effect would be real - I think it would in the market anyway). I think Anthropic has real commitment to their way of doing things which can cause short term issues (and hurt the IPO). And they seem willing to keep those values rather than just making deals to pump the IPO. As you say Apple also sticks to their way of doing things even if it frustrates their partners. I think not being the lead partner with Apple may well be good for Anthropic long term. But if all you cared about was the IPO just agreeing to Apple's terms likely would have been the best option. These SpaceX, Anthropic and Open AI possible IPOs are so extreme it is hard to make judgements about them; so maybe there are Anthropic IPO issues to an Apple agreement that I don't appreciate. | |
| ▲ | sailfast 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You say that, but don’t you think at this point they actually believe some of the stuff they say about safety and the future of humanity? It’s tough in this day and age not to be overly cynical but they did draw a line in the sand at the DoD and that wasn’t for IPO numbers… | |
| ▲ | piker 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, that makes more sense to me than "Anthropic had them over the barrel". Which seemed quite odd given the relative cash positions and installed base of each firm. | |
| ▲ | engineer_22 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Tbh I thought their purpose was to power the war machine |
|
|
| ▲ | Lord-Jobo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Gueman might be the only leaker in tech who, so far, doesn’t seem to fuck around. Low miss rate, rarely exaggerates. Of course that could change and he could always get insider info that is wrong. |
| |
|
| ▲ | turtlesdown11 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Gurman is clearly Apple's preferred go to for leaking info |
| |
| ▲ | blitzar 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which only tells us that it is what Apple wants us to believe, not that it is the truth. | | |
| ▲ | zymhan 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It is most likely both: Intentional leaks of the truth. Obviously, _what_ someone chooses to leak can still benefit them, even if it's true. You can be selective about what information you share. | |
| ▲ | signatoremo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Did you verify that? What is the miss rate? | |
| ▲ | turtlesdown11 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | absolutely, a careful eye can discern Apple's goals by examining leaker comments on topics, not that they're consistently truthful |
|
|
|
| ▲ | danpalmer 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The reporting says it's running on their own hardware. |
| |
| ▲ | piker 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Internal dev tools, but the point I'm making relates to the discussion about choosing Gemini over Claude for their consumer-facing products. |
|
