This looks pretty promising to me. It will likely replace the need to set up OpenClaw for average personal users. The work of getting email, messages, and all the personal data on the phone as context seamlessly is not as straightforward as one might think.

I'm curious how the pricing will work. Would it be free up to some limit and then some subscription pricing? I can't imagine it can be free unlimited usage given the price of serving these models.

▲ pheewma 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Craig mentioned near the end of the keynote that compute intensive things (like image generation) will have rate limits that can be increased bundled with their iCloud + plans. I imagine any request that gets routed to their cloud compute will be subject to limits as well. He positioned it as a value-add to their existing subscription but I suppose that can change.

▲ emodendroket 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I doubt the average personal user knows what OpenClaw even is though Google is also producing competitive stuff.

▲ aurareturn 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is why OpenAI thinks it needs to build its own physical devices. If Apple is only allowing its own AI to operate at the OS level, then that leaves OpenAI with no choice but to build their own.

Meta also realized this and attempted multiple times to build their own hardware but they've given up each time. They started as early as a partnering with HTC in 2011 to make a Facebook phone.

Quite frankly, I'm kind of excited to see what OpenAI can build. I think an AI-first phone could challenge iOS and Android. It's a new paradigm and if OpenAI gets it right, it'll be very hard for Apple and Google to pivot.

I personally think chat + code is the future of apps. For example, I find myself wanting to do many things inside ChatGPT instead of traditional app because I can tell it to do things that are simply impossible on a static app UI. For example, I have some data I want to send to an app but before I do, I want ChatGPT to clean the data in some way first. And then after the data is uploaded, I want ChatGPT to pull some data off the API and make charts that I want to see.

I imagine a world where very intelligent models run at 10k tokens/s, app building is extremely standardized, and it simply builds any app you want inside the OS. IE, if you want a dashboard of your health data, you ask it to build it almost instantly exactly how you want it. I'm already doing something similar today but it's slow and not easy to do for non-engineers.

▲ layer8 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If Apple is only allowing its own AI to operate at the OS level

Incidentally, that’s what’s preventing Apple from rolling out their OS-privileged AI in the EU, as the EU mandates equal access for competing AI products. It will be interesting how this plays out.

▲ aurareturn 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't personally agree with EU's mandates. I think it's ok if Apple only allows their own models to run on iOS at the OS level.

If OpenAI makes their own AI-phone, do they have to let Anthropic and Deepseek run their models on it too?

▲ merlindru 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> do they have to let Anthropic and Deepseek run their models on it too?

provided it gets big enough, yes. the EU's position roughly is "if this hurts an entire market just to benefit you, and lots of people use / rely on it, then you gotta allow it"

▲ Danox 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Then the EU’s not gonna get anywhere the US and China will just sail along. The lawyers in the EU are essentially cutting their throats building hardware and operating systems cost real money and time which is one of the reasons Apple is using Google’s model for $1 billion a year. (when Apple finishes their models in house, Google probably will be dropped). Like dropping Broadcom, Intel, or Qualcomm in 2027-28).

It takes real time to drag along five ecosystems. That is the main reason it’s taking Apple longer than they’re so-called competition? Noticed that Google and Microsoft only do bits and pieces. Microsoft has no mobile and Google at its heart is an ad company the processor is six years behind.

▲ aurareturn 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why can't Anthropic or Deepseek take the big risk to develop their own phone? It doesn't seem right that they can simply use EU laws to hop on the ride for free without taking the same risks.

▲ KawaiiCyborg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As a consumer it also doesn't seem right that Apple can just use all their private APIs that no other company is allowed to use to tell me what I can and can't use on my phone. If I want Anthropic to have the same level of access that Apple grants itself on _my_ phone, I should be able to do so.

	▲	Danox an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Don’t buy it you have Android which is 3/4 of the world? What’s the problem? You also have Windows which is also 3/4 of the world.
	▲	aurareturn an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		`If I want Anthropic to have the same level of access that Apple grants itself on _my_ phone, I should be able to do so.` I want to install my personal software on my refrigerator, washing machine, hand shaver, coffee maker. I bought them. They're mine. /s If people want to buy open hardware, then just buy those. If they don't exist, make them yourself.

▲ merlindru 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

the EU feels like this falls under monopolistic practices, which it has deemed illegal. the buck stops with the politicians - there's no reason other than "the EU thinks it's bad for the economy and should thus not be allowed"

▲ Danox 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

OpenAI is not a hardware company or an OS company and they hardly have the money to pay the real cost in the long-term, if Amazon, Meta, Google and the Linux crowd are having trouble, OpenAI is not gonna get the job done.

▲ officeplant 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>Meta also realized this and attempted multiple times to build their own hardware but they've given up each time. They started as early as a partnering with HTC in 2011 to make a Facebook phone.

I was working in cellphone sales at the time and I can tell you no one wanted that phone back then even when Facebook was massive. An easy to hit facebook button was not a value add anyone was begging to exist.

Although with how many phones now have stock forced installs of Meta apps perhaps they won their con in the long game.

Similarly no one really wants a physical AI device, and attempts at such are pure techbro hubris on the companies part.

	▲	yakshaving_jgt an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think I want a physical AI device. I want an AI assistant that I can use truly hands free. I keep my phone in my jacket when I'm riding my motorcycle. I want to be able to start, stop, adjust, and check details in route guidance. I want to be able to ask what the weather is like ahead on my route. I want to be able to ask it to start looking for a sensible place for me to stop for fuel and/or food without making me do a big detour. Actually I would also quite like better driving directions, since I can't look at the directions on a screen.
	▲	aurareturn 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		`Similarly no one really wants a physical AI device, and attempts at such are pure techbro hubris on the companies part.` No one serious has made one.