(Preview) Five Questions on WWDC 2026, Fable 5 And Its Guardrails, What Anthropic Has in Common With Apple

Summary

Podcast Summary: Sharp Tech with Ben Thompson

Episode: (Preview) Five Questions on WWDC 2026, Fable 5 And Its Guardrails, What Anthropic Has in Common With Apple
Date: June 12, 2026
Hosts: Andrew Sharp (A), Ben Thompson (B)

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into Apple's WWDC 2026 keynote, with Ben and Andrew exploring Apple's strategy for AI, the Vision Pro's standing, and the ongoing rumors and intrigue within Apple leadership. They tackle listener questions about Apple's direction, AI partnerships (particularly with Google), and industry-wide strategic implications, providing detailed and candid analysis.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. WWDC 2026: Apple's Pivotal Moment

• Vision Pro's Role in Apple’s Future ([03:00]–[05:09]):
  • Ben emphasizes Mike Rockwell’s centrality to the Vision Pro project and his recent responsibility shift toward fixing Siri:
    • Ben: "If WWDC went well and if he pulls it off, he's going to rise in power... If he were to leave, I think your Vision Pro might be in trouble." ([03:25])
  • Apple’s leadership dynamics, particularly Rockwell's position and reported political tension with Craig Federighi, are a source of "palace intrigue" but have real impacts on product trajectories.

2. Did Apple Get WWDC ‘Right’?

• No “Third Option” for Apple’s AI Messaging ([05:15]–[11:42]):
  • Andrew reads a listener email positing Apple faced a lose-lose: playing it safe would be underwhelming and trying bold new features would be met with distrust.
  • Ben acknowledges Apple limited themselves after prior over-promising (2024's unkept promises), but under these constraints, executed well:
    • "They needed to rebuild their credibility. And you rebuild your credibility by stuff actually working." ([07:10])
  • Both agree the keynote could have benefited from live demos—Apple played it too safe, prioritizing risk elimination over showmanship.
    • Ben: "To go out there and do it live... is itself an acknowledgment of the embarrassment they should already feel." ([08:08])
  • Apple’s current approach hinges on leveraging its position on devices, particularly the iPhone, rather than building the most advanced AI tech.
    • "It's not technically impressive, it's still differentiated, highly differentiated. And that's why I was so enthusiastic about 2024." ([09:33])

3. Is Apple Actually “Thinking Different”?

• Listener Criticism & Strategic Defense ([11:42]–[16:46]):
  • Ben and Andrew address feedback accusing Apple of being stagnant, stuck in the iPhone mode at risk of missing out if AI shifts the paradigm.
    • Ben: "If in fact Apple AI is just another very useful software layer, then that means Apple is in fact thinking different by not spending hundreds of billions... and going their own way and sticking with the iPhone paradigm." ([12:28])
  • Ben elaborates Apple’s bet: The iPhone is both the world's favorite entertainment AND productivity device. AI, as a new “software layer,” fits sensibly atop their existing OS/device strategy.
    • "Entertainment is just as important. More important in fact than productivity. And on that vector, on what perspective is any of these [other] devices better than a phone?" ([15:11])
  • Andrew agrees Apple doesn’t need to “win AI”—just maintain its platform moat:
    • "Apple doesn't need to hit home runs in AI to win in AI... sometimes it's sufficient to maintain your position." ([16:46])

4. Apple-Google AI Partnership: What’s Really Happening?

• Deconstructing PR-Speak Around Gemini Use ([17:41]–[27:06]):
  • Jonathan, a listener, asks for clarity on whether Siri AI is just Gemini rebranded.
  • Ben slowly dissects Craig Federighi’s ambiguous statements, calling out what’s misleading:
    • Ben: "He did not lie anywhere in this statement and he also created an impression that is totally wrong." ([19:09])
  • Technical breakdown of the collaboration:
    • On-device: Apple distills its own small models from Gemini via “distillation,” but the model artifacts are Apple’s.
    • Cloud: Apple uses a version of Gemini as the base, but after extensive post-training/tuning to make it Apple-specific.
    • Infrastructure: Even though models run in Google data centers, Apple uses its own secure chain (Intel head nodes, Nvidia GPUs) for guarantee privacy, not Google’s default TPU fleet.
    • Knowledge base: Apple builds its own search index; it doesn’t use Google Search results.
    • Ben (quoting Federighi and translating): Apple doesn't use Gemini or Google Assistant ‘apps’ per se, but relies on Gemini tech for heavy-lifting underneath.
  • Memorable quote:
    • "So I hope that's clear. No, it's not clear and he did that on purpose." ([24:16])
  • Andrew and Ben agree the statements are factually true but intentionally misleading for PR comfort.

5. Does Apple’s AI Strategy Secure Its Power?

• Final Listener Question ([27:03]):
  • Paul asks whether Apple’s approach (good “harness” for an underlying model) will maintain competitive tension among AI providers.
  • Discussion cues a critique (not fully included in preview): Ben hints at the rapid pace and complexity of AI, suggesting many underestimate how fast things are evolving.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Apple’s WWDC strategy:
  "You rebuild your credibility by stuff actually working." – Ben [07:10]
• On Apple’s leadership drama:
  "If he were to leave, I think your Vision Pro might be in trouble." – Ben [03:25]
• On live demos:
  "To go out there and do it live and say we're going to roll the dice... is itself an acknowledgment of the embarrassment they should already feel." – Ben [08:08]
• On distilling from Gemini:
  "There is a... distilling that's happening... Both Google and Apple distill from Gemini for models to serve." – Ben [21:46]
• On Federighi’s PR statement:
  "He did not lie anywhere in this statement and he also created an impression that is totally wrong." – Ben [19:09] "So I hope that's clear. No, it's not clear and he did that on purpose." – Ben [24:16]
• On Apple’s product strategy:
  "Entertainment is just as important. More important in fact than productivity..." – Ben [15:11]
• On Apple’s AI needs:
  "Apple doesn't need to hit home runs in AI to win in AI and to double down on all those advantages." – Andrew [16:46]

---

Important Timestamps

• [03:00] – Vision Pro’s future and Rockwell’s crucial role
• [05:15] – Listener question: Can Apple impress with its AI strategy?
• [07:10] – Ben critiques Apple’s pre-recorded, risk-averse keynote approach
• [11:42] – Is Apple repeating Microsoft’s mobile mistakes, or “thinking different”?
• [15:11] – The iPhone’s dual dominance: entertainment and productivity
• [17:41] – Clarifying the Apple-Google AI (Gemini) partnership
• [19:09] – Ben translates Federighi’s careful PR statement
• [24:16] – Secure infrastructure explained; Apple’s creative privacy guarantees

---

Tone & Style

The conversation is lively, irreverent, and analytical. Ben’s responses are detailed, frequently challenging both audience assumptions and Apple’s public communications. Andrew keeps the show anchored in listener questions and offers relatable, sometimes self-deprecating commentary as the "Vision Pro fanatic." Both blend tech wonkery with accessible analogies (sports, consumer devices, etc.), making the analysis sharp but clear.

---

Summary for New Listeners

If you missed this episode, you'll walk away with a clear-eyed understanding of Apple's strategic posture on AI post-WWDC 2026: pragmatic, platform-centric, often evasive, but still in a position of enormous strength—especially thanks to the dominance of the iPhone as both an entertainment and productivity hub. The hosts are unsparing in calling out Apple's PR tactics but ultimately see Apple’s approach as differentiated and, for now, effective. The episode offers a masterclass in reading between the lines of Big Tech announcements.

Transcript

[A]

Hello, and welcome to a free preview of Sharp Tech. Hello, and welcome back to another episode of Sharp Tech. I'm Andrew Sharp and on the other line, Ben Thompson. Ben, how you doing?

[B]

Well, I was, I think at some point, might have been the first half, early in the second half, thinking about our Sharp Tech, Nick's emailer, and just

[A]

like coming in hot, telling him it

[B]

was too early, thinking about how funny it was going to be when it all fell apart. And then I'm still not entirely sure what happened.

[A]

I mean, I still can't believe what happened. I was thinking of a goat emailer, Cameron in Australia, who emailed me and Gulliver like a month ago asking whether he should buy tickets to the NBA Finals and fly to New York, Sydney, Australia. And I recommended at the time, do it. Life is short. Yeah, it's going to be crazy expensive. But if this is a bucket list item, this is your opportunity. Who knows when the Knicks will be back here? Just make the move. And then he did it. And he spent God knows how much on tickets to game three and game four. And I was sitting there, they lost game three and watching game four, down 30 at halftime, feeling really guilty that I was encouraging Cameron to go to the game. And then it turned into probably the most unforgettable game of his life and any of our lives. So here we are.

[B]

There's no dollar figure that could have made it feel too expensive. Oh, my God, I'm so happy you messaged as such about how worried you were about him. And I think you messaged it exactly at the right. I think they were down 29 and the game turned. Thanks to your.

[A]

Tide was turned.

[B]

Oh, my God.

[A]

The rest is.

[B]

I was going to counsel you. Look, you need to not take responsibility for other people's decisions. Cameron is his own and he made that clear.

[A]

To be clear, he didn't put it on me, but I still felt guilty during Game 4.

[B]

No, but maybe I'm wrong. If you're. If you were able to turn the tide, maybe you do need to be caring more about your advice.

[A]

Indeed. And every Knicks fan in the audience thank me over the next several days.

[B]

Well, let's let them win first.

[A]

Yeah, let's let them win first.

[B]

Let's let them finish the series. It is now. Now, if Finals loss would be even funnier. So brace yourself. Absolutely.

[A]

Well, for now, Ben, we will begin with wwdc. We're gonna talk through Anthropic and its new fable model later in the show. But first, I look forward to WWDC convos every year.

[B]

As a tech guy.

[A]

Well, as a tech guy, as a Vision Pro fanatic. The Vision Pro got a couple mentions in this year's keynote, so love to see that.

[B]

Dead yet?

[A]

It's not dead yet. You know, we got Siri on the Vision Pro, but in general, it's sort of an Apple state of the union. It's also how I mark the time on sharp tech. I still think back to the initial WWDC with Vision Pro Apple Intelligence.

[B]

I have an extra. I have an extra take on here.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

This was actually an incredibly important WWDC for you.

[A]

Why is that?

[B]

Because the person at Apple most responsible and most passionate about the Vision Pro is Mike Rockwell, who basically put up his hand and said, let me fix Siri. Please let someone else. Like, we need to get rid of the clowns that are in charge. Put me in charge. Despite the fact he's like, from, I think, Dolby Logic originally. No obvious sort of connection to building AI. And it's one of those things. If WWC went well and if he pulls it off, he's going to rise in power. Well, he's going to rise in power and prominence at the company. There's actually been questions about that. Some political intrigue around his position there. And if he were to leave, I think Eurovision Pro might be in trouble. And if he were to succeed, it might be good for your Vision Pro. So there's a lot at stake.

[A]

It's funny because there was like the line in Gurman's report around that and around the elevation of Rockwell. That did prompt a double take in me as I was reading it, because Apple looked to Mike Rockwell because Vision Pro was considered a technical success, if not a commercial success. I'm surprised that's the way it's interpreted internally. I mean, I think it's a technological marvel, but I'm surprised that Rockwell is getting any credibility out of what Apple's committed to over the last several years.

[B]

Well, maybe. We'll see. I mean, like the. In, you know, there were reports a few months ago, he's not super happy about reporting to Craig Federighi. That came out again sort of the week before. So I think if this, if this works out and he gets put in charge of more stuff, that might be. Might be good for everyone. We'll see.

[A]

There you go. Well, and the palace intrigue will continue indefinitely. Definitely here for now.

[B]

Not really my beat, to be clear, but. Yeah, well, because I know how important it is to you and I.

[A]

And I look to German, you know, I enjoy reading his sort of tea leaf reading and insidery reporting, but I have a six pack of questions that we can run through quickly at the top of the show here. We got a lot of emails on the heels of wwdc, but I'll begin with Gabrielle, who wrote on the way into wwdc sent this email last week. Ben and Andrew, is there any way for Apple to come out of WWDC leaving a good impression? If they play it safe and only deliver on features that were promised back in 2024, people will think it's just warmed over news. On the other hand, if they show off new capabilities for Apple intelligence, people will be wary of trusting them. Which of these approaches should Apple focus on? Is there any third option where they can leave the public excited about what they presented without the bitter aftertaste of the whole something is rotten in the state of Cupertino debacle. So there was no third option. A lot of people were pretty underwhelmed. What did you think you were in Cupertino?

[B]

Yeah. I think Apple foreclosed the opportunity. What Gabriel's putting his finger on is they foreclosed the opportunity for people to leave this keynote excited for the exact reasons he said. They could show exciting things and no one would believe them. Or they could show like, we're actually like doing basic stuff, but it works this time and then everyone's underwhelmed. So that's Apple's own fault, this is the cost of 2024 is that no one is gonna leave 2026 genuinely excited and feeling like Apple is changing the world. Given that constraint. I thought they did a great job. And the most important thing aspect of doing a great job was the extent to which this was a fairly painful keynote. Yeah. On one hand it was shockingly short. And it was shockingly short despite the fact it felt like approximately 23% of the keynote was watching loading indicators. Like, this was the demo. This was the keynote of all keynotes that could have benefited from being live where you have. Because. Because what they needed to. They needed to rebuild their credibility. And you rebuild your credibility by stuff actually working. Now they. I guess we'll just. They're never going to.

[A]

They're allergic to that at this point. But I was texting during the presentation that like all the AI demos were pretty tedious. However, if you were doing them in front of a live audience and then watching it.

[B]

Right. The anticipation, like, what if it fails? Yeah.

[A]

Then it becomes kind of thrilling. They could have done that, but didn't.

[B]

It's a, this actually is a testament to a weakness of the Tim Cook era. Like to go out there and do it live and say like we're go, like we're going to roll the dice. We think we actually got it and we're going to go out there and risk total embarrassment is itself an acknowledgment of the embarrassment they should already feel.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Given what happened in 2024. And number two, that is the third way. That's the way where you come out of it and you're like, we're hanging on those guys. Yeah, they went out there, I use that term carefully, but that would have been the response. Like they went out there, they threw away their prerecorded keynotes, they said we are doubling down, we're putting our chips on the table and we're going to do live demos. Screw it. And you're. It actually works this time. And in that case, given what they shipped, it's totally what they said in 2024. There was almost nothing new. And you know what, that's fine. Like I, what they showed in 2024 was pretty compelling. Like that's why we were excited in 2024.

[A]

And it's compelling, crucially compelling for 90% of Apple customers for whom you know, high end expensive AI is not really what they want.

[B]

They're giving us compelling for high end AI customers who hasn't not wanted to like you knew something, it's in your data somewhere and you wanted to surface it. And they can do it because they're the operating system. It's because of their position with the iPhone that they are uniquely positioned to do something with AI that no one else can do. Even though it's not technically impressive, it's still differentiated, highly differentiated. And that's, that was why I was so enthusiastic about 2024 because like aha, they have an angle here. They don't need to do a bunch of capex spending. They can actually deliver something meaningful given their preexisting position. They're leveraging their position as the data that matters. Yeah, they own the data that matters and they have a position to, to corral developers, to use these app intent system and their index system to give them their data even though they, you know, even though like developers don't like Apple and all these bits and pieces. But they were, it was a very smart strategic play and I was very enthusiastic about it in 2024. And if I step out of the. It's 2026 and look what you know,

[A]

mythos or Fable shamed.

[B]

Yeah, it remains impressive and compelling and. And now I think where they fell short is they didn't go all the way. I think a live demo would have transformed this. It would have been a smash hit. Especially because almost universally the reports are it works and it works super well. I have not installed. I usually never install betas. I actually do plan on installing this one. This is part and parcel of, like, I was still unpacking last year. I have to find, like, my. My last year's iPhone. My spare iPhone that I carry with me is actually two years ago iPhone. Uh, it's been a busy week, so I apologize. I was not properly prepared for the show, but by all accounts, everyone who's talked about it says it just works and it just works. That's. That's what Apple needs to get back to is it just works. Yeah, and it seems like it does.

[A]

Well, we shall see. Bojan, responding to your WWDC article on Tuesday, wrote in and said, Apple is not thinking different. It is living in the past and becoming a victim of. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail mentality. That is exactly the mistake that Microsoft made with mobile. They tried to shoehorn everything into a Windows viewpoint. Apple is replaying the same playbook. If AI changes the world like its biggest protagonists think it will, Apple will be in deep trouble. Fortunately for them, it is very likely that AI becomes just another very useful software layer and Apple dodges a bullet. What do you.

[B]

I'm sorry, is this one Boyan or two boy? Ons?

[A]

One boy On.

[B]

Because Bojan's last sentence completely refutes, like, the first, like, five sentences. If in fact Apple AI is just another very useful software layer, then that means Apple is in fact thinking different by not spending hundreds of billions of dollars and going their own way and sticking with the iPhone paradigm. So which is it, boy? I don't even need to answer. The guy answered himself.

[A]

I mean, I would say they are demonstrably thinking differently than the rest of tech and have been over the last several years.

[B]

They're also demonstrably anchoring themselves in the iPhone paradigm. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Like, that was a point I was trying to. Like, I had. I didn't love my article this week for a few reasons, one of which was this. I had to rewrite, like, the ending, like, multiple times because I was trying to say, look, all these critiques, like, Boyan's critique is totally legitimate. Apple's totally doing what's best for them. They're totally doing what makes sense for their model. They're totally not investing in things that they're probably not good at and all these things.

[A]

And they're not thinking any differently than they were over the last 10, 15 years.

[B]

That's right. All these things. But when you articulate that companies are doing what is good for them and in their interest and like the it's usually followed by a but the world's different now and this is totally wrong thinking. Sometimes it's just right thinking like you just. You're just fortunate enough like that actually the model works. And the fact of the matter is we I have talked about multiple times Bojan should give me a little credit here or one of the Boyans Bojan one that there's yes, you can imagine you've been warning about downstream different UI paradigm just in time. UI there when you need it, gone when you don't. Agents working in the background on your behalf. Much more anticipatory of your needs. All these ambient sort of sensors and input devices. This is why I talked about it in the context of like the project Solera a bit, which again, I love that demo, even though it almost probably will never ship. It's gonna be vaporware. But it was a tangible articulation of a completely different model of computing that is not like the iPhone at all. It's the exact opposite. It's what Boyan. Boyan 1 says is coming and Apple is screwed. But then Boyan 2 is here and saying like, actually the iPhone's pretty phenomenal. And in a context where what. What do consumers pay for? Give me one service that consumers pay for.

[A]

What do you mean like a software service?

[B]

I don't know. Netflix.

[A]

Mmm. Yeah. What is Netflix Entertainment?

[B]

I should have put Netflix in the article because that helped actually make my point more. I just said customers don't pay for it. They don't pay for productivity. They don't like. They pay for entertainment. What it the iPhone is a phenomenal entertainment device. That is its number one functionality. It's like social media, it's vertical video, it's talking to your friends. Now, is it also a productivity device? Absolutely. One of the most useful productivity devices in the world. But it's used by people to do work. I do most of my work on the iPhone. I do my actual writing. Someone was asking me for like my software stack. Like my software stack. It's funny, I have this super powered MacBook Pro when Route I use like a text editor and like some Excel spreadsheets maybe. And like I do most of my reading, most of my like, thinking, a lot of my like sketching out ideas or whatever on my phone. I use an iPhone like a Gen Z Maniac and it is definitely a productivity device. But for most people, they're not doing work most of the time. Entertainment is just as important. More important in fact than productivity. And on that vector, on what perspective is any of these devices better than a phone?

[A]

I mean, we'll see. It might be 10 years before any sort of device emerges that could actually challenge the primacy of.

[B]

I'm with Boyan, I'm increasing with Bojon 2 here. Like I'm coming around to the, you know, Apple, maybe Apple's lucky to be in this situation. Better be lucky than good, no?

[A]

Exactly. And like I look at what they announced this past week and Apple doesn't need to hit home runs in AI to win in AI and to double down on all those advantages.

[B]

Well, they also don't need to win in AI. They need to sometimes it's sufficient to maintain your position. Yeah, right. Like. Like they're not going to win in. Like they're not. Like they're not.

[A]

They're not going to have the best model. No, exactly. But I guess to change the metaphor,

[B]

Apple, they might have the most used AI though.

[A]

What about Apple as the spurs in the second half of game four last night, they're up 25 points and the key for them here is to not miss nine threes in a row.

[B]

Why are you taking nine threes in a row? Like you're behind? Yeah, like just getting layups in free throws would get the job done.

[A]

And I think that's what WWDC was this year. And it's perfectly sensible as far as I'm concerned. Jonathan says Goats, I would love to hear some clarification on the Apple and Google AI deal. I thought Apple was using a white label version of Gemini and or using Google Cloud for off device compute. This quote from Craig Federighi, though, sounds like Apple is using nothing from Google. Here's what Federighi said. Of course we don't have the Gemini app as our app. In fact, none of that client code is part of how we run on iOS for these models. We use none of the models that Google deploys to their customers, nor do we use the infrastructure and means by which they deploy models to their customers. And then when it comes to the knowledge base, we of course don't use Google Search or anything like that as the foundation of our system. So I hope that's clear the amount of the Google Assistant that we use is none. And Jonathan says, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but please help a normie make sense of this bizarre corporate speech. Can you help Jonathan? Ben?

[B]

So the funniest line that Craig Fetter you said there is. So I hope this is clear because he does not hope it's clear. Like he did not lie anywhere in this statement and he also created an impression that is totally wrong.

[A]

Okay, great.

[B]

I don't know, should I break it down sentence by sentence?

[A]

Yeah, go sentence by sentence. Fire Joe Morgan here.

[B]

Oh, I'm not sure how long it's going to take, but okay. Of course, we don't have the Gemini app as our app. Duh. Of course, Gemini is an app that you actually download on your phone or go to a website to use. They don't have that. Fine, that's clear. In fact, none of that quiet code is part of how I run on iOS. This is saying the same thing again, like the code of the Gemini app is the Gemini. No, they did not take the code of the Gemini app in addition to not taking the Gemini app and put it in their app. So that is just. That's Glad we're clear. Yes. Okay, so again, and the code of the app has nothing to do with the model. The model is like the app is a means to access the model. Okay. It's just like whatever. My website is a way to access my writing. Right. It's like a container for it. Okay, what's next for these models? We use none of the models that Google deploys to their customers. They don't use the exact same model that Google gives their customers. Now that is. That is correct. Nor do we use the infrastructure. Okay, so. But what are they actually doing? So Apple has, I think it's five models, several of them on device and then one that's in the cloud. So all the ones that are in device are Apple's own models. And by the way, I was. Are Apple's own models. Those models are of course, because they're on device, very small. Now one of them is pretty interesting. It's actually quite large. The 20 billion parameter model that were only part of it is loaded in memory at the time. It's called a mixture of experts. Usually for mixture of experts, you load a different or use a different expert every token. So it's always like, which means you have to have the whole thing in memory. In this case, you do a expert per query. So when you make a query, it's like, we need this part of the model, it loads only that part of the model into memory and then it's in memory for all the tokens anyhow, regardless, they have all those on device models are Apple models. But how do you get small models distill it down? Distilling? Exactly. This is. There is a like they won't say distilling. I think they said that Google derived or in conjunction with Google. Basically what you do is you ask the big model questions and then you get answers and that's how you build your model. These are Google distilled models, legal above

[A]

board distilling that's happening.

[B]

And by the way, if you have the reason, it's not just legal having actual access to the model. So the whole idea of generating tokens, there's actually multiple layers underneath. If you're only getting access to the final output, it's you can distill from that but it's way more inefficient and you're not getting as broad of a coverage and understanding of this sort of parent model. If you have actual access to the model, your distilling is far more effective. And by the way, when you're accessing most of these models online, including ChatGPT, Anthropic, you're accessing a distilled model as it is, no one's getting access to the real model because it'd be astronomically expensive and impossible to scale. So even like the big models that are online are distilled to an extent and then and they can do a good job of it because it's their model so they can distill it better than anyone else can. But all those models on Apple's devices are not the models that Google serves, they are the models Apple serves. Because both Google and Apple distill from Gemini for models to serve. So they're doing their own distilling in with Google's help. But it's not Google's, it's not the same ones that Google has. So the one in the cloud then. The one in the cloud as I understand it is some sort of Gemini model at its base. But then the way models are today, there's so much post training and things you sort of layer on after the initial model is done that it's effectively it's not a different model but there's multiple variations of models that can be accessed. And when you see all these companies, oh, new model, new model, they're releasing models all the time now. There's genuinely new models like say a mythos that is Like a new, new training run. But lots of the new model Reese's are not new training runs, they're new post training and new sort of reinforcement learning that sort of makes. They're continually being improved by this post pre. Like you do one pre training a year, a couple a year and then you just, you iterate on that one that's there. So Apple has done that to Gemini. That's what's being served in the cloud that is different than Google's and appropriately so. They're tuning the model for their use case. So all of this is intimately integrated with Gemini. And Craig Federighi went out of his way to make you think that was the confiscate this.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

But he didn't lie. Right. So. So I hope that's clear. No, it's not clear and he did that on purpose. So now do we use the infrastructure and means by which they deploy their models to their customers? No, they have their own setup with and this is actually one of the more interesting parts with intel head nodes and Nvidia GPUs.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

This is different than a standard like Nvidia Rack where Nvidia has their own head node with their Grace gpu. And then like a Blackwell, like that's why it's called Grace Blackwell. Blackwell is actually the gpu, Graces the CPU and then you have Vera Rubin. Vera is the cpu, Rubin is the gpu. They're using the Nvidia GPU part with intel as the front part. And the reason they have those is both intel and Nvidia have secure enclave technology that lets you like ensure you get the private cloud compute aspects. Because it's full, the whole chain is fully verifiable. Like what got past there? Did it get flushed where it went? And so it's a whole cryptographic sort of handshake between your device, the intel head node, the Nvidia GPU that it's fully secured that whole chain. So they could continue to make their promise around private cloud compute, even though it's totally different than the private cloud compute they tried to sell two years ago, which is our servers on our chips like you know, running in the cloud.

[A]

So, so they realize infrastructure here, not Google's infrastructure.

[B]

No, it's Google infrastructure. It is running in Google data centers. So it's running in Google data centers on intel and Nvidia chips. And so it is. This is a total switch from what private cloud compute was. It's still credibly private cloud compute because of this technology that's embedded in These intel and Nvidia chips that lets you cryptographically guarantee that it's totally private. Yeah, but it's a total change in infrastructure and that's not what Google uses. Google uses fleets of TPUs. They don't have the cryptographic guarantees as far as it being private and all those sorts of things. So knowledge base. We don't use Google search. Yes, they apparently they have their own search index which, which is sort of interesting. And then we get to. So I hope that's clear. And then the amount of the Google Assistant we use is none. Google Assistant is an app like. Yeah, we get it. We don't. You don't use the. The Google Assistant is like the old app. So it's like we don't use the new app and we don't use the old app. Thanks Craig. We figured that out.

[A]

So nonsense, nonsense. First clause of the third sentence is also pretty misleading. But they don't use the infrastructure and means by which they deploy models to their customers. That seems to be the most accurate claim there.

[B]

And no, everything in here is correct.

[A]

Well, the least misleading, yes. So in any event, Jonathan, I hope that clears things up for you. Paul says if Siri AI is some sort of consumer harness for white labeled Gemini, although the underlying model itself isn't Apple. Given Ben's note today about the integration value of harnesses, is that circumstance enough to give Apple AI breathing room for a while to come? Given their distribution advantages, OS, device integration, mode, installed base, etc. And assuming Siri AI was developed all in house, if Apple was able to create a good harness light for Gemini, isn't that skill valuable enough to let them keep some competitive tension among the leading models? And finally, if Apple was able to make a smaller Gemini derived model run on device, does that further help maintain competitive tension among model makers? All to Apple's advantage? Any thoughts there?

[B]

Yeah, so I'm sorry Paul, I'm going to have to pick on you a little bit, but I think this question is. I think stands in for a lot of people who don't have an awareness of how advanced AI is right now.

[A]

All right, and that is the end of the free preview. If you'd like to hear more from Ben and I, there are links to subscribe in the show notes or you can also go to SharpTech FM. Either option will get you access to a personalized feed that has all the shows we do every week, plus lots more great content from sirtechery and the strikeri bundle. Check it out and if you've got feedback, please email us@emailarptech fm.