Big Technology Podcast - Anthropic’s Mythos is Back, OpenAI Releases GPT 5.6, Apple’s Price Increases

Episode Date: June 27, 2026

Ranjan Roy from Margins is back for our weekly discussion of the latest tech news. We cover: 1) Mythos is back 2) OpenAI releases GPT-5.6 to a small group 3) Should the government pick winners? 4) Is this a blessing to open source AI? 5) Is the gating of frontier models bad for these companies businesses? 6) Frontier lab customers are finding cheaper ways to do business 7) There's a bunch of overbilling happening in opaque AI systems 8) Is SpaceX's valuation frothy? 9) Apple's price raises: Greed or not? 10) Apple's impact on the memory space 11) Rest in peace, Om Malik --- Enjoying Big Technology Podcast? Please rate us five stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ in your podcast app of choice. Want a discount for Big Technology on Substack + Discord? Here’s 25% off for the first year: https://www.bigtechnology.com/subscribe?coupon=0843016b Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mythos is back and OpenAI's most powerful model. GPD 5.6 is out too. But will the public ever get to see either of them? And Apple Hikes prices massively to keep pace with memory prices. Is it greed? That's coming up on a big technology podcast Friday edition right after this. In the face of ongoing disruption and opportunity, TMT leaders need to deliver tangible results, not just ideas. When pace and performance matter most, PWC combines market insights and deep sector experiences. with AI, cloud, and emerging tech to accelerate your transformation and drive measurable ROI from strategy to execution. PWC can help you anticipate what's next, outpace disruption, and compete. For more information, visit pwc.com. Welcome to Big Technology Podcast Friday edition, where we break down the news in our traditional cool-headed and nuanced format. We have a great show for you today coming a bit later than usual, but we are here on the

feed. We're going to talk about the return of Anthropics Mythos, the debut of OpenAI's GPT5.6. Open AI, by the way, maybe delaying its IPO to 2027 or maybe it won't. We'll discuss that. And Apple hikes the prices up on MacBooks and other devices by anywhere between the teens and 30%. So we'll talk about what's behind that. The memory crunch that's underlying, a lot of the price increases you might see in consumer electronics. And whether it is, you know, is unavoidable or as some might say, greet. Joining us as always to do it is Ranjan Roy of margins. Ranjan, great to see you.

Great to see you, Alex. Is, are you on the mythos list out of the 100 US institutions, major companies and government agencies that now have access to mythos? I am not. If the government is picking winners and losers, then I am without a doubt a loser. So let's go through the headline here.

It's something that we have breaking as we speak. The US releases, Power, powerful Anthropic Model Mythos to some U.S. companies from Semaphore. The U.S. government Friday lifted its block on Anthropics' powerful clawed mythos-5 AI model, allowing the company to release it to more than 100 U.S. institutions, including major companies and government agencies. The decision in a Friday letter sent to Anthropic is a major de-escalation in the confrontation between the Trump administration

and one of the world's most valuable private company. The letter is silent on Fable 5, a week of version of mythos that was briefly the most powerful AI model available to consumers. People close to the talks said they are moving toward releasing Fable as well. Though the timeline is unclear, Howard Lutnik, the Commerce Secretary, has given his stamp of approval. Well, Ranjan, it looks like this long outage of Fable is about to end. And so ends the saga. I don't know if we have any details about whether there have been actual structural fixes or whether the guardrails or the anti-jail-breaking guardrails that the U.S. government has asked for are there.

What do you make of the news? It's for me the most difficult part of trying to process all this is, I mean, more on the overall regulatory landscape of who has control of what and when. I think, I mean, we've talked about, is mythos more marketing and fear mongering, or is it a true danger to kind of the global structural order. And I don't know. It's like, do you feel that the government is actually has any real plan around how they're approaching dealing with Anthropic now? Like, it looks like this just feels like an extension of what originally Project Glasswing was, whatever that was, 20 to 30 companies now were at 100. But I don't really understand where this is

going or what's fundamentally changed. Right. Well, it does seem basically, you know, when you take it in combination with this week's Open AI news, that the government has installed itself as the approval of frontier models. And I think we should talk about the implications there. Let's get into the Open AI news because I feel like it really couples together with the Anthropic News. So this is from a blog post from Open AI previewing GPT 5.6 Seoul, a next generation model. Today we are beginning a limited preview of the GPT 5.6 series solar, our flagship model, Terra, a balanced model for efficient, high-volume work, and Luna, a fast, affordable model for everyday work. I'm just going to pause here for a moment.

They're calling their two of their three models, Terra and Luna. Isn't that the worst branding mistake ever made? Thank you. Thank you. That was the first thing that just jumped out dramatically to me. For listeners who don't remember, those were the names of cryptocurrencies that crashed dramatically one by 99.999% the other by Terra by 98%. And Terra was a stable coin as well. These were kind of the poster children for the crypto fallout from a couple of years ago.

So like why, I mean, I'll take that over Spud, I guess, their code name. But how do you think they came up with those names? All of them actually. I think they were trying to find some version of like the Anthropics all or, like a version of a story like a sonnet and an opus and a fable so they were trying to make their own with these earth and space celestial nicknames like terra Luna and soul they're obviously like they have are wide open to the fact that Anthropics beat them on branding but I would just say for goodness sakes don't use Tara and Luna read the room guys read the room my god and it's not only that they

crashed it's that. It didn't correct me if I'm wrong here. It was a scam, right? It was a scam that basically got everybody to invest in these two thinking that they were stable and people lost their shirts. That's why I would stay away from that naming. Yeah. Actually, now that you did explain it to me, it didn't jump out at me the whole kind of like earth, wind, fire, space type stuff. Maybe I am feeling it a little bit separating out the cryptocurrency association of actual full-scale fraudulent scams that had a lot of people lose a lot of money. Maybe I am liking it a little. I don't know.

Maybe I'm liking a little bit. Maybe we're trying to appeal to a non-cryptocurrency crowd and really try to get to something a little bit more memorable. I don't know. I've just gone to undecided from net negative on these names. Well, I'm still against, but I suppose it's better than harness. Okay, so let's talk about, let's get back to our main story here, which is that here's what OpenAI says in its blog post that the release of this model is going to be restricted at first. We believe in broad access, but we are starting with a limited preview for a small group of trusted partners whose participation has been shared with the government before releasing more broadly.

During this preview, we will continue testing and coordinating closely with the partners as we work toward broader availability. we don't believe this kind of government access process should become the long-term default. So obviously, they saw what happened with Mythos and Fable. They don't want a repeat of that, so they're kind of letting the government handpick the customers that they're able to work with and those they can't. We're going to get into the model's capabilities because it does seem pretty impressive, but I think the release, the way that it's being released is more important at the moment. Obviously, there are implications here, right?

If companies or countries cannot rely on their ability to access frontier AI from U.S. foundational model companies, they will rush toward open source. They will rush towards other solutions. They may be slower to go to these more expensive frontier models, which means the ROI and the incentives to build them will be less. And therefore, we're now at a point where I will, I won't say the entire business model is in question, but given the stakes and given the money that's being raised, maybe it is. Well, hold on. Let's take it. Let's separate out. I think there's like a few different parts of that statement.

The first part is, I guess like on the or actually on the business model question, let's remember that it was anthropic that raised the flag and the concerns around this. and basically invited the U.S. government to bring this up. Now it feels like this is becoming the default American rollout, like, regulatory model for any kind of frontier model, but it was the lab itself that pushed the narrative. Open AI obviously appears that it's following it, but do you think not releasing a frontier model to like a full-scale audience is necessarily a best? thing? Do you think like the most qualified responsible people and companies should be the ones that start testing it and pushing its limits first?

Yeah, well, we've gone back and forth in this. I mean, I have in the past said, okay, maybe this is the right strategy to if you think that this thing can be this powerful, then maybe you should be careful with your release. So I understand I've said that here. But the other side of it is that like you, you know, you could end up in a situation where the government and the companies really pick the winners and losers in this space. And from a business standpoint, maybe they're able to charge a lot more, right? So the initial preview of mythos was quite expensive. And actually the preview of GPT5.6 is about half the cost of the of fable. So that's interesting. But yeah, I think that like from a business standpoint,

there are second order effects here. And I think more broadly, there, There's concern to me that if we're going to go into this moment where there is this, you know, government picking winners and losers situation that you could end up, yeah, you could, you could end up with a more controlled economy, right? Like there have been people on Twitter talking about how like the U.S. is much more top down on AI than even China is today. Here's another tweet that I thought was interesting. Someone wrote, I'm afraid we've entered a dark era and AI model development and access and somebody else quote. tweeted them and wrote, breaking, member of the permanent underclass left shocked after finding out the permanent upper class is invite only. So I imagine that this moment is going to pass, but certainly there's like some worrying precedence here if it continues. Your thoughts?

Well, I guess I've found it a bit, the whole phrase, winners and losers and the government picking them, because that is how the administration has essentially worked for the last, I mean, for, especially in this second term. And it's just coming down on, I think, a faction that has kind of like screamed for libertarianism for a long time. But even though like when, you know, when it's who gets to buy TikTok or what any other decision or how does Stargate roll out or, you know, like all of these things the government and the administration have been pushing.

So it's just kind of taking the same approach to Frontier Labs in my mind. And I don't know. I guess I have not been surprised at how things have been playing out at all. I don't think it's a good thing. I do agree that overall, like, especially like vis-a-vis China and how things are playing out overall across the entire global AI landscape. I think it's a very bad thing. But I guess I'm not as surprised as a lot of VC Twitter seems to be. Yeah, I would say surprised is the reaction I'm having, but, you know, it's important. I think it's important to talk about the problems that could lead down the line, both in terms of like, all right, if this is the new process, then certainly you're at a much greater disadvantage if you aren't able to use these models and your competitors are, right? So who gets to decide that, right? I don't think that's, you know, the free market that the U.S. needs.

Then the other side of it is, do you end up playing into the hands of your competitors? competitors. This is an interesting thought from Aaron Levy. And we've kind of touched on this, but it's worth talking about. If the U.S. remains at the frontier at all times and has heavy regulation on the release of intelligence, then we end up with an economic and geopolitical edge because we can control who has access to frontier intelligence. However, if we delay model releases and another player, specifically China doesn't slow down and has equally strong models, not now, but soon, then our delays end up advantaging their models and eventually

their tech stack. And we've definitely seen conversations recently about how we're moving from people using a frontier model to using model routing, using more open source models. And I think this kind of goes to your point,

right? Like if you think the harness is the big competitive advantage now and not the underlying model, then you could end up with this type of policy sort of icing out the Frontier Labs and having a lot of the benefits of this AI moment go to open source in China, which who knows, I mean, if there's a robust open source AI availability, then that could be really good in a lot of ways. But you also then sort of lose your ability to control on the

safety side of things. And that's why you have people talking this week about banning open source models, which I don't think would be good either. Well, I think let's dig into that a little bit, like, to me, they are two separate issues because especially a lot of the stories you're hearing about or work that's being done or even what I've been seeing kind of like with customers on the front lines around exploring open source models. A lot of that is more around cost and like what models are actually suited to what tasks versus the idea that anyone is going to use mythos or fable for a lot of the work that's being routed. now towards open source. So I think like the cost driver, which we'll talk more about, is more of a

factor rather than the regulatory side. But I do think like that because we have to remember like the most state of the art cutting edge frontier model, that's really about whether it's, you know, finding tons of security loopholes or like pushing the boundaries of science, scientific innovation. Like, I don't know, like that that kind of work is still to me very different than what we're hearing about on the open source side. Right. But I mean, that's because the open source models have trailed in capabilities. But it could end up, I mean, this might have happened whether we see the regulation or not, right, that the open source models will not only be cheaper. But they can start to rival. It's happening. They can start to rival in capabilities. And,

And that really, I mean, especially now, as these companies head towards IPO, it really makes you wonder. And I did try to speak with Brockman about this a little bit when he was at the AI summit. But like, it makes you wonder, like, if you have a model that's closed and is the equivalent of like 15 PhDs and has good EQ and can do stuff, get stuff done for you, then you have an open source model, right? Let's say a couple of years down the line, that's like the equivalent of 12 PhDs and has decent EQ. and we'll still get things done from you, then like, what is the competitive advantage for the frontier models versus, versus, you know, the open source if they all get that smart? Well, okay. So on the business model and IPO question, and we're going to talk more about open AIs, the reporting and on their potential IPO, but I think it's a massive deal. I think it's

like an absolutely ridiculously massive deal. the fact that it completely destroys the entire story. The story has been like expensive frontier models, all the ARR growth that was shown to the world from, call it September-ish, October-ish to February-March, was people just cranking on whatever the latest most expensive frontier model was. The moment, and again, we can Jevin's paradox it all day long, And I do firmly believe overall utilization of models and agentic AI is going to be just, you know,

like exponential. But the core IPO story, I think, takes a huge hit from this. So I think like the advantage of having something far superior for a short amount of time starts to go away anyways the moment people start realizing they don't need the Ferrari, the Honda cord is great. Right. And up until this point, it was like a nobody gets fired

for buying IBM situation where you wouldn't look elsewhere because you didn't need to, right? Because it was just kind of easier to plug and play, these frontier models from the closed companies. But what I'm saying is because the frontier

is now being restricted, it adds an incentive to look elsewhere. And when it adds that incentive to look elsewhere, you might see a slowing. Now, you know, the foundational model companies would argue that their models are still better, which they are, that they have more compute, which they do. But, you know, ultimately, the expectations have been built up so high and the money is so, you know, significant in that they basically need to shoot a hole in one here for everything to work or maybe a hole in two. I don't know.

They have to basically be near flawless in their execution. And the pressure is now on. and that's why I think you saw opening on, taking the risky stance of saying we're going to play with the way the government wants us to play right now, but we would really prefer not. And you're right? Like, they have executed dearly flawlessly.

I mean, it feels like for the last six to 12 months. And that's why the expectations have been built so massively. But, yeah, I don't know. Overall, I think this is a big issue. I guess one thing I have been wondering, though, is, Right now, you keep hearing and reading about as these frontier models actually, you know, like have widespread adoption, that's where the distilling starts to take place. That's where competitors can start to, I mean, like, you know, I've heard about these like distillation swarms where they're literally like asking, you know, like sending millions of prompts to try to like start understanding all of the model behavior and starting to work to actually recreate it from a,

a open source standpoint, is there some world where the regulation is good to kind of protect the frontier model and you only give it to your 100 most profitable large enterprise and government customers that pay you the most money and also minimize risk of distillation as well? Could that, could they be almost a little happy that that's the case? my hot take is that one of the things that we saw from Anthropic with all these safeguards that it put on Fable was not as much that they were worried that Fable would be misused, although I'm sure there was some worry there. It was more that like we know our competitors are going to try to distill this model and we're just not going to let them do it in places that provide the

most value. And in fact, I think Anthropic was effectively coming out and saying that if we think that you're using our technology to build a competing model, we're going to block your access to do that. And they kind of backed off that a little bit because people were like, Anthropic doing any, you know, preventing any AI research with its models is anti-competitive and bad. But yeah, I think that's a, that was a real worry. And this limited release strategy could prevent distillation to a degree, although, you know, the models, it seems like it's kind of hard to keep the models under wraps, don't you think? I don't know. My favorite Bill Gurley this week had tweeted, if you're on the verge of AGI or ASI, why isn't your model smart enough to recognize espionage distillation in real time? You say you can cure cancer in a few years. Isn't sniffing illicit distillation quite a bit easier than curing cancer? And I kind of loved it because it's like, why do you need, why? It is surprising to me that that is still such a threat when it is existential.

to their business that they haven't kind of invested or figured out a way to protect against this short of not giving as many people access. Yeah, no, it's a great point. I mean, I think that's what they were trying to do with these proactive safeguards, but obviously it's still a problem. They just accused Alibaba. Anthropic just accused Alibaba of distilling their models recently. Okay, one thing on GPD 5.6. Then we'll move on to the opening I IPO stories. So they ran GPT 5.6 through a test called exploit bench and the capabilities were basically on par with Mythos. This is obviously a cybersecurity test, but Mythos is much less token efficient. So Mythos used something like 300,000 tokens for the for the test and GPT 5.6 used around 100,000.

So I would say it's at least, you know, half a two times more efficient than Mythos preview, which is, which is interesting and it's priced more cheaply than it, about half price. Yeah, I mean, you see price constantly being now a highlight rather than kind of some afterthought. I don't think most people could have, you know, like reasonably known what their input and output token costs were in the past. And now everyone is looking. I mean, is looking at it. I've, wait, hold on, it's not publicly available in any capacity now, right? None of them?

5.6? Yeah. It's not publicly available. It's the same thing. There's a limited number of companies that, that have access to. But even for all three of them? All three like,

yeah, all three are available. Okay, so they're not doing like Luna. Everybody gets a little bit of access to, but, uh, soul,

you gotta wait. Yeah. I mean, I think the hope is that it comes, out fairly soon. That's just the way that they're talking. But we'll see. Well, I guess why I'm asking that is in my mind, and maybe it's wrong, I still kind of associate the more expensive and heavy the model is, the more dangerous it is. And that's why when Luna is fast and affordable for everyday work, and that's kind of the positioning, you would think, like, that should be easy and you just give it to

everybody versus soul is the flagship model. And that's the big dangerous one that can get us all into trouble. But maybe that's the wrong assumption. Yeah, you got to be careful, those nimble fighters, right? You think they're just lightweight and chill. And next thing you know, they cut you. They're exploiting software left and right, bringing down global financial infrastructure. Exactly.

Okay. So speaking of global financial infrastructure, we do have IPOs on the way. this is from the but the question is when this is from the new york times open a i leans toward waiting until next year for its IPO open ai is leading towards holding off its initial public offering until next year a turnabout that punctuates the uncertain future for fast rising artificial intelligence giants the maker of chachy pt hired bankers and lawyers with an eye towards a public offering as soon as the third or fourth quarter of this year but because that's not going to hit the $1 trillion

valuation that Sam Altman has been seeking. It looks like they are going to potentially postpone. It's from the time story. Top of mind is what happened to Elon Musk's SpaceX after its IPO this month. It had the largest ever, largest IPO ever,

raising more than $85 billion. At a $1.77 trillion valuation, however, it's fallen back to Earth. I'll just share my conspiracy theory on this one and then turn it to you in terms of your views of the implications here. I think Open AI knows it's important to beat Anthropic to the public markets given the growth

that Anthropic has shown of late. It probably sees a better opening now because Anthropic has been in a way held back by the government because of the fable fumble. And Open AI might be just sending out signals that it's going to wait. But then it will pounce as a lightweight fight. fighter does and cut, cut anthropic and get it, get there first. That's my conspiracy theory. Talking about two potentially trillion dollar companies as lightweight fighters here. Got to be nimble. Got to be nimble.

Okay, I do like that because it was surprising to me that that could even be leaked. And I feel a lot of this IPO reporting is very purposefully leaked. Because again, in the past, like, and I mean having seen a lot of this very up close, like everyone does whatever they can to not allow for any of this kind of reporting. And we've certainly seen plenty of it. So it feels very like anything that comes out is purposeful. So then, yeah, the question, why would they signal that they may be delaying? I do like your take there. I think that's a fun one. But I also just think like right now, to me, what's interesting what the market is two months ago, everything felt like it had direction.

Everything, the ARR was just unreal, like any kind of number that was being reported out. Overall, you know, everyone's feeling good about things. The frontier lab and state-of-the-art models still are the kind of dominant narrative. Meanwhile, to meet the biggest vibeship has been, when you see Bill Gurley or, the Coinbase CEO, all Brian Armstrong, like everyone is just bragging about not using the frontier models. Think about two months ago, three months ago, it was just, oh my God, have you used Opus 4-8 or whatever? Like it was just GPT-5-5 is now ahead of 4-8. That's all anyone talked about. No one had ever even, I mean, most the average user had never even heard of Quinn or like

now with GLM 5.2 this week. So to me, it almost feels like this is a moment to wait because the entire market has shifted from two to three months ago and no one got out other than Elon. And he did a great job at that. But I think waiting actually would be the smarter decision. But how long do you want to wait? Because if you wait too much longer, you might be in the situation where you've spent a lot of money, you're waiting for more money, uh, and your customers are starting to try to find ways

to efficiency max. They're, they are. They already are. But do you want, do you want that to, you know, right now the cut, the curve is looking up into the right, but do you want it to take it to even out as these customers try to, uh, try to find more efficient ways to use your tools? I guess, I mean, and I have no. direct knowledge either way on this.

To me, the curve is no longer up into the right from where it was a few months ago. Just everything. Yeah. I mean, just, again, when the Coinbase CEO is bragging about model routing and here's five different models suited to different tasks, and everyone is talking about that, it changes the entire growth curve. The entire story from September to February, March, April-ish, all. of that has changed. Like, it's just so clear. So that to go out, you're going to have to show your

latest results. You're going to have to show the last few months. So I do think versus you have a lot of promising different business lines, start allowing a little bit more maturity and then go out with a stronger story rather than here's an ARR curve that looks insane. Right. And it's not just the Coinbase CEO and it's not just, you know, Twitter voices who are talking about finding more efficient uses of their models and looking for savings in their engagements with Anthropic and Open AI. And by the way, there's also some reporting about Anthropic and open AI potentially overcharging customers. So it is a broader pullback, not just a micro influencer pullback. And we have the reporting and we're going to talk about it right after

this. Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor. Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Across Canada in a Volvo. Destination, Vancouver, turn left to leave. Travel west through, approaching. Continue toward you've arrived. Adventure in comfort with Volvo.

Whether you prefer gas, plug-in hybrid, or fully electric, there's a Volvo for everyone. Learn more at VolvoCars.C.A. And we're back here on Big Technology Podcasts with Ranjan Roy of margins. All right, Ron John, so before the break, we talked a little bit about how there's this. Now it's become a meme that people are trying to pull back on their costs with open AI and anthropic and finding ways to do it. But the reporting shows that it's more than a meme, that it's a reality that seems like it might be more widespread than you would even know by seeing the tweets. This is from the information how AI customers are lowing their anthropic.

and Open AI bills. As prices for Anthropic and Open AIs flagship products soar, some large customers are using cheaper AI models from those companies' menus, as well as from other providers. Ensemble Health Partners, a provider of software for hospitals that plans to spend up to $100 million on AI this year, said it's had success switching to an open AI model that's 1 20th as expensive as the company's more advanced models. The AI power tool for writing appeal letters to insurance firms that won't reimburse Ensemble's hospital clients for care. They provide, so the AI power is a tool that does that. Ensemble sends about 15,000 such letters every month,

and the chief technology officer of the company said switching to a lower cost model will result in savings of nearly $700,000 per year. Many anthropic and open AI customers are willing to stomach the rising costs of these two company's products, but some are hitting the brakes after blowing through their budgets. Okay, so basically what you're seeing now is It's almost as if these smaller flash models have gotten good enough that you can make these moves And companies are looking at what they're spending and saying hey, wait a second This makes zero sense

We are actually just going to go to the smaller models and we're going to route and maybe use the more powerful models as a decision make As a sort of top layer decision maker as opposed to a worker It's pretty interesting around John wouldn't you say I mean, it does seem like this is going back to our discussion in the first half here, a real, not to use a, you know, jargon, but a real economic headwind for these companies. And not good. Again, if you're rooting for them to show, you know, exceptional growth as they get to IPO. I mean, to me, the most interesting part of what you just said is you called it an economic headwind, but even within that reporting, they're still talking about using an open AI model, just 120. is expensive. So to me, that's an even bigger challenge overall to the narrative is,

is like you can be using Anthropic and Open AI's own products. And still, that's not good for their overall like IPO narrative and the business story because it's depended on using the most expensive models. Not here's a whole suite of products and models and use all of them the best you can, and that's good for all of us. It really feels like the fact that that becomes a story in itself versus, oh, you're just using different parts of the Open AI ecosystem. I think that is a pretty telling thing. Is there a Jevin's paradox side to all this where it's like, yeah, like you switched from using only our frontier model for everything to some of our cheaper models, but you're going to do a lot more now. And so therefore, you know, a category that you

never would have even spent on in 2023. Now you're going to spend, you know, a ton more. I think, like, this is the crazy part of the timing of all this. To me, I firmly believe in a few years' time, and especially in like the next decade, there is going to be just massive increases in overall token consumption, agentification of everything. I believe it. But the timing, because in a, if this pressure wasn't so great on the two giant, the frontier lab giants, then you would think like the product should actually very clearly, you ask it a question, you give it a problem, and it tells you. And I've seen Claude do this sometimes where it's like, it won't actively switch,

but if you ask it which of your models are best suited for which part of this task, it will tell you. But they don't like core bake that into the product because it's not good for the business overall. Like, and it should be. It should. They should, they could own this and make their portfolio approach and everything is tightly integrated. But it's given the IPO pressure that would be a dangerous thing to do over the next six months. Sorry, wasn't the entire like big controversy around the GPT5 rollout that it would route your queries to the appropriate?

model so they're not doing that anymore or how does that comport with what you're saying now? No, no, no, hold on. Those are two separate things because the GPT5 rollout, wait, you're talking about when it would, people were mad that it wasn't sycophantic and they wanted to go back to the four out. I'm talking about how when GPT5 rolled out, this is just in chat GPT, right? ChatGPT would have its own built-in model router and said, oh, this is an easier query, we'll send it to a smaller model, or this is a tougher query. We'll send it to our most powerful model and you really couldn't pick. Now you can pick, I guess. Well, no. So, okay, I would put those in two different categories around building an agenetic workflow that's repeatable and like predictable

and they're spending the time to assign the right model to the right task makes a lot of sense. Now, okay, now like when GPT5 did have their model router, so yeah, I acknowledge people were backlash and because they're like, oh, I'm getting dumber stuff. It's not doing this in the right way. When you're just having a back and forth, like, turn-based conversation, that's not where I think this is valuable. And actually, that's like a good example where it was clumsy the way it was actually executed. And in that exact kind of like situation, it's probably not the most useful thing. I think it could be useful because, again, as we both talked about, like, there's times where you ask Claude a basic question and it creates like a 20 page PowerPoint deck and just goes on,

scrapes half the web and does whatever in God's name it's trying to do. And having a little bit of a lighter flash model typey thing might be good. But yeah, so to me it's more as you have a workflow that is predictable and kind of like you know what the different pieces of work are, that everyone should be a lot more. and they should be trying to lead that and they're not because it's not good for them. Right. And by the way, you know, as we're talking, you know, again, this all matters for the IPO because the growth and the dollars are going to be pretty important when we see these S-1s

and when they actually go out. Well, there might be some overcharges happening because of the opacity of the systems. This is from the information. Anthropic customers find errant charges auditing startup says some customers may be paying more for Anthropic and Open AI product. than they should due to billing inaccuracies, according to Voddit, which sells an AI bill auditing tool. Okay, well, obviously they're going to find this stuff. Okay, I'll just read it. We can talk about it. Between March and June, Vaudit audited bills sent to 60 companies totaling 34 million,

mostly for usage of Anthropics Cloud Code, and found about 1.7 million in mistaken overcharges. What we are observing in that enterprise AI billing has become increasingly opaque. Vought it said, Erit billing isn't unique to AI, of course, and can be seen throughout enterprise software, cloud services, and online advertising. Do you think that this is a big problem? NAI is basically like you send these tools like cloud code out to do stuff for you.

And because it's so opaque, you have no idea whether you're being overcharged or not. I mean, 1.7 million of overcharges out of 34 million is not insignificant at all. my favorite part of this story is just hearing you say vaudit audited i love this name vaught that was a tongue twister yeah bought it better than terra luna but not not exactly the easiest thing to say on the air vaudit audited bills um so i think this is an issue i actually am not as concerned i think as normally i would think i would be around it more just because like

yes, okay, out of 34 million 1.7 is like a pretty significant percentage. But again, when no one has been checking their bills, it makes sense that without any malice, there would be errors happening. Like, it's just if no one had been checking their bills, digging into their bills, even knowing what they're spending. When you hear Uber surprised that they blew through their entire year's AI budget, in a quarter that shows that no one was carefully tracking things. So, of course, there's going to be certain errors. Actually, one of the ones that was the most interesting part of that to me, though, was when the session times out or you don't get an answer, which happens plenty,

are you responsible for the tokens? Because it actually kind of cited that as an error. I hadn't actually thought of that as a billinger before. It's just kind of something you just eat. Like it's just in AI, you're not, it'll time out sometimes. And that's how it works. But like that actually made me think our customers responsible for any tokens consumed during that session.

And that could start to be more and more of an issue. Yeah, that could add up. I feel like it happens to me all the time, multiple times a day where I ask something to a chatbot and it thinks a bit. then gives up. Well, whatever's behind that, I don't know. But it is, it's a problem. It's charging you. Yeah, all this stuff is going to add up as we start to see these companies head towards the most significant financial event of their lifetimes, for sure. And then, of course, we have the precedent. This will be the last financial, or sorry, financial market story we do.

On this, on this topic, but SpaceX obviously not fearing very well. I mean, it shed about, I think it was down 15% or so on the week. It's trading at 153. That's the way it closed Friday. And all this sort of ebullience over the fact that it was on this legendary run has certainly quieted down. It went to $2.5 trillion market cap. It was bigger than, I think, bigger than Amazon for a moment. Now it's dropped down to $2 trillion, which is still nothing to sneeze at.

but definitely less frothy than its earlier trajectory seemed like it was going to be at this point. Your thoughts? Two trillion is frothy. I mean, like that's why two, two and a half. I will say that first week of the post IPO, there are moments in any kind of cycle you remember. And that's going to stick with me when you saw like, I mean, Elon Musk is a trillionaire now. He's heading to $2 trillion.

It's bigger. And remember, this is a company with $18.7 billion of revenue total. I mean, Amazon, it surpassed its market cap. Amazon has $750 billion in revenue. Like, this is a company that's losing $4 billion. So which, again, if you believe there's going to be data centers in space and you believe, like, all that, it's, you can come up with the story behind. it. But when you just kept seeing it climb, it got to like 215, I think, 215 near the highs, and then it's like surpassing Amazon, surpassing meta, closing in on Microsoft. I don't know.

Those are the moments that whatever shakes out in the next year or so, I will definitely remember. Yep. Okay. Let's go to our last, our last, story, which is that Apple has raised the prices on the max iPads by $200 or more on some models. A fascinating thing is happening right now. Memory prices have gone up, and now Apple is making its product lineups. Much more expensive. This is from Bloomberg. Apple raised prices on its Macs and iPads early Thursday morning.

A week after chief executive Tim Cook said the soaring cost of memory and storage chips would force the company's hand. The company briefly took down its Apple online store early this morning as it typically does. when announcing new products, that was Friday. When it came back online, the price tags for Mac computers rose roughly 15 to 20%. And iPad prices rose 15 to 25%. Among the price increases,

the base MacBook Air rose from rose $200 to $1,200. To $1,299. The base MacBook Pro increased $300 to $1999. The entry-level MacBook Neo increased $100,699. The iPad Air increased 150 to $7.49. and the iPad Pro increased $200 to $1,199. I have become somewhat of a lightning rod on X this week because this was my reaction to the news.

I wrote that Micron's gross margins, micron's gross margin was 84.9% last quarter, and Apples was 49.3%. Sure, price hikes and supply chain, price hikes and supply and demand, price hikes are supply and demand at work, but at a certain point, it's greed. I don't know, man. I mean, yes, the memory prices have gone up, but as somebody pointed out, if you're building a data center filled with these things,

then it makes sense to raise prices. If you're building a device with a little bit of it, probably not. This is the exact tweet. is from Carl Peterson. I sell GPUs for living systems. Integrators buying two terabytes of RAM for a server. Have an excuse for raising prices. Apple buying eight gigabytes for a MacBook does not.

Greed or supply and demand? What's your take on the Apple price hikes? Greed. Do you know what my tell was? I don't know if the HomePod Mini as an owner of multiple ones has any kind of story. but it certainly does not have any meaningful storage. So to raise that by 30%,

I think shows that they're just going across the board here. And also, the increase in memory has been, if they're saying that this is here to stay, and maybe that's actually a positive signal for the sandisks and microns of the world. But to me, you have this kind of massive price hike of an input, but to change these like long supply chain type products and pricing this dramatically,

this is actually pretty shocking to me. You know, you change the price of a flight. You change the price of a flight because the cost of oil goes up. That's dynamic. That's relatively like quick up and down fluctuations. This is huge relative. And once it's done, they're just going to keep it there. Well, unless they have a corresponding decrease in sales because they need those devices in people's hands for their service businesses to be strong.

Yeah, but we're all locked in and can't escape the Apple ecosystem. And then, oh, wait, maybe they are so confident that Siri is going to be so good that they're like, guess what? Everything's going up and you guys aren't going anywhere because Siri is going to become your default AI in life. that's what's happening. Right. I mean, Tim Cook calling the price hikes unavoidable is just like ridiculous. And, you know, obviously like the, when the device goes up 20%, that's the entire price of the device. So DRAM could be going up by whatever it is, but you're not, you're not going to, it doesn't, the increase in DRAM price does not account for a 20% increase in the entire device price.

It's crazy. Like, they're going to make margin. off that. And not only that, they're responsible for it to a degree. This is an interesting tweet that I read that sort of captures the situation. Apple spent a decade squeezing memory makers below costs. One of them survived finally got pricing power, and Apple is calling it gouging. I mean, they didn't use the word gouging, but they basically implied it. Two years ago, Micron was selling DRAM below the cost of making it, gross margins underwater, and the kind of bust that has killed memory makers for 30 years. A field that once had a dozen players, it had dozens of

players can solid down to three survivors. Micron is here because it executed the downturns better than the ones that died, not because anyone was generous to it. The buyer is now screaming about 84.9% margins, Apple and the hyper-scalers are exactly the players who spent that decade grinding memory to negative margins on every procurement cycle. Sorry, go ahead. No, no, actually, I'm curious. So you, should Apple do this? No, I don't think so. I think it's bad business. I mean, first of all, it's customer hostile, right? You're using an excuse to jack prices up. Second of all, like, it's going to hit your services business.

You want services, the one thing that's really growing within Apple. I mean, recently we've seen some growth with iPhone. You're going to want a robust service business if you're Apple. And the way you do that is you get devices in people's hands. But they've been actually, so they have been, I just looked up, the price of the premium iPhone model. in the last seven years is up 65%. So it went from 969, which I think anyone who gets the new Pro Max,

whatever always has seen, it just keeps going up and up and up. And I mean, I think I am an example that I don't buy the new iPhones because I don't feel I need to, but I'm paying way too much in services, businesses for things I forget about. So maybe in that case, if you don't have the devices, that's like a good example. I guess it's just, I don't know, the confidence or maybe cockiness to raise prices this much and think it's not going to just like crush demand, they have to be modeling this out somehow or they have to, something must be behind that.

If you're Tim Cook and you're trying to do John Turnus a favor, what you do is you may be aggressively increased prices. Now, of course, the products that are being jacked up, they're not a massive. part of Apple's business, but they're big enough. And the price will go up on the iPhone of all the press on the press on the set. It's iPad and MacBook. So if you're Tim Cook

and you want to set John Turnus up in the best place, you jack prices up because of global memory shortage. If the, if demand remains somewhat consistent, then you deliver Ternus, you know, huge profits as he begins running the company. If demand goes down,

you give Ternus the enviable position of saying, I am John Turnus, I am the price cutter. I am going to cut prices to spark demand and you will love me now. So either way. Call option cook. Call option cook. He's giving, yeah, he's giving a turnus the greatest call option of all time. Okay, I like this one. I like this direction. It's a win-win. But yeah, I, I was genuinely shocked by this and trying to kind of like just chalk it up to, uh, chalk it up to

short term increases in memory prices that might be here to stay, but still, I was pretty shocked. Yeah. I mean, someone, someone told me like, uh, do you think it's a charity product project or something about Apple when I said it was greed? And I said, I said, obviously get your bag if you're Apple, but it doesn't mean you're beyond reproach and I'm approaching. I mean, of course, it's not a charity, but you don't have to like cheer on companies that are greedy. This is from Scott Heiferman, the founder of Meetup. Apple is, was a change the world project, make insanely great

products for as many people as possible. Good profit makes sense. Beyond that isn't the point of the project. Asking if it's a charity project or something is the question statement of the truly naive. Preach, Scott, preach. I like your, you're approaching. I am approaching. I'm approaching. I am reproaching. I'm reproaching you, Tim. I'm reproaching. And if they don't let me into the next WWC, I really couldn't care less.

Too much reproaching. No reproaching if you want entry. But you will reproach. I'll reproach. I'll reproach. All right, two things before we leave. I want to say thank you to you, Ron John, and thanks to everybody who joined us at the summit last week.

We've obviously been putting some of the interviews up. We'll have the Greg Brockman interview in full up this coming Wednesday. It was a good time, wasn't it? I had a great time. Thank you for everyone who came out. And it was fun. We do this virtually sometimes in person together, but just meeting all our listeners in person. That was a lot of fun.

It was really cool. So thank you, everybody. And if you weren't there, obviously, we're trying to get as much of the content to you as possible. So we'll have the Brockman interview this Wednesday. and then we will go back to our normal podcast style, aka in studio or remote one-on-one conversations with no audience starting the following Wednesday with meta-CTO and Drew Bosworth.

So stay tuned for that. All right. Rang on before we go, tech industry lost a giant this week. Om Malik, the blogger, a founder of Giga-Om VC at True Ventures, passed away on June 24th. This is from his blog. He passed away at Stanford Hospital after a long health journey with his heart. He was surrounded by friends and family.

Ome was 59. Just a word about Ome. I mean, he is, if you've seen any of the tributes online this week, you could tell that he was very generous with his time and his advice to anybody in the industry. You know, he's been on the show, of course. We had a great conversation with him not long ago. And we've definitely lost one of the good ones. And the nice thing about Ome is he really seemed to care about everybody in the industry.

I mean, when he started talking to me, I was like, wait, Ome knows what big technology is and he knows who I am. That's the craziest thing. But he was read in and humble and kind of blunt and like in a fun way. I remember I was sitting next to him at WWDC or some Apple event. And he had been writing these columns from the New Yorker and another journalist was like, how do you write for the New Yorker? And he just like looked the guy in the face and smiled and he goes, because I'm good.

And he really was. So I don't know if you have any, you know, memories or reflections on OM, but definitely, you know, he kicked off the modern tech blog era for sure. No, I, so for me, having never been a full-time writer,

but writing plenty, uh, I'd gotten in touch with him a number of years ago. never met him in person, but when I was running a startup in 2013 and just, you know, like trying to get into tech crunch and giga-home and stuff like that, what amazed me is he responded and we actually exchanged emails and he was just like, you know, friendly versus so much of the, I mean, just overall ecosystem as a whole. And I think the most important, it's like, yeah, he he blogged. I mean, he got me. He got me in. He was one of the first blogs I started to read and actually got me interested in the whole new media thing. So, yeah, seeing all the outpouring and everything, it was pretty special. Yeah. I don't know if this, I'm going to just read this.

So Katie Jacobs-Stanton, who was in a VC and was a Twitter executive, posted this letter that Ome wrote to her when her father passed away. And I think that like when people experience loss, sometimes it can be difficult to like to hit the right tone. And I think this letter that Ome wrote really did hit the right tone. I'm just going to read it. And we can sort of end with this. He wrote, Dear Katie, I read the sad news you shared last night on Twitter.

And I wanted to take a moment and send you my thoughts, prayers, and hugs to get you through this tough time. We all have a habit of mourning what we don't have instead of celebrating all the gifts we are bestowed upon. His life was a gift to you. I didn't know your father, but it's clear that his grandness lives in you and yours, your compassion and empathy for the human condition is a gift of your parenting. And I hope you can remember that when there is a moment of sadness that shakes up your world. I hope you find his memories and his lessons a guiding light for the future with much love and prayers for your family.

I mean, just beautifully written. And honestly, a lot of the same can be said about all. today. So rest in peace, Ome, one of the good ones. I know we typically end on a laugh, but I think that, uh, that, that, yeah, Ome's presence in the tech industry,

around the tech industry brought a lot of joy to, to a lot of people. And so we'll do our best to, to live his legacy on in the ways that we can. Okay. Well, we'll see you next time on big technology podcast.