Prof G Markets - Apple’s War On OpenAI Just Got Personal

Episode Date: August 5, 2026

Ed Elson is joined by Alex Heath to unpack the latest drama in the legal battle between Apple and OpenAI, what Apple's request for a preliminary injunction could mean, and how serious the case could become for OpenAI. Then, Nicolas Owens returns to break down SpaceX's latest earnings, assess the company's capital expenditures, and give his take on its current valuation. Finally, Ed gives his take on reports that Blackstone is in talks to loan money to Anthropic. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets Youtube Channel  Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Follow Scott on Instagram Send us your questions or comments by emailing [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from VCX, the public ticker for private tech. The U.S. stock market started history's greatest wave of wealth creation, from factory workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha. Anyone can own a piece of the great American companies. But today, our most innovative companies are staying private longer, which means everyday Americans are missing out. Until now. Introducing VCX, a public ticker for private tech,

now available wherever you buy stocks. Visit getvcx.com for more info. That's getvcx.com. carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses, this and other information can be found in the fund's prospectus at getvcx.com. This is a paid sponsorship. Support for this show comes from Odu. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odu. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more. And the best part, O-DU replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch.

So why not you? Try O-D-O-F-Frey at O-D-O-O-O-com. That's O-D-O-O-O-O-com. Pouders, everywhere you look, there seems to be a new wellness trend. We all want to feel good, and if there's a way to feel better, I think, Wouldn't you want to try it? I would. What's the cost of being well? And why are we so obsessed with it in the first place?

That's this week on Explain It to Me. Find episodes every Sunday wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Profi Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is August 5th. Let's check in on yesterday's Market Vitals. The major indices climbed with the Dow and the S&P 500 hitting record highs on hopes that the strait of Hormuz would soon reopen. Brent crude oil dropped below $80 per barrel. The yield on 10-year Treasury's decline.

AMD shares dropped more than 8% despite posting record revenues. And finally, Pallantir shares popped almost 30% a day after crushing earnings and raising its outlook. Okay, what else is happening? The legal war between OpenAI and Apple just heated up. Last month, Apple sued OpenAI, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets to build its own AI hardware device. At the time, Apple called the lawsuit, quote, just the tip of the iceberg. Then, on Monday, Apple asked a federal judge to bar Open AI and two ex-employees from accessing using or disclosing information it claims are trade secrets.

Apple also asked the court to fast track the case, arguing that there is a, quote, imminent, threat to its trade secrets. Open AI then fired back in a blog post, calling the lawsuit, quote, careless, aggressive, and oddly personal. The company also accused Apple's lawyers of mistakenly emailing the wrong person after confusing two people with similar Asian surnames. OpenAI maintains it has no interest in using another company's trade secrets and says the suit is, quote, based on false information. The hearing has been scheduled for October 1st. Here, to unpack this drama, we are speaking with Alex Heath, author of the Sources newsletter.

Alex, it's good to see you. Let's just start with Apple's preliminary injunction, which was filed at the beginning of the week. Then we'll get to Open AIs clapback, which was equal parts hilarious and important. What is Apple saying here? What are they accusing open AI of now? Well, they're basically suggesting that there's more to the story than they've led on previously, that the corruption as they see it runs deeper. And I think most importantly, as you said, in the intro, they're wanting a preliminary injunction.

I mean, let's be real. Apple's trying to slow Open AI down. That's what they're trying to do. They're trying to keep this launch that they have for their first device later this year from happening, derail the whole thing, freeze employees from continuing to do. to work on things. And that's why I think we saw that opening eye response that you talked about. So what do you make of that response? They started with that point about Apple's lawyers emailing the wrong person. And they specifically mentioned that they confused the names of two Asian

people, which is, I mean, that seems intentional. It's embarrassing. That's also something you put into a case like this to get people like us to talk about it rather than the merits of the evidence. it's a bit of a distraction. It's like a look over here thing. They're accidentally emailing people. You'll also notice, I'm no lawyer, but you'll notice like the very specific language Open AI has used. We have no interest in using trade secrets.

Like saying to my wife, like, after I snuck a cookie that I have no interest in eating cookies, doesn't negate the fact that I maybe ate the cookie, right? These are very different statements. Like you could say, we have not done this and we're ready to fight this in court. They're not saying this. They're saying we have no interest in this. I think probably both parties have some embarrassing things that they don't want to come out as my read of the situation and the way they're messaging it. It's a very nasty lawsuit.

I mean, Open AI was saying that this, you know, way that Apple's approach this has felt oddly personal. And it's like, yeah, no shit. It is super personal to Apple. You know, you hired Johnny Ive, who ran design at Apple. you hired, as Apple has put it, you know, hundreds of ex-employees. Eddie Q's son is working at OpenAI on this hardware. I mean, it is very personal. Everyone knows each other.

They go way back. And Apple takes these things very seriously. They've been very consistent, even back to Steve Jobs, on litigating these kinds of things, taking, you know, employee poaching very seriously, suing ex-employees for suspected leaking. This is not out of the norm of them to behave this way. I think Open AI going, you know, they start with saying like how much respect they have for Apple and then saying like this is beneath them. It's a tactic. But it also doesn't speak to like the merits of what Apple has said.

And if you look at the texts that Open AI has produced to try to back up, I didn't see a smoking gun there that, you know, Apple's totally in the wrong here. I just see a lot of he said, she said, hearsay. Yeah, maybe some Apple employees reached out. to the people at OpenAI asking just innocently for stuff back, and Apple is using that to say, oh, Open AI people are leaking proprietary info or taking it from Apple. There's just a lot of, like, very messy energy to this that suggests these two companies hate each other.

And I haven't seen a smoking gun on either side. I see a lot of, like, potential room for more embarrassment on each side. And I think you see that even in the way Open AI has responded. Well, that was sort of what struck me in Open AI's response in the blog post that they published, is I was looking for them to make the actual counter argument to the claim, but I couldn't find it. I thought I was seeing it when I was seeing all of their accusations because the language was very powerful and very accusatory. But to go with like, you're stealing cookies analogy, it kind of is like, hey, no, I didn't steal, or they didn't say I didn't steal cookies. The accusation was you stole the cookies, and then the response was like, yeah, well, you didn't do the laundry earlier.

Or it's like, I have no interest in the cookies. Maybe I did eat them, but maybe I did it accidentally. And that's like maybe where this lands is like there were some unintentional transfers of trade secrets and that's bad. And Apple's using that to really go for the jugular and slow things down. I would not be surprised if that ends up where this lands. But we don't know, right? Like, you and I haven't seen all of the discovery. It hasn't happened. You know, Open AI is producing these texts. To me, these texts don't really meaningfully move anything forward on the arguments on either side. So I think we'll have to wait and see how Apple responds. You know, it'll be really interesting if this settles or Apple gets the injunction. I mean, Open AI definitely responded because of the injunction, because if that were granted, they'd have to pause work on their first device. I mean, what really is the point of posting this blog, if they're not actually addressing the merits of the case, and if it's not going to hold water really in the legal sphere, I mean, I know you're not a lawyer. Well, I don't know. So I don't want to speak to, like, I don't know if it'll hold water as someone who's just following the case. To me, I didn't see a strong rebuttal. I did see, you know, like, Hock Tan, like, the most senior person that they're accusing at Open AI, the former Apple leader.

you know, I did see Open AI have a very simple blanket like he always told people not to give him trade secrets kind of response. Didn't address like any specific. I mean, Apple's very specific about how Open AI employees allegedly coerced information out of people. And Open AI didn't get into detail on that in its response. It was very blanket. And again, this like, we have no interest. It's not the same as saying you didn't do it. It seems really important. And it's like very, very. very specifically lawyered. And I've seen much forceful responses

where, you know, usually the standard is like, oh, this is meriless. This, we believe this case is meritless and we look forward

to defending it in court, right? You're not seeing that here. You're seeing a lot of like, why is this so personal? We have no interest. Like, um,

it's very, it's very like teenage angsty. Yeah, it's really interesting. What do you think this means for the launch of this hardware device? I mean,

where do we even stand on this hardware device that's been, that Open AI has been working on. Is that still happening? I mean, the latest I've heard and that others have reported is they definitely are on track for an unveil sometime later this year of the first device, which is supposedly going to be this kind of Alexa HomePod like AI speaker with a bunch of sensors on it that kind of sits at your desk or goes on a table and ambiently takes in the environment, maybe even interrupts you, essentially has like an AI personality, maybe your AI chief of staff. kind of in a way, and takes in the world around you.

And then obviously they have a family of devices they've said they're working on. I think we're going to see probably some kinds of earbuds, maybe a wrist thing, some glasses. They're not going to do a phone. But I'm sure Apple would love to slow down, you know, the release of this. I mean, I think Scott has been saying that as well, that, like, it's worth probably the legal fees just to, like, introduce chaos into this, a very competitive moment.

whatever Open AI, though, is putting out in the fall, like, it's not going to cannibalize iPhone sales. So there's no, like, near-term risk to Apple here. I think it's more of, like, the principle that Apple feels very betrayed. And, yes, it's clearly very personal. You know, Hawk Tan, the most senior executive at Open AI, they're accusing of leaving Apple and taking secrets and coercing for secrets. You know, used to work very closely with John Turnus, right, the new CEO of Apple incoming. Like, these people go way back. And so it's also very telling, I think.

uninteresting that Johnny Ive is not named in the suit. I mean, I know that's been discussed before, but he continues to stay out of it, which to me suggests there's some kind of blanket agreement there that I'm not reporting this. I'm just speculating that, you know, there's an intentional reason he's been left out of it. And maybe it doesn't mean that he's not implicated, but Apple isn't able to include him. Say the preliminary injunction is granted Apple wins that and the hardware launch is at the very least put on hold or maybe even just canceled. How bad would that be for Open AI? How important is it to them? Very bad. If there's any traction of Apple winning an injunction, you're going to see my prediction. You're going to see Open AI go, you know, full court press on this and make a big mess of it. and do a bunch of opo messaging against this.

It matters a lot. There's a lot writing on them getting hardware right. It's a personal kind of thing for Sam Altman and Johnny, and they spent over $6 billion on acquiring Johnny's hardware team. They've been working on the stuff. It would be very bad. All right. We'll see how things unfold.

Alex Heath is author of The Sources newsletter. Alex, always appreciate your time. Thank you. Thanks, Ed. After the break, a first look at SpaceX earnings. And for even more, Markets, insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletter, Simplyput at simplyput.proftlymedia.com. Support for the show comes from Noom.

Most journeys don't travel in a straight line. There are ups and downs, peaks and valleys. Weight loss can feel the same way. Often losing the weight is only half the battle. Keeping it off is the other half. That's why Noom combines GLP1 medication and behavioral support designed to help people. people build healthier routines and sustain progress over time. Noom found that 37% more weight is lost when using Noom than just taking GLPs on their own.

And the weight is sustained too. That's because Noom uses a psychology-based science-backed program that pairs your medication with daily lessons and food logging to support weight loss that lasts. Plus, you can get personalized weight loss plans and expert coaching designed to maximize your success with GLP ones while helping you develop sustainable habits. live better and longer. The NUM-G-L-P-1 program starts at $39 and is delivered to your door in as little as seven days.

Start your GLP-1 journey today at NUM.com. That's N-O-O-O-M dot com. Noom. Lose for Keeps. Initial one-month subscription from $39 plus tax and $99 plus tax per month thereafter. Costs of medication not included, final pricing depends upon program selection. Support for the show comes from Rippling. Imagine you just found out your sales team is at risk of missing quota.

No need to panic. Just ask Rippling AI. Since it's built on your real-time people in business data, Rippling AI can pull metrics from Rippling and Salesforce into a meeting-ready dashboard showing quota attainment, headcount trajectory, and monthly revenue to quota by region. In seconds, you can see exactly what's behind your quota risk and fix it before it's missed. Question answered, action taken, crisis averted. So, when you have critical business questions that need to be, you can,

answers, don't just file a ticket and wait weeks for an outdated report. Describe what you need and have Rippling AI build it instantly from your live people and business data. Whether it's a dashboard with detailed charts or automated workflows with the right triggers, conditions, and approvals. Ready to rule your business? Head to rippling.a.i.s slash markets to get the only AI built to give you full visibility and take complex actions across your entire organization. That's r-i-p-p-l-l-ing-a-i- slash markets. Sign up for exclusive access today. Support for this show comes from Odu. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odu. It's the only

business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier, CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more. And the best part, Odu replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try Odu for free at Odu.com. That's ODOO.com. We're back with ProfG Markets.

SpaceX made its earnings debut yesterday, and the results were strong, but investors still weren't happy. The company reported massive revenue growth of 92% year over year, and all three business segments, space connectivity and AI, beat expectations. Just half an hour before the results came out, SpaceX also made a separate announcement, a partnership with Nvidia. The two companies are working together in an attempt to put data center computing into orbit. SpaceX stock initially had risen roughly 10% yesterday in anticipation of the earnings. However, after the earnings came out, in after hours trading, the stock fell 8%.

So here to break down SpaceX's first quarter of publicly reported earnings. We're speaking with Nicholas Owens, equity analyst at Morningstar. Nicholas, thanks for joining us. This was better than analysts had expected on the revenue side, also on the operating income or loss side. What do you make of this quarter for SpaceX? I think you're referring to consensus. They actually came in $200 million light on my revenue and operating margin forecast. Okay. I'll say that one grain of salt is that we don't have a, first of all, it's a quickly kind of pivoting business and we don't have a sense of like what the seasonality of this business is in terms of what's a normal Q2 look like. So I don't think there's a huge much to be made there. They also spent about $11 billion more in KPEX than I.

forecast. So I think the anticipation was, you know, for a good quarter, and that's what they delivered. The big delta really is in the acceleration of AI revenue and these rental agreements, which I think we've talked about. And those were mostly announced along with the IPO. So I actually think the announcement about the partnership with NVIDIA has some interesting nuance in that previously they said they wanted to make custom chips, which is what I understand it be kind of the long-term trend that a lot of people who want to build out all this AI infrastructure, they want to tailor the chips to tailor to their computation and their algorithms and so forth. The comments today were we really like these Nvidia chips, we think they're the best

ones. I think that is almost like a, we're going to buy those chips and rent them out, and it's less of an emphasis on the tailoring to GROC. In terms of your expectations for capital expenditures. I mean, what do you make of the money losing side of this business? I mean, they have reduced their losses compared to last quarter. Last quarter, the losses were insane. This quarter, the losses are still crazy, but seemingly less insane. What do you make of the spending relative to the amount of money that they're actually generating on the revenue side? Well, a lot of what they're spending is still classified as R&D. I mean, I saw a few of the line items, even for SGA, go up.

You know, admittedly, the KAPX doesn't show up in the income statement, but the spending generally, right? So there's, let's say R&D and KAPX together. You can think of those as investments in the future of the business, which they're doing hand over fist, which is appropriate for this type of project. And again, I think it's lumpy. You know, I think they almost pulled forward a lot of their R&D type spending, and they had, like you said, extremely low margins, high spending last year. And so in a way, we're looking at almost favorable comparison post-IPO. The overall level, I mean, we don't expect them really to make much money for a while. It seems like the story of this company is kind of morphing into the story of any other hyperscaler, which is that the entire thing depends on, the AI thing. And the potential for AI to work is an open question. That's where they're generating most of their growth. That is kind of what they say that the company is going to be about.

It's going to be about AI. But also that is where the losses are stacking up. And when we look at how sustainable their business actually is, it seems like the reason that their losses were a little less bad than they were before is because their AI revenue increased and the reason their AI revenue increased is probably because they inked a deal with Anthropic. And then that's why I was very interested to see a disclosure that they included, which was their customer concentration risk. And what they told us is that 38% of the company's entire revenue comes from two companies, which they said, well, customer A, which makes up 18%, and customer B, which makes up 19.5%.

I assume one of those customers is Anthropic, and that's basically the bulk of their AI revenue. And maybe the other customer is the U.S. government. I'm seeing headlines today that Anthropic is borrowing, or in talks to borrow nearly $40 billion from Blackstone in order to buy compute from Google. So does that mean they're going to have to borrow tens of billions of dollars to keep buying compute from SpaceX?

Probably. I mean, they're probably going to have. to keep borrowing, they're going to have to keep raising money because clearly the profitability isn't working, at least on the frontier side of things. So it does seem to me at least that there is a real risk that you could have randomly in one quarter, 19% of your revenue disappear overnight and suddenly the entire AI thesis is gone, or at least that's the concentration risk right now. Just looking at the price, the stock has come crashing way down from its highs of $225 per share. It was cut in half. That was one of my predictions. I'll ring the bell.

We're now at a more reasonable place, but certainly not anywhere close to your fair value estimate before the IPO of $62 per share. It would need to get cut in half again. What do you make of the valuation at this point today? Still seems high, and I have no reason based on today to change my fair value. You know, as we move forward and, let's say, gain new information about some of these market dynamics, I mean, I think the scenario you're talking about, maybe to quote Elon Musk, there's a non-zero chance that that anthropic rent goes away. So you have to sort of keep that in mind. And I think the scenario in which you're describing is really sort of some kind of a,

collapse, right? A house of cards falling down or some, some, you know, all these cross-funding deals being unwound. I'm thinking more along, I'm kind of giving a little, trying to be a little more, let's say, middle of the road and say in a model where, we're in scenarios where right now, we're in this gold rush, this fantastical race to spend and invest and build and create, even when the business model hasn't proven out, or, or the profit. profitability isn't there. I think a lot of people are working on this assumption or the model, mental model put forth by the head of NVIDIA, that there's this five layers cake of value, and that over the very long term, the value should accrue to the top two layers. So that's

products and apps, which today looks like anthropic. Even though that's not happening in terms of their bottom line, that's the theory. So it really boils down. to what we think AI is and isn't going to do for people, if it's just going to become a plug-in to everybody's computer, sort of like Microsoft Word was, and everyone's expectation of other people's productivity goes up, that's one scenario that I think is plausible. It's not the one most people are talking about,

where they're talking about hundreds of millions of people being displaced and all this other stuff. But even with your middle-of-the-road analysis where you assume that there wouldn't be some, form of collapse and the value would accrue to the application layer, i.e. the open AIs and the Anthropics, even in that assumption, you still value the company at half of where it is today. You value SpaceX at half of where it is today. That's correct. And that's running scenarios where mostly they are making money like they are now on these, let's call them economically attractive

or generous rental deals. It has to really, really scale up for it to work out. It is, is that if the LLM that SpaceX has takes off and starts consuming more of their own computing capacity, ironically, that displaces these rental incomes that they might otherwise be able to charge. And so they have to sort of keep making more of it, and that costs money, right? So I think they're building, or I saw a headline the other day

that they're buying land in somewhere, Arizona, you know, like another colossus-type installation. And I think on the Calda, they talked about how many gigawatts they plan to have by the end of the year and by the end of the decade. And that implies more terrestrial investment. So they're continuing to expand that footprint. Eventually, they want to do it in space. They have to do that really fast for them to be able to sort of have their cake needed to,

have a very broad-based adoption of the I, you know, the LLM that they own, so to speak. as well as renting out to the market. All right. Nicholas Irwin is an equity analyst at Morningstar. Nicholas, we appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Blackstone is in early talks to provide $36 billion in debt financing to Anthropic. This is according to reporting from Bloomberg.

The loan will be used to fund Anthropics leasing of AI chips from Google, which would imply that Anthropic doesn't have enough money to buy compute from Google on its own. so it has to borrow billions of dollars from Blackstone, which is quite remarkable when you consider how much money Anthropic has already raised. The company has received roughly $132 billion in venture funding so far, and it's also borrowed another $35 billion just a couple of months ago, which basically means that $167 billion isn't enough money to cover their costs. They need more.

It's also quite remarkable when you consider, of the company that already invested billions of dollars into Anthropics, specifically Google. Yes, Google committed to invest up to $40 billion in Anthropic back in April, with an immediate cash injection of $10 billion, which means that even the money that Google wired to Anthropic so that Anthropic could buy Google's chips, even that wasn't enough. Anthropic needed more. Why does this matter? Well, because it shows you just how. how financially unstable these frontier labs really are. Despite the rumors that Anthropic was about to hit operating profitability,

all the signs are telling us that the company is still losing money and lots of it. So much money that even the money they were given by their vendor wasn't enough to cover the cost of sending that money back to them. Now they're having to borrow to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. The takeaway is quite simple. despite the hype, the LLM business is still a highly unprofitable business. And if Open AI and Anthropic cannot resolve that problem, then the collapse of this AI trade won't be a question of if.

It'll be a question of when. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Chalon, Chris No Donahue and Mia Silverio, and our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thanks for listening to ProfG Markets from ProfG Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow.

I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.