Upgrade - 598: Transparent Man of the People

Episode Date: January 12, 2026

From Relay, this is Upgrade, episode 598 for January 12th, 2026. Today's show is brought to you by Century, Delete Me, One Password, and ExpressVPN. My name is Mike Hurley, and I'm joined by Jason Snow. Hi, Jason. Hi, Mike Hurley. How are you? I'm good. We've got a big show today. Big show. Surprising. It keeps getting bigger. If we waited any longer to record, we would run out of space for all the things that are happening right now.

One of those days where the document is locked and then there's news and I unlock the document and add more in. Move it all around. I texted you and your response was in all caps, but the document is locked. Yes, the document was locked. The document got unlocked. More stuff. It's just all happening. I have a snow talk question for you.

It comes from Eric who wants to know. As an old Macintosh user, I really enjoyed the 20 Macs for 2020 series and still revisit it from time to time. Does Jason ever want to return to a format like this? Depends. That was a pandemic project. Yep. So I don't want another pandemic to do a project. I did at one point over the last five years,

toy with the idea of doing five additional episodes and calling it the 25 max for 2025, but I don't think I'm going to do that. I have a tangential project that I'm working. I'm noodling with. I wouldn't even say I'm working. on it yet. I am exploring an idea

that I might do later this year if I like it. And I've had it on my to-do list for about six months and I did put some more work in last week on it. And it would, if I do it

probably will go in the 20 max feed because it's kind of related but it's not the same. Do I ever want to return to the format? might, what I would say is I'm not sure I ever need to do an NPR, you know, a storytelling style, heavily edited, narrated with music podcast again. I'm not sure I did that. It was fun. I'm not sure I need to do that again. But we'll see if something, if one of these ideas kind of catches fire and inspires me to do something, I will do something. And the feed is still open.

We'd for perform a month. We did an episode with Stephen Hackett. So I'm leaving it open because I think it's entirely possible that other things will go in there eventually. And I'm glad people like it. I hear from people regularly who revisit it, which is amazing because I didn't. I did it in 2020 and then I was done. The last episode was like December 30, number 20 or number one was December 31st of 2020. It was like, get it out and then it's done. But I do think about it.

And if I can come up with a good idea for something kind of like it, And that gets all the way through the tests in my own brain and then potentially even if we did a test episode. Like, I want to see what that is. So maybe, I guess is my answer is I don't know if it'll ever be. I don't have any current plans to do the old like five more max in that format with interviews interspersed and stuff. I don't think that's my plan, but I might do something. And I am cognizant of the fact that we're coming up to the 50th anniversary of Apple as a company, and that it's also this year we're coming up to the, what is it,

20, 30th anniversary of Steve Jobs coming back. Because they close that deal to buy next at the end of 96. So that's the 30th anniversary of that this year. So I'm aware of those two things. So we'll see. We'll see. We'll see. I'm not.

The other part of this is. is I have not built up my personal brand to be about about history and the past. I kind of like to be about the present, but I do have this. I was there in the past. Well, people do associate that with you partly because of that, right? That you were there. Yeah, but I have to fight against it, I feel like. I know.

I don't want to end up being, you know, the Apple history guy, especially since Stephen Hackett, who was born 16 years after me, or 15, 15 and a half, but who's counting? he's like the Apple history guy, which is a little weird, right? Because he wasn't there and I was. But anyway, so I think about it, maybe. If you would like to send in a question for us to answer on a future episode of the show

to open an episode of Upgrade, please go to Upgradefeedback.com and send in your Snelltalk question. Got some follow-up, Randall wrote in and said, while listening to the last episode, I asked my Apple Watch, when is the next high tide?

And it opened the Tides app and scrolled right to the next high tide in my area, so not sure what was going, on with Lauren's watch, but it works here. I will say, Jason, I tried this. The first time I tried it, my Apple Watch rebooted. So, Springboard crashed. Then it

worked, and then I did it two more times, and it just Googled it. I did it multiple times as well, and I got, I don't know what you're talking about. And then I got, here are some web pages you can watch on your phone. Yep. So, I mean, it's great that it worked one time

for Randall, but I can't. Lauren didn't get it to work. I couldn't get it to work. Mike got it to work once out of four times or two times. It opened up the app and looked like it was jumping through UI. Like it was like different pages and it was scrolling around. I was like, wow, Apple Watch. Chill out. I don't need it that bad. But there you go. So it can work. Not sure what's going on with Randall's watch, but it doesn't work most places, I think. Samro Innes said, I agree with the point that you made in the last episode about unupgradable IMAX being disposable computers that eventually waste their perfectly functional screens. but isn't that also the case for every MacBook just with smaller screens? Do you think Apple has a responsibility to make MacBooks less disposable? And if so, how could they do it?

Ah, gotcha. I don't know, it doesn't it are going for, but... You know, iPads, iPhones, and laptops are much more integrated together. And I think there are a lot of cases where we have to accept that if we want nice things that are small and easy to use and portable, that they're going to be more disposable. I mean, I like my AirPods, too, and they're disposable and not refreshable right down to the batteries, which is frustrating. And yet at the same time, I also think that if you were to ask most people if they would trade off a larger or less pleasant AirPods experience, but you could swap the batteries. I'm not sure people would prefer that because, you know, and it's a tradeoff.

And you could be on the side of like, no, it doesn't matter. That's no excuse, whether it's for AirPods or iPhones or iPads or iPads or MacBooks. I guess that's up to you to decide. What I would say is that we have generally accepted the fact that the tight integration of stuff makes it harder to make it modular and that that's okay. Like I don't expect an iPhone, because an iPhone screen is perfectly good a lot longer than an iPhone is too. But I don't expect an iPhone. Not only is it smaller and there's less ways there, but I don't expect them to then engineer. an iPhone with a removable back brain that reattaches that's based on some standard that doesn't

change for X number of years. I don't, I mean, there's a continuum there. And I don't really want a MacBook with a screen that can somehow kind of like pop off and go on a different MacBook some other time. I think fundamentally in this whole point about IMAX and Target Display Mode is it did exist. I think the fact that it has existed highlights more the fact that they've stopped supporting that. And it is essentially a modular piece. I know it's an all in one, but it's a modular piece in a way that they did have that technology before.

They could do it again. The fact that their displays are using Apple Silicon and running iOS, and it suggests that the ability to take a computer that Apple makes, that's a display, and run software on it that makes it a standalone display, it doesn't seem like a big leap since they're already doing it on other products. So I think that that's all true. the track record is there.

It is larger. But I will say this. I don't think it would be a bad thing if in a few years when my M4 MacBook Pro with this beautiful bright display is no longer my primary computer, would it be the worst thing in the world?

If I could reboot it into a mode where it just became a second monitor, would it be the worst thing? I have an M1 iPad around. would it be the worst thing if there was a nicer mode for me to just kind of repurpose that as a display

for my Mac? I mean, you can do it with sidecar. It's not as nice, but you could do it. But I'm just saying like there could be more, but certainly the IMac is a great example

because the IMac, what is an IMac without its computer than a monitor? Like it's an existing modular product in a class other than the fact that Apple refuses to do the work

to make it more like a studio display. And I just think it's a shame and it would be an easy thing for them to fix. But I think there's a difference there. It is a continuum. And I'm not going to fault you if you say, but the whole thing is wasteful and everything we do is wasteful. I guess that's true. But again, that is the argument of the people who made that like phone that was modular and that laptop that was modular and all of that. I mean, those products exist, but they're a tough sell because to make the modular, there are lots of things that have to happen that makes them bigger and more expensive and heavier and also not practical because you're locking.

So everybody really is, I think, really excited about the fact that the M6 MacBook Pro may be a different thing with a new display and all of this stuff. Well, like, but imagine if Apple had to decide we're going to break compatibility like with a watch band in order to make an M6 MacBook Pro that looks different from the M, you know, one, two, three, four MacBook Pro, five, presumably coming soon. And they're like, oh, no, we're going to break compatibility. And if you bought an M5, you're like, oh, now I can't use this with that. And, like, I don't want to do that.

They want the freedom to make the best product they can. So that's part of it, too. It's just that you can't, because then you're locking people into a connection type or a ergonomic aspect of it. Because the last thing you want to do is, like, have a laptop that is the wrong, the screen's the wrong size or shape or something. Like, you know, so anyway, it's a lot less practical because those are fully integrated products where the two parts are integrated in a way that it's just harder to see that with

an iMac. It's just a screen after all in the end. Not much to talk about with this right now, but just as a note, Apple has announced that Chase Bank is going to become the issuer of Apple Card with a transition occurring over the next two years. I am hopeful that this might mean that they go international. Chase does have international presence because it is honestly, I think, a little. little bit ridiculous that the Apple card never left America, considering Apple's like overall services thing. They published a big thing about services today that we might talk about next week. That was definitely not going to unlock the show notes, but ADQ wrote a lovely blog post on the

newsroom about how successful services have been. Maybe we'll talk about that a lot of time. You had some thoughts, more thoughts, I should say, on the 3D model of the iPhone fold that we discussed last week. I mean, I don't know if you have any reaction to, I wrote a thing, but my thing was honestly more just keying off of what we talked about last week. It was. It was. I talked about it here, so I wrote about it there. I'm not sure I have more to add. I don't know if you've got anything that struck you. I think the thing I'm most proud of, and it is that I ended up with a headline that said, is this an iPhone that folds or is it a iPad that closes. Yeah. Because I think that it's a strong iPad vibes going on when it's open. There was a quote that I wanted to read, like two quotes. I actually just pushed together because I like what you're saying here. Apple's taking a real risk if the new folding iPhone doesn't look like a iPhone. If people read it as looking weird or lesser in some way, that may turn them off, even if they were otherwise willing to buy a $2,000 plus iPhone. So why would they do it?

Apple is focusing on it being an iPad you can fold up and stick in your pocket, not as an iPhone that unfolds into two iPhones placed side by side. And I do think that the main reaction that I have had in seeing even more of these images, especially the ones that Stephen took for you, where he's putting that model next to other devices is this is going to look, if this is the model, if it's going to look like this, it's going to look like a supremely weird iPhone.

And I do believe that this model could actually be more, this like shape could be more useful as a device than kind of like the tall thing that opens into two tall things. Into two tall things. Especially because Apple does have, they do it right, the software library where it makes sense, where I feel like on Android, it does make more sense to have two phone-shaped things next to each other. But again, it's about, it asks questions.

Your piece is kind of framing it. It's like, oh, well, you know, they're clearly doing this because it's good to be an iPad. But the question that we don't know, and we're not going to know is, yeah, but will I be able to run iPad apps on it? I mean, like, I hope the answer is yes to that, but we don't know. I'd say iOS apps are iPad apps. I have no doubt you're going to be able to run iPad apps on it when it's unfolded because iPad apps, again, are iOS apps. There's going to be some, what's going to be a challenge is there's some apps still that are like, we have an iPad app separate from our iPhone app in the store, and they're going to have to deal with that because I think it's going to be bad for them.

Or Apple's going to have to create some sort of bridge for it. But I'm not worried about that at all. I think that'll be there. I don't know what level of multitasking they're going to offer. But like the whole, it just struck me watching that, that the whole premise of this phone, if this is. the shape of it really is. It's an iPad when you open it up. And so you've got to have all those iPad-y things. That's a huge advantage Apple has because the iPad has been successful in so many ways that Android tablets have not. And that the iPad app ecosystem, as grumpy as it makes Federico,

is so much better than the iPad, than the Android tablet app ecosystem where it really is just kind of like big phone apps that are weird. And they've never really nailed it. So that's all good. I don't know I think the real challenge is when it's closed because it looks weird and I don't even I mean there are some usability questions there

there's some software questions that they're going to have to deal with with a phone that's squat and wide but also there's just a consumer desire versus resistance question is the fact that this is a phone that you can open and that it looks sort of different when it's closed is that good or is that bad? Are people repelled by it?

What I, what I, because it doesn't look like a regular iPhone, but what I keep thinking of, other than the fact that this is about the iPad, as much as it is about the iPhone, it's about their strength on the iPad. What I keep coming back to is Apple has so many other iPhones that I think their argument is, look, if you want something that enables all this amazing stuff in your pocket, we got it for you. But if you would rather have a traditionally shaped and sized phone, we also sell those. and you can buy one of those instead, and it's fine. And I actually like that approach, because I think if you decide that having a more 4x3

interior screen is a better experience than having a square screen, then do it, right? Because the alternative is if you're so afraid that your phone, when folded, doesn't look like an iPhone, that you make it look like an iPhone, and then when you unfold it, it's not very useful.

You've kind of failed as a product, right? So I kind of like the idea that they're like, nope, we're going to start with, apparently, again, this is all rumor based on this. We're going to start with 4x3 iPad and we're going to work backward. And the resulting iPhone is going to be a little weird. That's okay because it works for this product. And I'm not sure it will succeed in the market because it looks odd, but I think it's the right thing to do for the product, if that makes any sense.

Yep. At CES, Samsung display showcased a new foldable OLED panel that had no visible crease. It's potentially... Huh? This is a part... This is part of the technology that Apple may be using. Because obviously, they are using Samsung display, but a lot of the rumors suggested that Apple would build a new hinge mechanism that really helped with this. And Samsung's not...

I wouldn't expect that they would be a part of that. but they may need to help them develop a screen itself that somehow works better. Yeah, I think Apple Secret Sauce here is a good display that they've worked on with Samsung and that they've gotten, you know, what Samsung has come to in this generation pleases them. And then they're also working on a hinge that they think makes it a better experience too. And you put those two things together. Because, you know, Samsung will have this display. Anybody can buy this display.

But the hinge, if that's an Apple thing, then whether that makes a difference or not Apple, we'll talk it up. as like we also built this amazing hinge. I mean, it's worth noting the format of this display is the size, shape, and format of what would be the Z-fold. So potentially, Samsung and Apple worked on this,

and they're both going to implement it in their own ways. But it is important that Samsung create the display that can allow for a much more minimized crease, no matter what Apple might do to the body of the phone. I saw a rumor somewhere that Samsung may actually be coming out with a phone with a similar dimension to what is rumored for the Apple phone this fall, which only makes sense

right, because they're making the panel. So why would they not also try to make a phone like that and just piggyback on the work that Apple's doing? Yeah, which is, I don't know, it's pretty funny. That goes. I've been talking a lot about

how concerned I am about this very expensive phone having touch ID and a couple of listeners have wrote and with some thoughts on that. I know Jason says, I know Mike's concerned about the folding iPhone using touch ID instead of face ID. I share that concern, but remember that wearing an Apple watch can also unlock the phone without using face ID.

It doesn't seem to work in certain focus modes, such as sleep, but could this be an acceptable compromise? So I've forgotten about this feature, and I've turned it on on my iPhone now, just to see if I notice any times when it does assist me. But I think all of this, including whether touch ID works or whatever compromises they might come to, is going to come down how it feels to use. because like I have gotten very used to the way that I unlock my phone not being with the power button at all, right?

I tap my phone and I swipe up or I lift my phone and I swipe up and it's unlocked. I think needing to touch the power button to unlock my phone if that's what you need to do. I think that's going to be very annoying very quickly for me. I don't think I'm going to be happy about that. But something Matthew wrote in with, I found I like the idea of this even though I'm not sure it's going to be the case.

Matthew says, I would be very surprised if they didn't include both. But touch ID is for when the device is open. I don't have much experience of folding phones, but I get a feeling that a security focused tech company that Apple is would like a measure in case it was left open on a table. So there would be face ID on the front,

so you could unlock when you're looking and using it as a phone. But when you've got it open, you'd use touch ID because you have it in your hands. Now, this is not what the rumors are saying, but it's what I want to be true. Okay. I like this. This is good.

Good to, good to. I wanted to mention you should subscribe to Upgrade Plus because you get longer ad-free episodes each and every week. And this time we're going to talk about Pluribus because I have some thoughts that I want to share with Jason about Pluribus because I've finished it now. And I really want to talk to him about it. So if you go to GetUpgradeplus.com, you can sign up. You'll get longer ad-free episodes and you'll be able to hear us talk about Pluribus. This episode is brought to you by Century. I love to find new apps when I find a new app and I download it and I try it out for the first time

I want that experience to be smooth. That goes to the case of any app that I use honestly. But especially with newer stuff, if I'm hitting bugs, if I'm hitting issues, maybe I'm not going to come back to it. So what you want as a developer is for your app to feel rock solid, for it to feel smooth, for it to work.

And also you don't want to spend tons of time trying to deal with the issues that will inevitably come up through development. Because applications break in all kinds of ways from crashes to slowdowns, regressions, the stuff that you'll only really see once real users are using your application. We all know what this is like.

No matter how much tests you do until you have something in production, that's where the issues come up. Sentry catches all of it. S-E-N-T-R-Y, Century. You get traces, replays, errors, profiles, and the details around them like stack traces, commits, releases,

and the developers who broke it all in one connected view. So you're not jumping between tools trying to figure out what happened. Sentry shows you how the request moved, what ran, what slowed down, and what the user saw. And SEA, Century's AI debugging agent, will take it from there. It uses all of that Sentry context to help tell you the root cause, suggest a fix, and can even open the bore request. It also reviews your pool requests for you and flags breaking changes with a fix ready.

Try it free at S-E-N-T-R-Y.O and tell them that we sent you. They have a free dev plan and listeners of this show can use the code, Upgrade 26 to get $100 in Century Credit. That's S-E-N-T-R-Y-O and the code Upgrade 26. Our thanks to Century for their support of this show and relay. So we referenced some news that was breaking today. Apple and Google have put a bunch of combined statements out today. I think CNBC got it first, but I think Google has a blog post.

I'm sure Apple has given this to more people. They have announced a multi-year partnership for Gemini to power Siri. It's not even Siri. It's the next generation of Apple Foundation models, right? Which is the, these are the models that are running on device

and in the cloud. Yes. Which is fascinating, right? Like, it, I, yeah, I, I think that's a little broader statement than we might have anticipated. It includes, I mean, what they say is these models will help power future Apple intelligence features, including a more personalized Siri coming this year.

But it's future Apple intelligence features powered by Google, you know, based on Google's Gemini models, whatever that means. Yeah, because they'll probably develop it a little bit together. I have a few quotes that I would like to read. These came from various statements. So you mentioned, you know, so this is a thing that Apple said. After careful evaluation, Apple determined that Google's AI technology provides the most capable foundation for Apple Foundation models and is excited about the innovative new experiences it will unlock for Apple users.

I've just got to critique Apple spokesperson. You didn't need to say capable of foundation for foundation. Yeah. For a foundation models. You didn't need, there are other words you could have used. You could have used many words. Like a capable starting point, a capable, there are many things you could have said. Maybe use Gemini to help you suggest more.

words. Anyway, the statement confirms that a quote, more personalized Siri is coming this year. So, I mean, I know that they've said this, but like, it's nice to hear it again. Yeah. And then another quote, Apple intelligence will continue to run on Apple devices and private cloud compute while maintaining Apple's industry leading privacy standards. That part comes from Google, which I thought, it's kind of funny. Yeah, I mean, it's, it's part of the whole, it's part of the whole standard. Well, the funny thing is Google is, I think, working on some private cloud compute-like concepts as well. Because they have their own chips too, right? The tensor chips that they're using for AI.

And the idea is that Apple led the way here a little bit. It's one of these weird places where Apple led the way in AI, which is let's create an AI server platform that behaves with the privacy of on-device, but is more functional, has better performance. So, yeah, so this is it. It's a multi-year... We knew this was coming based on reporting.

I mean, again, shout out to those, including Mark German, who got this a while ago. But it is, there's going to be a question about, like, what is it going to be developed at Apple? Is Apple going to continue working on frontier models, or are they going to not worry about it because they've got a partner? Are they going to focus on ways to integrate with Google and Google's models? And that's what Apple's AI group is more involved with. I don't know. What I would say is Apple doesn't need, here's the thing, Apple doesn't need to be the, the, chef who makes, well, it's not even the chef. This is the wrong metaphor. Apple doesn't need to be

the supplier of the fundamental AI models. What Apple needs to do is make it part of a good product, right? It needs to integrate it into Siri. It needs to integrate it into whatever they're going to do with if it's app intents. If any other kind of orchestration that happens on device or in the private cloud, these are the things that Apple needs to do well because at the end of the day, Apple is not a supplier of core AI technology to the world. Apple is a supplier of devices and the software that runs on those devices. And that needs to be good. And Apple is supposedly good at that.

So this is, you know, maybe or maybe not Apple relinquishing its goal to do foundational AI research. I think probably they'll keep a group around to kind of like be a hedge against this. But it does mean they get a very good model with the power of Google behind it for them to use to, to build products on. And like, sounds good to me. The fact that the report we got last year that I thought was the best

was the one that said, Apple is going to work with Google to white label Gemini for private cloud compute, right? Because that answered a lot of questions, which is like, well, yeah, okay, Gemini, but there are all of the issues that go on with privacy

and, you know, what is Google doing with my data? And it's like, no, no, it's going to be in private cloud compute using Gemini. So it's going to be private. It's going to have Apple's privacy guarantee. I'm not sure that white label is really the right term for this now, because they are talking about a collaboration between the companies, right?

It'll be white label if it doesn't say Gemini anywhere. I think it will now, though. If it says powered by Gemini, it's not even white label. It's partnership. Because, I mean, this is something that we did our predictions on Connected. And I made a prediction about this, but just said a Google model. Because I wasn't sure if they would brand it, but they're branding it. Like, they're absolutely branding it.

I mean, I expect to see a Gemini logo somewhere. It says based on Google's Gemini models, you know, again, I think there's a lot of wiggle room here for them to choose how this is presented. This is also a statement that was first broken by Jim Kramer at CNBC, Mad Money Man himself. Love that guy. He's always on the mad money. He's always on it. I think so.

I think so. He's the cartoon character of the finance industry. Anyway, I think that's telling because I think that's telling because I think. think that says that Apple wanted, this is not a technology announcement. This is a corporate partnership alliance announcement. And I would say benefits Apple and Google both, right? Because everybody's talking about Open AI and everybody's talking about, you know, Anthropic Claude and all the Claude code and all of that. And Google's like, hey, we're right here. We're standing right here. So this is an example where Google benefits from having Apple endorse their technology

and Apple benefits from having a technology that is considered very good from a very important source. And this reassures, I think, Google investors and Apple investors in a way. So it is kind of a business announcement more than anything else. And that's why it went to Jim Kramer. I guess they got it out before the earnings call, maybe.

I mean, why did they do it now? I'm not really sure why now. I don't know. We are entering earnings season. Maybe they wanted to get out ahead of it. It's also possible that they wanted to get out ahead of a report that was coming out, that somebody was going to do more. I mean, there have been reports like this. I don't know.

I'm sure there was some sort of impetus. Maybe it was as simple as we'll announce it at the beginning of next year. Yeah. And this is it for that. I don't know. I feel like Google got a bit of a win with this joint statement. And I think it's clearly a reason why they put it on their blog that they have got Apple to say, Google's the best. I mean, look, there are lots of reports about what happened here, and part of it is financial, right?

That's what Mark German reported on, which I absolutely believe. But this is not good for the other AI companies, like from like a perspective and maybe from a investment perspective. Like Apple is like Google's the best. I've said it for a while now. If you're open AI, the last thing you want is every smartphone on the planet to be powered by Gemini. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know why this isn't Open AI. Like, this doesn't make sense to me, really.

Like, they already did that, the partnership for, you know, the knowledge stuff. I have some ideas. I mean, Open AI, first off, they have their fantasy that they're going to build their own hardware now. Oh, yeah, that's true. And then also, I think there are probably some architectural things. Because the rumor was that they thought that some people internally at least thought that the anthropic stuff was better. but that the term, business terms were better with Google. I mean, Apple has a long-standing existing business relationship with Google.

And so it's not surprising that they're working together. But I thought it was interesting that Anthropic was the one that was also considered here. And that makes me suspect that maybe just structurally, open AI's plans and the way they are building their product don't fit with Apple strategy, right? Like if Apple's like, well, we're going to need you to build a version of chat GBT that runs on private cloud compute. And they're like, we really can't do that. And it's like, okay, well, then there's no deal. Or also, Google's going to have way better on device models than chat GBT or than OpenAI, right? Because Google makes Android and they care about having devices or models that can run on phones in a way that Open AI, quite frankly, doesn't.

I mean, Microsoft cares a little bit about models that run on computers, but really even then, opening a strategy has really blast the model out into the cloud. And so it's possible that Open AI just couldn't play here because they're not aligned. I'm going to use that business term. They're not aligned with Apple strategy in the same way that Google is. I do feel like as well from looking at Emma's a collaboration and there is a sense to me of these two big companies. trying to protect their position and that they are working together to make sure that they are protecting their doopoly, which is, as I say it out loud now, like there's no way, like this is

going to happen. There's no way this doesn't make their lives harder. It will. And I'm going to come back to what I said a few minutes ago, which is you're looking at a scenario where every smartphone in the world is run by a single model. Oh, my word. And if I'm open AI or anthropic, I'm not happy about this. Now, you can run other models on there, but like if Google's model is at the heart of the iPhone and Android, you've pretty much run out of road, right? I didn't even think of that. So we'll see. Like putting it in such clear terms, this is more, this feels like an even stronger dominance than Google is as a search engine, right? Because you can do whatever you want, but like the,

if it goes the way the device makers want, and the OS makers want, that like AI will be in everything that we do on our, on our devices, and Google will power all of it for as long as this deal lasts with Apple. But I do feel, I do feel like the further you go down this road, the harder it will be for them to break away from each other, from Apple's perspective. Because are they really going to be able I mean this is the thing we're going back to for months now are they really going to be able to build something competitive really well it depends

it depends maybe not probably not in fact if there's fallout in the AI industry they may end up like buying somebody that that would be a possible move you know they're talking in our Discord the members Discord about how even like right now Anthropic

appears to be differentiating themselves and pushing toward, you know, cloud code and things like that. We may see a scenario where the truth is that what opening I wants to do, like I just said, is not what Apple and Google want to do. And that what Anthropic wants to do is not really what Apple and Google want to do. And that they will all kind of go to their neutral corners and say, well, we're playing a different game. AI isn't one thing.

It's a bunch of different things. And we're all playing different games. And there'll be some interoperability, and that's fine, but it's not quite the same. And that may be the case. But also, it would be really easy for the European. Commission, for example, to say, actually, we're going to make it that there has to be competition for foundational AI models. And anthropic or open AI need to be given the opportunity to plug in as the driver of Apple intelligence instead of Google.

And if that happens, what happens then? Now, that moment, I'm not sure, the way I read the EU stuff is that maybe they're not as zealous as they used to be about this stuff and that they're backing off. But I do think it's an open line, like you said, to make their lives harder. That if the idea is they're a unified block with this, just like they are with search stuff, then it's going to cause problems. Because tell me it's not, I know it's a duopoly. You said duopoly. Tell me Gemini's not a monopoly on smartphones after this. Yeah, exactly.

I mean, I think that this is an emboldened Google after they got away with that the FTC. Is it the FCC case? Yeah. And Google. To DOJ, whoever it was. And Google and Apple, too. It's that trial. And then Google and Apple as well, right?

Because they were both really, their relationship was called into question. But especially with Google, where the judge is just like, oh, yeah, no, this is definitely a monopoly, but Google's so important. There's kind of nothing we can do about it. It's like, fantastic. So we'll just do that again? We'll do that again, shall we? Yeah. Wild.

Callie Huang and Trip Mickle of the New York Times published an article last week that served as information about. Apple's succession planning and also as a profile of John Turner. I'm going to read a quote. Apple last year began accelerating its planning for Mr. Cook's succession, according to three people close to the company, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about Apple's confidential deliberations. Mr. Cook has told senior leaders that he is tired and would like to reduce his workload, the people said.

Should he step down, Mr. Cook is likely to become the chairman of Apple's board, according to three people close to the company. Yeah. Makes sense. That's what we've all been kind of guessing, although it's nice to get more direct reporting that the chairmanship is part of the plan. Tim saying he's tired.

Like there is a narrative going around that something's wrong with Tim. I also would say he's 65. He works, he's a workaholic. He probably is a little bit tired. And I would not put it past him that just framing it as, you know what, I don't need to do all this work anymore. I can back off and it's good corporate governance

and also just framing it in a human thing of like, I don't need to do all of this. I'm going to dial it back, become the chairman, bring in somebody new, get them up to speed. And I mean, I wrote about this briefly last week

and would say, and I'm sure I mentioned it here before, that, you know, the circumstances under which Tim Cook took over as CEO were incredibly difficult, right? Like, he had to step in as an interim boss because of Steve's horrible health problems. And then when Steve became chairman, it was clear that the idea was going to be that Steve even in a diminished state would able to be involved as the chairman of the board while Tim was CEO.

And of course, Steve died a couple months after that, died almost immediately after that happened. So I, every time I think about this, I think, Tim doesn't want to do that to his replacement, right? Tim wants to make, or to Apple, Tim wants to make this smooth. Tim wants to have a plan because that is a Tim Cook thing, I think, to have a plan and be ordered and have it all. all set up. And so I think that is absolutely what's going on here. And the fact is, if he looks at the calendar and he looks at his age and he's like, yeah, I don't need to be doing all of this for five or ten more years. Let's let me back off. I think that leads to he is tired. I think, I think it's just a human response of I don't need to be at 100% after I've been doing

this for 15 years and I'm 65 years old. So seems reasonable this scenario of him becoming the chairman. The Times say that Ternus is front of the pack, but Cook will prepare a list of other internal candidates. The article references other executives, but it feels like they were editorializing because the list that they put together just doesn't make any sense, if you ask me. Yeah. This is my insider journalism where the fact that Cook is also preparing, I don't think, I didn't read it as preparing a list. I read it as being preparing some other candidates. Like he's not going to, because he's going to be asked like, is there anybody at Apple, who could do your job.

And he says, well, only John Turnus, because I've been working on him for the last two years. The board doesn't want to hear that, right? The board wants to hear, well, sure. Because what happens if John Turnus leaves or is hit by the turnip truck or whatever, right? Like, you don't know.

So the responsible thing, Tim Cook, very responsible man, I think, is to say, no, I've got some other people, too. You know, everybody knows he's probably thinking Ternus is the guy, but I've got some other people too. So I think that's what's going on here is, like, he's not just preparing one person,

he's not putting all his eggs in one basket. That makes sense. Okay. And then absolutely the case is it makes that statement and says he's preparing other people and it says the two people, because they were quoting four people. And then suddenly it's two people who say that he's preparing other candidates, which I thought was interesting. It means that not all of his, not all of these reporter sources are agreeing about this. The next sentence is it could include Eddie Q and Craig Federer. And Greg Joswiak and Deirdre O'Brien, there's no attribution for that statement.

It could include. There's no The People Said, right? And we make fun of The People Said. But like, the lack of it here suggests that it's just spitballing. That the New York Times, they kind of, in fact, just journalism insider thing. I bet that this originally read, there are also some other candidates. And the editor at the New York Times said, who? And they're like, we don't know. We don't have any. anybody on that. And they're like, well, give some four examples. They're like, okay, for example, these. But if you read it and you think that those four other people are also being prepared by Tim Cook, because the New York Times was told so by two insiders, you got tricked, because that's not actually what happens here. It's not attributed at all. And I have to think that if they had two people on the record saying that Eddie Q is a serious CEO candidate, they would have said so. there's a reason that this article was focused around one person, not two people or three people or four, right?

Like, they got enough people saying it's going to be Ternus. So they wrote an article about him. So what is this? In fact, I would argue, I told this story before we did, we had not ask Upgrade about preparing stories in a dance and how Phil Michaels and I wrote a CEO appreciation story about Steve Jobs in, in early, when did Steve Jobs died? 2014? Early the year Steve Jobs died. And the idea was...

You said 2014? That's not right. 2014? 2012? 2011. Okay. Even further back. Yeah. So that was us thinking Steve's sick.

And if something happens to Steve, let's have our story about Steve ready to go. This story reads like, we should do a profile about John Turnus because he's going to be the next CEO of Apple. And then there's a little reporting in there about like the premise, which is like, yeah, we talk to people and he's the guy

and we talked to other people and they said, yeah, there are other people too, but he's probably the guy. But that's the news nugget. That's the news peg to hang this story, which is let's do a profile about the guy who's the next CEO of Apple. That's the origin of the story 100%. Quote, inside the company, he is known more for maintaining products and developing new ones,

according to six former employees. And Mr. Turnus, who has been an engineer in Silicon Valley for all of his adult life, has limited exposure to the policy issues and political responsibilities associated with Apple's Corner Office. I don't have any experience to working with John Turner but he's been in this role for so long. In fact, Are they even in this article referenced G5 IMAX, which is a funny thing to see? I don't understand this quote. Like, obviously he has been involved in working on new ideas. Maybe he didn't come up with them.

But is that his job? I don't think it is. I found this a weird statement to be thrown in. Yeah. Well, okay. So I do think that there's a culture within parts of Apple that is, but who is the creative genius? Sure.

And maybe he's not the creative genius, although was his job to be the creative genius? Or was his job to execute? There was one creative genius. There was one time they did that, right? Like, as the person leading the business, that happened once. Yeah, right? Exactly. Exactly.

Oh, yeah, they're trying to fan the flames. Keep in mind, Tripp Mickle co-wrote this story. And Trip Mickle's entire narrative is Apple's trying to fan the flames of creativity to keep it alive because they lost their soul. Yes, from the book. I'm sorry. I know you like his book. I like the book.

You cannot deny that the narrative of Trip Mickle's writing about Apple's writing about Apple has largely been, there was a really creative guy and he died. And then there was Johnny Ivan, his creative designers, and they tried to keep the flames of Apple's soul alive. And so that approach leads to a statement like this, right? Which is, well, you know, what is he created? The type of people that Mikul probably has access to, because now there's six people. They are the type of person who would say he didn't invent anything. Also, six former employees, former employees. That is an always key thing. Because they went to

they went to Meta. Or they've retired or like whatever. Or they retire. They're on beach. Another former employee called Turner's a man of the people in reference to him not taking a private office. This one, this person feels like John Turner. John Turner said this. Man of the people. Well, no, the story is yeah, he he always stayed in the cube and didn't choose a private office. man of the people, which I think is great, although I will say as somebody who had a private office for a while,

when you have to have very difficult discussions about like getting rid of people, people who are not performing, whatever it is, secret stuff, you do have to go somewhere then because you can't close the door. He has these conversations. He has these conversations. He just says that stuff out loud. I'm also reminded of Andy Grove, who is the CEO of Intel and Intel was very proud. Nobody had an office, not even Andy Grove at Intel. They all had cubicles. But I saw Andy Grove's cubicle and it was like a quarter, It was like a quarter mile square. It was like the size of 20 cubicles. And it had an entry point where there was his assistant.

And then you had to pass through that to get to the inner cubicle where he actually was. So, I mean, there's cubicles and then there's cubicles. But anyway, yes, man of the people. He is a man of the people. We're going to run that one into the ground. He should do what Zuckerberg does. So at least when I went to what was Facebook's campus many years ago, I saw Zuckerberg's office. It was a big glass cube in the middle of the open floor.

Great. That's what you're going to do. A real man of the people. Transparency. Transparency is a transparent man of the people. It's very important. And ahead of the shareholder meeting that Apple's having next month, they have filed that they're waiving the aforementioned age limit guidelines

for the chair of the board and asking this person to stand for re-election. Arthur Levinson, yeah. So while this doesn't mean that Cook is going to, because we were wondering, right, like is this person going to step down because of the age and then cooks just going to take it and do both or something? But I think this is more suggesting that

while it's not imminent, it indicates that it is being prepared for because all of a sudden this year they're waiving the age limit. And they're not bringing in a new chair. They're just letting Arthur Levinson keep being the chair for a while. And they're like, oh, we got some new people on the board. And it's

look, bottom line is who makes the rules? The board makes the rules. The board can ignore the rules, can have have chosen to waive the rules in this case. And my instant read on this was Apple is not going to reveal its succession planning because they have to legally make a declaration before the shareholder meeting about what they're planning. Apple will do it on their time frame, period. And so when people, there was a gotcha going around when we were talking about, well, you know, Levinson's going to have to step down. and Tim Cook could step up right then. People are like, aha, but they would have to mention it in early January in order to put it on.

And the answer is, nope, they don't have to because they can just say, oh, we waive that rule, Levinson's sticking around. And then, oh, big surprise in March when Tim Cook becomes the chairman and Levinson resigns. That's all they need to do. And if you ask, like, what about legal governance? Tim Cook's on the board. So Levinson resigns. Tim Cook gets elected by the board as the interim chair. I don't even, actually, I'm not even sure the shareholders.

choose who's the chair, they just choose who's on the board, right? So it's not a problem. This is, this is one of those classic things where people are like, ha, Apple can't do that because the rules say they can't. And then you have to take that second level of who made the rules. And the answer is, Apple makes the rules and can change them at any time. Ha ha! You can't get us. Nice try. Yep. Nice try. This episode is brought to you by Delete Me. Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough that everybody is vulnerable. The bad news is it's easier than ever to find personal information about people online. But the good news is that with Delete Me, you can protect

your personal privacy or the privacy of your business from doxing attacks before sensitive information can be exploited. And the New York Times wirecutta has named Delete Me, their top pick for data removal services. And I can say it's easier to understand why because they make it so easy. When you sign up, you give them the information you don't want to be online. So maybe it's for, if you're doing it for yourself, it's more personal information than public information. So like I didn't want my

business email address to be removed from data warehouses, brokers, whatever they are. But I wanted my personal information removed. So I can give just what I want to delete me. They're going to go out there. They're going to do all these searches. They're going to find all these companies that I would never be able to find, fill in all the requests, fill in all the forms

and manage it. And then I get a report from them periodically where they tell me like, hey, This is where all these are in the process. This is everything we've removed. This is everything we've got upcoming. And I have that added piece of mind that my information is being kept away from all the places that it can be. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for listeners of this show.

Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join DeleteMe.com slash Upgrade 20 and use the promo code Upgrade 20 at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to J-O-I-N-D-E-E-E-D-E-M-E-D-E-D-E-M-E-D-C-E-M-E-D-E-T-E-M-E-T-E-E-M-A-T-E-E-L-E-E-L-E-E-L-E-L-E-L-E-L-E-L-E-L-E-L-A-L-L-E-L-A-R-W-L-L-L-A-R-W-L-E. During... ...we-Lis... referenced that Liz Lepato at the verge writes bangers. Bangers. Non-stop bangers from Liz Lepato. We're back

with another banger. Yep. So Lopato has written in an article asking why Apple and Google have not kicked X and GROC out of their app stores. So for quick context, in the past week X's AI model, GROC,

has allowed for users any user on the website and now just paid users, I believe, to undress women and children, essentially creating non-consensual, illegal, and immoral, sexualized imagery. This is one of the most heinous things that I have seen a social platform get involved in. Yeah. Like, this is despicable.

And, like, I've got to ask, I'm already going, I'm really fired up about this one. Yeah, yeah. I wanted to say, the way this has. has tended to work is in part people post pictures and then immediately reply to them with asking grok to make the women in it wearing bikinis or lingerie or be naked or whatever and then I believe also you can have it where any kind of innocent picture posted to X it can then be replied by a reply guy asking Grock to do the deed yep yep and it I just I got a at this point, if you're still using this platform, what are you doing?

Like, what are you doing? Like, I've got to assume at this point, if you are a willing user of X, it's because you want to do this or see this? Like, I just... I mean, I go there after I read my sports list on Blue Sky, and I scroll through the list of sports writers who are not yet on X, and then I close it. I mean, that's basically what I do.

Because those sports writers aren't there. It's hard. I am, you know, again, I use it. It's very frustrating because a lot of sources are not there. I would say to you, I say to anyone, just let those writers go. You know what I mean? You just got to let them go. It's tough. That's where the algorithm is. It's actually hard. I wish they would all go to blue sky. But anyway, this is not the conversation. Some people just don't care. But you're right. I think there are people who know and the people who know care. And then there are some people who just don't care. But yeah, it's, it's garbage. It's, it's awful. It's an awful place to be. You can see it in every time I look at my little sports writer list, everything around it is terrible. But the point of this conversation is not that. The point in this conversation is, why are these apps on the app store? Yeah, X built, X built this AI tool because Elon is a great person at taking a, looking at his company that does a thing and saying, no, we don't actually do that thing.

We do this totally unrelated thing. So in this case, it's AI and it's GROC, and it's like no restraints and no trust and safety protocols, and it does all sorts of gross stuff. But yes, the question you would logically say is, isn't this against the rules of the App Store? I would like to read you some of those rules. So we're going to focus on Apple, right? This image, this imagery, sorry, is clearly against the review guidelines. 0.1.1. App should not include content

that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting intended to discuss an exceptionally poor taste or just plain creepy. Now, I'm going to pause you there to say, you might be saying, well, wait, yeah, but this is a social media. So, like, surely that the app developer is not responsible for what happens in their social media stream. And the answer is,

actually, yes, it does. Apple, Apple has threatened social media. Didn't true social happen this way? Basically, they've said to various social social media, if you don't have and cannot demonstrate to us a moderation and trust and safety team that make sure that this stuff is being actively tracked down and banned and muted and whatever needs to happen, we will kick you out of the store. There's a track record there. This is actually... 2018, they removed Tumblr for the same stuff. Yeah. So that's the idea here, is that you might be

saying, oh, it's social media. It's not them posting it is not a defense. Yeah. 1.1.4. Avertly sexual or pornographic material defined as explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. This includes hookup apps and other apps that may include pornography or be used to facilitate prostitution, human trafficking or exploitation. 1.1.2. Apps with user-generated content or services that end up being used primarily for pornographic content, chat roulette style experience. is objectification of real people, for example, hot or not voting, making physical threats or bullying, do not belong in the app store and may be removed without notice. If your app includes user-generated content from a web-based service, it may display incidental mature NSFW content,

provided that that content is hidden by default and only displayed when the user turns it on via your website. And it is also worth noting that X as a 16 plus rating in the App Store, when it clearly should have 18 plus a 18 plus if it's going to have any of this. I can't believe when I read these rules. It's so obvious. And it's in the news.

What are we doing? Why is it still here? Now, if you're saying, well, yeah, yeah, those are the rules and all. But like Apple, it's not like Apple has come out and said that in circumstances like this, apps would be banned. And you'd be wrong because this is the point of Elizabeth Lopato's excellent story in The Verge. because as she writes, less than five years ago, I sat through the interminable Epic versus Apple antitrust trial.

Real heads will remember that Apple's lawyers heavily implied that a naked banana man called Mr. Peely was somehow inappropriate for court. This came after a week where Apple argued that an indie storefront that users could install via Epic was a problem because it hosted porny games calling the games on itch.io offensive and sexualized. And Lepado, I'm just going to read the whole thing.

Lepado goes on to say, it's genuinely unbelievable to me that I wasted hours of my actual life on a court case where Apple explained it needed total control of its app store to protect its app store to protect Apple's main argument against antitrust enforcement. The company insisted that its monopolistic control of what users could install on their phones was essential to create a walled garden where it could protect children from unsafe content. And that's the end of Elizabeth Lepato. And I'll just say, this is really going to the core of it, right? which is Apple is a careful gardener protector of users when it serves its need to have total control, but otherwise it doesn't seem to care. And that inconsistency is the absolute worst part of this. And like, again, I am open to the argument that for social media apps, Apple should,

because I think what's going on with Grock is disgusting, but like that there should be a a little more careful approach to taking their number one, number five app and kicking it out of the app store. And I'm sure there are a conversation. Well, I'm not sure. I hope there are conversations going on

behind the scenes about this. But the fact is, if you point at Apple and Epic and that trial, you get it. You see how Apple uses their ability to do this and police this as an excuse for all of the things they do to take total control of their platform. but they only ever bring it up

when they're being threatened otherwise they seem to not not care. Mr. Peely, by the way, is just a banana of arms and legs. And so like, that's too much when they want to try

and keep Fortnite out of the app store to protect their 30% right? And like, I don't understand why they're doing this. Like,

are they, is it, like, they're willing to be complicit in this because they're worried to upset Elon and like maybe Trump because of it?

Like, I just don't understand. I don't know. I mean, that's the question is there are, what's the right way to approach this? But to not do anything is ridiculous. And as David Schaub points out quite rightly in the chat, you can have the argument of social media. Oh, it's social media.

Like, this is Grock. This is, these images are coming from the company. This is first party content. This is a first party implementation of a feature that allows all of these violations of Apple's standards. But it's like, even if you were to argue as a social media platform, I just read the rule. They have a specific rule from up to social media platforms.

That's the thing that kills me is it's the inconsistency, that Apple is happy to say that it's a protector of its platform when it can be used to prevent other companies from competing with it. But it isn't, I mean, this is, this has always been my frustration with the app stores. Apple talks a good game about we're protecting users from fraud, we're protecting users from dangerous apps that are going to do bad things to kids, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And then after they do that, it's only a matter of weeks before somebody points to a raft of apps in the store that are scams, that violate all of these standards. And that, you know, if you're going to talk the talk, you've got to walk the walk. That's the thing is if Apple wants to make the argument, which I have issues with it. But if they want to make the argument that the app store is a highly patrolled, controlled environment where anybody that steps over the line is told to put it back, go across the line, or get out, and they patrol it that way, we can at least say, okay, what they said at the trial was true.

But I don't think it's ever been true. I think it's always been sporadic. And it's always been who, it matters who it is. and in this case you have X going, you know, for a week now doing this, and Apple does nothing. Now, is an app of that prominence worth some behind the scenes nudges versus an immediate suspension, probably? My guess is that is going on and that probably my guess is they've had those conversations.

Apple has not been satisfied. X has probably been unresponsive or unhelpful or is stringing them along. and we're left, but this is the game, right? You're left with a bad actor who is stringing you along and making you look terrible because you seem to not care about it, even if you think you care, because you're afraid to make the big step,

which is to say, actually, you're out. Apple have lots of spokespeople. They can make a statement. They can say, we're trying to work for X to resolve this issue, otherwise we need to remove them, but they're not doing it. They're choosing not to do it. When instead, a couple of weeks ago,

we get this whole part, of the Apple in Japan thing about the impact to kids online safety where they want to create the app store to be a safe place for kids, right? And that they want to make sure that, oh, bad Europe allowed pornography onto the apps and to their alternative app marketplaces. But then one of the most popular social media apps not only has imagery like this, but it is non-consensual imagery of children. What are we doing? And not of children. I mean, it's not any better that there are women. I saw a lot of people, a lot of examples of this were women in Middle Eastern countries wearing modesty garments being

unclothed, right? Like I would say I've, I have avoided the imagery. I just have not. I went out. All you have to do is look at Grock's replies. Yeah. No, I get it, but I don't use it. Oh. Yeah, it's bad. It's real bad. It's really bad. It's looking like X will get banned in the UK. So, they all have some other kind of legal issue. Hey, I got a sweet solution. I got a sweet solution. you can just use a web browser if you want to use this thing. What if there's banned? Yeah, well, no, I'm just saying for the App Store. Like, this is one of the classic Apple moves is, oh, you can always just use it in a web browser.

And that's true. You can do that. Yes, if the actual service gets banned in the UK, then you can't. Yeah, because the way it would work. That's what UK stands for. You can't. The way it would work here is that the regulator would actually have the ISPs block it. if they decide to block it.

And it is really interesting to me that all of the major political parties in Britain agree with this, which I find really interesting. Like, I just find that really interesting. I'm pleased that they do. But it's not necessarily something that you can always rely on. And some Democratic U.S. senators

have written to Apple and Google to ask them why. What are you doing? Yeah. Like, just tell us, why don't you tell us? Why don't you tell us why? I just think that this is disgraceful. Yeah. In all directions, honestly.

Yeah. This is, yeah, I think bottom line is when something like this happens in a major platform unveils a new feature that is used in this way, the truth is it's not just a story that Apple reads in the newspaper or whatever, right? Like, this is a story that Apple has to be on top of because when something happens to a major app on their platform, if they're going, okay. strategically, if you're going to make those arguments in court, if one of the bulwarks of your argument that you need complete control over your platform is that you're doing it to protect your users. Every time you do something like this and you fail to protect your users, you're just creating more examples for you to lose in court in the future.

So you've got to be on that. I mean, I don't know why there isn't a directive from Tim and from Phil Schiller, I guess, that anything like this is an immediate red flag and they have to make a decision instead of what this apparently is, which is,

and somebody could Elon on the phone? He's not available? Where is he? Jason. And the decision, whoever made it, decided we're not going to do anything. We're not going to do anything. We're going to hope maybe the government

step in and we don't have to get our hands dirty. Even if they made that decision, if I'm in charge of Apple's negotiate government relations and negotiation. I'm furious at this because this undermines my argument. It's like you want me to argue in court and in other legal proceedings that we're protecting users. And if you don't shut this down, that argument is completely bogus. So like, which is it going to be? Is it going to go along? Are you going along to get along?

Or do you want to be seen as the protectors of the users? Pick one, I guess. I was thinking about this too, right? Clearly this is something all of the models can do, but GROC is the one that decides that they will allow people to do it. Right? Like all of the other apps have this functionality. And do it as a drive-by in public, right? That's the other thing is you can just find any image

and just reply and say this and then have a good time and laugh at. added and it's public and then you can link to that from anywhere. And like, that's, that's the difference here is that this is an engine that is injecting non-consensual imagery into social media stream by the platform itself. Yeah, because the way that it works on Twitter is you can just say at GROC and then ask it a question and it will just send a reply in the thread, right? Like, and it can be a lot of people use it to get information about a tweet, I think, right? They're just like, at GROC contact.

or something. That's a meme that I've heard people say. And so I assume, yeah, you can just reply to any image and just ask it to do whatever you want it to do. And this is one of these things where like to a certain type of person, now this is just a funny thing to do to every image, right? So it just keeps happening. And it's going to keep happening. Because to a certain type of internet user, this kind of thing is just hilarious now. Now that this is a thing you can do, people will just keep doing it. And so, like, it's very, it's like hilarious to me in a way of like the way that when the British government came to Elon and was like, you've got to stop doing this, it's like,

oh, well, now it's a paid feature. And it's just like, no, that doesn't solve the problem. Like, in a way, it kind of makes it worse. Like, what are you doing? I found it very annoying, Jason. I just don't understand why the rules exist. They might as well not exist if you're not going to enforce them. This episode is brought to you by OnePassword.

It's easy to assume that being small means flying under the radar. But the reality is that small businesses are being targeted more and more by bad actors. Cybercriminals know that lean teams often lack the resources to prevent or respond to a breach. Teams of any size can be a target, but the good news is even the smallest teams can foil cybercrime. One password provides simple security to help small teams manage the number one risk that bad actors exploit weak passwords. They provide centralized management to make sure your company's logins are secure. It is a simple, turnkey solution that can be rolled out in hours whether you have dedicated IT staff or not. For small teams, responsibility for security often defaults to just one employee, who's already job.

other business functions. The most effective security solutions need to be intuitive and user-friendly so that everyone at your company can and will use it. OnePasswords Enterprise Password Manager helps your company eliminate security headaches and improve security by identifying weak and compromised passwords and replacing them with strong, unique credentials, letting you securely store and share developer secrets and other sensitive information. Simple automated workflows mean your team can enforce security compliance and prevent breaches, potentially preventing millions of dollars in losses. It's the single most important investment and impactful investment that you can make in your company's security. One of the things that I love about using one password

of a team, I'm on a bunch of team accounts, is like for example, say somebody needs access to a service for a particular amount of times, like a shared service that you're all using. You're able to share that password with them in a vault, like one of the shared vaults that you have, and then when they don't need it anymore, or if that person changed function, leaves the business, or whatever, you could just remove the passwords that are in that vault and they stop showing up for them. You know, you can maybe change them, et cetera, and then everybody else that needs to have access to that can still have access to that in the ways that they did before. It's just one of the many reasons why I use one password myself and with my teammates.

It's my favorite. I think it's the absolute best out there. Take the first step to better security by securing your team's credentials. Find out more at one password.com slash upgrade and start securing every login. That's onepassword.com slash upgrade. Go there now and check it out. Our thanks to OnePassword for their support of this show and all of Relay.

So it's happened. We finally have live immersive sport on the Vision Pro. It's true. You watched it live? I watched the first quarter of it live via a VPN and then I disconnected and then I couldn't reconnect because I think they figured out that people were watching it in other regions. But I got to see the first quarter on fly. Friday night live of the Bucks at the Lakers in Apple immersive video on the NBA app.

And now it's up in the US. It's up now as a replay for anybody with a Vision Pro using the NBA app. And you don't, you need an NBA login, but you don't need to pay anything for it. No, I today watched the highlights. I put an immersive highlights package here. It was like a six minute video that they made. And they kind of show off some of the pregame stuff, the announcer stuff, and then some of the highlights of the game itself. I thought it looked really good. Like it looked really good. And I feel like basketball is a very good sport, a good fit for this type of thing, right?

Well, yeah. It's a small space. Unlike a soccer pitch or a baseball field, it's a small space. So it's got that going for it. The closer things are to you, the more they look in 3D and all of that. I thought it looked great.

I was watching live. And I heard from some people who didn't have this experience. I think it's up to your bandwidth. It's a huge bandwidth stream to get stereo immersive to you. But I was watching it live and it looked great. It did not look any worse than any of the immersive sports demos that they've done before. So I thought it was fantastic.

What's interesting is they built a studio. So there were broadcasters for this event. They're literally saying off on the left on your Vision Pro, you can see Doc Rivers, the coach of the bucks. That was very funny, right? because they're talking to me. I think that's cool. I like that. Yeah.

Yeah. So that's an interesting idea. I'm not sure you need to have it, but I think for this, the way they set it up technically, they needed announcers of their own because of the way that this whole thing was working. You don't need to be so specific about it, right? Of like, oh, on your Applevision, but like, you know, just say, like, oh, coming from the left, you can use the context of there they are. They're going to have different replays.

They're going to have different, like, there are no commercial. breaks. They, like, the Laker girls came out to do a dance retreat and they're like, all right, now the Laker girls, right? And then let them show that. So it's definitely like they're play by play guys who are also kind of your hosts for your guided NBA event that you're doing. Okay.

So can they do a live, a live stream of an immersive event? Yes. Can they build it with multiple camera angles and announcers and stuff? Yes, they did it and it works. This is a black magic. It's a version of the black magic immersive camera that does. live and it totally worked. However, they've got it all hooked up.

It totally worked. So all of that is successful. Now, I'm going to describe a little bit about it. And then I know our friend Ben Thompson, who is a huge Milwaukee Bucks fan, actually, here's, okay, we'll start there. Ben believes that the best immersive experience is a single camera angle that you stay on forever. Ben, Ben was very upset. He wrote an art corner strategy today that saying that he did not want the camera angle to be

switched without his like permission. So here's the thing. I don't want to unfairly paint Ben with the brush that is Ben doesn't ever want another camera angle. Ben absolutely doesn't want another camera angle. But what I will say is Ben's argument isn't don't offer anybody another camera angle. Ben's argument is I would like to choose to just sit at half court in front of the scoreers table for the whole game.

I don't want your fancy switching between cameras. I just want to sit there and be totally immersed. I think that is a valid point that I'm not sure most people would agree with, but it is a valid data point. What they did, to say what they did during the broadcast is, for some possessions, they left you at half court in front of the scorers table. And so you would look left and you'd see them going toward that basket and then the ball would come back right.

LeBron James would streak in front of you. And then you'd be over here and then they would play that direction. Some possessions, they had two cameras that were behind the hoop hanging below the, I think, the arm on the basket. So you could see the basket itself was slightly obscured, although it's glass, glass backboard, so you can see through it. But you could see all the players coming toward you playing on that side. And you're seeing the fronts of them.

and then when the ball goes to the other side, it switches. And there is a 180 switch that your brain has to like understand that the guy who's coming up this way when they do the switch, he's going to be over there. But it's a straight up 180 and the camera doesn't move. And I got into that routine. And I'm going to be honest, I think basketball is more interesting when you're under the basket looking at the players' faces and not from behind. In the replay, I much preferred the shots where I'm. I was behind the basket, because I could see more of what was happening. Yes.

Yeah. Where in your setter, you can see both sides equally, but you're seeing kind of the back sides of all the players. I understand Ben's perspective that, like, court side, it looks good and is fun. But I don't necessarily want to replace... I don't just want to, like, a direct replacement for having sat court side. I would like the benefit of it being technology, right? Yeah.

Well, yeah, and being places where you couldn't otherwise go. Yeah. So, like, so I, I agree. So here's the thing is I really disagree with Ben and yet I also really agree with Ben. Um, I texted him during the game. I'm like, oh my God. He says, I'm not watching it. I'm going to watch it Sunday.

I'm like, oh, my God. Um, so I agree with him that Apple has, Apple's productions tend to do too many cuts. And that every time you do, do a cut, we talked about this. Every time we do a cut in immersive video, it is completely disconcerting. Where am I now? You lose your immersion, and the whole point is immersion.

So I agree. I agree with that. I actually would go so far as to agree that I think one of the things that Apple should try is giving users options about what they want to see. I agree with that. So that Ben can sit at half court

and have the full half court immersive experience, and that I could maybe choose to toggle between the backboards or just have a more switched experience, right? I think whether it was a, what camera would you like to use or like, here are a couple modes. Streaming, I mean, this happens now.

Prime Video does NFL games and they've got a version of it with traditional camera angles and they've got a version that is from above where you see all 22 players on the field. And then there are overlays of stats and stuff. And I think that's really cool, but like other people don't like it.

and you can choose. So I think maybe there's something there where you almost want to have the option, since it's a software, of choosing your stream. And maybe it's just two early days now. They have one setup for this. There are no options. This is how it is for right now.

But I think in the long run, I think Ben is right. Offering choice is good. That said, I don't think that the center court experience with no cuts was superior to the two backboard shots toggling. Um, it and and what the other thing I would say here is I get what Ben's saying, but I will say,

you can learn how to be a viewer. You can, your brain can be trained. And I'll say this for things like, we take for granted the fact that movies and TV shows have different angles of the same action. And that you cut from one angle to another. And I'm not saying it's the same because it's different and immersive, but what I'm saying is your brain understands, and this is mixage montage. I took a history of film class. I know what I'm talking about here. This is, this was

invented, right? The idea that you could cut in film was invented. And the first people who saw it probably didn't get it, but they learned it. Just like how the first people who saw a movie of a train arriving reportedly

ran from the theater, afraid the train would hit them. But it was a The fact that the first, to take it to sports, the first time they did instant replay in a sporting event, it was a college football game, it was the Army Navy game, I believe. And there was an Army touchdown. And then they showed an instant replay of the Army touchdown. And the announcer said, ladies and gentlemen, this is a replay. Army has not scored again. And they had to explain it. because you know, no, no, no.

And when the first time they did a reverse angle replay, I remember watching this in football, where, you know, everything is from one side of the field, but suddenly they put a camera on the other side of the field so you could see it differently. This was innovative. Now it's just normal, but this was innovative. They had a logo that went up every time they went to that one that said reverse angle.

And the announcer would say, now this is from the opposite angle. If you're confused that everything is going the other direction, that is why, right? So what I would say is, it took me two cuts or maybe four cuts for my brain to process that when the guy is dribbling up away from me on the right side of the court headed for the other end and then it switches that guy is now on the other side because now I'm on the other side and it took me no time

and then it was fine and I totally got it so I think you can overstate the case I wouldn't want multiple cuts a lot of cuts but literally a cut every time the possession changes to the other end of the court. It's perfectly reasonable. Now, they had, they had some other cameras. They had a camera that they put out on the court for the Laker girls. They had a camera, hilariously, they had a camera. Well, they had a camera up in the upper deck where the announcers were.

And they had a camera out in the concourse. And that's the one that made me really laugh, because when I first connected to the live stream, it was just a guy mopping up a spill on the floor. For a while and people are walking by with their podcast. popcorn and whatever. And that guy, like, mopped up the spill. He saw a friend. He said, hey, and then he walked off.

And I was like, hey, dude, did you know that you were just immersively captured? Yeah, you don't need that. So anyway, I agree with Ben's point, but only in the sense that I think there should be some choice here. I actually, I wouldn't choose what Ben chooses. But again, maybe that's the point is that there needs to be more choice there. Because I think that, I think the right way to do basketball is the two, the two backs instead of the half court. But if Ben wants to do the half court, let's try. And also, if you make those options available,

over time you'll learn if anybody cares about one versus the other. And that's a good data point. It turns out that Ben is the only one who wants to sit at a half court. Well, sorry to Ben then. Maybe you don't do that. But again, if you've got that shot, why not offer it? Why not offer a different stream with that in the long run,

if not now? I have one other point that I wanted to make here, which is the part that I think that this fell down was audio. I think as I heard when I would, down at Apple at their immersive video conference thing that they did. A big part of our brains processing of audio is spatial audio. Apple has invested a lot in spatial audio. This really didn't do that.

There were some attempts at it, but a lot of times I felt like I was not really listening to a soundscape. And obviously, when you change angles, you should change sound. And I think a lot of TV broadcasts are not designed to do that, right? The sound is consistent, even as the angles change. And I feel like that's a place where they need to improve. is if I'm at center court, I want spatial audio

where Doc Rivers yelling is to my left, where a dunk on the right is to my right, and if I turn my head, it all pans in its spatial audio. And I didn't really get that sense. I'm open to the idea that it was sort of like that or it was like that for some shots. It's possible.

It's hard for me to process exactly what it went on there. But like that felt to me like the biggest failure here was ironically not the immersive video. It was the sound. And the sound of the arena, too, like they, they, I'm not sure if I need announcers at all, but if I, and that would, I would love that to be an option to turn off the announcers and just have the arena audio. But like, I think the audio could have been more spatial and better and it would have improved the immersive experience a little bit. I feel like maybe, maybe it's like, let's not go too hard before we know we can do this. You know, it's like that is an additional complex thing, which is also again, probably still a lot of data all over again. And like the visual.

is the most important part, but I agree, like to make it, to really make it as good as it can be, like, I want, you know, like if you're watching the game

and you're looking left and someone falls over on the right, like, you know, you would want to turn and see it, right? And like you, that it would,

it would really add to the immersiveness of it all. Um, but I, I think that it was very successful, like, very successful, uh,

as a way to, like I would, if, you know, if I was a basketball fan, I would very much like to watch play games this way. Like, it had, it felt really good. Like, it felt fun and exciting.

And somebody sent us some feedback to Six Colors when I wrote this, because I have this, I had this report a mistake feature that's turned out that it itself, I may need to report as a mistake, because people use it for all sorts of nonsense. Yeah, you open up a form and people are going to send whatever they want to it. Yeah, it's true.

Seriously, I put an LLM in the middle that is supposed to determine, if it's actually a mistake or if it's just an opinion and it doesn't send me the opinions. It only sends me the mistakes. But this one got through. And what it said was, you didn't mention the fact that to replicate this experience you would need to spend way more than a Vision Pro just to buy one ticket to one game.

I mean, that's not really wrong, I guess, but like it's not also a mistake and whatever. Anyway, but I will make this point, which is, yes, if you were a fan of the Lakers and you could get every game,

court side or behind or whatever like it would sell it would sell this to a lot of people not everybody not everybody wants to have the single screen I'm wearing a helmet nobody else is around I told I told Lauren I was like I gotta go watch some internet basketball for a while sorry

and left the living room but but yeah I was impressed it shows technically I think the most important thing is that it shows technically you can do a stream of immersive and it is good because that is absolutely true you may need to have nice, fast internet like I do.

But you could do it. And they proved it. And I hope it will get better. And I hope they will continue experimenting. And again, to address Ben Thompson's point directly, I hope one of the innovations they make is letting us choose what we want to see. She's very normal in sports broadcasting anyway, right? She said that lots of different sports have different angles that you can choose.

There's lots of innovation happening here. I think that that is an interesting idea to say, can you just let me be court side? And or not court side if you want to be like me and you'd rather have it be. Oh, the other thing I had to say that was very funny is they did some replays, which was also really funny. And they were generally replays from behind the basket. And, you know, in modern sports broadcasting, there's like a big like animation that happens

and a swoop and then you get your replay. So we were literally looking one direction behind the basket. and then a giant graphic comes up that says NBA, Lakers, instant replay, and then it cuts to the same angle and shows you a replay. And then it puts up back to live action and then it cuts to basically the same angle again. And I thought, oh, yeah, that's a problem. I see why you might want to do a little wipe or something there. Because when you're cutting from one angle to the same angle, it's a jump cut, which is strange.

They're working on it. They're working on it. But they did do some instant replays, which I, I thought was interesting, where they would go back during a break and say, here's this alley-oop that, you know, to LeBron that he dunked. And, you know, that's cool. So they're working on it. But, like, it works.

It works. It's impressive. I don't know how it will work for other sports. I think basketball is probably the optimal sport for this. Maybe hockey might be interesting. I'm not a hockey fan, even less than I am a basketball fan. but maybe something like that, I think the risk is the size of the playing field.

Like, then again, I go to baseball games and I just sit in the upper deck and I watch the baseball game, and it's nice. And to Ben's point, maybe offering a really good position for you to enjoy the whole baseball game from where you're right behind home plate, maybe that would be enough.

And maybe having an immersive instant replay from a different angle, but keeping it otherwise right there at your seat would work. I would love to see them try it. As a baseball fan, I would love to see them try it. And for football,

I don't know. The good thing about NFL and college football, about American football, is that it's, the plays are discreet, so you could potentially, like, move the camera between every play and have the play be looking down the line

or something like that, or from above, I don't know. But basketball seems like the optimal case. This episode is brought to you by ExpressVPN. A few decades ago, it was easy to be a private person. And the thing that changed that is the internet. Think about everything you've browsed, search for, watch posted. The sad truth is that data can be crawled through, collected and aggregated by third parties. So to keep

your data private when you go online, turn to ExpressVPN. One of the easiest ways for data brokers to track you is through your device's unique IP address, which also reveals information about your location. With ExpressVPN, your IP address is hidden. that makes it much more difficult for data brokers to monitor, track and monetize your private online activity. But there are loads of reasons to choose ExpressVPN over other VPNs. First, it's now at its lowest price ever. Plan start at just $3.49.3.49 a month. That's just 12 cents a day. ExpressVPN encrypts 100% of your network traffic to keep your data safe from hackers when you're on public Wi-Fi.

Plus, it works on all your devices. Your phone, your laptop. your tablet, you name it, just tap one button to turn it on and you're protected. It's that easy. I use ExpressVPN, especially when I travel because I'm connecting to networks that I have no control over all in hotels, in airports, that kind of thing. And I like that piece of mind. Like, I don't understand what's going on on that network. And I don't worry about it because ExpressVPN will take care of me. But I also love is I can change my location, you know, whether I'm at home, or wherever I'm away and I want to be browsing from a different location. It's really easy to do this. ExpressVPN and I can watch video and everything and it works great. This is one of my absolute

favorite uses of ExpressVPN. Secure your online data today by visiting ExpressVPN.com slash upgrade. That's XP, RESSvPN.com slash upgrade to find out how you can get up to four extra months. One last time, that is ExpressVPN.com slash upgrade. A thanks to ExpressVPN for the support of this show and Relay. Let's finish out with some ask upgrade questions. Sam writes in and says, with the rumors that the folding iPhone will have that smaller, more squat display,

do you think that depending on sales, Apple could release a larger max folding iPhone, perhaps around 2030, that has the current height of a Pro Max and therefore an even larger screen on the inside? Depends on how the folding category does, although what we said today about the the shape of it. I mean, I guess if this one kind of flops and everybody hates it and they're like,

all right, we'll just give you what we want or what you want, which is just a, you know, a phone with two phones. A phone with two phones. But I mean, they could just make like the same aspect ratio bigger, right? They could. They could just make it bigger. And so it's like nine, ten inches inside and you have this massive phone. But they could if it works. I mean, I guess it's like with a lot of this stuff, we thought initially, like the Galaxy Note was a ridiculous phone. And it was so big and could not believe that anyone would want a phone that big. So the thing about...

Now, they're all that big. Exactly. No, they're all now bigger, much bigger. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think today that phone would probably be considered a small phone if you released it now. I think it's about what the users want, what the market wants, and I think it will adapt. I mean, if it turns... You know, I think I like foldable phones, but I think that it is still a question,

as to whether it makes sense for most users or even a large percentage of users to want a device that does that? I'm not even sure that I want a device like that for my everyday phone, like my actual iPhone, you know, that I'm using all day every day. Like I don't know if that's a form factor that I want.

I've enjoyed these types of devices as things to play around with and specific machines for specific tasks. But I don't know how I feel about the idea of this is my iPhone. I assume you probably feel, even more so. I mean, you've been more in the past a smaller phone person. Yeah, I mean, my opinion kind of doesn't matter though. I mean, like in the end, it, I think this is an

evolving category. I think Apple is trying a different take if the shape is different. And I think they're like, this is to counter that, that classic MKBHD. Let's try to play widescreen video on it. Oh, it's not any bigger because it's a square screen, which, I mean, my argument is always, don't buy a folding phone because you think it's going to be a better video player because it's, of course it's not. Like, it's not. That's not what it's for. So Apple's trying a different take.

And maybe it will work and maybe it won't. Ideally, they'll learn a lot about what the market wants and then they'll go from there. I'm not sure a folding phone is ever going to be a mainstream product or at least not for a long time because of all the complexity and cost that goes into it. Yes. But who's to say? And if they keep iterating, you know, they may find other places that are nice for something like this. But, you know, more sci-fi kind of things.

Unroll. You know, phones that unroll or something where you, you know, you slide it open and it's the same screen and it just gets wider or taller or something. Like there are lots of other things that they could do, but you've got to start somewhere. And I think this is there. They're just trying to take a spot here. I just, I keep, I keep thinking that, about how smart it is to lean into the iPadness of it. It was like, why do you want a folding phone? And the answer is so that you can use a bigger thing and then put it in your pocket.

And so like, if that bigger thing is an iPad, it's pretty good. And Apple has the whole, our wonderful iPad ecosystem of all of our millions of iPad apps, which is just a thing that Android doesn't have. For them to lean into it. Yeah. So we'll see. Joe says a request for wild speculation. The small screen on the folding.

iPhone. Do you think it will show a small iPhone home screen or do you think Apple will do something different with it? Maybe a special notification center, something at the smart stack on the Apple watch. Is this an opportunity for Apple to think different? I think Apple may make some modifications to the always on screen with widgets and stuff to have that be something that is, you know, maybe it's a part of this. Maybe it's a part of just the next OS release. But otherwise, no, I think that I think that it will have a lock screen and I think it will have a home screen and I think it will run apps and I don't think it's going to be a weird widget screen and you have to open it to use it. I just don't think that's what they're going to do. Yeah, I would say please know. It's got to be an iPhone. Please

no. It's an iPhone. It's not an iPhone if that is the case. Exactly. Do things that are good for the device, right? Like, you know, maybe you do have some kind of special thing on the always on or even just on the lock screen itself. But when I unlock that phone, I want an iPhone there, even if it is a weird aspect ratio for an iPhone. I want an iPhone. I don't want anything else. Absolutely. Jim says,

I've been wanting to buy a Home Pop Mini for a long time, but never have found a real use case for it. I've got a cheap Bluetooth speaker in my bathroom that I use to listen to podcasts as I'm showering every morning. Hi, Jim, if you're in a shower right now. Hey, Jim. Hi, Jim. I hit upon a great useful one,

and that is casting sound from our Samsung TV to a HomePod Mini. When I looked at the audio options on our new TV, it says it can stream audio only to a specific Samsung speaker. Any thoughts on how I could do a workaround? I don't know. You use an Apple TV attached to the TV and then use the speakers. This seems like a long way to go just to listen to a HomePod Mini. Yes.

The way to do this is you have to use an Apple TV. Unless there is some... Because Apple have EARC, but that only works for an Apple TV as well. Yeah. And the home part... Maybe there's a weird, like, a weird box that will attach to the audio outport on the TV. That could airplay it? And then that box will be...

Yeah. We need to airplay it is the only way it would work. Jim, this is an... I mean, Apple TV is the answer. Yeah. Get an Apple TV. If you really want to do this. Which is fantastic.

And then you can use your HomeBob Mini that way. Or just put the HomePod Mini in the bathroom. You know what I mean? Just put that in there if you want to do that. Yeah. I actually, I had a HomePod Mini in the bathroom for a long time, and I finally took it out because I never use it. I just used the Bluetooth speaker that I've got.

And the big reason, the big difference there is the Bluetooth speaker is waterproof and it's inside the shower with me, so it is clear. And the HomePod Mini is not waterproof requires to be plugged in and it's outside the shower. And it doesn't sound as good out there. So I finally just gave up because I don't. There are almost no, when I get out of the shower and I'm still listening to the podcast, I just leave the door open to the shower. and it echoes through the whole bathroom

and it's all fine. Or just take your phone in the shower like I do. I do that. Well, we're going to end up with more shower feedback. I'll say I do that sometimes if I'm not traveling with my travel speaker, but my little Bluetooth speaker is better because it's much louder

and I don't have to worry about it getting wet. Something that's really funny. If you plug an iPhone in to a USB cable after you've been in the shower, it's like, hey, water detected, stop this. This is one of the reasons why I would prefer to just take my little travel speaker with me and the one that I use at home. Yeah.

Because it's small and it sounds great. And you can, it's got a little, you know, a little, a little rope attached to it. So you can kind of like hang it from places in the shower, which is really nice. So it works. It's great. That's why I was, when I came to London, that's why I was able to listen to the rest is history. Amazing. In the bathroom in London and then go to the Maritime Museum to see Nelson's coat because they were telling me about

while I was in the shower. That's great. Mark wrote in and says, Jason, you make a lot of Apple scripts and shortcuts. I know they're mostly specific to your workflow, but do you ever consider making some of them available for download? I mean, some of them are available for download, but the challenge with that is that once you make things available for download, first off, there is kind of a bar you need to hit, which is you need to depersonalize it and take all the stuff out. And then there's a question of how do you document this is where this thing goes that you need to provide for yourself, and that makes it more complicated. And then the other thing that happens,

I'm just going to be honest here is then people expect support. Then when it doesn't work, sometimes when I write articles about stuff, they expect support. But certainly if I offer something for download or an I cloud link to a shortcut or something, they expect it. They're like, it didn't work for me.

I get these messages. I'm like, well, I'm sorry. I don't know why. I try to help them if it's clear, but sometimes it's literally no worky. I'm like, I can't help me if no worky. So occasionally I will do this. I did this for a JavaScript thing for scriptable,

a weather station code thing that I did. Or no, a, not weather station, a air quality API thing that I worked on for a while. And, you know, I started getting people who are like, it doesn't work with this thing and it doesn't do that and it doesn't support this. I'm like, folks, I don't know what to tell you. There are apps that do this now.

They didn't when I created this. There are apps, just go get that app. Don't. So like, what I'm saying is making them available raises the bar to a point where I'm not in the business of supporting other people's computers in that way. I'm here to kind of show you the way and then for you to explore the way. And yes, a lot of them are specific to my workflow.

But like the extra work required to make it broadly applicable and individual. And then you got to write documentation. and then you're sort of expected to support it is not a game I really want to play. There is a tool I built. It's actually an automator plug-in, automator action, that is a complex script.

And I can't distribute it publicly because it uses a binary app, basically, that is private that a friend wrote. And then I wrote UI on it because I wanted it to have better U.S. And I use that every day. And all of our mutual friends who could use that tool, have that tool.

And I know a bunch of them use it all the time. And that's great. And I update it maybe once a year. But it was a huge lift. And I had to write a read me. It was a lot. And I did it mostly because I realized I was getting so much benefit out of it that I wanted other people to have this benefit. And when I would show them the command line app, they're like, I'm not doing that.

And I'm like, all right. I'll build something. but even that is a lot of work to put together. So anyway, yeah, that's, once it's public, it's like a totally different thing. And I would really rather just sort of lead, say, hey, you could try this thing. Here's a screenshot of how it works. Or maybe an ICloud link, but like what I don't want to do is then have to provide tech support and troubleshooting for every single thing because it doesn't work in your personal circumstance because that's, I can't do that. And D.C. wants to know, do you name your.

phones or do you just go with the default name? So every phone, so for years, and I'm not going to even go into Y, but for years and years and years, almost every device I have is named Monkey something. Yep. So I will personalize it. So like,

my computer is Monkey Book Pro M4 Max. My iPhone is Monkey Book 17, or no, Monkey Phone 17 Pro. And because I love that the M5 is from that old Star Trek episode

where they had the ultimate computer, my iPad is called something like Multitronic Ultimate M5 something. But basically it's monkey something. So basically I've got a naming convention that's almost identical in all the changes essentially is the model number.

I've tried to do this and I always get lost and give up. And so I just go with the default name. but I have a complaint. If you do an ICloud backup, it keeps the old phone number. Like, if you say, if your phone was called iPhone 16 Pro and you do an ICloud backup,

your 17 Pro will be called 16 Pro until you change it. Did you know that, Jason? You probably didn't know that because you name them. But I think that Apple should change that. Like, I don't need my iPhone 17 Pro to be called 16 Pro.

Every time I transfer, every time I transfer, it keeps the old name. You have to change the number, right? Yeah. And then I have to change the number. Well, that happens even if your phone is the default name, which is, you know, mine is Mike's iPhone. And then you end up with Mike's iPhone and then like five in parentheses or whatever, which is no good.

Yeah, though they should, they should. Increment it. That would be a nice little feature to be intelligent to say, like, if it's a generic Mike's iPhone and you are a 17 pro, it should say Mike's iPhone 17 pro. And then when you update it the next time to an 18 pro and you see that it's just called Mike's iPhone 17 pro, Apple should update that to ATPRO. It recognizes that you're literally just naming it after the model and the model changes, change the name. I agree.

If you would like to send in a question for us to answer on the show or you have any feedback or follow-up, please go to UpgradeFeedback.com. Thank you to our members and supporters of UpgradePlus. This week, we're going to talk about Pluribus. Go to GetUpgradeplus.com. Thank you so much for signing up if you do. You can find us on YouTube by searching for the Upgrade podcast.

you will see that once again, Jason and I are wearing matching t-shirts in different colors today, as we often do on Mondays. As we do. You can find information on our website about our sponsors, ExpressVPN, One Password, Delete Me in Century. Of course, they're in the show notes too. I tried to style that out, Jason. I said it's half of a sentence that I didn't want to say and then attempted to fit it into where I needed it to go. Thank you so much for listening.

We'll be back next week. Until then, say goodbye, Jason Snow. Goodbye, Mike Hurley.