Apple Just Declared War On OpenAI

that chance.

“There is this certain degree of nihilism of like, oh, well, the world is bad anyway,”

why would it I just also get a tan, tan maxing. That's this week, unexpleted to me. Find new episodes wherever you get your podcasts. This might sound like ancient history at this point, but there was a time when all lights did, was turn on and turn off.

DM if you're lucky. But then, a group that Philips came along and discovered, what if all your lights could change colors? What if they could change colors in wild, completely impractical, and still very cool ways?

And that is the story of you. This week on version history, our chat show about old technology, we tell the story of you and how it's actually kind of about smartphones and kind of about lights.

“That's version history wherever you get podcasts.”

There aren't many guarantees in life, but for a long time, one of them was that your office coffee was horrible. But then along came this machine called the curig, which promised to make you exactly the cup you wanted, just for you, every single time. This week on version history, our chat show about old technology, we tell the whole story of the curig,

from its remarkable invention to the vast environmental problems it caused to its long, long journey to try and figure it all out. That's version history wherever you get podcasts. Welcome to Profty Markets. I'm Ed Nelson.

It is July 14th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices fell after the US and Iran clashed over the weekend.

“Brent Crude rose as President Trump resumed the straight of Hormuz blockade and proposed”

a 20% toll on cargo, more on that later. That cent treasury yields rising as well as traders priced in higher inflation. On calcium, the odds of a rate hike before year end hit 67%. Meanwhile, SK Heinex led a global chip sell off. We will get to that later, too.

And finally, SpaceX shares dropped another 4% nearing their IPO price of $135 per share.

Okay. What else is happening? Apple is suing OpenAI. The iPhone maker filed suit in federal court on Friday accusing OpenAI of stealing trade secrets to build their own hardware business.

Apple claims that hardware business is now "rotten to its core" by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets. Apple also alleges that OpenAI pushed job candidates to reveal confidential information during interviews. The company is seeking damages, asking the court to borrow OpenAI from using its trade secrets and to force the company to return its confidential materials.

OpenAI responded in a statement saying, "We have no interest in other companies' trade secrets.

This drama comes just as OpenAI prepares to launch its first hardware device.

And, of course, gears up for one of the most anticipated IPOs in history." Joining us to discuss this drama. Speaking with Alex Cantruitz, author of the Big Technology Newsletter, and host of the Big Technology podcast, Alex, thank you for joining me. The statement that really jumped out at me in this lawsuit is the one that I mentioned.

The statement by Apple that OpenAI's hardware business is "rotten to its core." That's pretty intense language. Makes me think that this lawsuit is a big deal, but I don't know. What do you make of it? Apple really sees the threat coming from OpenAI.

If you think about where OpenAI sits, of course, it's working to expand and enterprise, but it hasn't given up on consumer. And where they're focusing in consumer are these bidirectional voice models. So instead of you taking a turn in the AI, taking a turn to talk, it's a model that can listen and talk at the same time, which is going to make much more natural speech.

And of course, that's the way that serious access by people is through conversations. So Apple certainly sees that OpenAI is developing a technology that could threaten its business.

Of course, OpenAI has a billion users of chatchipity, according to some third parties.

And so if you unleash that, you know, with all those users and maybe build your own device, that could be the thing that cuts off Apple's growth. So there was a great Wall Street Journal article that today talking about Apple has gone thermonuclear

And of course, you know, the most prime example is the Android makers in, you know, previous years. So this could be a replay of that for sure. It's not to say that Apple doesn't have a case against OpenAI.

If you look at the filing, it seems like OpenAI is basically dead to rights on this one,

where Apple has, you know, some of the most sloppy collected corporate espionage

“in the history of business on behalf of OpenAI, where OpenAI basically did some of this trace secret ceiling”

on Apple computers, which Apple was able to see. So they definitely have a case against OpenAI. But because OpenAI is a threat to Apple in this way to get to your original question, I expect this to be a fierce battle. I don't think Apple is interested in settling.

I think they'll try to take it all the way through to get to a judge ruling, which includes some pretty painful discovery for OpenAI. And we're just getting started here. I guess the big question for OpenAI is, is this going to be harmful to their business? Is this going to be a real problem?

Or is it kind of sort of background noise? I mean, they've got this. They've got a lot of other lawsuits in the pipeline. These safety and wrongful death lawsuits, these copyright lawsuits, lawsuits coming in from various state attorneys general.

I mean, a lot of people are firing up off lawsuits at this company. And now, one of the most valuable companies in the world with one of the largest balance streets in the world is doing the same thing.

“I mean, you have to think at some point this is going to be a real problem.”

If they have to figure out how to grow the business. And at the same time, they're spending, I don't know how many, many dollars on fighting these lawsuits. Is this not going to be a real problem? Yeah, I think it will be a real problem.

So I would say, first of all, the good news for OpenAI are the bad news, depending on how you want to look at it is this hardware business isn't a real business yet. Right? So it's not like Apple is going to stop them in their tracks.

And they lose a billion dollar business unit right away.

But that being said, they do have great hopes for it. And because it's not a full business yet. And so early on, if it's up to the judge, and the judge says, hey, you know what OpenAI can't use any of those Apple trade secrets that you took, it could cause OpenAI to sort of unwind this hardware production to maybe the very beginning

if the judge sees it fit. So this is something like, you know, OpenAI has been talking a lot about this device. And when you think about the company going to IPO, which you mentioned at the top, obviously, that's going to be something that it's going to talk to public market about the potential for it to actually make a lot of money based off of these devices.

So if that has to roll back from the beginning, that's going to be, you know, pretty damaging to its IPO case. And the one of the thing I'll point out is, it isn't interesting that seemingly every partner that OpenAI partners up with comes back at it like this. Of course, it was partners with Apple, with the Chatchee BT integration to Siri,

partners with Elon Musk at the very beginning now. Elon, of course, hates them partners with Microsoft, now Sot, you know, Delas seemingly every other day has a Twitter essay about how it's wrong to work with OpenAI. And the list goes on.

So you need friends and business. And that might be the thing that hurts OpenAI more than any of the legal action is the fact that one by one it seems to be alienating its partners. Yeah, it's a really interesting point. It seems that if there's one enemy that everyone has decided to

hate on in Silicon Valley right now, it does appear to be OpenAI.

“On literally all angles and I guess you have to ask the question”

of, what does that ultimately do to the business? What does that do in terms of their ability to fundraise, especially with the IPO coming up?

It seems like the answer is it,

it's not going to do anything good. I assume maybe your belief is that the outcome of this specifically, I mean, if this lawsuit kind of trends with the direction that it appears it will, would be that maybe they will just cancel this hardware product and this hardware business.

Is that kind of how this ends if Apple wins? Yeah, there's a range of possibilities here from like the complete cancellation to like having to like go back to the drawing board to the judge saying basically OpenAI you did wrong, but you know, slap on the risk because it was just like one employee and one executive

that's, you know, involved but tangentially evolved and we can't really prove even with discovery that you've copied any Apple IP. So there's a wide range of possibilities here. One more thing that I would say about this is that it's almost an indictment on the company's hardware efforts that it would bring in.

It's brought in 400 former Apple folks and that they've been so, I feel like they've been so reliant on using the Apple way for so long. But they can't think out of the box. If you're building a technology a new technology based off of this novel

do you really want to have people who are like so kind of lost on their own

“that they have to go back into the old Apple road map documents”

to kind of point their way towards the direction or do you want to people and they're thinking from the very beginning of what this device can be regardless of what Apple's built in the past.

If it was up to me, I kind of want the second group of people

who got this technology, we don't want to bolt it onto anything new. Where do we go from there? But doesn't seem like that's the direction an open AI is going. Yeah, and literally starting with Johnny I, who's the legendary broad designer ever at Apple.

They bring him in and they take a bunch of Apple employees along with him. I want to just shift gears for a moment and talk about meta because there's been some really interesting developments over at meta. The stock surge 15% last week. It was up 6% on Friday alone.

Because they launched this new AI model called mute spark 1.1. People are excited about it. They were talking a lot about it. And also crucially one of the main goals is that it's going to be a lot cheaper than a lot of the other models, which puts a lot of pressure on open AI.

A lot of pressure on anthropic meta was considered one of the AI looses as recently as like two weeks ago. It seems that the market is kind of flipped on this. They know that you actually interviewed meta's CTO last week. So, just as we wrap, I'd love to get your thoughts on what's going on with meta.

And how investors have kind of changed to on that stock. Yeah, right. Ed meta to the group of folks that are attacking open AI. Of course, they've come out with this new model 25% cheaper. In some cases, then the frontier models that companies like open AI offer. One thing, it's, you know, it's also a testament to open AI's business that all these companies

are coming after them because clearly they've built something. Right. But on the meta front in particular, it's hard to say whether review them as a winner or a loser right now. Yes, the market went up last week for meta stock price went up last week. But it's really kind of tough to pull apart exactly what the reason was.

Now, maybe it is because they finally built this model that's doing well on the benchmark.

So, they've done that before. But my hunch is that it's probably because these rumors that they might start licensing some of their excess compute. We're sort of confirmed by Zuckerberg. And the market has been sort of wary of meta's continual spending for a long time. Now, first on reality labs to make VR goggles and mixed reality glasses.

And now on this AI build out with very little to show for it. And so this may be sort of a short term market reaction saying, Well, you know, you've spent all this money, you haven't delivered much. At least give me some profit by licensing out your excess compute for like very high margins.

“And that's I think what we're seeing here.”

What do you think is the direction for meta's AI business? Because there was obviously those headlines that they're going to sell their excess compute. And that phrase excess compute was striking because all we've heard about is how there's no excess compute because there's so much demand. But the reason that they appeared they were doing that is because they realized that building their own internal AI wasn't quite working out. That was, those were some of the rumors that we heard.

That was in part of the reporting. And then they come out and they release this new AI model. And it makes you think, oh, maybe they are really focusing a lot of effort on that internal AI. Maybe this is a thing that they're doing. The two stories seem to be at odds with each other.

I guess I'd be able to get your views on which one is the more credible story, which one is more accurate. It's interesting. They, you know, Zuckerberg said that there's a chance that they'll sell some of this compute. But he didn't want to call it excess compute, which is weird because I would say if you're going to sell stuff that you're not using for a higher price than you bought it for. It's like the definition of selling your excess.

But anyway, we'll get into an argument with him on that.

“Look, ultimately, you have to separate the model, which is like they've released an impressive model and the product.”

Because ultimately, you can use just a certain amount of compute for training.

But the area where you're going to use the most compute is for inference people actually using your products. And for me, it just doesn't seem like that product that they've created so far has been used enough to have having all those data centers, which is why they've kind of expressed this openness to sell it. So ultimately, for meta, great job building the model. The models become somewhat of a commodity now.

No one's really crack consumer AI. I mean, even open AI is, well, not giving up on it. You know, it's really, you know, has eyes for enterprise, more than consumer right now. And so, you know, if meta can't crack it despite the fact that like knows a lot about, you know, as your interest has all this data, has all this compute, has all these engineers,

but then who will. And for the time being, you know, it's not going to be able to really make use of all those data centers.

All right. Alex Controitz is author of the Big Technology Newsletter and hosts the Big Technology Podcast. Alex, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate your time. Thanks so much, Ed. After the break, how Korea's stock market turned into a casino. And for even more markets insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletter simply put at simply put.proftymedia.com.

Years ago, Netflix said that its main competitor wasn't some other streaming service. It was sleep. And maybe that explains why all of a sudden Netflix has games. It has tons of reality shows. It has video podcasts, and maybe going forward, it even has YouTube videos.

This week on the Vergecast, we try to figure out what Netflix is going forward, and whether it's still a streaming service we want.

“Plus, the future of smart glasses, what's going on with quantum computing?”

And yes, we have a Trump phone. All that on the Vergecast, wherever you get podcasts. It all started with Call Me Maybe. Over 10 years ago, we created Switched On Pop to Listen Closer, uncovering the songcraft behind even the delocious of pop hits.

Since then, we've released almost 500 episodes. We've defined the sounds our modern soundtrack, and interviewed hundreds of musicians and music insiders, including the singer of Call Me Maybe herself, Carly Rejepson. I'm musicologist Nate Sloan, and I'm songwriter Charlie Harding, and on July 14, Switched On Pop is embarking on a new chapter.

We're stepping out from behind our microphones, and in front of the camera, to stream our podcast on Netflix. Now, you'll still be able to listen to the show anywhere you get podcasts. But now, you'll be able to watch us each week, breaking down the sounds of the moment,

digging into musical menus show with your favorite artists,

and offering questionable bad jokes as always.

We're kicking off our Netflix debut with the four part series on the art of the song, with help from artists, producers, and songwriters like Aaron Desner, Audrey Hobbert, Trevor Horn, Cypress Hill, and Taylor Parks. Stream switched on pop on Netflix, and anywhere you get podcasts,

every Tuesday, starting on July 14th. Is Kamala Harris running for president again? Listen, I'm Mike. I'm Mike. I'm thinking about him.

But does anybody want that? Yeah. Yeah. I didn't know. Well, I don't see why not.

Absolutely.

“I think Kamala Harris, you're wrong for president again.”

I don't think there'll never be a woman president for the new dinosaurs.

Now, while away, you can't just walk away on that, tell us why. I know it's still early to talk about 2028. But as we build to our post-Trump future, it seems to be a big question about the democratic party. Kamala Harris leads all of the presidential polling.

So does this mean that the person who let the ticket in 2024 is going to lead the party again in 2028? The campaign needs to be called bye-bye. But it's just a tainted brand. Do you think from a donor community large lead

if there's in the appetite for a Harris return? I don't. I'm a steadharmson. And this is America, actually. Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast.

We're back with Proftory Markets.

“South Korea is home to the hottest trade in the world”

and it might be spiraling out of control. At its peak last month, the Cospi South Korea stock market was up nearly 100% on the year, making it the best performing major index on the planet. That rally has been super charged by a financial product

beloved by retail traders. And that is, the single stock leveraged ETF. Since launching in late May 16 of these ETFs, all tracking Samsung and SK Heinix, Korea's largest membership manufacturers have tripled in size

to more than $9 billion today.

Those ETFs and the two stocks they track account for over 70% of all trading volume in Korea. But now, cracks are beginning to form. Yesterday, SK Heinix plunged more than 15% in Korea on investor worries that the trip trade may be overcrowded.

That sent the Cospi down 9% forcing regulators to pause trading across the entire index. And this volatility closely follows Friday's listing of SK Heinix shares on the Nasdaq, the company's American shares fell 9% yesterday too.

And it took other memory stocks like Micron, Sandisk, and Western digital down as well. So here to tell us how Korean markets got hooked on leverage and what it all means for investors around the world, we're speaking with Luke Kahwa, head of markets at showered news.

Luke, good to see you. Thank you for joining me here.

because it's a confluence of all of the things that investors are so excited about right now. You've got memory chips going up and then coming swing back down also the leverage ETFs,

which seem to be kind of turbocharging both the up swings and the down swings. I mean, let's just start with SK Heinix for a moment. Because it fell 15% yesterday, it's biggest single day drop ever.

One of the most important stocks in the stock market right now.

What do we know about why that happened? Why did it take such a tumble? In terms of fundamental news, again, I don't think there's two, two much here to point to.

“And that's probably the most concerning point of it all, right?”

When you have a situation like this, I go back and I think, well, two months ago, three months ago, when this thing was going up, six percent, seven percent every day,

did we stop and ask, hey, what's the reason why this is happening? I don't think we did fairly often. You don't tend to do that in the good times. And so what was happening during that as we know now,

and as you've touched on, is that this trade was getting built up by more and more leverage exposure. And in fact, if you look at South Korean markets, you have a combination of both taking out

margin loans to then buy a leverage product. That's leverage squared, man.

So when you have that situation happening,

and you have the stocks, whether it's a technical catalyst to reverse, or a fundamental catalyst to reverse, I don't start asking, why is this happening? I start saying, you know,

yeah, big moves make sense, given the volatility you've had on the way up, and the leverage that we know was in the trade. So the movements that you're describing here, it sounds a lot like a meme stock.

I mean, no fundamental news, the things actually happening that should trigger such a violent downswing, just leverage, retail trading, excitement, and then not excitement vibes,

essentially, is that basically what is driving

“one of the most valuable companies in the world right now?”

I would say, you know, yes and no, because the difference between this and you'll say, you know, a pyramid stock move is this has so much fundamentals behind it. If you look at the earnings revisions

that memory stocks have had, the amount of pricing power they've been able to demonstrate, the way their profitability has increased. And the way that they still look, optically, if you're using just kind of a naive

forward price to earnings ratio, cheap, these stocks have had a much better fundamental quote unquote reason to go up than others have. I think, you know,

the problem is to a certain extent,

stories get sufficiently well understood, and, you know, a confluence of factors, well, that's, you know, that's, you know, micron being kind of unable to hold the big gains it saw poster earnings.

Well, that's kind of simply the fact that we went from the best quarter for semi-conductors ever to now a period of time where, you know, as a calendar flip sets off in a catalyst to just based on position waiting,

change things up a little. I think what you have here is just more a recognition that the ways in which we choose to get exposure to the market

“has a heavy, heavy influence on the market itself.”

You can call it the tail wagging the dog, or you can tell say it's just, you know, the tools we use define us. So I just want to dive into these leveraged ETFs for a moment,

which by the way, Korea's regulators are not very happy about that pretty worried about it. One of their top regulators said that he quote should have laid down to protest

the launch of leverage ETFs by any means necessary. So clearly a lot of people think this is a problem. Why do they think that that it's a problem? And just backing up,

what actually all leveraged ETFs? So, and it's most basic form. It's right there in the name in that you're buying a product that will advertise itself as delivering

2x, let's say, the daily return of the instrument. It's saying it's tracking. So, for instance, in this case, SK Highnicks.

What is actually being done in this case is usually that the ETF provider will have a total return swap with a bank in which the bank agrees to effectively, you know,

warehouse a lot of that exposure and be the one that is making. A lot of the changes, the incremental changes kind of on the back end in terms of boosting its exposure,

or lowering it, depending on what the shares do on that day. But effectively, it is an agreement that this return will be delivered.

During big up markets, what you will see is then there's kind of a need to be buying and feeding as it is going up and then selling what it's going down.

So, it's incredibly pricycle. And this is why you get a lot of talk, chatter, well-deserved. I think Dean Kernut, I'm a macro-risk advisor

has been someone that's flagged this very well. But the rebalancing activity of these products is one thing that enhances a lot of these swings and the volatility that we've seen.

One also interesting thing that I think has

is just the idea that we're using them so much

“that it's actually impacted equity funding costs.”

So, you kind of, for instance, you saw at about the time of the SpaceX IPO and as assets under management in these products was really ramping up, equity funding costs were rising.

It was just becoming difficult to meet all this demand for leverage products. It was about this time that you also saw some of these big funds which from using total return swaps and say,

we're going to use a little more in terms of options in terms of being able to try and replicate that two extra turn that introduces kind of another source of drag. But what that really was,

is that was a big bell ringing saying, hey, the system cannot accommodate all this demand for leverage on semi-conductors

and in particular, these memory stocks.

Yeah, just looking at Samsung and SK Heinrichs, they now make up more than half of the Korean stock markets in TIA market cap and those ETFs are accounting for, as I said, 70% of the trading value.

One of the lawmakers in South Korea

“has said that the cost be their entire stock market”

has, quote, turned into a casino. And those numbers make me think that that's pretty fair and it doesn't seem, I mean, it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence as an investor.

Would you agree with that characterization of the Korean stock market at this point? Hey, I would agree that almost every stock market look at the U.S. More and more the stock market is where we go

to make long-term bets supposedly about the future of American companies

and we increasingly do this using options

with four days to expiry. So I don't think the casino culture is something we can lay simply at South Korea's feed. It's probably something that would most often be laid at the American market's feed.

Beyond that, it has a long history in Japan, with very active retail traders playing with leverage. The human desire to make money quickly is not something that shares any one nationality. That's something that we can definitely unite on.

Hi, Luke Kahler is head of markets at Show of News. Luke, thank you for joining us. Hi, pleasure. Thank you very much. The Iran War continues and this time, the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz,

the thing we need open to get prices down, is back. According to President Trump, the U.S. will reinstate its naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Yes, that is the same blockade that was central to the memorandum of understanding

that was agreed upon less than a month ago. The same blockade that the U.S. had stated in writing that they were lifting will now it's over. So now we're back to where we were a month ago.

The only difference is that Trump will now charge a 20% fee on all cargo that passes through. And so if we were to calculate what that would add to the price of say, a barrel of oil, well, at the current price of 83 dollars,

which is up more than 30% yet to date, by the way, that would presumably mean that the new price would be a hundred dollars a barrel. Now, is that a good thing, if inflation is already up to 4.2%

and rising probably not, but don't take it from me, take it from the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who literally said a month ago that this kind of thing isn't even allowed. Well, that's the law.

These are, it's an international waterway. No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. That's existing international law. That's the way it is.

And international waterways all over the world. And that's the way we expect it'll be here. So I don't think we have anybody to convince around here in that regard.

“I think all the countries in this region would agree with them.”

So clearly, whatever strategy we had, we're not even pretending to have anymore. And I will continue to talk about this so long as people continue to believe that this Iran intervention is anything

other than a full-blown disaster, which it is. Again, four to five weeks is what they said. We are now in two weeks, 20. They told us we have a deal within days that deal was broken.

They told us the blockade was off. Well, now the blockade is back on. It is a constant propaganda machine. And if ever there was proof that you can't trust anything that comes out of this guy's mouth, this is it.

This is your proof, and it's not really a debate. So we will continue to track what's happening in Iran, not just because it matters for the world, but also because it matters for our economy. Because the more he screws this up,

the worse inflation will get, which means the more likely interest rates will go up. And therefore, the more likely stocks will go down. That is why investors have to care. But going forward, next time a political leader

start speaking belligerently about invading other nations, as if that is the silver bird to all of our problems,

at the track record and recognize one simple fact.

And that is, this shit doesn't work. [MUSIC PLAYING] OK, that's it for today.

“This episode was produced by Claire Miller,”

and Alison Weisen, engineered by Benjamin Spencer.

Our video editor is Brad Williams.

Our research team is Dan Shalon,

“Kristen O'Donnell here, and Mia Savario.”

And our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Proftly Markets from Proftly Media.

“If you liked what you heard, give us a follow.”

I'm Ed Alson. I'll see you tomorrow. [BLANK_AUDIO]