Hacker News

"Altman doesn’t appear to be a beacon of corporate ethics."

Do those exist? I'm usually happy to see a mild candle flicker in the ethics window.

Imagine what he'll be able to charge if he does one of those pepsi logo analyses things for a large corp...

He has no taste anymore. He was right once, made too much money, and lost touch with everything. Now he's a tasteless boomer.

I think the other thing folks underestimate is how important Jobs was as an editor for Ive's designs. Ive always leaned more to form over function IMO, and Jobs (or the Apple environment in general as it existed under Jobs) helped temper that. I don't think the butterfly keyboard would have seen the light of day under Jobs, and the released Ferrari interior doesn't seem like a stroke of genius to me. Easy to say from the peanut gallery I know, but I still think Jobs was best able to harness Ive's greatness.

Yup. Model capabilities seem to keep converging quickly, not leaders breaking away for long.

Frontier labs are racing towards SaaS commoditization at incredible speed. And while there might possibly be $Trillions in productivity gained from their use, there's no reason to think those gains get captured by the model makers or inference providers at this point.

Maybe the Claude or ChatGPT desktop apps will dominate as the new MS Excel, but that's hard to do without already having locked the whole market into Windows.

There's virtually no platform play available to them.

> AI model providers have zero "moat", clients change them as they see fit.

That might be true in tech-savvy industries -- but in non-tech industries where the biggest software purchase might be the office suite or the ERP, inertia means the GSuite shops stick with Gemini, and the Exchange/Office 365 shops stick with Copilot.

> as long as China doesn't enter the GPU/RAM race

China is obviously in the GPU/RAM race. Heard of Huawei, Moore Threads, Lisuan Tech, CXMT?

I'm just happy we get to reap the rewards "for free" (i.e open models are slowly becoming usable, and the winner of the arms race will definitely stand on the shoulders of their competitors that didn't make it)

Not to mention with each iteration of every model you get lower cost per token. It’s really a race to the bottom for hyperscalers and neoclouds at this point, with technically only two paying customers.

> The real value is and going to be in hardware

Unless someone comes up with a brilliant optimization strategy or new hardware that renders all that inefficient Nvidia crap overnight.

being an exec at apple for decades you probably pick up on a few things, even if they're beyond your department

> Either by hiring unsavory people who think this acceptable behavior and/or by not managing/supervising them.

Is there any reason to think this is roque employees doing something? We know Altman is ethically challenged. It is equally or even more likely that management welcommed employees to doing this.

> And why they used third party developers to develop the ecosystem of applications.

Isn't that the very definition of a platform?

This is the logical take. I would bet that this doesn’t doom anything, they’ll just quietly settle it, likely for a relatively small amount.

People here are way too invested in hating Sam to be remotely rational on this topic.

Fair enough, but I'd point out that, unlike Second Life, Meta didn't buy pants. If you want a chronicle of wasted spending regarding Microsoft and mobile devices, Google "Tomi Ahonen."

> Stealing from the one company that has managed to court success makes a lot of sense.

It makes a lot of sense to get into a massive legal battle with one of the most deep-pocketed companies on the planet?

I don't know. Some of it did seem like short attention spans and not enough perseverence. But what do I know being far from an insider.

Most of Uber's "platform" seemed like pet projects that engineers used to justify promotions, and then were quietly abandoned.

Uber managed to make the business by lobbying so hard. In some countries they broke the regulation of tax drivers and made the environment like wild jungle. Now, people don't feel "safe" anymore for random Taxis and prefer Uber in many places.

Many of them left and turned into startups around that tech, like Temporal.

> There are no practical laws against understanding the laws of physics, chemistry, and metallurgy

Except there are. It’s why clean-room design [1] is a thing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design

> it hasn't been determined yet that they have

Legally, no. Reasonably, for purposes of discussion, I think it has. The “LOL” dumbfuck who airlifted files into OpenAI isn’t particularly ambiguous [1].

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-11/openai-en...

This seems like an important post. It looks like these letters are occasionally used to as a tactic, and i can see how such a tactic can really scare employees in a country where legal bills can climb really fast.

Did Apple help defend you against those claims during the six months?

> It sounds like, in this case, Apple has hard proof that documents were stolen.

Honestly, the proof is the least surprising part -- Apple's been paranoid about leaks for decades, even when the stakes have been lower.

> It sounds like, in this case, Apple has hard proof that documents were stolen.

I believe some articles mentioned about employees bragging to their former colleagues about accessing documents. Also I believe they lied to Apple about being employed elsewhere so they can continue using their access and hardware, etc.

If these are correct, the whole OpenAI playbook is very dirty, and I won't pity them a bit.

You shouldn't ever willingly give up information to a plaintiff if it could implicate you. If the information exists, it's going to come out in discovery. Admitting to theft of trade secrets is probably not going to help you, it's not like the cops offering you immunity for turning state's witness.

You talk to a lawyer and do what they say, not what Apple demands of you. No one but a judge can demand anything of you.

That's overly dramatic.

At this point, the assumption would be that they are a non-party witness.

So, beyond not destroying any potential evidence, you might as well tell them to shove it.

Would they have had to disclose a known Apple lawsuit threat in the IPO disclosures? If so that might explain the delay...

Also Apple could have filed the litigation right before the IPO and after a IPO announcement. OpenAI doesn't get to decide when Apple sues them.

> They’re not late to the IPO party, which was postponed by OpenAI, It may turn out that that was a mistake

Isn’t that precisely what being late to the party means? You should have showed earlier?

That's not enough though. He could have been acting rogue or for some other reason. That alone won't win in court

Filing lawsuits against ex-employees is going pretty far. Not good PR for Apple if their claims are wrong.

Companies often file frivolous lawsuits against other companies. It’s much rarer to throw frivolous lawsuits at individuals.

>How far is this?

If I am understanding your question, they went so far as to sue their employees.

Apple lawyers have a reputation for doing their homework

The accusations are incredibly clear/defined (and serious!) and have a very simple burden of proof. These things either happened or they didn’t, and they have material evidence or they don’t. It’s incredibly unlikely that they filed such big, concrete accusations without concrete proof to back them up.

And while I am far from an Apple fan boy, yes a lot of big corporations file frivolous lawsuits but Apple typically does not engage in that behavior against other companies. Also bear in mind that open AI is a huge name so there is a public/political element that goes along with this for Apple. There are going to be a lot of people who do not want Apple to win this regardless of how true their claims are and will figut like hell to protect openAI

I think it is clear that if Apple were going to deal with OpenAI on that level, they already would have. What they wanted for their AI products is a measure of control over their destiny that OpenAI clearly did not want to give them that badly. It's also pretty clear that Apple is willing to work with arch-rivals to supply components of their products, both software and hardware, but values consistency alongside trustworthiness.

This stuff happened years ago, right? Something tells me that discussion has already happened, and they went with Google.

Besides: Apple is a "real" company that will definitely still be around in five years. They've already fumbled Siri multiple times. IMO Google was certainly the right choice for actually executing well on Apple's own terms for the foreseeable future.

Oh, in that case, I just happen to have some insane stories that will never be publicly disclosed, and every one of my stories rebuts every one of your stories.

Then share some of those insane stories with sources I guess. Because this seems to directly contradict my understanding of Apple (post-Jobs in particular).

I do not love Apple, as I said another comment I am so far from an apple fanboy, but frivolous lawsuits against other companies is not really typical for them. Also, these accusations are far from frivolous and they either have proof or they don’t. It would be very strange for them to file this thinking they would win with some sort of gray area argument

It's interesting that you say they must have hated each other, but assume only Ternus is acting on that. What makes you think Tan's hatred of Ternus or animosity toward Apple for picking Ternus over him didn't lead Tan to do the alleged behavior?

Maybe a naive take, but if there's one team in a large corporation that does not bend to "the CEO(-to-be) wants it", that is the Legal team. Particularly when the ask is a lawsuit of this scope and relevance, and potential costs (of all kinds). The head of Legal can just hint to the board how expensive (in all senses) the vendetta would be and the CEO is likely "not to be" anymore, or "to be temporary".

Widely known where?

Tang was never mentioned as a candidate in anything I read over the past few years. He wasn't an SVP.

Weird take. With as much evidence as they have (unless they're just wildly fabricating everything in their lawsuit complaint, which... really? All Apple's lawyers are just making up claims in court documents? Sounds very career-ending, why would the lawyers do that?) they would be complete idiots not to sue.

Tim Cook is the current CEO. Tim Cook is doing this. Any assertion otherwise is 100% wrong.

John Ternus doesn't become CEO until September 1st. If you think that this is still John Ternus' play, Tim Cook is still the one in charge and signed off to start this, meaning "Tim Cook would never have started this" is still 100% wrong.

The alleged crime sounded childish. Appeal to rule of law, enforced by the court system is necessary for a fair business enviornment.

Sending the notification letters is probably petty though.

This comment is really strange and reads like disinformation

Agreed Steve would do this

But the iPhone is the most valuable consumer hardware product on the planet, and the accusations here is “conspiracy to steal” essentially.

Is it really that petty? Apple should be okay with theft of valuable secrets?

I think it's quite clear that only applies to corporations. Workers will still go to prison.

I don’t think Cupertino will settle for stock. I think they’ll demand cash and an agreement that OpenAI abandon or reboot their hardware project. In the meantime, Apple gets an open kimono into everything OpenAI has planned.

This could actually be the fuckup that kills OpenAI as an independent company. The threat of a cash judgement gums up not only an IPO, but also debt-based fundraising. (We equity guys are idiots, so we’ll probably keep writing cheques until the market turns.)

Not really, just slowing down a potential competitor could still be worth it.

Why would Apple settle? They probably want the same outcomes of the Waymo v Uber trial that forced Uber out of the market. Apple's accusations imply that every part of OpenAI's hardware effort has been tainted with Apple's trade secrets and is therefore illegitimate. They also have more money than God so they can keep the suit going as long as they want.

People are forgetting that the kind of conduct alleged is also likely illegal.

In the not-so-distant past, Uber's head of self-driving was indicted and sentenced to jail time for similar conduct. The criminal case didn't start until ~2.5 years after the civil case was filed.

IIRC Apple have been allowed to remove Fornite from the Apple Store, they just fall foul of the EU Digital Markets Act / DMA (?) when also blocking the Epic Games Store as a route to add/sideload it.

Removing ChatGPT due to ToS violations seems like it would be ok.

Maybe.

Depends if they hate Apple or OpenAI more.

Ha ha. Worked at Apple for over two decades—would not have stayed at a company I thought was evil for that long.

A bully at times? I wouldn't argue with that.

From what we know this far it’s quite easy to be on Apples side in this particular question, right?

In Samsung’s case, they are evil buy something from them, and you are dead to them after the sale mind you, that probably would be the case with many Korean and Chinese companies too.

Would never buy anything from Samsung.

Probably.

(HackerNews, FWIW.)

…and too late to edit my edit…

(Weird thing about HN.)

> You can steal trade secrets

Which goes beyond a civil lawsuit as well, if true, these employees are going to face real, serious criminal charges and possibly jail time. Up to 10 years in federal prison, and Apple has a history of pressing criminal charges.

If Liu actually did exploit a vulnerability to bypass Apple's network security, they may also see federal charges for CFAA as well.

It totally could be illegal, and I don’t care. Those laws exist to entrench dominant incumbents, and make our economy less dynamic.

The history of Silicon Valley and most of its innovation come from this kind of thing, and we eliminated non-competes in California for exactly this reason.

Apple having a serious competitor in hardware would be a good thing for consumers all over the world.

Apple’s overzealous secrecy culture starts to become insidious once you become such a dominant force in the marketplace.

At what point do we allow their innovations to bleed into the rest of humanity and lower their margins so humanity doesn’t pay out a 60% tax to them anymore. I think they’ve made enough profits for investors at this point. Id be happy if my Apple stock went nowhere if it meant 20 other companies could grow and innovate new products off the back of it.

Some people think that being the exclusive supplier of iOS based devices is a “monopoly”.

Blue bubble discrimination so bad that android users are the vast majority of incels. Even if that’s not technically a monopoly breaking up Apple would materially increase USA birthrates. Unironically!