3 ms·

From April: https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/07/openai-reportedly-mulls-buying-jony-ive-and-sam-altmans-ai-hardware-startup/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/07/op

From April: https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/07/openai-reportedly-mulls-buying-jony-ive-and-sam-altmans-ai-hardware-startup/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/07/openai-reportedly-mulls-bu... > OpenAI is said to have discussed acquiring the AI hardware startup that former Apple design lead Jony Ive is building with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. According to The Information, OpenAI could pay around $500 million for the fledgling company, called io Products. How the heck did the price go up 13x?

AdamN 1y ago
There's only one Jony Ive and alot of demand from the company with the deepest pockets in town ... UX will make or break any major new AI product - especially hardware. The price is steep but I think it's actually a sensible move. There really aren't that many other people with the proven ability to deliver when it comes to UX at scale for novel areas.
- babypuncher 1y ago
  The first step in AI delivering a good UX might be coming up with a logo that doesn't look like a butthole. Unfortunately this seems to be an impossible task.
- teruakohatu 1y ago
  Jony Ive is a designer verses Tony Fadell who is a hardware guy. Ive is a very talented artist but AI is not being held back by people unwilling to courageously make things thinner and thinner. I would imagine Ive looked at an Apple HomePod and thought “we could make this beautifully flat and hang it on the wall of every room in the house”. This might be a good idea but it in no way solves the major problems with AI/LLMs.
- fooker 1y ago
  The same guy who designed the 2016 generation MacBooks and was kicked out of Apple over it? Jony Ive is great at UX when someone like Steve Jobs is there to veto stupid ideas.
- bbor 1y ago
  Only in silicon valley would $6,500,000,000 for a single designer seem like a sensible move...
  - philosophty 1y ago
    It's not actually $6.5 billion cash. It's a stock certificate. A stock certificate which can go to zero.
    - ignoramous 1y ago
      > A stock certificate which can go to zero. For whoever is holding the bag at the end of it all.
whatshisface 1y ago
Because it sounds like the CEO of OpenAI wants to use investor's money to buy his other company. Too bad we can't short it or otherwise stop it, because investment for the things we could start will dry up once the world figures this out. We're all correlated to companies like FTX whether we like them or not...
- jazzyjackson 1y ago
  There should be a way to reverse valuate a company based on how much of its stock it used to acquire a company worth (500,000,000 dollars of) peanuts
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - bravoetch 1y ago
    Depending on who is doing the valuation, I'm sure this is already a consideration. Like when Coinbase acquired Earn for $110m-ish. Was Earn worth that? Absolutely not. Since Coinbase and Earn shared investors, it was merely a convenient way for those investors to pay themselves out of the unexpected billion dollar cash pile Coinbase amassed in 2017.
    - cma 1y ago
      Isn't that a less efficient way than a $110m dividend or buyback?
      - manquer 1y ago
        Dividend means taxes . Buyback requires someone to sell (I.e. exit) usually no one wants[1] to especially when the company is going hot. investors would rather have (more)stock in a hot company than cash. Fund managers and staff have also disincentives for early exits, i.e. they have to find and invest in another company and cannot just keep the money, which means more work. They rather exit by switching stock to a hotter in demand, hard to get in companies if they can. [1] there are always some employees and founders who would prefer some liquidity , but either they don’t hold large enough positions (employees) or investors don’t want to give a lot of liquidity (founders) For public companies it is different- buybacks work because there is always someone ready to sell. Usually retail but also short term funds who don’t care about liquidating. ETFs and other very institutional investors or those into buffet style long term investments will not sell easily
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
smokel 1y ago
Perhaps this is a way to channel money into someone's pocket, instead of keeping it in a non-profit?
- outside1234 1y ago
  They don't call him Scam Altman for no reason.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jrflowers 1y ago
> How the heck did the price go up 13x? Because they’re not paying with money. It’s $6.5B of pure equity in a private company that they’ve decided to value at $300B based off of… vibes or hopes or whatever?
- bdangubic 1y ago
  hey if Tesla is worth $1T OpenAI might be 10x undervalued at $300B :)
mrandish 1y ago
This announcement furthers my sense OpenAI is becoming a hype vehicle destined to be the iconic poster child of early AI hubris when the bubble pops. When I read the pretentious marketing copy and photo on the announcement page my first thought was "Someday this'll be linked on the Wikipedia page for 'The AI Bubble'". I'm not even a hardcore AI skeptic, I think AI can be useful and valuable in the near-term (even outside coding!) and potentially transformative in the long-term but I also think current capabilities are over-hyped and wildly overvalued. I think AI is going through the typical hype cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle) and we're currently late in the "Inflated Expectations" phase soon to be followed by the inevitable "Trough of Disillusionment".

AdamN 1y ago

There's only one Jony Ive and alot of demand from the company with the deepest pockets in town ... UX will make or break any major new AI product - especially hardware. The price is steep but I think it's actually a sensible move. There really aren't that many other people with the proven ability to deliver when it comes to UX at scale for novel areas.

babypuncher 1y ago
The first step in AI delivering a good UX might be coming up with a logo that doesn't look like a butthole. Unfortunately this seems to be an impossible task.
teruakohatu 1y ago
Jony Ive is a designer verses Tony Fadell who is a hardware guy. Ive is a very talented artist but AI is not being held back by people unwilling to courageously make things thinner and thinner. I would imagine Ive looked at an Apple HomePod and thought “we could make this beautifully flat and hang it on the wall of every room in the house”. This might be a good idea but it in no way solves the major problems with AI/LLMs.
fooker 1y ago
The same guy who designed the 2016 generation MacBooks and was kicked out of Apple over it? Jony Ive is great at UX when someone like Steve Jobs is there to veto stupid ideas.
bbor 1y ago
Only in silicon valley would $6,500,000,000 for a single designer seem like a sensible move...
- philosophty 1y ago
  It's not actually $6.5 billion cash. It's a stock certificate. A stock certificate which can go to zero.
  - ignoramous 1y ago
    > A stock certificate which can go to zero. For whoever is holding the bag at the end of it all.

whatshisface 1y ago

Because it sounds like the CEO of OpenAI wants to use investor's money to buy his other company. Too bad we can't short it or otherwise stop it, because investment for the things we could start will dry up once the world figures this out. We're all correlated to companies like FTX whether we like them or not...

jazzyjackson 1y ago
There should be a way to reverse valuate a company based on how much of its stock it used to acquire a company worth (500,000,000 dollars of) peanuts
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bravoetch 1y ago
  Depending on who is doing the valuation, I'm sure this is already a consideration. Like when Coinbase acquired Earn for $110m-ish. Was Earn worth that? Absolutely not. Since Coinbase and Earn shared investors, it was merely a convenient way for those investors to pay themselves out of the unexpected billion dollar cash pile Coinbase amassed in 2017.
  - cma 1y ago
    Isn't that a less efficient way than a $110m dividend or buyback?
    - manquer 1y ago
      Dividend means taxes . Buyback requires someone to sell (I.e. exit) usually no one wants[1] to especially when the company is going hot. investors would rather have (more)stock in a hot company than cash. Fund managers and staff have also disincentives for early exits, i.e. they have to find and invest in another company and cannot just keep the money, which means more work. They rather exit by switching stock to a hotter in demand, hard to get in companies if they can. [1] there are always some employees and founders who would prefer some liquidity , but either they don’t hold large enough positions (employees) or investors don’t want to give a lot of liquidity (founders) For public companies it is different- buybacks work because there is always someone ready to sell. Usually retail but also short term funds who don’t care about liquidating. ETFs and other very institutional investors or those into buffet style long term investments will not sell easily

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

smokel 1y ago

Perhaps this is a way to channel money into someone's pocket, instead of keeping it in a non-profit?

outside1234 1y ago
They don't call him Scam Altman for no reason.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

jrflowers 1y ago

> How the heck did the price go up 13x? Because they’re not paying with money. It’s $6.5B of pure equity in a private company that they’ve decided to value at $300B based off of… vibes or hopes or whatever?

bdangubic 1y ago
hey if Tesla is worth $1T OpenAI might be 10x undervalued at $300B :)

mrandish 1y ago

This announcement furthers my sense OpenAI is becoming a hype vehicle destined to be the iconic poster child of early AI hubris when the bubble pops. When I read the pretentious marketing copy and photo on the announcement page my first thought was "Someday this'll be linked on the Wikipedia page for 'The AI Bubble'". I'm not even a hardcore AI skeptic, I think AI can be useful and valuable in the near-term (even outside coding!) and potentially transformative in the long-term but I also think current capabilities are over-hyped and wildly overvalued. I think AI is going through the typical hype cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle) and we're currently late in the "Inflated Expectations" phase soon to be followed by the inevitable "Trough of Disillusionment".