Should Apple and OpenAI Merge? (Seriously!) — With Box CEO Aaron Levie

Channel: Alex Kantrowitz

Published at: 2025-07-19

YouTube video id: OVy-UoERf48

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVy-UoERf48

This is a report in Bloomberg. Apple
should consider replacing Tim Cook as
CEO. Lightshed says so. Uh the story
says Apple should consider replacing Tim
Cook. Um as the iPhone maker struggles
with artificial intelligence raise
significant risks for the company. Apple
needs a product focused CEO not one
centered on logistics. The two analysts
said missing AI could fundamentally
alter the company's long-term trajectory
and ability to grow a all grow at all.
AI will reshape industries across the
global economy and Apple risks becoming
one of its casualties. You know, it's
great setting this up, right? The um you
know, could Nvidia hit 10 trillion
dollars because um if AI is going to be
as transformative as you suggested with
um all these various use cases, it is
true Apple has been flatfooted. Is this
the craziest suggestion that the light
shed guys are making?
>> Well, I think the thing I would say, so
maybe a couple things. First of all, I
think I think Tim's great. Um, and so I
I have a I I have a bias towards him um
uh for for a number of reasons, but the
um but but I I I I you know, the thing
that is worth noting is how strong
Apple's position is in um and that what
that what that then equates to is their
ability to watch the space and figure
out the right move to make and when to
make it. Um because whether whether some
people like it or not, you know, this is
still the best device handheld device on
the planet and it has the best set of
apps on the planet and it has your whole
life kind of tied to it. So given they
own that platform, their ability to
lodge in AI into that at any point in
the future remains very strong. And so I
I look at I look at this as you know if
you have you have basically three three
options uh as a company. You could be a
first mover and then totally sort of
have a debacle and it not work. And
we've actually seen plenty of examples
in AI where the first mover is no longer
the relevant player. Um, you could have
a a scenario where you are a first mover
that has a compounding advantage that
continues to persist. Let's say OpenAI
is in that category. Incredible
execution and and uh and absolutely
amazing. And then you have another
category which is you enter the space at
a time when the architecture has sort of
been figured out when we understand the
economics of the model when when you're
not having to to you know you're able to
have step function levels of improvement
by I mean by the time that you launch
into it and I think maybe a Apple didn't
purposely make that choice but but it
they are clearly in the position where
they can actually have that choice now
and so I think you can just look at this
as if If this was 2004, we could have
easily said, why has Apple not released
a phone? And and yet by 2006, like that
wouldn't have mattered and they had the
dominant platform that that that would,
you know, continue to uh to exist. I
mean, Microsoft had a tablet computer in
2002 or something. I I own one. Um uh or
or my my co-founder owned one and I
owned a one of their Windows um
smartphones uh made by Compact or HP.
And so think about that that they got
had the smartphone and they had the
tablet computer first and neither of
those things mattered to the long-term
dominance uh in the space. And so Apple
has a position uh and a potential of
basically when when the time is right to
jump in. They still have the devices
that we're using. They still have the OS
that we're using. Um and they'll be able
to have learned from all of the mistakes
of of you know various companies along
the way. So I I wouldn't count them out
and I think they're clearly sitting
around saying when is the right time to
pull a trigger on a much bigger move. Um
and so I think we have to just wait for
that.
>> What do you mean much bigger move?
>> Well, they they they either have to make
the decision of either train a model
that is that that gives them a
state-of-the-art AI model or do some
substantial partnership or acquisition
move. all of what we've seen with these,
you know, kind of founder CEO hires.
Obviously, the acquisition environment
is complicated because of DOJ and FTC.
Um, but I would I would certainly be
astonished if in two years from now
there wasn't one of those those choices
being made, but I'm not I'm not sort of
uh that worried that it hasn't been made
yet.
>> So, um, all right, here is my galaxy
galaxy brain idea. It's one step bel uh
below I mean further from the typical
galaxy brain. So, I've been on the show
advocating for perplexity. Maybe I've
been thinking too small. Let me put it
this way. Uh, Apple just lost its COO
this week, um, Jeff Williams,
>> and everybody thought Jeff Williams was
going to be the successor to Tim Cook.
Um, are we now in a moment of setup
where Sam Alman and Johnny IVive have
teamed up on a device? Tim Cook is
getting ready to retire in the next
couple years without a clear successor
now that Williams is gone. Do we see the
ultimate tech merger where OpenAI
becomes forprofit and Tim Cook says,
"Sam, Johnny, pick up the legacy." They
did the picture. I think they want this.
Can it happen?
>> Uh, that is a that is a wild uh that
that is w some wild fanfiction. Um uh I
mean anything could happen. I I I think
that is that should be totally in the in
the category of of options. You know, if
if you're being realistic by the time
that that moment would would likely
occur, you know, opening eye should be
much bigger. That would be much more
complicated than as a deal. Um but I
like the you know, certainly the as a
brainstorm. It's a it's a great way to
brainstorm.
Okay, that's a very nice way to let me
down. And yeah, I I said merger uh for a
reason. I wouldn't call it an
acquisition. It might have to come at
this point where the two just come
together that way.
>> No, no, fair point. And I've seen
crazier things in my life now in tech.
So, I I can't write anything out at this
point. So, so uh let's uh let's see what
happens.
>> Let me put this put it this way as we
end. I think that type of deal is far
more likely than Apple buying anthropic
>> uh just because uh it's gonna require
something so much more substantial or or
why would that why would that be more
likely?
>> Because I think it's a better cultural
fit. I think the anthropic team and
Apple would clash. But I think Open AI
going into Apple, you know, could
potentially work. Although OpenAI is
much leakier than Apple, although Apple
leaks leaks everything to German these
days. You know, the only the only thing
I would just suggest or posit is is you
know, this um it'll be fascinating to
watch what Meta does with um obviously
its new super intelligence or because
because we actually already saw it with
Grock to be clear, but but Meta will be
a second round of this. If from a more
or less standing start, you know,
they're able to accomplish, let's say,
some new breakthrough state-of-the-art
model in 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
or whatnot, I think what that will prove
is basically it still remains largely a
talent and compute and data game. Uh,
which means that you don't really need
to buy an existing incumbent. You you
mostly just need to decide to to go big
on on on the compute and on the
training. Um, and and obviously have the
right talent to do that. and the day
that that like it it doesn't really
matter whether you had you know uh all
of the other prior versions to like
before that moment like like you you're
you're doing a reset no matter what. So
I I would I would just argue that like
we we get all excited about this idea of
some big mega acquisition, but right
it's not really it's not a problem that
requires that kind of scale uh except
for when you're just doing the capital
expenditure of the GPUs. You really just
need the right talent, the right
training data, and the right compute. So
I I would I would more bet not on one of
these very large multi-tens of billions
of dollar deals simply because there's
other paths to get there that are not as
complicated.
>> That's a great point. I mean it's less
about you know an individual company's
IP because everyone's effectively
sharing the IP it's about productizing
it right.
>> Well that that's exactly right. So so if
you imagine this industry within one
year every single breakthrough idea
eventually gets discovered by everybody
else. Like there's ne nobody has kept an
advantage for more than a year on some
secret idea that that that that only
they have. And so Apple's ultimate uh
Apple's ultimately advantage is is they
have a distribution model that nobody
else has and they have a form factor of
where AI could show up that nobody has.
So they don't need they don't
necessarily need to have the best model
relative to you know one or two months
being ahead of anybody else. They just
need to have like a a a good enough
model that any one of our non- tech
friends would just be like this is
fantastic. I love this thing. which is
just not again does not require that
scale of of uh of of acquisition or or
whatnot.