The New York Times, back in March last year (gift link):

To win the artificial intelligence race, Google not only has developed its own technologies, but has also pumped money into prominent A.I. start-ups. And to preserve its competitive edge, Google has kept its ownership stakes in those start-ups a secret.

Court documents recently obtained by The New York Times reveal Google’s stake in one of those start-ups, Anthropic, as well as how its investment in the young company is set to change. Google owns 14 percent of Anthropic, according to legal filings that the A.I. start-up submitted as part of a Google antitrust case. But that investment gives Google little control over the company. The internet giant can own only up to 15 percent of Anthropic, according to the filings, and Google holds no voting rights, no board seats and no board observer rights at the start-up.

Still, Google is set to invest an additional $750 million in Anthropic in September through a type of loan known as convertible debt, according to the filings. The companies agreed to the convertible note in 2023. In total, Google has invested more than $3 billion in the A.I. company.

Anthropic’s latest funding round — a rare Series G — valued the company at $380 billion. So let’s say Google has invested $4 billion to date, and Anthropic really is worth $380 billion. Google’s slice of that would be worth a little north of $50 billion, quite the return on investment. And competitively, there’s a heads-they-win (with Gemini), tails-they-don’t-lose (with Claude) aspect. Maybe that’s not the best metaphor, since OpenAI would make it a three-sided coin, but still.

(Via today’s subscriber-only Stratechery update, where Ben Thompson noted this in the context of Google last week reporting a 30% increase in operating profit year-over-year, but an eye-popping 81% increase in overall profit. The difference was the growth in their investments, almost certainly Anthropic in particular.)

Jeremy Provost, on the blog for Think Tap Work, his mobile app development company:

iOS App Store search is no longer about relevance. It’s about ad inventory. With Apple’s introduction of a second search ad, for any query where we weren’t #1, we’ve effectively moved down one position. [...] If you’re counting at home, roughly 70% of the interface is covered in ads. A casino ad, to boot.

That was a month ago. Two weeks later, he posted a follow-up, showing the effect on Think Tap Work’s apps in the App Store:

I wanted to share some updated numbers from our own apps. To isolate the impact, these numbers only include App Store Search impressions from iOS devices, comparing Mar 26–Apr 8 to the prior two weeks. In other words: how much visibility we’ve lost in search.

• Morpho Converter: 26% decrease
• Pop Out Timer: 23% decrease
• Attendant for Zoom: 30% decrease
• Participant: 3% increase. As previously mentioned, we advertise Participant using Search Ads. It’s not surprising that it might be getting a bump from this change.

The screenshot in his follow-up shows another casino ad, this time in a search for “Roblox”. Kinda gross.

Here’s Wikipedia on the “Zero-One-Infinity Rule”:

The zero-one-infinity (ZOI) rule is a rule of thumb in software design proposed by early computing pioneer Willem van der Poel. It argues that arbitrary limits on the number of instances of a particular type of data or structure should not be allowed. Instead, an entity should either be forbidden entirely, only one should be allowed, or any number of them should be allowed.

In Apple Notes, you can only have one main window open. In Apple Mail, however, you can open as many Viewer Windows as you want. Both are compliant with the Zero-One-Infinity rule. An app that allowed you to open multiple viewer windows — but no more than some arbitrary limit — would not be. ZOI is a very good rule of thumb.

I feel like a variation of Zero-One-Infinity is a good rule of thumb for ads, too. From the perspective of users — and probably developers — zero was the best number of ads for Apple to show in App Store search results. One was worse but acceptable. But now that they’re showing more than one, they’re on their way to infinity. They’ve started down the slippery slope. Remember when Google only showed one ad in search results?

Anyway, who’s looking forward to ads in Apple Maps this summer?

Jake Adelstein (author of Tokyo Vice) on his blog Tokyo Paladin:

For decades, Japan’s Oreos weren’t made by Nabisco at all. They were produced domestically by Yamazaki Biscuits, under a licensing arrangement with what eventually became Mondelez International. This was, by most accounts, a reasonable arrangement. The cookies were local. The quality was consistent. Nobody was complaining.

Then Mondelez did what corporations do when things are working fine. The license expired, and Mondelez moved production of the Oreos it sells in Japan to China, exporting them to Japanese wholesalers and retailers. A cost decision. A spreadsheet decision. The kind of decision made in a room with no windows and a very good projector.

Sensitive Japanese consumers noticed quickly — the taste had changed. Into that opening stepped the Noir, inheriting the flavor the old Oreo had left behind.

Yamazaki Biscuits launched Noir in December 2017 as the successor nobody had officially asked for and everybody apparently wanted.

I have a great affinity for Newman-O’s, which I’ve previously described as “the cookies Oreos pretend to be”. Turns out though I’ve mostly sung the praises of Newman-O’s on my podcast and social media, not here on Daring Fireball. I love Newman-O’s, never tire of them, and will fight any man who argues that Oreos taste better. In fact, late last night, when a friend texted me with a link to this story from Adelstein, I was by sheer happenstance eating a few Newman-O’s. True story.

But now I’m fascinated by the existence of these Japanese rivals. A spite Oreo called Noir. They look and sound delicious, but they seem difficult to obtain in the U.S.

Marcin Wichary at Unsung:

I’m angry. (Clearly.) We should all be angry in face of stuff like this. This is how people get fed up with software — because it feels unstable and deteriorates on its own without needing to.

I know I brought up that an existing power user base can be a huge pain in the ass, and I am a decades-old Photoshop power user. But this is different than other examples where the product needs or at least wants to evolve past its core audience or toward a different market. For Photoshop here, nothing I see indicates any change in course or clientele — and yet all of these good moments in UI that used to help me out no longer exist.

Plus, all those transgressions are solved problems. Those issues are not buried in pages of heavily litigated patents, or in seven collective brains of world-class interface designers whose driveways are presently occupied by cash-filled trucks sent over by frontier companies. This isn’t some long lost art that requires archaeologists to decipher. This feels like carelessness and laziness in face of basic UI engineering; in a likely internally-motivated effort to refresh the interface, the team threw an entire nursery worth of babies with the bathwater.

The before-and-after screenshots look like examples from a lecture on user interface design — if you swap them around make the new ones “before” and the old ones “after”. Better balance, better focus behavior, appropriate platform-native typography.

(Shades of Héliographe’s devastating critique of the history of the app icon for Pages: “If you put the Apple icons in reverse it looks like the portfolio of someone getting really really good at icon design.”)

Sam Sabin, writing for Axios one year ago:

Anthropic expects AI-powered virtual employees to begin roaming corporate networks in the next year, the company’s top security leader told Axios in an interview this week. [...] Virtual employees could be the next AI innovation hotbed, Jason Clinton, the company’s chief information security officer, told Axios.

Agents typically focus on a specific, programmable task. In security, that’s meant having autonomous agents respond to phishing alerts and other threat indicators. Virtual employees would take that automation a step further: These AI identities would have their own “memories,” their own roles in the company and even their own corporate accounts and passwords.

Unlike Anthropic’s ambitious prediction regarding the vertiginous rise in AI code generation, this one, I think we can say, has fallen flat on its face. This isn’t how companies are using AI — or at least they shouldn’t. But contra Axios’s year-ago headline (“Exclusive: Anthropic Warns Fully AI Employees Are a Year Away”), this wasn’t a warning. It was an advertisement — and exactly the sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge software-brain “warning” that has tanked public sentiment regarding AI. It wasn’t an indication that Anthropic actually believed there would exist “fully AI employees” today, but rather that they wanted to build enthusiasm amongst the sort of ghoulish “let them eat cake” executives who really wish that they could “hire” fully AI employees.