OpenAI to buy AI startup from Jony Ive

Valuation and deal structure

• Earlier rumors put io’s value near $500M; commenters puzzle over how it became a $6.4–6.5B deal within weeks.
• Many stress it’s an all‑equity acquisition at an internally assumed ~$300B OpenAI valuation, calling the price “monopoly money” rather than cash.
• Several liken it to past insider-friendly deals where shared investors used inflated acquisition prices to cash out or move value around.
• With ~55 staff, people calculate >$100M per engineer and call it perhaps the largest “acquihire” ever.

Self‑dealing, conflicts, and nonprofit dilution

• A recurring thread alleges this is a backdoor way to move value to insiders and weaken the OpenAI nonprofit’s control of the for‑profit arm via stock-based acquisitions.
• Some suspect indirect personal upside for leadership via overlapping funds or correlated assets, even if they hold no direct equity in io.
• Others counter that investors knowingly accept such risks, legal safeguards exist, and no one is forced to back the company.
• Comparisons are drawn to other tech leaders running multiple, interlocking companies and using one to buy another.

Jony Ive’s track record and role

• Strong divide: some see Ive as uniquely capable at mass‑market hardware/UX and consider paying ~2% dilution for his involvement reasonable; others argue his reputation is inflated and later Apple designs (thin-at-all-costs laptops, butterfly keyboard, trashcan Mac Pro, charging‑port‑under‑mouse) were harmful.
• Several emphasize that earlier successes were Ive‑plus‑Jobs, with Jobs acting as a “design editor”; skepticism that current leadership can play that role.
• Note that Ive’s own firm remains independent; the deal buys a small hardware team plus long-term design control/association, not Ive as an employee.

Strategy, AGI, and “AI bubble” narrative

• One camp sees this as smart vertical integration: using a frothy valuation to lock up top design talent, control hardware “entrypoints” for AI, and position against Apple and Google.
• Another reads it as a sign of weakness and desperation: models are commoditizing, AGI timelines are being walked back, and OpenAI is scrambling into tools, ads, and hardware to find durable revenue.
• Several argue if AGI were truly near, focus would stay on research, not devices; others reply that products and distribution (“money factories”) are essential regardless.

Mystery device and ambient computing

• No concrete product is disclosed; only hints of an “AI-first” hardware line and leadership claims about testing “the coolest technology the world will have ever seen.”
• Speculation centers on: AR/AI glasses, a pendant/clip, an AI‑centric phone, or a broader “AI OS” spanning devices.
• Many reference failures like Humane and Rabbit, and stalled AR/VR adoption, arguing that hardware form factor and privacy (always‑on cameras/mics, cloud dependence) remain unresolved.
• Some doubt any “AI device” can do much that a smartphone plus earbuds can’t, while others think truly ambient assistants could still be transformative.

Reception to the announcement itself

• The official “Sam and Jony” page, black‑on‑white typography, and close‑up portrait draw widespread ridicule: described as wedding announcement, obituary, or satire.
• The promo video is widely panned as self‑congratulatory and substance‑free—“two guys congratulating each other” rather than explaining what io actually built.