Apple is getting this wrong
OpenAI’s unusually informal blog post pushing back on Apple’s trade‑secrets lawsuit is drawing criticism for its tone and timing, with many seeing it as an ill‑advised attempt to sway public opinion rather than argue the case in court. Commenters debate whether the “receipts” OpenAI published meaningfully counter Apple’s claims, while highlighting embarrassing details about Apple’s internal security practices, such as reliance on employees’ personal iCloud accounts. Overall, both companies are seen as risking reputational damage, with some expecting the case to settle quietly to avoid painful discovery into each side’s operations.
Overall reaction to OpenAI’s blog post
- Many commenters find the post bizarrely informal and emotionally charged for an active lawsuit, likening it to a teenager’s diary or a “callout” post.
- Several think any competent legal team would advise against publishing this during litigation and expect judges to dislike “trial by press.”
- A minority appreciates the direct, non–PR-sanitized tone, but even they note it’s risky and poorly timed.
- Others note this is consistent with OpenAI’s past public responses to lawsuits (e.g., prior posts about other litigants).
Legal posture and trade-secret issues
- Multiple readers say the post addresses only a small subset of Apple’s allegations and sidesteps core claims about trade-secret theft, making OpenAI look weak or defensive.
- Some expect OpenAI to settle and sacrifice implicated employees; comparisons are drawn to Waymo vs. Uber.
- One line of commentary: Apple’s real goal may be to deter employee departures by signaling it will aggressively pursue ex-staff and their new employers.
- Another line: OpenAI might be more worried about discovery exposing its own internal IP and training data than about Apple’s specific hardware claims.
Apple’s internal security and iCloud practices
- A large sub-thread criticizes Apple’s apparent practice of encouraging employees to use personal Apple IDs and iCloud for work, with upgraded storage.
- Commenters argue this weakens Apple’s trade-secret stance; U.S. law requires “reasonable efforts” to protect trade secrets.
- People report widely varying experiences: some companies ban personal accounts and lock down USB; others rely heavily on personal Apple IDs and BYOD.
- Many see Apple’s lack of clean separation between work and personal profiles on iOS/macOS as incoherent for a secrecy-focused company.
Communication, “Asian last names,” and professionalism
- The blog’s emphasis that Apple’s outside counsel confused “two Asian last names” draws strong criticism; many view it as an unnecessary attempt to imply racism.
- Some argue it’s relevant context because of common surnames and name collisions; others say simply noting a name confusion would have sufficed.
- The inclusion of reconstructed iMessage transcripts and email snippets is widely seen as petty and “messy,” undermining OpenAI’s professionalism.
Broader sentiments about Apple vs. OpenAI
- Many commenters distrust OpenAI due to past behavior (nonprofit-to-profit pivot, data practices, prior disputes) and view this as more bad-faith PR.
- Apple is also criticized as ruthless, sloppy in internal controls, and inconsistent with its public “privacy/security” branding.
- A common refrain: people are “cheering for the fight,” treating it as Goliath vs. Goliath entertainment rather than taking sides.