Apple is already making plans for its third-generation foldable iPhone, with launch expected as early as 2028, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman.
Writing in his latest "Power On" newsletter, Gurman said the first foldable iPhone is about to get what he called the device's first "truly revolutionary design change" this year, and that Apple already has a roadmap extending two generations beyond it. A second-generation model is planned for 2027, Gurman says, with a third version following as early as 2028.
The third-generation foldable will apparently feature slightly larger displays on both the inside and the outside compared to its predecessors, though he did not provide specific screen sizes. The first foldable iPhone is expected to launch with a 7.8-inch inner display and a 5.5-inch cover display, so any increase would build on those dimensions. This is the first report to lay out plans for a third-generation model, extending Apple's foldable roadmap a year beyond where it previously stood.
The first foldable iPhone is expected to arrive this year with an ultra-thin design, Touch ID instead of Face ID, the A20 chip, C2 modem, and the moniker "iPhone Ultra," at a price around or above $2,000. The second-generation foldable, meanwhile, is reported to have already received the go-ahead for development, according to the Weibo leaker known as "Digital Chat Station," who said the "iPhone Ultra 2" project has been formally approved and will likely reuse the first-generation model's display. That model is expected to launch in fall 2027 alongside the 20th-anniversary iPhone.
Apple is re-evaluating the Apple Watch lineup and considering a host of radical new designs, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman.
In today's edition of his "Power On" newsletter, Gurman compared plans for the Apple Watch's evolution to the "revolutionary design change" that the foldable iPhone represents. It will be "something that transforms the product for a new era." Apple's industrial design team has reportedly been "exploring a broader rethink of its smartwatches" for some time, with several directions under evaluation.
The company is apparently taking the resurgence of fitness bands without screens and smart rings seriously. As a result, the company is considering new Apple Watch-style devices with no display, as well as new Apple Watches with different types of screen and various new sizes.
Apple has also contemplated giving the Apple Watch a round display, but Gurman cautioned that such a device is unlikely to be released. The company has also considered introducing new premium variants designed to sit above the Ultra and Hermès models, alongside even more affordable options in addition to the Apple Watch SE.
The company has not yet settled on a direction for the product line, but it is said to be "determined to reinvent the lineup in response to growing competition." It also plans to make its wearables more AI-focused, with ambitious long-term plans to revamp the Health app.
Gurman believes that the Apple Watch revamp "could be as significant as the iPhone's transformation from a slab design into a foldable device." Apple purportedly hopes to reinvigorate its Wearables, Home and Accessories segment, which has struggled to generate growth over recent years.
The people most likely to describe themselves as lonely in midlife surveys are often the ones with the fullest calendars. They have adult children who call on birthdays, colleagues who invite them to dinners, a spouse who has slept beside them for twenty-five years, and a phone that lights up all day with requests. And still, when the house goes quiet, something feels missing in a way that partnership and parenthood were supposed to have solved.
The loneliness of the useful person is a specific kind. It doesn’t announce itself as absence. It shows up as a low, background hum of not-quite-being-met, even in rooms full of people who love you.
The version of you that gets invited
By the time most people reach their fifties, they have accumulated decades of evidence about which parts of themselves the world rewards. The competent one. The calm one. The fixer. The listener who never quite becomes the one being listened to. The parent who solves logistics for three generations at once. Each role, taken alone, is fine. Stacked over thirty years, they harden into something else: a public self so well-practised that the private self starts to feel like a stranger even to its owner.
Loneliness is not simply about being alone; it is the perceived gap between the connection you want and the connection you have. It is about being unknown while surrounded.
The person in their fifties who is celebrated as reliable, capable, or endlessly generous is often the person whose inner weather nobody has asked about in years. Their usefulness is what gets invited into rooms. Their interior does not.
How instrumental relationships quietly replace intimate ones
Relationships fall on a rough spectrum. On one end are instrumental relationships, built around what a person does or provides. On the other are expressive relationships, where the point of the relationship is the person themselves. Most social lives contain both. The trouble starts when the ratio tips, slowly, over decades, until nearly every relationship a person has is instrumental in some way.
A woman in her fifties may have twelve people who call her regularly. Her mother needs help with medical appointments. Her adult son needs a co-signer. Her boss needs the report by Friday. Her husband needs her to remember his sister’s birthday. Her friend needs to vent about her divorce. None of these people are villains. Each of them loves her, in the way people love a reliable source. But not one of them, on any given Tuesday, is calling to ask how she actually is and then waiting for the real answer.
The pattern is not new, but its recognition is recent. In caregiving populations, a specific phenomenon has emerged: social alienation, distinct from loneliness, in which a person’s role so completely defines their contact with others that the person underneath the role disappears from view. A 2025 study of caregivers of stroke patients in China found that caregivers experience high levels of social alienation, with living arrangements, caregiving burden, and loneliness all significantly predicting the depth of that alienation. The caregivers weren’t isolated in the ordinary sense. They were embedded in family. They were simply no longer being met as themselves.
Why the fifties are the decade this bill comes due
Several life stages converge in the fifties in ways that intensify the useful-person trap. Parents are aging and often need active help. Adult children are launching, or failing to launch, and either state generates demands. Careers reach the phase where seniority means being the person others come to. Marriages, if they have lasted this long, have often settled into a division of labour where each partner handles a fixed set of tasks and stops asking the other about anything outside that division.
The result is a person whose days are structured almost entirely around what other people need from them. There is nothing wrong with any single demand. There is something quietly corrosive about the cumulative one.
Grandparent caregiving offers a useful case. A scoping review of grandchild caregiving and depression found mixed effects, with the relationship between caring for grandchildren and mood depending heavily on whether the grandparent felt they had chosen the role or been assigned it, and on how much of their identity remained outside it. The finding that matters here is simple: the same activity can be nourishing or depleting depending on whether the person doing it feels seen inside it.
The tell, the childhood pattern, and what being met actually requires
There is a small experiment worth trying, though it is not really an experiment. Ask a person in their fifties, in a moment of genuine attention, what they have been thinking about lately. Not what they have been doing. What they have been thinking about.
The pause tends to be long. Often the first answer is a logistical update, because logistics is the language most of their relationships operate in. If you wait past the logistics, something else usually surfaces: an old regret they have not spoken aloud in a decade, a fear about a parent, a question about whether the second half of life is going to feel any different from the first. The material is right there, close to the surface. It has simply not been invited out in a long time.
In a recent piece on the lie of omission, Space Daily explored how people can spend years telling only the safe true things about themselves, until friendships of a decade contain nothing that would let either person recognise the other in a crisis. The useful person’s loneliness is often built out of exactly this material. Every conversation was pleasant. Every conversation was true. None of them touched the parts that most needed touching.
Not every fifty-something who ends up in this position started in the same place, but a striking number of them describe a common childhood: they were the calm one, the one who did not add to their parents’ load, the one whose emotional needs got quietly filed under “can wait.” They learned early that being low-maintenance was rewarded and being needy was expensive.
Building on attachment theory, the babies in Mary Ainsworth’s Strange Situation study who looked most composed when left alone were the ones whose heart rates were racing the entire time. Their calm was a strategy, not a state. John Bowlby, who built attachment theory in the 1950s, argued that the undemanding child is often the one who learned that asking for less kept the peace. Those children grow up to become spouses who rarely voice needs, managers who remain calm under pressure, and parents who carry burdens silently.
Emotional intimacy, in the clinical literature, is not the same as time spent together or affection expressed. It is the specific experience of being known and having that knowledge received without correction. Research on emotional intimacy suggests it requires three ingredients most useful people have quietly starved themselves of: undistracted time, a willingness to redefine intimacy on the participants’ own terms, and treating vulnerability as strength rather than as a tax on the relationship.
The trouble for the fifty-something who has been useful for decades is that vulnerability has been coded, in their nervous system, as burden. Sharing an actual worry feels like adding to someone else’s plate. Answering “how are you” with anything other than “good, you?” feels like an imposition. The muscle for being known has atrophied from disuse, and rebuilding it feels awkward, embarrassing, sometimes physically uncomfortable.
Why AI companions are not the answer, and the modest fix
The commercial response to midlife loneliness has been swift and lucrative. Chatbot companions are now used by hundreds of millions of people globally. The appeal, especially for the useful person, is obvious. A chatbot never needs anything back. It listens without waiting for its turn. It never has a bad week that overrides yours.
But Stanford researchers who analysed conversations from more than 1,000 users of Character.AI found the opposite of relief. People with smaller in-person social networks who used chatbots intensely reported worse well-being, not better, and those who shared the most sensitive personal information with the bots scored lowest of all. Researchers found that using chatbots to fulfill social needs does not substitute for human connection, according to the study. The researchers noted that AI companions are designed primarily to keep users engaged rather than to meet genuine social needs.
The researchers described what the bots offer as brief, unsatisfying interactions—like junk food for the social appetite. Filling in the moment, hollow by the next morning. For a person who has spent decades being the one everyone else confides in, a chatbot that finally listens can feel like a discovery. It is not one. It is a mirror that has been polished to reflect back whatever the user brings, which is the exact opposite of being met by a different mind.
There is a well-known finding in social psychology that two strangers can generate deep mutual closeness in under an hour by working through a specific series of escalating questions. Arthur Aron’s 1997 study on the 36 questions found that the pairs who completed the full protocol reported feeling closer to each other than many people feel to their oldest friends. The mechanism was not chemistry. It was structured, mutual, escalating disclosure.
The finding is often cited as a hopeful one, and it is. But it also contains a quiet indictment. If two strangers with a list of questions can generate more felt closeness in ninety minutes than a fifty-something feels with the people they have shared a house or an office with for twenty years, the problem is not a lack of available connection. The problem is that most long-standing relationships never renegotiate their scripts after the scripts get set. Whatever role a person was assigned at the beginning is the role they are still playing, three decades in.
The interventions that actually change this pattern are almost insultingly modest. They involve saying, out loud, to one person, one true thing that would not normally get said. They involve answering “how are you” with an actual sentence about an actual state, not once as a stunt, but as a slow policy change. They involve letting a friend see the version of you that is tired, unsure, or angry at someone you’re supposed to love.
They involve, most uncomfortably, tolerating the pause when the other person doesn’t know what to do with the real answer. Because they won’t, at first. They have been in a relationship with the useful version of you for years, and the useful version is who they came to see.
Some of those relationships will adjust. The person on the other end will lean in, relieved that the pretence is finally dropping. Others won’t. They will keep asking the useful version to show up, and the choice about how much of your time to give those relationships is a choice you get to make, possibly for the first time.
A recent Human Element piece on people who downsize their lives in their sixties looked at exactly this reallocation, the way people begin, later than they wish they had, to notice which parts of their life were costing them without earning their keep. The relationships that only wanted the useful version fall into that category more often than people expect.
Who this loneliness looks like from the outside
The person in their fifties who fits this description is often the last person a casual observer would identify as lonely. They have a partner. They have children who love them. They have a job that respects them and a phone that never stops. They are, by every visible metric, connected.
They are also, in the quiet hour after everyone else has gone to bed, aware of a specific ache that partnership and parenthood were supposed to have eliminated. The ache is not for more people. It is for the experience of being asked a real question by someone willing to hear a real answer, and for the strange, slightly frightening recognition that the version of themselves that would give that answer has not been out of the house in a long time.
Loneliness in midlife is not always a problem of scarcity. Sometimes it is a problem of composition. A life full of people who only know the useful version of you is a life in which the rest of you is still waiting to be met, and the waiting gets heavier the longer it goes on. The relief, when it comes, tends to arrive through the smallest door: one honest answer, given to one person, on one ordinary afternoon.
The Jung line about self-acceptance being the most terrifying task circulates so often on social media that it has almost lost its edge, and yet the moment you sit with it honestly, really sit with it, past the coffee-mug aesthetic, you notice something uncomfortable. The sentence is not asking you to love yourself. It is asking you to stop editing.
That distinction matters. Loving yourself is a project. Accepting yourself is a surrender.
One flatters the ego. The other dismantles it.
What Jung actually seems to have meant
The line, in the version that circulates most widely, reads: the most terrifying thing is to accept oneself completely. It moves through quote collections and social feeds largely without a citation attached, which is part of why it travels so easily.
Jung is also the psychiatrist people reach for when something has broken. In July 2025, days after news of his separation from Katy Perry, Orlando Bloom posted a screenshot of an article about Jung to his Instagram Stories, highlighting the line about loneliness coming not from having nobody around you but from being unable to say the things that seem important to you.
Bloom is not unusual in reaching for Jung during a period of upheaval. People tend to find the Swiss psychiatrist when the usual self-improvement scripts stop working.
The reason is structural. Most advice tells you to become better. Jung suggested you first stop pretending you are not who you already are.
Why acceptance feels worse than change
Change gives the mind something to do. There is a plan, a target weight, a new job, a version of yourself twelve months out who will finally be acceptable to you.
Acceptance offers none of that. It asks you to look at the envy, the small cruelties, the parts of yourself you have hidden even from your closest friends, and to say: yes, that is also me.
Alli Spotts-De Lazzer, a licensed therapist writing in Psychology Today, has argued that self-acceptance may matter more than high self-esteem for living a contented life. Her point is about the scoring system. Self-esteem depends on evidence: grades, promotions, praise. Self-acceptance does not require the evidence to be flattering.
That is why it is harder. There is no scorecard.
The parts we refuse to claim
Jung’s term for the disowned material was the shadow. He meant the qualities a person cannot bear to see in themselves and therefore projects outward, onto a spouse, a colleague, a political opponent, a stranger on the internet.
You can spot your own shadow by noticing what enrages you disproportionately in other people. The trait you find unforgivable in a coworker is often the trait you have most carefully denied in yourself.
This is why acceptance terrifies. To accept yourself completely means retrieving those projections. It means admitting that the person you have been criticising is, in some measurable way, a mirror.
Loneliness and the unspoken self
Jung linked the refusal of self-acceptance to a specific kind of loneliness. Not the loneliness of empty rooms, but the loneliness of unsaid things, the idea that isolation grows sharpest when you cannot say what actually matters to you.
A person who has not accepted themselves cannot communicate themselves. They can only communicate the acceptable version.
Everyone in their life is talking to a spokesperson.
Over time, this produces a strange grief: being surrounded by people who love a curated character, while the actual self stands quietly behind the curtain, unwitnessed.
The research that backs Jung’s instinct
Contemporary psychology has been slowly circling what Jung intuited a century ago. A 2025 study in Frontiers in Psychology, led by Yuting Li and colleagues at Shanxi Medical University, followed university students across two measurement points six months apart and found that self-esteem fully mediated the relationship between self-acceptance and prosocial behaviour. Self-acceptance did not push people toward kindness directly. It did so by changing how they held themselves, and that shift carried the entire effect.
The sample was narrow, medical students at a single Chinese university, with a heavy gender imbalance the authors flag themselves. It is a suggestive finding rather than a settled law. But the direction is the interesting part.
The mechanism makes sense. If you are not spending psychic energy hiding from your own contradictions, you have more energy available for someone else’s.
The reverse also holds. People who cannot bear their own flaws may struggle to tolerate the flaws of others. Judgment turns outward when it cannot be metabolised inward.
This is the quiet cost of refusing Jung’s task. Not misery, exactly. Just a permanent low-grade grievance with the world.
Why growth requires acceptance first
There is a common misreading of Jung that treats acceptance as resignation, as giving up on becoming better. The research points the other way. Susan Krauss Whitbourne, professor emerita of psychological and brain sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has argued that the path toward self-growth is paved with self-acceptance rather than blocked by it. Reviewing a set of University of Zurich intervention studies that pitted self-improvement against self-acceptance, she notes that both produced similar gains in wellbeing, and that trying and failing to change can generate its own trouble, what those authors call false hope syndrome.
The reason is practical. You cannot change something you refuse to look at.
Denial keeps a trait frozen in place. Acceptance thaws it enough to work with.
People who try to become better without first accepting who they are tend to build a shinier surface over the same underlying pattern. The behaviour changes. The compulsion driving it does not.
The mechanism of the fear
Why is this so terrifying? Because complete acceptance dissolves the story you have been running about who you are.
Most identities are constructed by exclusion. You know who you are partly by knowing what you are not. The moment you accept that the excluded traits are also yours, the identity loses its clean edges.
That is disorienting in a specific way. It is not despair. It is closer to vertigo.
Jung believed this vertigo was the entry point to genuine individuation, the process of becoming an actual person rather than a bundle of inherited roles.
The face you have not met
There is a small experiment that gets at Jung’s point without any theory. Look at an unreversed photograph of yourself, not a mirror image, but the version everyone else sees. Most people find it slightly wrong, slightly stranger than expected.
The person the world knows is not quite the person you have been looking at.
Acceptance works similarly. The self you have been curating is a reversed image. The self other people encounter, and the self that lives underneath, is closer to the real thing.
Meeting it feels like meeting a stranger.
What acceptance is not
It is worth being precise. Accepting yourself completely does not mean approving of everything you do. It does not mean abandoning ethics or discipline.
It means refusing to lie about what is there.
A person who accepts that they have a temper can work on the temper. A person who insists they do not have one will keep being surprised by their own outbursts.
Acceptance is honesty about what is actually present. Nothing more, nothing less.
The everyday texture of the task
Most people do not confront Jung’s terrifying task in a single dramatic session. It arrives in small increments: a midlife morning when the ambition you have been performing suddenly feels borrowed, a conversation with an adult child where you notice you have been playing a role for twenty years, a health scare that reorders what you say you care about.
The pattern is similar. A person stops pretending certain things matter to them, and the external life reorganises around the admission.
That is Jung’s task in domestic form. Not a breakdown. A quiet subtraction of what was never really yours.
Why it stays terrifying
Even people who have done years of work on themselves report that acceptance keeps arriving in new layers. There is always another disowned piece.
The envy you thought you had processed returns in a new form. The old grievance you believed you had released surfaces during a family dinner. The version of yourself you thought you had left behind reappears under stress.
Jung was not describing a one-time event. He was describing a lifelong posture.
The terror is not that acceptance is difficult once. It is that it is difficult continually, and that most people, at some point, decide they would rather manage the surface than face what is underneath it.
The quiet reward
People who do keep at it tend to describe a specific change, and it is not happiness in the ordinary sense. Acceptance is not a mood. It is a lowered resistance.
The people who have done this work are not conspicuously cheerful. They are just harder to destabilise.
Criticism does not shatter them, because they already know what is true about themselves. Flattery does not inflate them, for the same reason.
They have become, in Jung’s sense, actual. And the terrifying thing turns out to have been the doorway, not the destination.
Where to start, if you want to
There is no clean method. But there is a first question that tends to open the door: what do you find most unforgivable in other people?
Sit with the answer for a week. Do not defend yourself against it. Do not rush to conclude anything.
Notice, quietly, where that quality also lives in you.
That is the beginning of the task Jung called the most terrifying. Not because the material is horrifying, since most of it is ordinary human stuff. But because meeting it, without flinching, changes who you take yourself to be.
Which is, in the end, the only thing worth changing.
Northrop Grumman and the Canadian Space Agency will adapt what they had been working on for NASA’s lunar Gateway into applications for a planned lunar base, albeit with few specifics.
Pages of released UAP files do not settle the question of what is in the sky. They do show what government agencies were told, what their files retained and where the evidence breaks off. That is the value of the fifth tranche of records released on 7 August through the U.S. government’s UAP portal. Three […]
Neanderthals vanished roughly 42,000 years ago, but a piece of their biology appears to be quietly at work in some people today, according to a new study led by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
A team of researchers from the University of Sydney and the University of Glasgow argues that dietary sugars, not animal foods, may have played the decisive role in the expansion of the human brain over the past 4 million years, as hominin brain size grew nearly fivefold, from about 300 grams in early relatives like […]
Moving a free-roaming cat indoors for good is a decision many owners approach with dread: guilt over confining a former outdoor explorer, worry about litter boxes and scratched furniture, and doubts about whether the cat will ever adjust.
In a perspective paper published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a team of researchers and health experts calls for a ‘paradigm shift’ in how public health agencies address hypertension.
New research led by the University of California, Berkeley reveals that beyond Neanderthals and Denisovans, humans interbred with two mysterious ‘ghost’ lineages: one in Africa more than 50,000 years ago, another in Eurasia over 1.7 million years ago.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, a Dutch army recruit stood on average around five feet five inches. That was short even for the time, shorter than many of his European and American contemporaries, and nobody looking at the Netherlands then would have picked it as the future home of some of the tallest people on Earth. Yet that is exactly what happened. Young Dutch men born in the Netherlands now measure nearly 1.84 metres on average, almost exactly six feet, and the country consistently ranks among the world’s tallest. In the space of about 150 years, one of the shortest populations became one of the tallest.
Twenty centimetres in a century and a half
The scale of the change is easy to say and hard to feel. Dutch men gained roughly 20 centimetres, close to eight inches, between the mid-nineteenth century and the modern era. That is not the kind of drift you expect from a stable population. It is a population visibly rebuilding itself, generation by generation, each cohort of children arriving taller than their parents for decade after decade until the whole nation had grown into a different shape.
Height works this way because it is only partly written in your genes. Your genes strongly influence the range of height you might reach. Where you fall within that range depends heavily on the years between birth and adulthood: whether you got enough good food, whether illness kept interrupting your growth, and whether the conditions around you let a body spend energy on getting tall rather than just getting through. A child who is well fed and rarely sick is more likely to grow toward the top of that range. A child who is not, may not. Multiply that across millions of children and stature becomes a kind of national report card.
Milk, money and doctors, not evolution
So what changed in the Netherlands? The answer is less dramatic than the transformation, and I think that is part of what makes it interesting.
The country got richer, and it got healthier. As researchers behind a Dutch Growth Study concluded, “Main contributors to the increase in height may be improved nutrition, child health, and hygiene, and a reduction of family size.” Prosperity, diet, healthcare and hygiene pulled in the same direction for generations, and the population climbed.
There was, for a while, a more exciting theory. In 2015 a study in a Royal Society journal suggested the Dutch might also be evolving taller, because taller Dutch men appeared to be having slightly more children, which could nudge the genes associated with height upward over time. It is a genuinely appealing idea, natural selection caught in the act in a modern European country. But it is worth being careful here, because the same lead researcher later put numbers on it. A 2023 simulation estimated that natural selection could account for only 0.07 to 0.36 centimetres of the change between 1850 and 2000. Against a gain of nearly 20 centimetres, that is a rounding error. The dramatic explanation turns out to be a footnote, and the dull one, better food and better health, did nearly all the work.
What a body remembers
I keep coming back to the idea that a population’s height is a physical record of its recent past. You cannot easily fake it or rush it, and it does not respond to a single good year. It responds to conditions sustained across a childhood, and then across many childhoods in a row.
When a country gets taller the way the Netherlands did, the bodies of its people are, in a real sense, remembering decades of enough food and decent medicine. The change is written into skeletons before it shows up in any history book.
It cuts the other way too. When researchers see average height stall or fall in a population, it can point to something going wrong in childhood: nutrition slipping, healthcare thinning out, or hard years landing on the young.
The Dutch story is often told as a curiosity, a fun fact about a nation of unusually tall people ducking under doorframes. I think it is better read as evidence of something quietly hopeful. Give children enough to eat and keep them healthy, reliably, for long enough, and you can watch the result stand up in a crowd a century later. The Netherlands did not stumble into being tall. It fed and cared for a very long line of children, and the height is what that looks like from the outside.
OpenAI family of devices plans are no longer limited to an experimental gadget hidden inside a design studio. OpenAI President Greg Brockman has confirmed that the company’s first consumer device will begin a broader series intended to reconsider how people interact with artificial intelligence.
The confirmation gives OpenAI’s hardware strategy a clearer shape without revealing the first product itself. Brockman said the company is not ready to discuss the device in detail, but described it as the first in a series that will rethink what devices should be when AI can understand language, observe context and complete tasks.
That ambition extends well beyond placing the ChatGPT app on another piece of hardware. OpenAI wants to reduce the menus, buttons, model selectors and separate applications that currently stand between a person and an AI assistant.
For Apple, Google and other established platform owners, the implication is significant. ChatGPT currently reaches consumers through devices and operating systems controlled by other companies. An OpenAI-designed product would give the company direct control over the microphones, cameras, sensors, interface and account experience through which its models interact with people. 56000
OpenAI Family of Devices Begins With io
OpenAI’s move into consumer hardware accelerated in 2025 when it acquired io Products in a transaction valued at approximately $6.5 billion.
The startup had been founded by former Apple design chief Jony Ive alongside Scott Cannon, Evans Hankey and Tang Tan. Its team included hardware engineers, designers, manufacturing specialists and product developers, many of whom had spent years working together at Apple.
OpenAI and Ive had already been collaborating before the acquisition. Their early ideas developed into physical designs, convincing the partners that they needed a dedicated company capable of engineering and manufacturing complete products rather than another software prototype.
The io team officially merged with OpenAI in July 2025. Ive and his design collective LoveFrom remained independent while assuming extensive design and creative responsibilities across OpenAI.
The structure combines OpenAI’s models and software research with a group experienced in turning new interface concepts into mass-produced consumer products. Ive’s previous work helped shape the iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch and other devices that established Apple’s modern design identity.
OpenAI has continued recruiting hardware expertise from Apple. Paul Meade, who led hardware development for Apple Vision Pro and worked on the company’s smart-glasses efforts, reportedly joined OpenAI’s hardware organization in 2026.
OpenAI also placed product-development veteran Peter Welinder in a leadership role connected to the io division. The resulting organization is not structured like a small accessory project. It is being assembled to develop products, create manufacturing relationships and support more than one form factor.
Image Credit: Google
The First Device Remains Unannounced
OpenAI has not publicly confirmed the name, appearance, price or specifications of its first device. It has also not presented the product as a smartphone, pair of glasses, wearable pin or conventional smart speaker.
Recent reporting describes a portable, screen-free device designed primarily for use inside the home. The reported product resembles a compact speaker but includes a rechargeable battery, allowing it to move between rooms rather than remain attached to one location.
A camera and additional sensors would help the device understand its surroundings. Mechanical elements could allow parts of it to move, creating a more expressive physical presence than a stationary speaker waiting for a wake word.
The reported design would rely heavily on OpenAI’s latest voice technology. Instead of requiring a person to wait for the assistant to finish speaking, the system could listen and respond more naturally during overlapping conversation. Access to personal information, including messages or email when authorized, could give it enough context to handle requests rather than merely answer questions.
These details remain reported plans rather than announced specifications. OpenAI could change the hardware, features or release schedule before introducing the product.
The company is reportedly targeting a presentation during 2026 and a commercial release in 2027. Fortune separately reported that the initial design has been finalized, although development of the larger product family continues.
Why OpenAI Wants Hardware of Its Own
ChatGPT already operates across iPhone, iPad, Mac, Android and Windows devices. That wide distribution gives OpenAI access to an enormous audience without requiring it to manufacture screens, batteries or processors.
It also leaves crucial parts of the experience under the control of Apple, Google and Microsoft.
An operating system determines when ChatGPT can use a microphone, whether it can run continuously, how notifications appear and which applications it can control. Platform owners can limit background access, change default-assistant rules or promote their own AI systems more prominently.
Those restrictions matter more as ChatGPT develops from a chatbot into an agent. Answering a question inside an app requires relatively little control over the device. Completing a task across messages, calendars, files, cameras and connected appliances requires deeper access.
OpenAI hardware could be designed around those capabilities from the beginning. The assistant would not need to behave like one application among dozens because it could become the primary interface.
Brockman has described the current ChatGPT interface as too complicated, particularly as new models and tools add more controls. OpenAI’s objective is to make much of that interface disappear.
A successful device could allow someone to describe an outcome instead of opening several applications and completing each step manually. The user might ask the assistant to reorganize a day after a delayed flight, contact the relevant people and adjust reservations. The interface would be the request and the resulting confirmation rather than a sequence of taps.
A Family Creates More Context Than One Gadget
Calling the project a family of devices changes the strategy. One experimental product would need to prove its value independently. A coordinated group could distribute different sensors and functions across the places where people already live and work.
A home device could provide shared access in kitchens and living spaces. A personal wearable could preserve private conversations while moving outside. A future mobile product could handle visual information, navigation and communication without reproducing the application grid of a smartphone.
OpenAI is reportedly developing approximately five hardware concepts, with the screen-free home companion receiving priority. The company has also explored wearables and home robotics, although none of those later products has been announced.
The devices would become more useful if they shared the same ChatGPT identity, memory controls and task history. A request started at home could continue through another product without requiring the user to repeat the people involved, the desired result or the decisions already made.
That continuity is one of the strongest advantages Apple currently receives from controlling a complete ecosystem. An iPhone, Mac, Apple Watch, AirPods and HomePod can exchange information because Apple designs the devices, operating systems and cloud services together.
OpenAI appears to be pursuing a different center of gravity. Instead of making the operating system coordinate applications, it could make the AI assistant coordinate specialized devices.
Image Credit: Dado Ruvic/Reuters
ChatGPT Will Also Expand Through Other Companies’ Hardware
OpenAI’s hardware work does not mean the company intends to reserve ChatGPT for its own products.
Brockman has said OpenAI is interested in deeper integrations with smart glasses, wearables and other devices through its application programming interfaces. The company wants ChatGPT to become an interface available across hardware categories, including products manufactured by third parties.
That creates a two-track strategy. OpenAI can use its own devices to demonstrate the experience it considers ideal while allowing other manufacturers to connect their cameras, microphones and sensors to ChatGPT.
Third-party distribution would help OpenAI reach consumers who do not want another dedicated device. It would also reduce the risk of depending entirely on the success of one hardware launch.
The difficult part will be keeping those experiences consistent. A wearable may have limited battery capacity, a camera may require visible privacy controls, and a speaker may depend on cloud processing when a connection is available. OpenAI will need to define what its assistant can do reliably across products with very different technical limits.
Early AI Hardware Changed the Expectations
The first generation of dedicated AI gadgets established a warning for every company entering this market.
Humane’s AI Pin and the Rabbit R1 attracted attention by promising an alternative to application-based computing. Their launches also exposed problems involving response delays, battery life, incomplete features and tasks that remained easier on a smartphone.
Those products demonstrated that access to a language model does not automatically justify a new object. Consumers need to understand why they should carry, charge and maintain another device when ChatGPT, Gemini and other assistants already operate on phones.
OpenAI has several advantages those earlier companies lacked. It controls one of the most widely used AI services, operates the models behind the interface and has the resources to improve the software after launch. The io acquisition gives it experienced design and manufacturing leadership rather than requiring it to assemble a hardware organization gradually.
The standard will consequently be higher. A well-designed enclosure and natural voice will not be enough if the device cannot complete dependable tasks more efficiently than an iPhone or Android phone.
Apple’s Lawsuit Could Affect the Schedule
OpenAI’s expansion beyond Apple devices has also produced a direct legal confrontation with Apple.
Apple filed a federal lawsuit in July 2026 accusing OpenAI, io and former Apple employees of misappropriating confidential hardware information. The complaint alleges that trade secrets connected to unreleased products, engineering processes and suppliers were taken for the benefit of OpenAI’s hardware business.
OpenAI has denied having any interest in Apple’s trade secrets and said it was unaware of evidence giving the complaint merit. The allegations have not been decided by a court.
Apple is seeking restrictions on the use of its confidential information, along with the return of materials and financial damages. The case could require OpenAI to separate employees from parts of the project, replace suppliers or repeat engineering work if disputed information is found inside the development process.
It does not automatically establish that OpenAI’s reported product copies an Apple device. The first OpenAI design is described as substantially different from Apple’s current hardware, but the legal dispute could still affect when it can be manufactured or sold.
The First Product Will Define the Rules for the Rest
The most important details at OpenAI’s eventual hardware presentation may have little to do with the object’s shape.
A camera-equipped device that learns from activity inside a home will need unmistakable recording indicators, understandable data-retention controls and a simple method for temporarily disabling its sensors. Owners will need to know which information remains on the device, what reaches OpenAI’s servers and which memories can be reviewed or deleted.
OpenAI will also have to explain whether the product requires a paid ChatGPT subscription, how much it can do without an internet connection and whether multiple members of a household receive separate identities. Those choices will determine whether it behaves like a personal assistant, a shared appliance or a new subscription terminal.
Support for messages, calendars, music and connected appliances will require cooperation from outside companies. A device cannot replace frequent phone interactions if it remains unable to enter the services where those interactions occur.
The first model will therefore establish more than OpenAI’s industrial-design language. It will set the privacy, account, subscription and developer rules that every later member of the OpenAI family of devices inherits.
Like any company, Reddit reports quarterly earnings, and its CEO, Steve Huffman, addresses investors during those reports. It's not always about just sharing numbers, though: This quarter, Huffman took the opportunity to voice concerns and criticisms about Google's AI Overviews feature, which automatically summarizes search results on most user queries.
First, there was a letter to investors, wherein Huffman spun his narrative about Reddit's value proposition and general strategic direction amid the proliferation of AI tools.
After years of pushing full speed ahead on AI, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says maybe it’s time for the AI industry to “pace” itself. The comments came just days after one of OpenAI’s own models broke out of its test environment and got tangled up in a breach at Hugging Face — though as Equity’s hosts point out, sloppy security seems to have […]
A fossilized skull fragment of Homo sp. unearthed in central Spain offers paleoanthropologists a fresh window into the story of ancient humans who lived in Europe hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Login
