Can ChatGPT dethrone Gemini? Is Tim Cook capable of leading Apple into the next wave of AI? As 2025 winds down, journalist and podcast host Kara Swisher cuts through the noise and decodes what’s really happening across OpenAI, Meta, Google, and more. Then, Swisher sizes up the state of Disney, Netflix, and the escalating bidding war for Warner Bros. Discovery.
This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by former Fast Company editor-in-chief Robert Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today’s top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode.
One of the twists in the AI wars has been Google sort of bouncing back, this surge by Gemini versus OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Sam Altman calling this code red. You’ve said before that it’s hard to know who a winner will be.
Interestingly, on Pivot, we thought Google was going to do this because they had all the pieces. If they didn’t, what a bunch of idiots, that kind of thing.
They were ahead. They just didn’t take the bet because they were afraid of it.
Yeah, of course. Well, Sundar [Pichai] is a much more risk—he’s more risk-averse. I think Sergey Brin has re-arrived there. I think you can feel his influence. He’s one of the founders. So I think that they had all the elements in place to do it and just had to make the . . . it’s very hard to jump from one thing to the next and do it.
The one company that does do it is Netflix. It’s like, “Now we’re this. We’re not doing advertising. Now we are. We’re mailing DVDs. Now we’re not.” I love these guys. Every time they’re, like, “Eh, today we’re not buying anything,” which was a head fake. “Oh, we’re going to buy the studio.” I love it. It’s like, great.
So Google just took advantage of its obvious assets, and the fact that it wasn’t ahead was the story. Not that it should be by every . . . they’ve got the technology, they’ve got the people, they’ve got the data, they’ve got the right businesses. They’re the most set up for this era. Now, look, ChatGPT has gotten really far.
OpenAI has gotten very far, but ultimately, what I kept asking myself, is it “Netscape” or is it “Google”? Is OpenAI “Netscape” or “Google”? It’s feeling a little Netscapey these days. Even though they’re way ahead, a lot of times in technology the plains are covered with the bodies of pioneers. There’s all kinds of that. You know that from being around. There are so many companies that were there and then weren’t, but were important.
Jony Ive, the iconic Apple designer working with Altman and OpenAI on some new device or interface or form factor or whatever. Big deal, differentiator.
I don’t care. I think these devices are stupid. I think the way I see it pulling out, it’s just going to be around you. It makes such a big deal about these devices you wear. I think probably what I would see more interesting—this is sort of an opportunity for Apple—is your AirPods, which you wear now comfortably. Even though at the time, if you remember when it rolled out, everyone said how ugly they were.
I think if you put a camera in those and they could see as you go through the world—the glasses format is probably the way it’s going to go. But does it have to be glasses on your face? Because not everybody wants to wear those. But if there was something in your ear that could see as you move through the world—who’s the company who is most able to do that? There are two of them: Google and Apple, right? Because people are very comfortable in the Apple environment. So to me, they have a lot of opportunity in this area.
Apple is having a lot of trouble getting its AI action together. Although does it not need to because you carry it through . . .
I don’t know. I don’t know if they need it. I think they have to integrate it into its products, that’s for sure. So they don’t necessarily have to own the AI. They didn’t have to own Maps, did they? No. They tried, and they sort of half failed. And then they used Google, or they didn’t have to make a lot of stuff. They didn’t have to make all those apps. Everybody else did, and they took advantage of it.
To me, they’re a system. They can write up on things. I think the integration is what’s difficult here. And so how do you integrate AI into the things that already exist? To me, I keep obsessing on the AirPods. I’m, like, “What if they were just a little more functional?” I know it sounds crazy, but I still have my pair of Google glasses—which I’m going to keep so I can sell them someday to send one of my kids to college.
It was directionally the correct idea; it just didn’t have enough functionality. Same thing with the Meta glasses. What do they do? They take a picture. That’s pretty much it. How much functionality is that? Not much. And so, where can you get more functionality out of the things you might do every day? Which is information you need. It sounds dumb, but directions, ordering food, getting places, appointment making, things like that. To me, that’s where they should focus on, honestly . . . the software rather than the hardware.
At Apple, do you feel like Tim Cook is doing a good job?
He did. He should leave now. That’s what I would do if I were him.
What about Disney? Bob Iger is another one who sort of declared victory and then had to come back, and now his contract is ending.
I think, personally, they need to merge with someone or sell. Ultimately, I think he’s done an amazing job with that brand, for sure. Again, another person, that probably shouldn’t have come back. I think he was bored. I think he retired a little too early, because he’s so vibrant and intelligent and he looks great.
At one point he was sending me a lot of texts from some boat in French Polynesia he was sailing or something. And I’m, like, “Oh, you’re coming back.” And I joke with him onstage about it. I’m, like, “You’re bored. You have more to give, essentially.” I think he probably should find the right person to take over.
They’ve got plenty of people. I’ve always maintained it’s the biggest of the small things. It’s too small in today’s environment. And so they really have to hook up with a tech. I would think Apple would be a very good merger with them, or Comcast, or they’re just going to have to, given the size problems. I think they’re number two in streaming, but if this one passes, that’ll be a problem for them.
I’m just getting a note here that Paramount is potentially back in the action with the cash bid.
It’s a hostile cash bid. What a bunch of losers, honestly.
You don’t see it happening, huh?
Maybe. Maybe. I don’t know. I just think their only argument was “we’re friends with Donald Trump.” That seems noneconomic to me. I’m sorry, but Big Daddy and nepo baby really have to have a better argument than we’re friends with Donald. I mean, how ridiculous a way to conduct business is that? And so look, by the way, from an existential point of view, they’re f*cked if they don’t get this.
They’re going to have to merge with someone else. I don’t care how rich they are. There’s only so much money you’re throwing at the yacht. But one of the things that drove me crazy is they had a thing right when they did the deal, and they’re, like, “We’re going to take technology and make it better.” And I was, like, “Specifically what?” And they’re, like, “Technology and make it better.” And I was, like, “Yeah, I’d like a specific.” And they were, like, “Technology.”
It ultimately comes back to they’re rich. They can spend it. They can buy, I don’t know, all of France and give everyone a glass of wine. That’s not really economics.
They just want to own it.
It’s just a toy. Then it’s just a toy. And then, “Okay, all right, that’s what you’re doing.”
How much are you willing to pay for your toy is the question.
Exactly. But they need it. Let me just tell you from a business point of view, these things need to merge. I know everybody’s all upset in Hollywood . . . getting back to that . . . but there is no other direction, largely because Hollywood didn’t innovate for so long.