Fortune54%

OpenAI wants its speaker to feel alive. Apple says it’s a stolen idea 68%

By Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez55%

7/15/2026, 6:48:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 24.8% saturation with 201 hits. Analysis detected 1,406 faulty-reasoning hits from 810 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.4% and a BS Rank of 68% (7,080 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.70% of the article peer group.

It’s been just over a year since OpenAI CEO Sam Altman announced the company would build an AI-first device with the help of legendary Apple designer Jony Ive. 
Now we may have an idea of what it might look like. 
Firm details about the device have been scant, but on Tuesday, Bloomberg reported, cited people familiar with the matter, what the device may look like: a “screen-free smart speaker designed to be a new type of home computer for the AI era.” 
The device is meant to be “human-like” with smart speaker-like features that help control appliances in a user’s home, play media, respond to messages and answer queries by using OpenAI’s ChatGPT, the people added. 
The device’s AI capabilities could allow it to better interact with users on a personal level, according to the report. 
It will also become increasingly personalized and proactive over time as it draws on information like a users’ personal emails. 
Mechanical parts that move on their own also give users “a sense that it is alive and not just an object responding to commands,” the outlet reported. 
OpenAI did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment. 
AI device market 
The market for AI-first home devices is still in its infancy. 
Both Amazon and Google have incorporated AI capabilities into their existing smart speakers. 
Meanwhile, Google last month also released a new Google Home speaker designed specifically for Gemini. 
Still, reviews for Google’s product have thus far been mixed. 
While critics praised the AI-enabled speaker’s more natural conversations, and especially a paywalled live chat feature called Gemini Live, they also noted the device has a tendency to ignore some questions and can get confused during interactions. 
Only a handful of truly AI-first devices exist on the market today. 
One example that could resemble OpenAI’s planned product—according to Bloomberg’s description—is ElliQ, an AI device designed for older adults that resembles a desk lamp and also has moving parts. 
First released by Intuition Robotics in 2022, ElliQ, like OpenAI’s device, is meant to be humanlike and comfort elderly people by prompting users several times a day with jokes or questions. 
The device uses AI to become more personalized to a user over time, and can serve as a companion but also can help track wellness information like heart rate and blood pressure as well as appointments. 
In addition, startup Humane advertised its hands-free AI pin as an alternative to smartphones when it released the product in 2024, yet the product was criticized for slow performance and overheating. 
Ultimately, HP shuttered the product after acquiring the startup last year for $116 million. 
OpenAI’s device still has no release date, but in January, OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer Chris Lehane said it was set to unveil the product in the second half of this year. 
Even while still in development, the prospect of a new AI-first device to compete with products from established tech giants already has competitors on the defensive. 
Last week, Apple sued OpenAI and two of its former employees who joined the startup in the U.S. 
District Court for the Northern District of California. 
The company alleges OpenAI leveraged the insider knowledge of its ex-employees to build up its fledgling hardware division. 
The company alleged that OpenAI asked ex-Apple employees in interviews about secret projects and asked them to bring in prototypes. 
“OpenAI’s nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets,” Apple wrote in the lawsuit. 
For its part, an OpenAI spokesperson said in a statement to multiple outlets that it has no interest in other companies’ trade secrets and that the company remains “focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.” 
OpenAI’s new device could supercharge the company’s prospects as it approaches a potential record-breaking IPO after filing the paperwork to go public last month. 
While it’s still unclear when OpenAI might list its shares publicly, the company is looking for ways to capitalize on the hundreds of billions of dollars it has raised from investors in the past several years. 
Last year, the company bought Ive’s design studio IO for a whopping $6.5 billion and announced a partnership with the Apple designer to bring its AI-first product to fruition. 
At the time of the announcement, the pair said they had been collaborating for about two years. 
Altman has said the company is aiming to develop a new family of products that can replace static smartphones and computers. 
“Computers, software, and hardware, just the way we think of current computers, were designed for a world without AI,” Altman said on the OpenAI podcast last June. 
“Now we’re in, like, a very different world, and what you want out of hardware and software is changing quite rapidly.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.3%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 4.2%Fortune: 4.2%Confirmation Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.8%Fortune: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 2.8%Fortune: 3.3%Availability Heuristic1.5%This article: 3.6%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 1.4%Fortune: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic3.6%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.3%Fortune: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 1.4%Fortune: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias2.6%This article: 4.2%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 10.7%Fortune: 6.7%Framing Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.6%Fortune: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.1%Fortune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.7%Fortune: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect6.5%This article: 18.9%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 4.5%Fortune: 3.4%Optimism Bias18.9%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 2.6%Fortune: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.5%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 11.3%Fortune: 7.0%Negativity Bias18.5%This article: 9.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 2.6%Fortune: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 1.3%Fortune: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.5%Fortune: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.9%Fortune: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 1.3%Fortune: 3.2%Halo Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 1.9%Fortune: 1.5%Recency Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.4%Fortune: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.8%Fortune: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.7%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 3.7%Fortune: 4.8%Appeal to Authority6.7%This article: 2.6%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 1.3%Fortune: 2.2%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 1.2%Fortune: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.1%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 5.2%Fortune: 6.0%Hasty Generalization4.1%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.1%Fortune: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.5%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 4.9%Fortune: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion7.5%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 2.3%Fortune: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.2%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 4.0%Fortune: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.2%This article: 4.6%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.6%Fortune: 0.1%Tu Quoque4.6%This article: 4.4%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 1.4%Fortune: 0.3%Burden of Proof4.4%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.1%Fortune: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.4%Fortune: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.5%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.7%Fortune: 2.5%Anecdotal2.5%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.3%Fortune: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.1%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 2.8%Fortune: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.1%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.1%Fortune: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.4%Fortune: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 1.1%Fortune: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 24.8%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 3.7%Fortune: 1.5%Unattributed Quote24.8%This article: 4.2%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 3.5%Fortune: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection4.2%This article: 8.6%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 9.0%Fortune: 4.4%Biased Writer Voice8.6%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.0%Fortune: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.7%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez: 0.8%Fortune: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.8%

810 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers26%attributed speech600writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageApple • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageChris Lehane • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 18 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 20 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 28 words • 100.0% coverageOpenAI • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSam Altman • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSam Altman • 27 words • 0.0% coverageSam Altman • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Apple

100%flagged-word coverage
72 attributed words34% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Quote-first Misdirection+47.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Apple: 47.2%47.2%Unattributed Quote-28.2 ptsWriter: 28.2%Apple: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.3 ptsWriter: 10.7%Apple: 8.3%8.3%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Apple: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.