Why Steve Jobs Would Be Outraged by Apple’s Decision to "Rent" AI from Google
For three years, industry analysts and shareholders have frequently critiqued Apple Inc. They perceive a lack of generative AI initiative and note a widening gap between Apple’s guarded development rhythm and the rapid cycles of competitors like OpenAI and Google. Critics argued that Apple was “too late” to the generative market. They claimed the company failed to capture industry momentum in the manner of its rivals. While other tech giants released one groundbreaking model after another, a truly AI-powered version of Siri remained unreleased by early 2026. The project had faced multiple “rocky road” blocks and quality issues.
This perceived dormancy stands out when contrasted with the early vision of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. Decades before the first iPhone, Jobs expressed a vision for personal computing that mirrors current innovations in generative AI. In 1980, he brilliantly likened the computer to a “bicycle for our minds.” He saw it as a tool designed to amplify human intelligence, just as a bicycle allows a human to surpass the energy efficiency of a condor. Jobs viewed computers not as mere gadgets, but as extensions of human intellect. By 1984, he was already predicting that the next stage would be computers as “agents.” He imagined a “little person inside that box” who would anticipate what the user wants and guide them through vast amounts of information.
The vision Jobs held was not limited to simple task automation. He hoped that computers could one day capture the “underlying worldview” of thinkers like Aristotle. He imagined a future where a student could not only read what Aristotle wrote but could “ask Aristotle a question and get an answer.” This concept of capturing the “underlying spirit” or principles of a worldview is precisely the promise of modern large language models. When Apple acquired Siri in 2010, Jobs dismissed the idea that it was a search play. Instead, he insisted it belonged squarely in the “AI area.” It was a quiet bet on AI-driven interfaces that he believed would reshape human-machine interaction.
Many analysts believe that if Jobs were at the helm today, he would have focused on AI as a core feature of Apple’s products. It would have been much like how the original iPhone integrated touchscreens and seamless internet. His philosophy was to “start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology.” He likely would have been outraged by any move that ceded control over that experience to a third party. He believed in a product-oriented culture where a central “gravitational force” pulled hardware and software together into a single, perfected unit. In a Jobs-led era, AI would not be an optional layer. It would be the “brain” for the “voice” of Siri, and it would be integrated vertically to ensure complete control over the user experience.
The recent confirmation in early 2026 that Apple is partnering with Google for Gemini to power its next generation of foundation models is seen by many as a significant sign of weakness. This landmark agreement was confirmed on January 13, 2026. It involves basing Apple Intelligence features and a revamped Siri on Google’s Gemini technology and cloud infrastructure. While Apple touts this as a way to provide the “most capable foundation,” critics have called the move a “stunning capitulation.” It represents a significant departure from Apple’s traditional vertical integration approach. It also signals that the company’s internal development timelines could not meet market expectations.
By letting Google “take the AI wheel,” Apple is perceived to be admitting failure in its a decade-long effort to develop in-house generative AI. Although Apple insists that user data will remain secure via Private Cloud Compute, the partnership creates a deep dependency on a primary rival. Google already pays Apple over $20 billion annually to remain the default search engine. Adding Gemini as the foundational layer for Siri further embeds Google into the heart of the iOS ecosystem. This arrangement suggests that Apple is slipping in tech dominance. It is moving from an industry leader that defines new categories to a pragmatic follower that must “piggyback” on the hardware of others to remain relevant in the AI arms race.
Apple’s current CEO Tim Cook is often described as a “supply chain master” and a “profit maximizer,” but he is frequently viewed as lacking the creative force of Jobs. Under Cook, Apple has focused on ecosystem expansion and service revenue. This led the company to a $3.7 trillion valuation by 2025. However, the delay of AI features highlighted a stalling of innovation. These features reportedly only worked 66-80% of the time during internal testing. The decision to outsource the “brute force” scaling of large reasoning models to Google Gemini is seen as a way to fast-track a “creaking” Siri that has been notoriously unable to answer basic knowledge questions.
For many, this reliance on an external foundation model signals the end of an era where Apple dictated the pace of technological change. The future Jobs imagined, a personal “iAI” that felt like a “quirky robot friend,” is now being built on someone else’s technology. It is deceptively branded as Apple’s own. This “billion-dollar AI pivot” may be too late to reignite the user spark that Jobs once kindled through pure, in-house innovation. As competitors like Amazon roll out “Alexa+” and Samsung dominates with “Galaxy AI,” Apple’s move to partner with Google looks less like a strategic alliance and more like humble pie for a company that once owned the future.
In the final analysis, Apple’s lack of initiative has forced it into a hybrid approach. It sacrifices its “privacy walled garden” for the sake of utility. If the future of AI is truly the “motorcycle” to the computer’s “bicycle,” then Apple is currently renting the engine from its greatest competitor. This shift may protect shareholder returns in the short term, but it suggests a long-term erosion of the company’s DNA. It moves Apple away from being the “master of its own fate” toward becoming a premium hardware shell for Google’s intelligence.
Disclaimer:
All views expressed are my own and are provided solely for informational and educational purposes. This is not investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice, nor a recommendation to buy or sell any security. While I aim for accuracy, I cannot guarantee completeness or timeliness of information. The strategies and securities discussed may not suit every investor; past performance does not predict future results, and all investments carry risk, including loss of principal.
I may hold, or have held, positions in any mentioned securities. Opinions herein are subject to change without notice. This material reflects my personal views and does not represent those of any employer or affiliated organization. Please conduct your own research and consult a licensed professional before making any investment decisions.