If you’ve been following the ongoing saga of alliances in the AI industry, you’ll know that Google and Apple have partnered up. But today we’ve seen an interesting twist: according to a report published by Financial Times, OpenAI would have chosen not to partner with Apple—at least not in the sense of becoming its bespoke supplier of AI models. In other words, the idea of the iPhone and related devices integrating an OpenAI model as the “official engine” appears to have cooled, by OpenAI’s own deliberate decision.
The report adds a key nuance that helps explain the move: rather than signing an agreement of that scale, OpenAI would be prioritizing the development of its own AI device, with the ambition of getting ahead of the big tech players. And yes, we’re talking hardware, not just another app. The most intriguing detail? That device—still shrouded in mystery—would be designed by Jony Ive, Apple’s iconic former chief design officer.
OpenAI, as is often the case when it comes to corporate strategy, would not have made any official comments. Even so, someone close to the company reportedly said the decision not to become Apple’s custom provider was taken deliberately last autumn.
What it means that OpenAI doesn’t want to be Apple’s “custom model”
The Financial Times piece is quite specific: it’s not so much about denying that talks took place, but about avoiding a very particular role. Being Apple’s “custom model provider” would, in practice, mean working so that the company’s ecosystem integrates an OpenAI model as a central component—tailored to internal needs—with a level of dependency and deep integration that typically comes with conditions, priorities, and product constraints.
In deals like these, the platform owner (Apple) sets the pace: timelines, integration, and the final experience are all subordinated to ecosystem coherence, its narrative, and its rollout rules. For a company like OpenAI, which is competing to define the standard for how people interact with AI, taking on that role can be a double-edged sword: you gain scale, but you give up visibility and control.
The text also leaves open an important reading: it’s very likely Apple and OpenAI discussed the matter, but it’s not clear whether Apple ever formally put a contract on the table. The wording suggests OpenAI may have turned down a deal that was already in play—though it also fits a subtler scenario: that, faced with the prospect of an offer, OpenAI had already decided it would say no.
And why does this nuance matter? Because turning down a specific contract is not the same as strategically avoiding being locked into an integration that, once signed, tends to shape your direction for years. In tech—where platforms can become gilded cages almost as quickly as hype cycles turn—that difference carries more weight than it might seem.
The alternative plan: building a proprietary device to “leapfrog” big tech
The most significant part of the report isn’t just the “no” to Apple, but the “yes” to a riskier bet: according to the same source, OpenAI would be focused on developing its own AI device, designed to leap ahead of the sector’s giants. The wording used—“leapfrog the big tech companies”—signals an ambitious intent: not to compete only in software or services, but to define a new way of interacting with AI through hardware.
In practice, that implies a change in the game: moving from being a technology that gets integrated into a phone, computer, or browser, to becoming an experience conceived with the device as the starting point. It’s the kind of move that often divides opinion, but it also fits an industry searching for the next dominant interface—beyond apps and screens as we understand them today.
What stands out most is that the device being discussed remains “mysterious”. No features, form factor, or timeline are detailed, so there’s no room here for baseless speculation. Still, the explicit mention of building a proprietary device is already a clue about where OpenAI wants to grow: not as an “invisible engine” inside someone else’s platform, but as a company delivering a finished product.
Also, placing this decision in the autumn of last year points to a considered process, not an improvised reaction to rumors or headlines. In the industry, when hardware and a strategy aimed at big tech are involved, months (or years) of planning are the norm—even if the public only sees the tip of the iceberg.
Jony Ive in the spotlight: industrial design and a device yet to be revealed
The report links the device to Jony Ive, Apple’s former chief design officer who defined an era at the company with products that shaped the tech aesthetic of a generation. His name alone doesn’t guarantee a product’s success, but it does suggest a clear intention: if OpenAI wants hardware to be the center, the design and physical experience can’t be an afterthought.
The fact that an AI company is reportedly turning to a designer of that profile reinforces the idea that the device aims to be more than “a box with microphones” or a throwaway accessory. And at the same time, it makes the distance from Apple easier to understand: partnering with the Cupertino company can open doors, but it can also close others—especially if your plan is to compete with a new product category.
In any case, it’s worth sticking to what the source says we do know: OpenAI would not have wanted to become Apple’s provider of custom models, and would be focusing its energy on building its own AI device, designed by Jony Ive. Everything else, for now, is expectation territory. But in a market where everyone wants to be the “layer” that controls the experience—from the operating system to the assistant—the big question is unavoidable: who will dominate the next everyday interface, the one we use without thinking, the way we unlock our phone almost by reflex today?
