The initial burst of excitement around AI, which lasted from 2023 to 2024, was fueled by hype and billions of dollars in inflows (hundreds of billions of dollars) that many companies rode on without the profits to back it up.

The seven companies that did not need blockbuster profits to draw matching inflows, rocketing valuations based on future potential rather than current performance, are collectively referred to as the Magnificent Seven, which include Microsoft, Google parent Alphabet, Tesla, Amazon, Apple, Facebook parent Meta, and NVIDIA.

So, what connects the first six companies? Other than Apple (which spends a minuscule amount on NVIDIA hardware), they are all major customers of NVIDIA, buying boatloads of the semiconductor giant’s chips to train their large language models (LLMs) and power their AI. This is why NVIDIA ignited the AI rally, and the rally came with gains.

Shares of NVIDIA rose 239% in 2023 and another 171% in 2024, yet another strong year, but the heavyweight tech name has had difficulty finding traction so far in 2025. When the company posted 114% annual revenue growth at the beginning of the year, it was not enough to get traders and investors running to load up on the shares. In 2024 (fiscal 2025), the company reported $130.5 billion in revenue, which was more than double the previous year’s figure of $60.9 billion.

Investor response was a smattering of polite claps, yawns, and just enough buying momentum to keep NVIDIA’s shares relatively flat in the days after the February 26 earnings report that included fiscal 2025 performance. The muted market response might indicate that even the highest expectations had already been built into the price, or that investors are becoming less interested in fundamentals and more enamoured with the notion of stratospheric growth, given that NVIDIA blew out expectations by 265% year-over-year in Q4 2023.

When it comes to pumping their money into AI, investors are now looking at fundamentals like sustainable margins, monetisation strategies, and disciplined capital spending. Companies that can translate AI innovation into reliable, long-term profits will be the winners. Meanwhile, others may find it difficult to justify their higher valuations in a market focused on earnings. Some spending must happen before those earnings can take effect and, of course, be realised.

Capex: Hero or villain?

Capital expenditures (capex) are the money a company allocates to investing in innovation, upgrades, and new assets, such as hardware or software. For example, in the AI world, companies tend to spend on hardware and data centres to support high-performance computing.

The other thing is that capex tends to be much more unpopular with investors because the latter, again, want to see value today, and they want to see value in the next few months. They do not want to see value in the next year, let alone the next decade. With $80 billion in capital expenditure, 2025 has been a year of bold investments, with the “Magnificent Seven” showing their commitment to the future of AI.

Microsoft has invested $80 billion to grow its data centres and AI infrastructure to power its Azure cloud platform and its broader enterprise ecosystem, and its AI chatbot, Copilot, will become a standard part of the toolkit for businesses and consumers to streamline workflow and day-to-day tasks.

Microsoft is at the forefront of generative AI after it backed OpenAI, the parent of ChatGPT, with a 49% stake, thanks to a $13 billion bet, and Alphabet, Google’s parent, has pledged around $75 billion to similar efforts, bolstering its role in AI research and cloud services, much of which is going towards Gemini, Google’s generative AI model.

Amazon is making the biggest bet of all, with capital expenditures over $100 billion for 2025, and much of that will go into AI infrastructure for Amazon Web Services (AWS), the core of its enterprise operations and a key profit driver.

Meta has also sharply increased its guidance to a total of $60 billion to $65 billion, a nearly 70% increase from earlier estimates. Most of that big-ticket spending will be for warehouse-sized data centres to run the AI products across its apps, such as Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

The other “Magnificent Seven” members, Apple, Tesla, and NVIDIA, have not announced their capex plans, but their forward guidance and spending levels indicate ongoing, large investment in AI and related technologies, such as “Apple Intelligence,” which is the tech giant’s catch-up AI effort; Full Self-Driving (FS) by Tesla, its highest-level driver assistance software; and “Blackwell,” the next big thing in GPU and chip manufacturing for NVIDIA.

When viewed collectively, this investment wave in 2025, representing over $300 billion among the top players alone, is more than an optimistic note and represents a fundamental change in how value will be created in the next decade.

These firms are not backing down on their bold investment initiatives, despite market volatility, occasional pushbacks from investors, and macroeconomic challenges. They are investing today for tomorrow’s growth, knowing that the returns might not be immediate.

In AI 1.0, markets paid for guidance and expectations, but in AI 2.0, they pay for performance. The speculative phase is over, replaced by operational discipline and value creation based on the implementation of new technology.

With high interest rates compared to four years ago, the notion that capital has a cost has been reintroduced, and the focus has returned to those who have the upper hand, namely the big infrastructure players with pricing power and established supply chains.

What to expect in 2026

After a couple of years of heady share-price gains followed by a frenetic race to build out infrastructure, the market is now moving on to a new phase, one of execution, efficiency, and results.

Looking forward to 2026, three trends will be key to the AI earnings cycle, and enterprise adoption will be the true test. Is it being paid for at scale? Are workflows changing in ways that are both significant and monetizable? Do consumers need AI daily? These questions will require quick answers.

Energy prices rise, and infrastructure costs are high. The leaner, more efficient companies will be able to hold the line on profitability.

Competitive moats will matter, and by 2026, investors will need to know: Who owns the data? Who controls distribution? Who has proprietary models, scale advantages, or ecosystem lock-in? As the space matures, staying power, not just innovation, will differentiate the leaders from the waning hype.

Moreover, the companies that demonstrate resilience will be those capable of converting their massive AI investments into tangible, revenue-generating products and services. While the early phase of the AI boom rewarded ambition, the next phase will reward operational precision.

Investors will scrutinise not only how much companies spend, but how efficiently those dollars translate into ecosystem advantages, customer retention, and recurring revenue models. The winners will distinguish themselves through strategic discipline by balancing cutting-edge research with commercial clarity, securing critical infrastructure partnerships, and maintaining supply chains that can withstand global uncertainty.

Also, governments are moving toward stricter oversight of AI training data, model transparency, and the environmental impact of data centre expansion. Companies that anticipate these shifts, incorporating compliance into their core strategies rather than treating it as a last-minute obligation, will navigate the landscape with fewer disruptions and lower long-term costs.

Traditional tech giants will no longer be the only ones capable of delivering advanced AI solutions. Leaner, specialised firms may carve out niches in sectors such as healthcare, manufacturing, and cybersecurity. In this environment, adaptability becomes as critical as scale, and companies unable to evolve quickly will risk losing relevance despite earlier advantages.

The post Wall Street stops clapping for AI appeared first on International Finance.

In 2024, the world recorded its first calendar year where average global temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Climate experts caution that this development brings us closer to surpassing the long-term 1.5°C limit established by the 2015 Paris Agreement.

“We must exit this road to ruin, and we have no time to lose,” urged United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his 2025 New Year’s message, describing the past decade, which included the ten hottest years on record, as “climate breakdown.”

This barrage of record heat doesn’t mean all is lost, but it is a deafening wake-up call for countries and corporations to act swiftly. Many businesses are stepping up for their bottom line as much as for the planet. Consumers are demanding genuine sustainability and accountability, and as Gen Z and Millennials continue to gain spending power, brands that fail to take real action risk being left behind.

Multiple surveys underscore this generational shift. One study found that 62% of Gen Z shoppers prefer to buy from sustainable brands (and 73% are willing to pay more for sustainable products). Another study found that virtually all Millennial and Gen Z investors are interested in sustainable investing.

“Both Gen Z and Millennials expect sustainability to be part of the baseline – not just a brand add-on,” explains Philippa Cross, founder and CEO of Marshall Sustainability.

She further clarifies, “Research also shows the vast majority of Millennials and Gen Z want to work for companies with strong environmental values.”

With those cohorts projected to make up 74% of the global workforce by 2030, businesses must adapt if they want to attract the next generation of talent.

More companies are setting net-zero targets, greening their offices, and engaging employees in eco-initiatives.

“Companies excel at handling cyber, geopolitical, and operational risks; sustainability should be no different. To win with Gen Z, companies need to understand the risk of inaction or inauthentic action, weigh that against the risk of lost market share, and lean into ESG and sustainable values hard, all underpinned by transparency,” notes Adriel Lubarsky, founder of the climate start-up Beehive Climate.

Token gestures and greenwashing that once sufficed will no longer cut it. Regulators and stakeholders are also turning up the heat. Frameworks like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are forcing greater transparency and accountability from businesses.

“As sustainability matures, the focus is shifting from glossy commitments to real delivery, especially at the product and service level,” Cross said. She emphasises that true credibility comes from tackling core impacts (like sourcing raw materials responsibly), not just from peripheral tweaks such as recyclable packaging.

How are companies around the globe meeting this challenge? From Patagonia to Apple, several big-name brands are taking concrete steps to reduce their carbon footprints, embrace circular economy principles, and build environmental responsibility into their operations.

Patagonia: Woven in purpose

US-based Patagonia’s retail stores reflect the brand’s ethos of repairing, reusing, and recycling outdoor apparel to extend product life. Patagonia, the adventure clothing brand and certified B-Corp, has been a sustainability trailblazer since 1973. The company, under renowned rock climber and environmentalist Yvon Chouinard, began donating 1% of its sales to environmental causes in 1985.

Chouinard even co-founded the “1% for the Planet” network to encourage other businesses to follow suit, a global movement that now has roughly 5,000 member companies contributing a portion of their revenue to green initiatives.

Over the decades, Patagonia has contributed more than $140 million to grassroots environmental groups, while implementing numerous eco-friendly practices in-house. The company uses only “preferred materials”, such as organic cotton, recycled polyester and nylon, in its products, and it powers 100% of its own retail stores and offices with renewable energy.

The brand actively advocates for a circular economy approach. Its Worn Wear programme invites customers to trade in used Patagonia gear for resale (keeping clothing out of landfills), and its Patagonia Action Works platform connects people with environmental causes.

Patagonia hasn’t shied away from activism either; in 2017, it even joined a lawsuit against the US government to help protect Native American lands (fighting the reduction of Bears Ears National Monument).

Then, in 2022, came perhaps the boldest move: Chouinard transferred ownership of the $3 billion company into a trust and a nonprofit organisation called the Holdfast Collective, ensuring that all Patagonia’s future profits (around $100 million per year) are devoted to fighting climate change and protecting nature.

“We are going to give away the maximum amount of money to people who are actively working on saving this planet. I never wanted to be a businessman… Now I could die tomorrow, and the company is going to continue doing the right thing for the next 50 years, and I don’t have to be around,” Chouinard told The New York Times about the decision.

Patagonia stands as a shining example of aligning profit with purpose, and its approach has clearly resonated with consumers. The company’s revenue reportedly surpassed $1 billion in 2024, showing that a deep commitment to the planet can go hand in hand with business success.

IKEA: Conscious living made truly accessible

IKEA is investing heavily in renewable energy, from massive rooftop solar arrays to wind farms, as it strives to become climate positive. Swedish furniture giant IKEA, long associated with affordable (and often disposable) home goods, has taken significant strides toward sustainability.

Circularity is central to many of its initiatives. For example, IKEA’s buy-back and resell programme lets customers return used IKEA furniture for store credit, giving furnishings a second life rather than sending them to the landfill.

The company is also investing heavily in clean energy. By 2024, 75% of IKEA’s global operations were powered by renewable electricity, and its Ingka Investments arm has committed a total of €7.5 billion to wind and solar projects to power the business.

IKEA is electrifying its delivery fleet as well, rolling out electric vehicles for home deliveries to cut emissions. These efforts support the retailer’s broader climate goals, including a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions across its value chain by 2030 (relative to 2016 levels) and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

Engaging with local communities is another priority. “In 2024, IKEA supported over 81,000 people through community programmes and expanded efforts in refugee employment and biodiversity,” notes Karen Pflug, IKEA’s Chief Sustainability Officer, in an interview with World Finance.

In the United States, IKEA even designed and donated a small sustainable home to a community village in Texas for vulnerable residents, using “trauma-informed design” principles to make it supportive and welcoming.

Experts often cite IKEA as a leader in corporate sustainability.

“They don’t shy away from the tough conversations, including the role that affordable goods play in driving overconsumption. Instead, they tackle it head-on with initiatives like sourcing FSC-certified wood, improving product durability, and experimenting with circular models. I also appreciate their transparency: they openly share the challenges they face and invite feedback, which is key to building trust and real progress,” Cross said.

A key focus for IKEA is now making sustainable living easy and affordable for customers.

“We know people want to take more climate action, but often face barriers like cost and convenience. We are focused on making sustainable living more accessible, through services like buy-back and resell, and by improving how we bring products and solutions that help people live more sustainably every day,” Pflug said.

In the coming years, IKEA looks poised to continue forging a more sustainable path, proving that even a global retailer known for low-cost convenience can embrace green innovation.

Renault: Reinventing mobility with purpose

At Renault’s iconic Refactory facility in France, used vehicles are repaired, retrofitted, and recycled as part of a circular approach to automotive manufacturing. French automaker Renault is working to reconcile cars and sustainability. In 2021, it opened the Refactory in Flins, Europe’s first circular economy factory dedicated to mobility.

This facility focuses on extending vehicle lifespans through what Renault calls a “retrofit, re-energy, recycle and restart” programme. At the Refactory, Renault repairs and refurbishes used cars and electric vehicle batteries, retrofits older vehicles with electric drivetrains, and recycles materials, creating a closed-loop system to reduce waste.

Renault has also set ambitious climate goals: achieving carbon neutrality in Europe by 2040 (and globally by 2050). A big part of this is electrification; the company expects 90% of its vehicle sales in Europe to be electric by 2030.

Progress is underway: Renault’s overall carbon footprint fell by 28% between 2010 and 2023. In 2022, it launched The Future is NEUTRAL, an initiative to expand recycling and reuse across the industry as part of a push toward “resource neutrality.”

Renault is steadily increasing recycled content in its new models as well. The electric Scenic E-Tech SUV introduced in 2024 contains about 25% recycled materials in its parts, and overall, 90% of the vehicle’s mass is designed to be recyclable.

The upcoming Renault 5 E-Tech city car, launching in 2025, is engineered to have a 35% lower carbon footprint in manufacturing than its predecessor (the Renault Zoe) by 2030.

Even biodiversity is on Renault’s radar. The company has a project in Thailand (with its tyre supplier Michelin), training local farmers in agroforestry to reduce the impact of rubber production on forests.

While the auto industry as a whole has a long road ahead to reach true sustainability, Renault is demonstrating how a legacy carmaker can begin to drive change through innovation and circular thinking.

Apple: Carbon neutral by design

Apple’s latest “Apple Watch” models include the company’s first carbon-neutral products, identified by a special green logo on their packaging. Consumer electronics giant Apple, not historically known for its eco-friendliness, is now making significant moves toward sustainability.

In April 2025, Apple announced it had slashed its overall greenhouse gas emissions by over 60% compared to 2015 levels, marking major progress toward its pledge to be carbon neutral across its business (including its supply chain) by 2030.

Apple introduced its first fully carbon-neutral products in 2023, several models of the Apple Watch, by cutting product emissions roughly 75% and offsetting the rest with high-quality carbon credits, which are invested in forest conservation.

Later in 2023, Apple released a carbon-neutral version of its Mac Mini computer (built with over 50% recycled content), and in early 2025, it unveiled a new MacBook Air made with over 55% recycled content.

The tech company has aggressively pushed the use of recycled and responsibly sourced materials. All Apple-designed batteries now use 99% recycled cobalt, reducing reliance on newly mined minerals.

To keep old devices out of landfills, the Apple Trade In programme offers consumers credit for turning in used devices, which Apple then refurbishes or recycles.

Apple’s latest Environmental Progress Report highlights other milestones: every Apple facility worldwide has been powered by 100% renewable energy since 2018, and that commitment is spreading to suppliers. Apple’s suppliers have brought 17.8 gigawatts of clean energy online around the world to power their operations.

Apple is also investing in clean energy projects to match the electricity that customers use to charge their devices, through its Power for Impact programme supporting renewable energy in communities from the Philippines and Thailand to South Africa.

The company is likewise backing natural carbon removal through its Restore Fund, which finances projects like reforestation of the Atlantic Forest in Brazil, now filled with native tree species that might otherwise have been lost.

Apple is also tackling waste and water in its supply chain: in 2024 alone, suppliers diverted around 600,000 metric tons of waste from landfills, and since 2013, the Supplier Clean Water Programme has saved over 90 billion gallons of water through recycling.

There is more work ahead, but Apple’s progress shows how innovation can drive sustainability even in a resource-intensive industry, all while the company continues to thrive. Notably, Apple’s revenue grew by more than 65% during the same period that its emissions were reduced by 60%, illustrating that profitability and sustainability can go hand in hand.

As Gen Z and younger consumers increasingly make purchase decisions based on their values, the efforts of companies like Apple, IKEA, and Patagonia to put the planet alongside profit may well become the new standard for long-term business success.

A new paradigm for corporate responsibility

The case studies of Patagonia, IKEA, Renault, and Apple offer a compelling narrative: a new business paradigm is taking root. This shift is neither cosmetic nor performative; it is structural, intentional, and increasingly non-negotiable.

In an era where global temperatures are rising and resource depletion is accelerating, sustainability is no longer a competitive advantage; it is a baseline expectation.

What differentiates the brands highlighted in this article is not merely that they are reducing harm, but that they are redesigning their models to actively regenerate, restore, and rethink what responsible capitalism can look like.

This shift is underpinned by three interlocking forces: rising consumer consciousness, tightening regulatory frameworks, and the changing values of the emerging workforce. Gen Z and Millennials don’t just speak out about climate issues; they use their buying power, social media influence, and job choices to support companies that take real action.

The fact that 73% of Gen Z is willing to pay more for sustainable products is not just a trend; it’s an inflexion point. These generations will soon dominate both market demand and global employment, creating a feedback loop that reinforces sustainability as a core business imperative.

Regulators, too, are sharpening their focus. Frameworks such as the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are setting higher standards for accountability. Voluntary ESG pledges are giving way to mandatory disclosures and legally enforceable targets.

This ensures that sustainability is no longer the domain of well-meaning corporate social responsibility teams but of CEOs, CFOs, and boards who are being held financially and reputationally accountable for long-term environmental impact.

Equally significant is the cultural shift occurring within many of these companies. For years, sustainability was treated as a marketing concern, external-facing and often limited to optics. That has changed. Today, the brands leading the charge are embedding sustainability into their supply chains, innovation pipelines, employee incentives, and financial planning.

IKEA’s resale programmes, Patagonia’s activist ownership model, Renault’s circular economy factories, and Apple’s green product design aren’t isolated acts; they’re ecosystemic. They demonstrate a commitment to transforming not just products, but the very processes and philosophies that underpin their existence.

There is also a growing recognition that solving the climate crisis requires collective intelligence and cross-sector collaboration. Apple partnering with forestry initiatives in Brazil, IKEA engaging refugee communities, or Renault working with Michelin in Thailand on agroforestry. These are not charity projects, but investments in system resilience. They show a more mature approach to business, where environmental and social issues are closely connected to financial success.

However, challenges continue to persist. Greenwashing is still prevalent, particularly in industries where accountability is lacking and consumer education is insufficient. The real risk is in performative sustainability—branding that overstates its environmental efforts and carbon offsets that disguise rather than actually reduce emissions. Consumers, regulators, and watchdogs must continue to scrutinise such claims. Transparency, third-party verification, and measurable impact are critical in maintaining credibility.

Additionally, there are structural contradictions that companies must grapple with. Can a business model built on selling ever more products truly be sustainable? How do we reconcile economic growth with planetary boundaries? While circularity, carbon-neutral goals, and renewable energy use are important steps, deeper questions about consumption, inequality, and ecological regeneration remain. It is here that the next frontier of corporate sustainability lies.

Looking forward, we are likely to see three major developments: integrated value accounting, stakeholder governance, and decentralised innovation.

Companies will move beyond quarterly profits to account for their environmental and social externalities. Metrics like biodiversity impact, water usage, and material circularity will become part of mainstream reporting, supported by tools such as the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD).

Shareholder primacy will continue to be challenged by models that emphasise stakeholder value. Employee ownership, along with community investment and long-term stewardship, as seen in Patagonia’s ownership structure, will become more prevalent, especially as activist investors and ESG-oriented funds gain influence.

As climate risks become more localised, companies will adopt region-specific sustainability strategies. This means empowering local teams, decentralising supply chains, and partnering with indigenous knowledge systems to co-create solutions that are both effective and equitable.

As this shift gathers pace, it will be remembered not just as a response to climate catastrophe, but as the dawn of a more conscious, connected, and courageous form of commerce. A new chapter in capitalism is being written, one where responsibility is not a burden but a source of innovation, resilience, and ultimately, relevance.

The post Sustainability: Profitable for the planet appeared first on International Finance.

Desktop-Style Productivity And Multitasking

These upgrades add up to real productivity gains. iPadOS 26 now handles multiple apps on-screen with flexible layouts. You can drag app windows freely, arrange them side by side or stacked, and switch apps easily—much like on a Mac. For example, if you start a video export in iMovie or Final Cut Pro on the iPad Pro, the job can now continue in the background while you check email or edit spreadsheets. Wired enthuses that after this update, “a lot of those tasks you only felt comfortable doing on a Mac are now accomplished almost identically on an iPad.”

The result is that the iPad can now rival a MacBook Air for many workflows. With Stage Manager on, you could have a calculator, email, spreadsheet, and browser all open together, resizing as needed. You can even connect an external display and drag windows between screens, just as you would with a laptop and monitor. In short, the iPad’s multitasking has caught up to basic laptop levels, making it a more credible tool for finance pros who juggle data, charts, and reports simultaneously.

Apps And Ecosystem Integration

Today’s iPad can run most of the “pro” apps a finance user needs. Microsoft’s Office suite is fully available on iPadOS, as are many popular business apps (e.g., Slack, Zoom, Dropbox). Adobe offers iPad versions of Photoshop and Illustrator (though with some feature differences). There are even finance-specific apps—for example, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, and TD Ameritrade all have iPad apps, and web-based trading platforms can run in Safari. Apple’s own apps (Pages, Numbers, Keynote) handle spreadsheets and presentations natively.

The iPad also benefits from tight integration in Apple’s ecosystem. Your data syncs automatically via iCloud between iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Features like Handoff and AirDrop let you start a document or email on one device and pick it up on another. With iPadOS 18, Apple is adding on-device intelligence features (like smart completion in Notes and advanced dictation) to both iPads and MacBooks, further blurring the line. As Apple puts it, the new iPad Air “brings Apple’s advanced graphics architecture… taking \[performance] to a new level” while supporting accessories like the Apple Pencil Pro and Magic Keyboard. In short, if you’re already using Apple devices, an iPad slots right in.

Portability And On-The-Go Use

One of the iPad’s strongest advantages is portability. The newest iPad Pro is the thinnest Apple device ever (only 5.1 mm on the 13-inch model) and extremely light. The 11-inch iPad Pro weighs under one pound, and even the 13-inch iPad is lighter than most laptops. With a cellular model (5G) available, you can be online anywhere. For road warriors and business travellers, that combination of high performance and light weight is attractive.

Moreover, the iPad’s form factor adds flexibility that MacBooks lack. Detach the keyboard, and you have a tablet for presentations or sketching on a diagram with a Pencil. Use the iPad on your lap or even in a tight aeroplane seat more comfortably than a clamshell laptop. iPadOS now even supports connecting to external displays: you can drag apps to a monitor at the office to create a multi-screen setup. In practice, many finance professionals could carry an iPad Air (11”) with a keyboard into a meeting, then detach it to show charts on the device itself or annotate reports by hand.

Potential Drawbacks

Of course, the iPad is not identical to a MacBook Air, and some limitations remain. Because iPadOS is still fundamentally a mobile operating system, there are quirks: it lacks a traditional desktop and can’t run macOS-only apps or terminal commands. File management is more abstract (no user-accessible “home” folder or command-line), and multitasking was, until recently, less flexible. Even the largest iPad has at most a 13-inch screen, which is smaller than a 15-inch MacBook. As one reviewer found, splitting a 13-inch iPad display in two can make text feel “too small to read comfortably.” And of course, you must buy the keyboard and pencil separately, whereas a MacBook includes its keyboard built in.

However, many of these pain points are now much less severe. iPadOS 26’s windowing and Stage Manager go a long way toward the desktop experience, and major file functionality has been improved with the new Files and Preview apps. For most financial and business software, either iPad versions exist or there are cloud/web alternatives. In practice, tech-savvy users often find that the iPad’s added mobility outweighs the remaining cons. For example, if you rely on a remote desktop app or cloud service for truly specialised software, the iPad can serve as a portable portal to your usual work environment. Many longtime Apple users point out that the seamless ecosystem integration and convenience of a touchscreen tablet often offset the iPad’s limitations.

The bottom line is that the modern iPad—especially the M3/M4-powered iPad Air and Pro—is now capable enough for many tasks traditionally done on a MacBook Air. It has the performance, the software features, and the accessories to handle productivity, creative, and even some pro workloads.

For finance professionals and entrepreneurs who value flexibility, battery life, and true portability, an iPad can be a strategic choice. With its lower entry price and rich ecosystem, the iPad may well “replace” a MacBook Air for users who prioritise mobility and integration above having every legacy feature of macOS. In short, for many tech-savvy consumers, choosing an iPad instead of a MacBook Air is no longer a radical compromise but a viable option.

The post IF Insights: The iPad as a viable MacBook Air alternative appeared first on International Finance.

Over the past year, Apple has been under increasing pressure in the AI space. When it finally launched Apple Intelligence after the release of the iPhone 16, it came later than competitors and with noticeably less impact. A refreshed Siri was promised—complete with smarter integration across apps like Messages, Mail, Notes, and Calendar. But earlier this year, Apple delayed that key feature “indefinitely,” reportedly due to technical hurdles. All that remains now is a slightly more polished interface and a new ability to tap into ChatGPT, which hasn’t been enough to change how people use it.

And here’s the heart of it: would people even use a smarter Siri? For years, it’s been the butt of jokes, a punchline among iPhone users, especially as Google Assistant and Alexa raced ahead. Despite being first to market, Siri never quite delivered on the promise of a helpful, intelligent assistant. Now that Apple is trying to reboot it, maybe the name itself is holding things back.

Google isn’t shy about cutting its losses. The company has shut down so many projects that entire websites exist just to track them. Google Assistant is one of the latest casualties. It’s already being phased out across devices, Wear OS watches, Android Auto, and even Android phones. By 2026, the name “Google Assistant” might be history. And while that sounds abrupt, it was probably the right call.

Chris Harrison, director of the Future Interfaces Group at Carnegie Mellon, puts it clearly: “It’s branding, yes, but it also reflects how much the tech itself has evolved. Asking for the weather or setting timers isn’t really what a modern personal assistant should be doing.” That’s where Gemini steps in as a new breed of assistant. It can sift through your inbox to find event details, scan documents, even understand what you’re looking at through a camera and offer help. In short, it behaves like an assistant.

Apple wants to reach a similar place, but with more emphasis on privacy. The company has been clear that when Siri taps into ChatGPT, it won’t pass your data to OpenAI. That commitment to privacy matters, but the features still have to show up and work.

The problem isn’t just about tech. It’s also cultural. Siri and Alexa have become household names. They show up in movies and TV shows. Google Assistant never had that same recognition, which made it easier for Google to cut ties and start fresh. Amazon, meanwhile, is sticking with the Alexa name and simply upgrading it, adding a “+” to denote its AI makeover.

Apple, though, is in limbo. The new Siri was supposed to wow users, especially with the massive push behind Apple Intelligence. Instead, months have passed, and most users still only ask Siri to play music or set reminders. The upgraded capabilities remain out of reach.

There’s also a deeper issue at play: how people interact with these tools. Harrison compares today’s AI interfaces to the old days of computing. Back when you had to type exact commands into a terminal. The rise of graphical interfaces in the 1980s and 1990s made computers accessible. You didn’t need to remember how to do things; you could just click around and learn as you went.

Now, we’re back at that blinking cursor. Put someone in front of ChatGPT or Gemini, and they don’t know what to do. Harrison tried this with his own parents. They asked for the weather, and the assistant responded with, “I don’t have that info.” Confused and disappointed, they stopped.

“We’ve lost discoverability. Most people have only used Siri to set timers for ten years. Now we’re asking them to think of it as something different. That’s a tough ask,” Harrison says. A new name, he argues, could help reset expectations.

Of course, ditching Siri would be a huge step for Apple. They’ve invested over a decade into building it up. But if Apple wants people to embrace the next generation of voice interfaces, the old branding might be more of a burden than a benefit. Most users haven’t explored its deeper features. They’re stuck in the habit of asking for the same basic tasks.

This AI shift is still new. For most of the world, it’s barely made a dent. As Harrison points out, “For 99% of people, this revolution has gone over their heads.” Like the slow transformation from text-based computing to modern interfaces, the change won’t happen overnight. It will take time, experimentation, and education.

But maybe a fresh name, a clean break, is what Apple needs to move forward. Let Siri rest. Let something better rise.

The post IF Insights: Dear Apple, it’s time to say goodbye to Siri appeared first on International Finance.

Before each journey, he cleans both and loads only the information he will need. Lackey has even gone so far as to maintain separate travel sets for each country to forensically examine the devices upon his return home and look for indications of manipulation.

According to Lackey, the United States may also warrant a paranoid approach to travel. This applies not only to Americans like him but also to anyone with a foreign passport who might be subject to the increasingly harsh and unpredictable scrutiny of the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

“All of this applies to America more than it has in the past. If I thought I were likely to be a targeted person, I would go through this same level of protection,” Lackey stated.

The number of foreign visitors to the United States who are denied entrance and sent back to their original destinations or detained appears to have increased since the beginning of the second Trump administration. When trying to enter the United States, citizens from Germany, the United Kingdom, and France have all reported being delayed, sometimes for weeks, or denied admission.

Several of these individuals claim to be legal residents with Green Cards. According to the country’s education minister, a French scientist was refused admission after immigration officers looked through his phone and discovered chats in which “he expressed a personal opinion on the Donald Trump administration’s research policy.”

Officials in Germany and Britain have revised their travel advice in response to the more stringent enforcement of visa and travel permit laws; Britain has warned that the rules are applied “strictly.”

If the Trump administration moves forward with its plan to implement a new “travel ban” on over 40 countries, that de facto border crackdown is expected to become much more explicit. The ban would reportedly completely bar entry from at least 10 countries and subject visitors from another five to additional scrutiny and automatic interviews at the border. The policy’s implementation would determine the status of another 26 nations, placing them in a third group.

Given all these developments, it appears that US borders will soon become less welcoming to visitors and even to Americans returning from outside. Additionally, there will undoubtedly be aggressive attempts to monitor travellers’ electronic devices in conjunction with these new border enforcement procedures. This poses a threat to digital privacy and free expression for foreigners and US citizens.

And warning signs are already emerging. In May 2025, workers building an apartment complex near the Florida State University campus were detained by agents from the US Homeland Security, the US Marshals Service, and the Florida Highway Patrol. After entering a construction site in Tallahassee, federal and state officials asked workers for identification and separated them into two categories. After that, some were allowed to go, while others were handcuffed and led onto white buses with metal-covered windows to be transported away from the worksite, escorted by the Highway Patrol.

The Trump supporters were not spared either. In Nashville, the restaurant named “Kid Rock’s,” owned by the conservative restaurateur Steve Smith, where undocumented kitchen staff were asked to go home to avoid rumoured immigration raids. The restaurant, licensed by the right-wing musician Kid Rock, who has also become one of the US president’s highest-profile backers, reportedly found itself struggling to serve post-concert crowds on one Saturday night after the order from managers instructing employees without legal status to leave.

“Around 9.30 pm on Saturday, our manager came back and told anyone without legal status to go home. Events at the Ryman, Ascend, and the Savannah Bananas’ baseball game all let out, and it was crazy busy. But there was no one in the kitchen to cook the food,” an anonymous employee narrated the ordeal to the Nashville Scene.

An aggressive immigration sweep began on 3rd May, when state troopers and unmarked ICE vehicles significantly increased traffic stops throughout South Nashville. The operation has resulted in at least 196 arrests, including 101 individuals with no criminal history, according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) press release. While Trump and the DHS secretary, Kristi Noem, have publicly celebrated “accelerated deportations” nationwide, these actions have created panic among legal residents as well.

Nathan Wessler, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said, “We’re witnessing incredibly unsettling instances of retaliatory action based on people’s speech and political opinions. People of all political persuasions—as well as those with various citizenship and immigration statuses—should be especially concerned when that is coupled with extremely broad authority to search through the contents of our phones and laptops, looking at what we have written and what others have sent us.”

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has long regarded US borders and airports as a Fourth Amendment loophole, granting them broad authority to detain and inspect travellers’ devices. With little official justification or supervision, the agency has long taken advantage of that chance to detain border-crossers based on the smallest suspicion and seek access to their phones and computers.

Citizens are not immune at all. Agents have confiscated the gadgets of CBP detainees, including journalists, filmmakers, and security experts.

The following tips from legal and security professionals have been compiled to assist in protecting your digital privacy when travelling across US borders, as those incursions become more frequent and forceful under the second Trump administration.

Call home

If you suspect you may be stopped or interrogated at the border, notify a lawyer or a loved one who can be contacted before crossing customs.

Then, get in touch with them again after you exit. You may not have access to your devices or other means of communication while in custody. Additionally, you’ll want legal counsel and an advocate for your release in the worst-case event of a protracted imprisonment.

Lock down devices

Don’t make it simple for customs officers to steal your electronics. Select a secure passcode and encrypt your hard drive using programmes like Apple’s FileVault, BitLocker, or VeraCrypt. Create a secure PIN on your phone.

The most effective way to secure your phone is to use a hard-to-crack alphanumeric code instead of biometrics or a four-digit PIN. Turn off “Allow Siri When Locked” from the Siri menu in Settings on an iPhone to prevent Siri from appearing on the lock screen.

Don’t forget to switch off your electronics before going through customs. Hard-drive encryption solutions only provide complete safety when a machine is completely shut down. An iPhone is the safest when it’s off because Face ID requires a PIN instead of a face scan when it initially boots up, eliminating any doubt about whether border officials may force you to unlock the device using your biometrics.

You can now keep sensitive apps separate from other apps on your phone by putting them in a different folder and adding an extra degree of verification. Apple and Google have made this feature possible in recent years. Private spaces on Android may be enabled through the security and privacy settings menu, and on iOS, you can choose to hide an app by long-tapping on it.

Lastly, Wessler advises visitors to make sure they update the operating systems on their phones and laptops before entering the country. This is because, in certain situations, CBP might utilise programmes like Cellebrite or GrayKey to take advantage of unpatched flaws in certain devices, gaining access to them without the user having to unlock them.

Wessler said, “Your device may be vulnerable if your operating system is six months out of date.”

Don’t divulge passwords

Wessler of the ACLU claims that Americans cannot be deported for refusing to disclose the passwords to their encrypted devices or social media accounts.

Accordingly, you may be arrested and have your devices seized, even taken to a forensic facility, if you refuse to give up your passwords or PINs, but you will ultimately escape with your privacy much more intact than if you reveal secrets.

“They can seize your device, even for months, while they try to break into it. But you’re going to get home,” Wessler added.

This protection also extends to green card holders, Wessler notes, notwithstanding the Trump administration’s startling treatment of foreign permanent residents in certain situations.

However, be advised that refusing entry to customs officers may result in hours of uncertain incarceration in a desolate, windowless CBP office, at the absolute least. Court rulings have limited the powers of CBP officials at some US airports and states, but these restrictions may not be enforced if border agents have your computer or phone unsupervised.

The CBP distinguishes between two kinds of device searches. Basic, in which the content of a device is examined “manually” by an officer, and advanced, in which a device is linked to other devices and its contents can be examined or copied.

According to CBP, the latter search necessitates a “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity. The agency’s official advice avoids specifically stating that individuals must turn over passwords by stating that devices should be submitted “in a condition that allows for the examination.”

According to the agency’s website, “If the electronic device is protected by a passcode, encryption, or other security mechanism and cannot be inspected, that device may be subject to exclusion, detention, or other appropriate action or disposition.”

Wessler cautions that non-Americans entering the US with a visa or from a nation that waives visas face a much more difficult situation: you risk being refused entrance if you refuse to provide a passcode or PIN.

According to him, “People have to make a very practical assessment about what’s most important to them: entry into the country at the risk of being turned around at the border, either by sacrificing or by protecting your privacy.”

Reduce the amount of data you keep

The best approach to keep customs away from your data is to just not bring it on your trip. This is the obvious option for the most susceptible tourists. Set up travel devices that store the least amount of sensitive data possible, much like Lackey did.

Avoid connecting those “dirty” devices to your personal accounts. If you must, make new accounts with distinct identities and passwords, such as an Apple ID for iOS devices.

“If they ask for access and you can’t refuse, you want to be able to give it to them without losing any sensitive information,” Lackey explains.

Admittedly, social media accounts are difficult to delete. While keeping a more important account secret, some security experts advise developing backup personas that can be presented to customs agents. However, you may face extended detention and, in the case of noncitizens, even refusal of entry if CBP officers connect your name to an account you attempted to conceal.

To prevent border agents from accessing documents or data you store remotely, the Electronic Frontier Foundation also advises shutting down apps and cloud services like Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive if you are unable to set up a separate travel device. Backing up files or images to cloud services before your trip might facilitate data removal from the phone.

According to Wessler of the American Civil Liberties Union, “The only sure way to protect yourself is to not carry information with you or to carry as little as possible. As long as you have a device and there’s stuff on it, that’s potentially vulnerable to search.”

In light of the current political climate and the increasingly unpredictable nature of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) scrutiny, travellers are advised to take proactive steps to protect their digital privacy. While the methods outlined above offer some degree of protection, it is crucial to remember that there is no foolproof way to guarantee privacy at the US border.

The erratic and often undocumented practices of CBP mean that any traveller could be subject to scrutiny, and their electronic devices could be searched without warning. Therefore, it is essential to weigh the risks and benefits of each privacy protection method and choose the ones that best suit your individual needs and circumstances.

For US citizens, the risk of deportation for refusing to divulge passwords is low. However, non-citizens may face more severe consequences, including denial of entry. Therefore, non-citizens must carefully consider the potential repercussions of refusing to cooperate with CBP officials.

Regardless of citizenship status, all travellers should be aware of the potential for lengthy detentions and intrusive searches. By taking steps to minimise the amount of sensitive data they carry and by being prepared for the possibility of a device search, travellers can help to protect their privacy and avoid unnecessary complications at the border.

Ultimately, the responsibility for protecting digital privacy at the US border rests with the individual traveller. By being informed and prepared, travellers can navigate the complexities of border security while minimising the risk to their personal information. While the future of digital privacy at the US border remains uncertain, travellers can take comfort in knowing that they have options to protect themselves and their data.

Remember, the border is a zone of heightened security, and CBP officials have broad authority to search and detain travellers. By understanding your rights and taking proactive steps to protect your privacy, you can ensure a smoother and less stressful border crossing experience. Stay informed, stay prepared, and safeguard your digital privacy.

The post Crossing into America? Lock down your tech appeared first on International Finance.

September 10, 2024, was a legal catastrophe for Apple and Google. This was a rare victory for the European Union’s (EU) regulatory framework in its ongoing battle with big tech. While Google was unable to appeal a €2.4 billion fine for abusing its dominance in online searches, the European Court of Justice decided that Apple should reimburse the Irish tax authorities €13 billion in overdue taxes.

This was not a short-term victory for the EU’s former competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, a fierce opponent of big tech to her detractors and a champion of fair competition to her allies.

A worldwide crackdown

The EU is not alone in its efforts to control the companies that dominate digital search and advertising (Google), e-commerce (Amazon), social networks (Meta), and cellphones (Apple). There is an ongoing global wave of regulatory crackdowns on the dominant digital companies, extending from the United States to India. Governments use antitrust laws, an outdated weapon against this new foe, and the threat of mergers as the last punishment to force violators to comply.

Big tech is the target of such a strong reaction for four reasons. One is the long-standing worry among antitrust scholars and regulators that competition in the tech sector is dwindling as a result of major corporations using their power to hinder new competitors, which stunts economic growth and innovation.

Regulators like Vestager and her US counterpart Lina Khan consider themselves contemporary counterparts of the first US president to take on monopolies, Theodore Roosevelt.

Christopher Sagers, a specialist in antitrust law at Cleveland State University, argues that the antitrust activity of the early 20th century serves as a precedent for the increasing attention Big Tech is receiving due to the rapid changes in technology.

Politics also comes into play. Scepticism toward elites, large corporations, and the media is the foundation of both left and right populism. Tech companies and their executives, like Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, serve as prime examples of this.

Rising geopolitical tensions and deglobalization are also forcing governments to control multinational firms, with antitrust laws essentially turning into protectionist instruments. Measures against US IT businesses may be connected to EU concerns about the bloc’s decline in competitiveness, which were articulated in a recent report written by former ECB chief Mario Draghi.

Platform economies have finally reached a critical point. The degree of horizontal and vertical integration these businesses have attained is remarkable given the growing convergence of digital technology. When you think of Google, it is not only a business but also an ecosystem that encompasses email, mobile operating systems, and internet search, all within its domain.

The valuation of its parent firm, Alphabet, which holds more than 4% of the S&P 500 stock market index, reflects that. Amazon has created its own e-commerce empire, but Facebook and Apple are similar in their extensive businesses.

Governments are facing pressure to create equal opportunities for software developers and Amazon’s suppliers. Regulators are now compelled to act before it’s too late due to the emergence of AI. However, because the consequences are uncertain and the actions taken may be ineffective, this complexity is precisely what makes antitrust litigation against computer firms difficult.

Breaking up is difficult

Big tech now has to contend with authorities that have a robust antitrust agenda after decades of unchecked expansion.

Jonathan Kanter, the head of the Department of Justice’s (DoJ) antitrust unit, has made it his goal to crack down on digital oligopolies, and Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), established herself as a prominent scholar with a seminal paper on Amazon’s monopolistic practices. Regulators believe that antitrust laws have been underutilised for a long time, especially when it comes to possible emerging competitors.

According to John Yun, a former FTC executive and antitrust law expert who teaches at George Mason University, there is a belief that conglomerates are becoming more significant in terms of the scrutiny they merit and that mergers are too permissive.

For the EU, competition is just as important as competitiveness when it comes to regulating big tech. The primary target of this regulatory onslaught at the moment is Google. The DoJ suggested in October 2024 that dismantling the company would be one way to disrupt its monopoly on internet searches.

Judge Amit Mehta declared that the company had engaged in “monopolistic” behaviour in its quest for search supremacy and had broken antitrust laws.

Google may be forced to provide solutions, like sharing search data with rival companies or even selling off its Chrome browser and Android smartphone operating system, which it uses to advertise its search engine. Importantly, it might have to renounce a $20 billion exclusivity deal with Apple that sets Google as the default search engine in Safari, the company’s browser. We anticipate a ruling by August, despite Google’s anticipated appeal to the Supreme Court.

The antitrust issues with Alphabet don’t stop there. A separate DoJ action has also been filed against the company for engaging in anti-competitive behaviour in its digital advertising division. Despite its less well-known nature compared to its dominance in search engines, advertising effectively regulates supply, demand, measurement, and online ad auctions, making it the company’s true asset.

Furthermore, a San Francisco court ordered Alphabet to make Android available to competitors in October 2024, allowing Android apps to be sold on app stores other than Google Play and be paid for using different methods.

According to Sagers from Cleveland State University, Google may be an exception even though break-up orders are uncommon because courts dislike them and governments primarily use them as a negotiating tool to scare businesses into making concessions.

The company has been accused of a variety of anti-competitive practices and has established power in several industries, so “the situation that Google currently finds itself in maybe uncommonly favourable to a breakup remedy,” he says.

He contends that the government’s entire thesis is that Google leverages its control of various components of the “ad stack” to drive out rivals and raise costs, making the separation of its ad tech division the most likely course of action. They may be less inclined to act in an anti-competitive manner if the various components are divided up and given to different owners.

Digital platforms have created network effects, which means that they offer a service whose appeal is based on the strength of the crowds: the more people using it, the better it is. This explains why there haven’t been many tech breakups. Since the resulting companies would not be able to achieve prior efficiencies or might even attempt to combine again, breaking them up is impracticable and costly.

“The government might argue that if Chrome and Android were broken off into separate firms, which don’t directly profit from search engine ad revenues, they would no longer have the incentive to give preference to Google search over competing search engines,” says Sagers, indicating that a structural remedy for Google’s search dominance would make sense in this particular case.

Apple is facing a DoJ antitrust action for using its dominating position in the US smartphone market—roughly two out of every three cellphones sold in the US are iPhones—to make it more difficult for customers to switch to third-party software and hardware.

The FTC is also pursuing antitrust complaints against Amazon and Meta, alleging that the latter has stifled competition from other shops on its e-commerce platform and favoured its own goods and services, while the former has monopolised social media through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

More concerningly, the regulator has opened an enquiry into digital pricing discrimination, which has the potential to upend one of the digital economy’s main tenets: how businesses utilise user data to determine personalised prices on the internet.

The lack of pertinent precedents contributes to the regulatory dilemma. No tech firm has experienced a similar destiny since the dissolution of the US telecom giant AT&T forty years ago.

The demise of Bell Labs, a research centre, is cited by some as one of the reasons why the US was left without a major player in telecommunications technology, allowing foreign competitors to emerge, even though others think that the separation increased competition in certain areas of the market that drove the internet explosion of the 1990s.

Another risk is that oligopolies can gradually reorganise, as was the case with AT&T, according to Sagers, “Lax merger enforcement allowed the companies that had been broken up to slowly knit themselves back together into larger and larger companies, until once again just a handful of firms controlled all of the communications.”

Other antitrust tools could include requiring interoperability and data portability: “Both might effectively break the impact of network effects that is cementing the market power of large companies,” says Luise Eisfeld, a digital platform expert and finance professor at HEC Lausanne.

Europe’s predicament

Many critics have accused the EU of using antitrust law as a protectionist instrument because they believe that regulating big tech is as much about competition as it is about competitiveness. The phrase “competitiveness” is used to suggest that we should combat large, non-EU firms in order to permit EU corporations to combine and concentrate, which is extremely risky.

Claire Lavin, a researcher at the antitrust think tank Open Markets Institute, warned that in practice, this approach could inadvertently enable EU-based oligopolies or monopolies to thrive, ultimately harming businesses and consumers. It may also pave the way for the rise of so-called “EU champions,” raising concerns about protectionism disguised as competition policy.

For possible infringement of the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), which attempts to stop IT giants from abusing their dominant position and promoting the growth of innovative businesses, the Commission opened an enquiry against Apple, Meta, and Alphabet this spring.

It identifies “gatekeepers,” or platforms with at least 45 million users in the EU and a turnover of at least €7.5 billion, as possible offenders. The Commission is looking into whether the businesses permit app developers to provide customers options outside of their storefronts. Google is also being criticised for favouring its own services over competitors in its search results, despite having paid €8.25 billion in EU fines in the past ten years.

The company owns several tools, such as the ad management platform Google Ad Manager, the exchange AdX, and the buying platforms Google Ads and DV360. This creates a conflict of interest that can only be resolved by selling these tools, according to the Commission’s claim in a different case that it is using unfair business practices to protect its ad tech business.

Business breakups may potentially disrupt a growing EU tech ecosystem, which the Draghi study identifies as a source of future growth. Oles Andriychuk, a professor at the University of Exeter who specialises in competition law and digital marketplaces, believes that “it could backfire, generating criticism and even cancellation of so many new ideas that get developed on the basis of traditional competition law.”

Facebook’s parent company, Meta, could potentially face fines for purportedly attempting to regulate classified advertising. EU regulators anticipate that the company undercuts competition by connecting Facebook and Marketplace, an e-commerce site.

The company has also come under fire for charging users for ad-free versions of its social networks and using data gathered from third parties to sell consumers advertisements. In addition to its tax issues in Ireland, Apple was hit with its first antitrust fine of around €1.8 billion in March for giving preference to its own music streaming service over rivals.

Vestager led a trust-busting campaign against tech corporations, lobbyists, politicians, and even Eurocrats during his ten years as the EU’s antitrust director. According to Andriychuk, “The European Commission found it increasingly difficult to meet the higher evidentiary standards set by the European Court of Justice in its current composition, but the Commission still prevailed in a number of cases.”

Teresa Ribera, her replacement, has joined a new commission whose goal is to support the establishment of large digital companies in the EU, as outlined in the Draghi report. In competition cycles, industrial policy terminology had a poor reputation for many years.

Andriychuk notes that people have begun to rediscover the connection between industrial policies and competition since its partial restoration. Ribera will also need to strike a balance between competing priorities, though.

China: First major tech killer

The first superpower to use antitrust laws to limit the influence of its IT companies was China. All of this began in late 2020 when Alibaba co-founder Jack Ma made an anti-government speech.

In addition to China’s financial regulator forcing the company to restructure in order to comply with financial regulations and suspending Alibaba’s sister company Ant Group’s initial public offering (IPO), Ma’s rebellious attitude infuriated the authorities to the point that he had to leave the public spotlight.

Wendy Chang, a specialist in Chinese digital policy at the think tank Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS), contends that the group’s aggressive foray into finance, which went against the government’s goal to maintain control of the sector, may have been the catalyst for the intense response.

Alibaba was also the subject of an enquiry by China’s competition commission, which fined it a record ¥18.2 billion (£1.96 billion) for abusing its dominance in e-commerce. This was only the start of a larger crackdown.

Chinese authorities forced the nation’s largest tech companies, such as Tencent Holdings, Meituan, the food delivery company, and ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, to alter their monopolistic tactics after they issued guidelines to curb digital monopolies.

Chang claims that the government’s preference for manufacturing investment over services was one factor behind the crackdown. After regulators looked into earlier merger cases and fined Alibaba, Tencent, and ride-hailing behemoth Didi Global for failing to report deals for antitrust reviews, there was a sharp decline in tech mergers and acquisitions.

Another regulatory guideline advocating for a more robust model of development for the digital sector marked the official conclusion of the clampdown. Authorities acknowledged the significance of tech platforms for economic growth even as they upheld their commitment to combat monopolies.

One long-term effect is that the Chinese government now has representation on the boards of significant digital platforms, which allows them to influence their strategy and even obtain their data. Chang asserts that a significant decline in stock market value has already caused considerable harm.

The majority of impacted businesses have not yet recovered, which limits their capacity to develop and expand in industries that the government disapproves of, such as gaming, virtual currencies, and financial services.

Should we dismantle AI giants?

Artificial intelligence has evolved beyond the realm of science fiction since ChatGPT’s debut in 2022. Globally, billions of people are already using generative AI, which creates texts, images, and movies. Microsoft, Amazon, and Google have taken note, purchasing hundreds of AI start-ups and providing cloud services and cash to AI engineers in return for licenses and stock.

Because creating sophisticated AI models requires expensive processing hardware, energy, and data, established tech companies have an advantage over smaller rivals, which raises fears that they may also control this industry.

One example is Microsoft-backed OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. But, AI is also predicted to upend industries where big tech now controls the majority, like search, where OpenAI is creating SearchGPT, an AI-powered search engine that might challenge Google’s hegemony.

Restrictions on Google’s use of third-party data to train its AI models are among the remedies proposed by the US DoJ in its lawsuit against the company, which raised fears that it would utilise its distinct dominance in important areas to create an AI empire.

Should antitrust action be taken against the emerging AI behemoths before it’s too late? Given the substantial obstacles for new entrants, some believe that is essential.

“The current dynamics of the AI ecosystem give incumbent tech giants like Alphabet, Amazon, and Microsoft the ability and incentive to entrench their power in AI markets and suppress meaningful competition,” says Jack Corrigan, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Centre for Security and Emerging Technology, while adding, “Competition authorities seem to be aware of these changes. They can keep the market for AI products from becoming as stagnant as the markets for other digital technologies by closely watching how these companies act and stepping in as needed.”

Some believe that governments should intervene by providing public resources to reduce the reliance of AI developers on large technology companies. Lavin of the Open Markets Institute says that another way to stop oligopolies from controlling AI is to make the laws that control mergers and other anti-competitive behaviour stricter. This could include looking into breakups.

While regulators globally have ramped up their efforts to curb the power of big tech, the balance between promoting competitiveness and facilitating innovation remains delicate. Antitrust actions, like those in the EU and US, are aimed at preventing monopolies from stifling new competition, but they also risk stifling creativity and technological growth.

The cases against companies like Google, Apple, and Amazon highlight the complexity of regulating industries marked by rapid innovation and network effects. As AI and other emerging technologies grow, regulators face new challenges in ensuring fair competition without hindering the very innovation that drives technological progress.

Moving forward, policymakers must carefully navigate this intricate landscape to create a fair, competitive environment that allows both new and established players to thrive.

The post The big tech crackdown: A threat to innovation? appeared first on International Finance.

Luca Maestri, who held the position for almost 11 years, has been replaced by Kevan Parekh. Another significant milestone in his incredible career will be reached when he takes on his new position, where he will receive an annual salary of USD 1 million.

Since joining the company in June 2013, Kevan Parekh has been instrumental in its success. The University of Michigan awarded him a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, and the University of Chicago awarded him an MBA. Market research, investor relations, and financial planning are just a few of the important duties Kevan Parekh has assumed over the years at Apple.

Kevan Parekh has experience in marketing, sales, and retail, so his knowledge extends beyond finance. He collaborated closely with the engineering and product marketing teams.

According to Bloomberg, Kevan Parekh is a logical choice to succeed departing CFO Luca Maestri because Maestri has been preparing him for this position. Despite not being well-known, he is highly respected at Apple and frequently provides CEO Tim Cook with important financial updates.

Kevan Parekh was instrumental in forming Apple’s operations and strategies in several departments before becoming its CFO.

He held senior leadership positions at General Motors and Thomson Reuters before joining Apple. Kevan Parekh’s keen intellect, good judgement, and in-depth knowledge of Apple have been commended by CEO Tim Cook.

Kevan Parekh’s appointment also comes just before the tech giant’s scheduled release of its Q1 2025 earnings report on January 30. The report, apart from covering iPhone 16 and Apple Watch Series 10 sales extensively, will also make public the venture’s market performance during the recent holiday season.

In Q4 2024 (July to September), Apple reported USD 94.93 billion in revenue, up 6% year-on-year. The company recorded growth in most of its categories, except for Wearables, Home, and Accessories – which includes Apple Watch, AirPods, and HomePod.

Since new products such as the iPhone 16 and Apple Watch Series 10 were launched in mid-September, the Q4 2024 report only included data on the first two weeks of sales for these products.

Apple is also reportedly working on a new technology that could allow the iPhone maker to introduce a smartphone with a larger battery, without drastically increasing the thickness of the handset. While the project looks similar to the one undertaken by Samsung, the technology is not entirely new, given the fact that Chinese firms have already begun to introduce smartphones that are equipped with 7,000mAh batteries, using silicon carbon technology.

Apple Intelligence AI Feature Under Fire

Meanwhile, according to 9To5Mac, Apple’s new AI-powered notification summary feature, which was first included in iOS 18.1, is coming under increased scrutiny after several mistakes were brought to light by the BBC.

According to the publication, the feature, which summarises notifications into summaries, was intended to improve user experience, but recent errors indicate it might require more work.

Notably, the feature, which is currently in beta testing, aims to give users a concise synopsis of notifications rather than the complete content.

The report claims that Apple has admitted the possibility of mistakes and asked users to report any inaccuracies so that the system can be made better.

The BBC has swiftly identified the feature’s flaws, though, which have resulted in some notifications that are inaccurate and misleading.

In one particularly striking instance from December 2024, an AI-generated summary falsely stated that Luigi Mangione (American man who was identified as the suspect in the killing of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare) had shot himself, which was completely untrue, according to the report.

According to BBC, one of the most recent instances was a notification that claimed darts player Luke Littler had won the PDC World Championship even though he hadn’t yet participated in the final.

Furthermore, some users of the BBC Sport app were misled by another notification that falsely stated that tennis legend Rafael Nadal had come out as gay. These mistakes show how difficult it is to use AI to summarise news in real-time, especially when breaking news is involved.

Even though AI can summarise information rapidly, there is a significant chance of misunderstandings or errors, particularly in the fast-paced fields of sports and current events.

Apple may eventually disable AI-generated summaries for news apps by default, at least until the technology advances, according to growing rumours in light of these persistent problems.

Image Credits: Apple

The post Business Leader of the Week: Kevan Parekh takes charge as Apple’s new CFO appeared first on International Finance.

Following the historic Digital Markets Act of the European Union, which went into effect in 2023, Apple faces a fine of up to 10% of its yearly global revenue unless it permits competitors and app developers to use its services.

As per a report by Apple, Meta has submitted 15 interoperability requests so far, more than any other company, for potentially extensive access to Apple’s technology stack.

“In many cases, Meta is seeking to alter functionality in a way that raises concerns about the privacy and security of users, and that appears to be completely unrelated to the actual use of Meta external devices, such as Meta smart glasses and Meta Quests,” Apple said, as reported by Zawya.

The company’s goal is to control the computational platform that drives virtual reality (VR) and mixed reality (MR) devices, and Meta Quest is its virtual reality headset.

“If Apple were to have to grant all of these requests, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp could enable Meta to read on a user’s device all of their messages and emails, see every phone call they make or receive, track every app that they use, scan all of their photos, look at their files and calendar events, log all of their passwords, and more,” the iPhone maker noted further, while raising concerns about the privacy fines that Meta has received in Europe in recent years.

“What Apple is actually saying is they don’t believe in interoperability. Every time Apple is called out for its anticompetitive behaviour, they defend themselves on privacy grounds that have no basis in reality,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement.

The whole saga comes amid the European Commission pressed Apple to further open up the iPhone operating system to rivals. The commission, on December 18, instructed the Tim Cook-led firm to rework the iOS operating system so that it becomes more compatible with smartwatches, earbuds, headsets and other devices from competitors.

Regulators further stated that outside iOS developers should be provided with more details on how to request access to iPhone features. They also should be given a dedicated contact to handle the requests, as the European Commission wanted the tech behemoth to adopt better processes related to rejected requests and take steps toward conciliation.

The European Commission escalated things further by publishing an extensive list of features that it wants Apple to open to third-party developers. They cover technologies ranging from Wi-Fi connections to file-transfer features to the beaming of video from devices.

In response, Apple said that the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which lays out a broad set of guardrails for the world’s largest technology platforms, would put its users at risk. The company further noted the rules force users “to open their devices — and their most sensitive data — to companies with a track record of violating their privacy.”

The post Apple hits out at Meta’s numerous interoperability requests amid EU concerns appeared first on International Finance.

However, the prototype was still clearly a disaster in the Apple boardroom. Not only was the product clunky, but it was also inoperable. Data and applications regularly became corrupted and unusable, the phone would frequently drop calls, and the battery would drain before it was fully charged. Problems seemed to be inexhaustible. Upon concluding the demonstration, Jobs gave a stern look to the approximately twelve individuals present in the room and declared, “A product is not yet available.”

It was a terrifying effect, even more so than one of Steve Jobs’ famous meltdowns. When the Apple chief screamed at his staff, it was scary but familiar. A meeting participant remarked, “It was one of the few times at Apple when I got a chill.”

In just a few months, Apple was scheduled to host its annual Macworld convention, with the iPhone slated to be the star attraction. Upon his return to Apple in 1997, Jobs had utilised the occasion to introduce his most significant products and those who followed Apple were anticipating yet another momentous declaration.

Jobs had previously acknowledged that Leopard, the upcoming release of Apple’s operating system, would be delayed. If the iPhone wasn’t ready in time, Macworld would be a dud, Jobs’ critics would pounce, and Apple’s stock price could suffer.

The question was, what would AT&T (an American multinational telecommunications holding company) think? Steve Jobs had finally worked out a deal for the iPhone’s carrier, the telecom behemoth (then known as Cingular), following a year and a half of closed-door meetings. Jobs had been given unprecedented power by AT&T in exchange for five years of exclusivity, about 10% of iPhone sales in AT&T stores, and a small portion of Apple’s iTunes revenue.

He had persuaded AT&T to invest millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours in order to reimagine the labour-intensive in-store sign-up process and develop a new feature known as visual voicemail. He had also negotiated a special revenue-sharing plan that allowed him to take about $10 off each iPhone user’s AT&T bill each month.

In addition, Apple continued to have total control over the iPhone’s development, production, and promotion. Jobs had achieved the unimaginable: he successfully negotiated a favourable agreement with a major player in the well-established wireless sector. The least he could do at this point was to meet his deadlines.

For the next three months, there were frequently screaming matches in the hallways. Engineers who were exhausted from working through the night often resigned, only to return a few days later. The product manager locked herself in her office after slamming the door so hard that the handle bent.

A few weeks before Macworld, Jobs had a working prototype that he showed the AT&T suits. He first met wireless boss Stan Sigman (CEO of AT&T) in mid-December 2006 at the Four Seasons hotel in Las Vegas. He demonstrated the iPhone’s sharp screen, potent Web browser, and captivating UI. Unusually enthusiastic, Sigman praised the iPhone as “the best device I have ever seen.”

On June 29, 2007, six months after its launch, the iPhone went on sale. Analysts predicted that by the end of 2007, sales would reach approximately three million units, making it the fastest-selling smartphone ever at the time of publication. It’s also possibly Apple’s most lucrative product. With every $399 iPhone sold, the company makes an estimated $80, excluding the $240 it receives from each two-year AT&T contract an iPhone customer signs. In the meantime, the iPhone has tripled AT&T’s data traffic in major cities like New York and San Francisco, and about 40% of iPhone buyers were brand-new customers.

Although the iPhone has been crucial to Apple and AT&T’s success, its true influence has been felt in the way the $11 billion US mobile phone market is structured. For many years, wireless carriers have acted as though manufacturers were subservient, controlling phone production, pricing, and feature availability through access to their networks. The majority of people saw cell phones as disposable, low-cost bait that was heavily subsidised to entice users to use the exclusive services offered by the carriers.

But with the iPhone, carriers started to realise that a well-chosen product, even if it is expensive, can attract consumers and generate income. Nowadays, manufacturers are racing to make phones that consumers will love rather than ones that the carriers will approve of in an attempt to land a deal akin to Apple’s.

According to Piper Jaffray securities analyst Michael Olson, “The iPhone is already changing the way carriers and manufacturers behave.”

Jobs began considering creating a phone in 2002, not long after the first iPod was introduced. It makes sense that customers would prefer to have just one device when they see millions of Americans carrying around multiple phones, BlackBerrys, and now MP3 players. In the future, he also anticipated, cell phones and mobile email clients would continue to add features, posing a threat to the iPod’s hegemony in the music player market. Jobs anticipated having to enter the wireless industry at some point to safeguard his new product line.

However, there were challenges. Data networks were unreliable and unprepared for a fully functional handheld Internet device. The operating system for the iPod was not complex enough to handle advanced networking or graphics. Even a stripped-down version of OS X would be too demanding for a mobile phone chip. This meant that Apple had to develop an entirely new operating system for the iPhone.

Apple would also be up against fierce competition: in 2003, people went crazy for the Palm Treo 600, which combined a PDA, phone, and BlackBerry into one stylish package. That increased the bar for Apple’s engineers but also demonstrated that there was a market for a so-called convergence device.

Then there were the cellular service providers. Jobs was aware that they controlled what was built and how it was built, and that they viewed hardware as little more than a means of gaining access to their networks. Being a notorious control freak himself, Jobs was not going to allow a group of executives, or “orifices” as he would later refer to them, dictate how he should design his phone.

The iPod business owned by Apple was both more significant and more susceptible than before, by 2004. Although the iPod made up 16% of the company’s revenue, its long-term position as the industry’s leading music device appeared to be in jeopardy given the rise of 3G phones, the impending release of Wi-Fi phones, the sharp decline in storage costs, and the proliferation of competing music stores.

Therefore, Jobs was preparing his entry into the mobile phone industry that summer even as he flatly denied he would create an Apple phone. He went to Motorola in an attempt to get around the carriers.

With the release of the immensely popular RAZR by the phone company and Jobs’ familiarity with Ed Zander, Motorola’s CEO at the time, from Zander’s time as an executive at Sun Microsystems, it appeared to be a simple fix. With a deal in place, Motorola and the carrier, Cingular, could work out the intricate details of the hardware, leaving Apple to focus on creating the music software.

Of course, Jobs’ plan was predicated on the assumption that Motorola would create a worthy replacement for the RAZR, but that was soon to be determined. The three businesses fought over almost every detail, including how songs would be stored on the phone, how much music could be played, and even how each company’s name would be shown. There was still another issue: the device itself was unsightly when the prototypes appeared at the end of 2004.

With his trademark panache, Jobs introduced the ROKR in September 2005, calling it “an iPod shuffle on your phone.” However, Jobs probably realised he was dealing with a failure; customers detested it. The ROKR, which could only store 100 songs and was unable to download music directly, soon came to symbolise everything that was wrong with the US wireless industry. It was the result of a tangle of competing interests, with the customer coming last on the list.

Even as the ROKR was going into production, Jobs realised he would have to construct his own mobile device. He met with Cingular in February 2005 to talk about a partnership where Motorola would not be involved. A few Cingular senior executives, including Sigman, were present when Jobs presented his plans in a top-secret meeting held in a hotel in midtown Manhattan.

In December 2006, AT&T acquired Cingular. Sigman continued to serve as the president of Cingular Wireless. Jobs gave Cingular a three-part speech, stating that Apple had the technology to create something “light-years ahead of anything else” that was genuinely revolutionary. Apple was willing to explore an exclusive agreement to close that deal. However, Apple was also ready to become a de facto carrier by purchasing wireless minutes in bulk.

Jobs was justified in his confidence. After nearly a year of developing touchscreen technology for tablet PCs, Apple’s hardware engineers persuaded him that they could create a comparable phone interface. Additionally, with the introduction of the ARM11 chip, mobile processors could now run a device that merged the features of an iPod, a computer, and a phone. Additionally, wireless minutes had dropped to the point where Apple could resell them to customers; Virgin and other companies were already doing this.

The iPhone concept instantly captivated Sigman and his group. The approach taken by Cingular and the other carriers encouraged users to access the Internet more and more through their mobile phones. Price wars were slashing margins, and the voice business was in decline. The iPhone may result in a rise in the number of data users due to its advertised capacity to download media files (music and video) and browse the Internet at Wi-Fi speeds. Furthermore, profit margins were highest in data rather than voice.

Additionally, the Cingular team realised that the wireless business model needed to be altered. Carriers had grown accustomed to considering handsets as useless commodities and their networks as priceless resources. This tactic had worked wonders for them. Carriers facilitated new customer enrolment by offering subsidies for the purchase of inexpensive phones, which in turn led to the signing of long-term contracts that guaranteed a steady stream of revenue.

However, wireless access has evolved from a luxury to a need. The carriers’ biggest problem wasn’t finding new customers; rather, it was stealing existing ones from one another. It wasn’t sufficient to simply entice customers with cheap phones; Sigman and his team aimed to offer essential gadgets exclusive to their network. Who better than Jobs to design one?

Cingular found Apple’s aspirations to be both exciting and unsettling. A loving partnership with the iPod manufacturer would enhance the brand’s appeal. If Jobs was rejected by Cingular, another carrier would undoubtedly sign with him because he was adamant about pitching his idea to anybody who would listen. Sigman knew he would have a difficult time convincing his fellow executives and board members to approve a deal similar to the one Jobs proposed, but no carrier had ever offered anyone the flexibility and control that Jobs wanted.

Sigman was correct. Throughout the more than a year-long negotiation, Sigman and his team would frequently question whether they were giving up too much ground. Jobs met with some Verizon executives at one point, but they quickly declined him. Assigning blame was difficult. Carriers had been charging suppliers and users for using and selling services over their proprietary networks for years.

Cingular ran the risk of making its renowned and costly network into a “dumb pipe,” a mere conduit for content rather than the creator of it, by granting Jobs such extensive control. Sigman’s team placed a straightforward wager: the iPhone would generate a massive increase in data traffic that would more than offset any money it lost on content deals.

Jobs wouldn’t hold off until the details of the agreement were ironed out. He gave his engineers orders to go full steam ahead on the project around Thanksgiving 2005, eight months before a final agreement was signed. If the talks with Cingular were difficult, they were nothing compared to the technical and creative difficulties Apple encountered.

First, there was the matter of which operating system to select. Mobile chips have become more powerful since the original Macintosh OS prototype was developed in 2002, which is when the idea for the Apple phone was first conceived. An iPhone OS should only be a few hundred megabytes, or about a tenth of the size of OS X, so it would need to be completely rewritten and stripped down.

Jobs and his top executives had to decide how to resolve this issue before they could begin designing the iPhone. Although Linux had already been modified for use on mobile devices, engineers gave it serious consideration, but Jobs insisted on using his own software.

They developed a phone prototype that was integrated into an iPod and used the click wheel to dial numbers; however, it was limited to selecting numbers and could not browse the Internet. Therefore, Apple started rewriting OS X for the iPhone in early 2006, right as their year-long effort to modify it to work with Intel chips was coming to an end.

At the very least, all of Apple’s senior executives had heard the discussion regarding the appropriate operating system to use. They were ill-prepared to talk about the complexities of the mobile phone industry, such as radio-frequency radiation, network simulations, and antenna design. Apple invested millions in purchasing and putting together specialised robot-equipped testing rooms to make sure the iPhone’s tiny antenna could perform its function.

Apple constructed human head models, complete with goo to simulate brain density, and measured the radiation output to ensure the iPhone didn’t produce excessive amounts of it. For millions of dollars each, Apple engineers purchased almost a dozen server-sized radio-frequency simulators in order to forecast the iPhone’s network performance.

Jobs learnt while carrying a prototype in his pocket that even Apple’s prior experience creating iPod screens wasn’t helpful in creating the iPhone screen: glass, not the hard plastic used on the iPod, was required for the touchscreen to reduce scratches. An insider projects that Apple invested about $150 million in the iPhone’s development.

Jobs remained as secretive as possible throughout. Inside, the project was referred to as P2, or Purple 2, short for Purple 1 (the name of the abandoned iPod phone). Teams dispersed throughout Apple’s Cupertino, California, campus. Apple executives registered as workers of Infineon, the company that manufactured the phone’s transmitter, whenever they went to Cingular.

The teams responsible for developing the iPhone’s hardware and software were kept apart. The former worked with circuitry that contained fictitious software, while the latter used circuit boards that were housed in wooden boxes. Only about thirty of the most senior project members had seen the iPhone by January 2007, when Jobs unveiled it at Macworld.

The iPhone was so overwhelming it was easy to ignore its imperfections. The initial price of $599 was too high (it has been lowered to $399). The phone is connected to AT&T’s EDGE poky network. Video recording and email searches are not possible for users. Programmes written in Java or Flash cannot be executed by the browser.

Still, it was all insignificant. With the iPhone, several advantages for manufacturers, developers, carriers, and customers were made possible, shattering the wireless industry’s carrier-centric framework. The product is a user-friendly handheld computer. And just like the introduction of the PC, the iPhone is inciting a new wave of innovation that will boost its capabilities even further. Jobs plans to make a developer’s kit available in February so that anybody can create apps for the device.

In the meantime, manufacturers have more negotiating leverage over the carriers they have been working with for many years. Carriers are rushing to find a competitive device and seem willing to give up some authority to get it, having watched AT&T eat away at their customer bases. Users, rather than the usual cabal of complacent juggernauts, will have more influence over what gets built, giving manufacturers more control over what they produce.

As the wireless carriers start to show signs of moving away from their walled-garden strategy of trapping customers, application developers stand to gain more opportunities. Google’s Android operating system, which facilitates the creation of mobile apps by independent developers, has partnered with T-Mobile and Sprint.

In November, Verizon, a carrier known for its stubbornness, announced that it would allow any compatible phone to use its network. A few days later, AT&T made a comparable statement. This will eventually lead to a whole new wireless experience where apps run on any platform and across any network. It will eventually provide some of the Internet’s flexibility and functionality to the wireless world.

The iPhone may seem to have fulfilled the carriers’ worst fears, giving manufacturers, developers, and customers complete control while reducing wireless networks to ineffective conduits. However, carriers’ networks might become more valuable, not less, by encouraging more innovation. Customers will use their devices and networks more frequently as a result of spending more time on them, increasing costs and profits for all parties.

Paul Roth, president of marketing at AT&T, says the company is looking into new services and products that make use of the iPhone’s capabilities, such as mobile banking.

“We have a different perspective on the market,” Roth said.

In other words, the very advancement that wireless carriers have long feared might be just what they require. It was demonstrated to them by Steve Jobs.

The post Jobs’ vision: How the iPhone changed everything appeared first on International Finance.

The firm claims to have created the new iPhone 16 model “from scratch” for its “Apple intelligence” suite of AI features. These features include the ability to create and modify text to suit specific tones, as well as use the device’s camera to identify objects in the real world.

The event, which took place inside Apple’s Cupertino, California, headquarters, included the slogan “its glowtime” and the company’s emblem surrounded by a vibrant aura. The company’s leaders promoted a variety of new hardware and attempted to showcase the ways Apple was incorporating AI into its products with a series of high-production movies.

Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, stated in a taped video during the event, “We are excited to announce the first iPhones designed from the ground up for Apple Intelligence and its groundbreaking capabilities.”

With the help of the company’s “Apple Intelligence” system, iPhones will be able to carry out several functions, such as text generation, picture editing, and object recognition with the camera. During a programme showcasing Apple Intelligence, Apple promised to be able to create unique emojis based only on cues like “cowboy frog.”

Additionally, users will be able to search through texts, emails, and photographs using AI features by audio-commanding the Siri voice assistant or typing in descriptions. Additionally, Apple unveiled an improved version of Siri, their voice assistant that integrates with ChatGPT, a well-known chatbot created by OpenAI, a company supported by Microsoft.

Next month, the company will offer a free software upgrade with its AI integrations for English-speaking consumers in the United States.

Along with a more durable display screen, the new iPhone 16 also promised a “bold new palette” of colours. The phone also includes a programmable “action button” and a new A18 chip for enhanced performance.

During the event, Apple also unveiled a new iteration of its AirPod headphones and a redesigned Apple Watch with a larger screen, quicker charging, and health app capabilities like sleep tracking. For those with mild to moderate hearing loss, the AirPods Pro 2 now can operate as a hearing aid.

Since it usually features several new products and sets the tone for the holiday shopping season, which is Apple’s busiest and most lucrative time of year, the company’s fall product launch has grown to be one of its most significant yearly events. The tech industry and the company’s supporters frequently engage in intense conjecture around these new goods.

Before the event, there were a lot of speculations circulating about Apple switching from LCD to OLED screens and about a dedicated photo button. Early reports on the occasion also included predictions that the tech behemoth would enhance its AI “Apple Intelligence” capabilities.

AI Push Amid Headwinds

At the Worldwide Developers Conference (WDC) earlier 2024, Apple revealed several ways it planned to incorporate AI technologies into its goods and services. Executives promised a more “natural” manner of contact when they revealed one of the biggest announcements of the conference: collaboration with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT technology with Apple’s Siri voice assistant.

Apple underwent a sea change with its WWDC presentations, promising to integrate more AI. The company has delayed releasing consumer-facing AI capabilities for longer than rivals like Microsoft. Investors and analysts who were waiting for the corporation to produce its version of the technology have previously become frustrated with the company’s reluctance to deploy new generative AI features.

The market’s enthusiasm for generative AI and growing revenue has aided big tech stocks, resulting in a significant increase in Apple’s share price in 2024. But in recent years, the corporation has battled with a global decline in smartphone sales as well as the emergence of competitors like Huawei in important areas, most notably China.

The Department of Justice’s massive antitrust lawsuit against Apple, which claims the firm created and upheld an unlawful monopoly over the smartphone market, is another issue that is looming large in the background. The case, which may take years to resolve, sees Apple rejecting the charges.

Apple’s renewed focus on AI coincides with growing competition for the iPhone in China, particularly from Huawei, as users expect more AI-powered capabilities. Notably, Huawei had planned to introduce its device a few hours after Apple’s gathering. However, Beijing still needs to approve Apple Intelligence’s release in China. The latest move by OpenAI to restrict access to ChatGPT in China may make it more difficult for Chinese users to integrate AI into Siri.

With the iPhone accounting for over half of Apple’s USD 383 billion in sales in 2023, the device remains a major source of income for the company. Despite a decline in iPhone sales, the company is relying on the AI-enabled iPhone 16 to persuade customers to upgrade. Apple lowered its prices in China earlier this year due to increased local competition and government regulations.

With a focus on AI technologies, the iPhone 16 will be the first device in Apple’s portfolio. However, the iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max models will also have access to many of these features. Apple’s AI initiative coincides with rivals such as Google, the company behind the Android operating system, which places a strong emphasis on AI in its products.

Google has unveiled new AI features for Android-based smartphones, such as those from Motorola and Samsung, and demonstrated its AI assistant, Gemini Live. To avoid Apple’s iPhone announcement, Google even pushed back the release date of its Pixel smartphone to August. Apple has postponed its European launch to comply with the European Union’s tech regulations, but it still intends to launch Apple Intelligence in the United States this fall.

A18 Chip & Other Features

Meanwhile, Arm’s most recent V9 chip architecture, owned by SoftBank, was used in the development of Apple’s A18 processor, which is expected to be used in the iPhone 16. Because Arm chips have low power consumption, they are ideal for mobile devices and power the majority of smartphones around the world. Apple and Arm have been collaborators since the early 1990s, which has allowed Arm to establish itself as a pioneer in mobile chip design.

A better camera sensor layout will be possible with the iPhone 16’s pill-shaped camera module, which has main and ultrawide lenses oriented vertically. A new “Capture” button will also make it possible to quickly take pictures or videos, and an “Action” button, which was previously only available on Pro models, should improve personalisation. The gadget will have an aluminium frame with colour-infused glass on the rear, providing durability and style along with an IP67 water-resistant rating. Purple and white are the other two new colour options that the iPhone 16 will offer.

A 12MP ultrawide lens with a 120-degree field of view and a 48MP primary sensor will be part of the dual camera arrangement. While Apple’s upgraded image-processing technology will guarantee amazing results with advanced noise reduction and HDR performance, the improved f/2.2 aperture will produce brighter low-light shots. A 12MP front camera will be available for crisp selfies.

The 6.1-inch OLED display on the upcoming iPhone 16 will have Super Retina XDR and Dynamic Island technologies for brilliant images. The ceramic shield protection will increase durability, and micro-lens technology will improve brightness while using less battery power. With the help of the A18 chip’s intelligent battery optimisation, a 3,561 mAh battery should provide up to 20 hours of video playback and more than 80 hours of music playback.

It’s clear that with the introduction of the iPhone 16 and its focus on incorporating artificial intelligence features, Apple is aiming to position itself at the forefront of technological innovation. The emphasis on AI capabilities, from text generation to picture editing and object recognition, showcases Apple’s commitment to integrating cutting-edge technology into its products.

Moreover, the unveiling of the new AirPods and Apple Watch with enhanced features further solidifies Apple’s dedication to offering a comprehensive ecosystem of interconnected devices. The simultaneous release of AI-centric products dovetails with the company’s strategic efforts to appeal to a global audience and maintain its competitive edge in the marketplace.

The collaboration with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT technology with Siri, on the other hand, reflects Apple’s continued efforts to enhance user experiences through advanced AI functionalities. The technological advancements, including the A18 chip and upgraded camera system on the iPhone 16, demonstrate Apple’s ongoing pursuit of delivering state-of-the-art hardware to its customer base.

As Apple navigates challenges such as global smartphone sales decline and increased competition, the company’s renewed focus on AI serves as a strategic response to evolving consumer demands. By leveraging AI-powered capabilities, Apple aims to captivate consumers and reaffirm its position as a pioneering force in the technological landscape.

The post IF Insights: iPhone 16 & Apple’s AI push appeared first on International Finance.