John Ternus’s technical skills would allow him to distinguish himself from his two predecessors, said a former colleague © FT montage/Reuters
Michael Acton in San Francisco
Published
117
John Ternus will take over as Apple’s chief executive in September at a moment of unusual strain for the Silicon Valley giant, as it battles doubts over its position in AI and confronts a more fragile global supply chain.
The 50-year-old hardware engineer, a 25-year veteran of the iPhone maker, has quietly attached his name to some of Apple’s biggest bets over the past decade.
But for investors and employees, the transition will test whether the company’s business — built on hardware prowess and operational discipline — can adapt to an industry being reshaped by generative AI.
Apple has been slower than rivals to roll out breakthrough AI features, raising questions about whether its next CEO must redefine rather than extend the strategy that made it a $4tn giant.
“The question is whether he has the appetite for the kind of bold, occasionally uncomfortable decisions that defining a new platform requires,” wrote the IDC’s Francisco Jeronimo. “Building an AI platform that developers and enterprises genuinely adopt is a different challenge.”
Apple Studio Display XDR showing an image of two models in sparkling outfits, connected to a MacBook on a wooden table.
The Apple Studio Display XDR. John Ternus has been the face of hardware changes at the company thought not all of them have been resounding successes © Adam Gray/Bloomberg
Colleagues describe a quiet, unassuming figure who has built a reputation for competence as his responsibilities have grown.
“He’s kind of a dad . . . just a nice guy,” said one former Apple executive. “He’s interestingly enough one of the ‘old guard’, but at the same time still quite young.”
Under Ternus’s oversight as hardware chief, Apple has experimented with new devices to expand beyond the iPhone, while pushing out models that depart from its typical annual cycle.
He has been the face of those changes, including Apple’s “skinny” iPhone Air, launched late last year, and the MacBook Neo, the company’s entry into the affordable laptop space, which was unveiled last month.
Not all of these have been resounding successes. The iPhone Air, which marked the biggest design shake-up for the iPhone in years, proved a relative commercial flop. The Vision Pro headset, which Ternus also oversaw, reported disappointing sales.
Tim Cook speaks at a podium with microphones during the China Development Forum 2026, in front of a red background.
Tim Cook told employees the company ‘will reach such incredible heights under [John Ternus’s] leadership’ © Qilai Shen/Bloomberg
But one former colleague said Ternus’s technical skills would allow him to distinguish himself from his two predecessors, “from Steve Jobs’ focus on product storytelling and marketing, to Tim Cook’s operational excellence . . . and now a leadership bench that is deeply rooted in engineering”.
Cook has long said that his successor should come from within the company. His closest lieutenant, Jeff Williams, left Apple in November and later joined Disney’s board, removing him from the running.
Ternus then beat other top Apple executives who are more recognisable, including software head Craig Federighi and marketing chief Greg ‘Joz’ Joswiak.
“This company will reach such incredible heights under [Ternus’s] leadership,” Cook wrote to employees on Monday. “I can’t wait for you to get to know him like I do.”
“For a time, it might have been Craig Federighi as successor, but in my opinion, he fumbled the bag on AI and Siri,” said one former colleague. “He’s also closer to retirement” at 56, they added.
“I’m bullish on John as a leader,” said another Apple staffer. “Choosing an insider is another example of Apple realising they don’t do well integrating outsider execs into their unique culture . . . I think he was the best internal candidate.”
Cook and the board, meanwhile, paved the way for Ternus by introducing a new generation of talent at the top of the company over the past year. These include chief financial officer Kevan Parekh, operations chief Sabih Khan, legal general counsel Jennifer Newstead and AI chief Amar Subramanya.
A California native, Ternus is intensely private about his personal life. He joined Apple in 2001 a few years after graduating from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in mechanical engineering.
His first 15 years at Apple were spent largely in the shadows. It was only in 2017 that he made his debut at Apple’s annual developer conference, a badge of honour for rising stars.
Several iPhone 17e smartphones on display, with the center phone showing its lock screen featuring a woman in a blue shirt.
Apple’s iPhone 17e. Analysts fret about the company’s ability to keep up with its rivals in developing new AI software © Adam Gray/Bloomberg
Colleagues said it was his prominent role in Apple’s pivot from Intel’s PC chips towards in-house chips around 2020 that cemented his status as a leading figure at the company. The iPhone maker bet its own silicon engineers could build competitive chips against an industry behemoth while shifting to a new underlying architecture.
It paid off, cutting outsourcing costs and giving it complete control of its hardware. Ternus later spoke of the shift as “one of the most, if not the most profound change at Apple, certainly in our products over the last 20 years”.
In another signal of business as usual, Johny Srouji, who as the company’s longtime top silicon engineer worked closely with Ternus to execute on that strategy, was promoted to chief hardware officer on Monday.
Late last year, Ternus was also given oversight of the company’s software design teams, just as the company prepares to unveil a revamp to its Siri voice assistant, seen as crucial to demonstrating it can lead in AI.
“If we’re doing it right, people won’t necessarily even notice or think about it,” Ternus said of Apple’s AI strategy in March. “They will just have a new feature that they start using more and more because they really like it.”
Still, analysts are fretting over Apple’s failure to keep up with its competitors in developing new AI software that can overhaul its products and help defend its dominant position in personal devices.
“The new Siri needs to go off without a hitch and be something that people want to use,” said Gene Munster at Deepwater Asset Management.
“Then he needs to start to bring in some outside talent, people from AI-first companies . . . culturally they need to show the rank and file that they are reinventing themselves.”
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2026. All rights reserved.

Comments

Comment guidelines

Please keep comments respectful. Use plain English for our global readership and avoid using phrasing that could be misinterpreted as offensive. By commenting, you agree to abide by our community guidelines and these terms and conditions. We encourage you to report inappropriate comments.

The Vision Pro headset, which Ternus also oversaw, reported disappointing sales.
It wasn't the headset, which is stunning.
There were not enough apps, and it had a high price point.
Unfortunately, there were not enough really knowledgeable sales people in Apple stores to fully educate buyers.
The technology is world-changing, and I hope Apple keeps it.
In one word? Yes. Why? He’s no Tim Cook. John’s style of leadership is more effective for the times Apple is in at the moment.
AI is the wrong question to pursue - if implemented at all it will likely be app specific - empowering human capabilities via the devices they make and the services they provide using innovative methodologies and avoiding the legal and ethical quagmires that AI attracts. It’s why they never got into social media for similar reasons. When Tim Cook was asked about what he would do if he was in Mark Zuckerberg’s situation during the Cambridge Analytica scandal, he replied ‘I wouldn’t be in this situation’. It’s not their business model and at $4tn, clearly they don’t need it. What matters is they own the whole widget so they can make progress at a speed, depth and scale no one else can. If you want an example, listen to how they talk about Apple Silicon as an example and look at what it’s achieved already.

While AI is certainly powerful it’s very hard to control and it disempowers some people as much as enables others. Plus it just eats crazy amounts of energy. At present, Iran is just the current example of the vulnerability of relying on increasingly power hungry architectures. And that is only going in one direction atm.

It will just take one episode of Mythos running wild and triggering an AI version of digital Covid for companies to realise it’s too much of a liability. Given their vast resources, Apple will have the best AI built into its security architecture to protect the machines and your data. That’ll be worth the premium on its own. But you won’t see it, it will work in the background as the Secure Enclave does already.

They never needed to get into the selling data game, it’s why Siri lags. But in many ways that’s a strength not a liability. Trust is more important and they are more trusted for a reason. Their mission has always been to empower the user by enabling their creativity in a way that boosts the human, not offloading the human usefulness to an AI. If too many people lose their jobs then sales will plummet anyway…

Ternus seems a solid choice.
AI is complex technology, and from what I have seen in other companies, it is not always well designed. I believe Apple tries to follow the model of not always first, but always the best. Many times technology is more advanced than the people it is designed for can understand. For example, smart glasses will become a standard product, but it will take time for people to adjust to this powerful advance that many people are worried about. I am sure that Mr. Cook spent a great deal of time in selecting his successor, and I faith in Mr. Cook's decission.
Hope he pays more attention to strategic detail steering Apple than when foisting multiple versions of AirPods Max with the fatal moisture flaw unrectified onto the world.
What is astonishing is that Trump Mobile is still collecting $100 deposits from willing suckers that still believe there’ll be a Trump T1 phone one day.
I think Apple has already done the best thing they can do with AI, for now, with their partnership with Google. AI is fraught. It can do some impressive things, yet it may or may not be sustainable/in a bubble. The big, institutional investors expect any company in the tech space to have an AI story to tell, so Apple must have an AI story to tell.
please fix the keyboard
I can't stand AI being shovelled everywhere. I will buy an Apple computer any day to avoid windows 11 AI. Also I bought a budget Samsung on purpose just to make sure AI cannot run on it. I'm tired and sick of it.
(Edited)
He absolutely is. The cyber war in the AI era is a hardware war . hardening the hardware platform on top of the software ecosystrm is what is going to make all the difference. On top, supply chains are the name of the game . Handheld AI chips also key. The entire apple software platform runs on its hardware platform. thinking of it any other way is misunderstanding apple.

Wait for all the rootkids exploiting android phones and writing themselves into the hardware. that‘s going to be game over unless you control the full device ecosystem and every chipmthat goes into it
“They will just have a new feature that they start using more and more because they really like it.”

that pretty much sums it up, forget confetti and fireworks. ppl use what works and that have been apple's success over the years. sure its a lock-in effect to get the full monty but if you accept it it works
no matter what software or app we use, we shall need good hardware to run it on!

And Apple makes excellent hardware.

They will evolve and get on the AI bandwagon once the froth clears.

And it'll be worth the wait....I hope.
I agree nominating, a person from engineering indicates a commitment to the hardware which is good.
(Edited)
I'm persistently baffled that the financial press doesn't understand Apple at all. Nor do most of its investors.

Apple is currently trading at a 34x PE. Trailing 12 month revenue is up a total of 14% over the last 4 years, just over 3% per year, which has trailed inflation. Apple had a big jump during covid, with revenue up 33% from 2020 to 2021, but that seems to have been front loaded demand that has failed to continue. By way of comparison, the 9 years prior to covid Apple was growing revenue just under 11% per year. Over the last 14 years revenue is up 10% per year. Would you pay a 34x PE for a company growing 10% per year? How about 3%?

Ah, but revenue doesn't matter you say, it's earnings. Net income is up a total of 18% over the last 4 years, just over 4% per year. By way of comparison, inflation has been 18% over this same period, so Apple's earnings are just keeping up with inflation these days, the business isn't actually growing. Would you pay a 34x PE for company with no real growth? Longer-term, net income is up 11% per year from 2011 to 2025. Inflation over this period totals 43% or about 2.6% per year, so Apple's real growth is 8.4% per year. Would you pay a 34x PE for that?

No no, you say, it's not earnings, but earnings per share. Good point. EPS is up a total of 33% over the last 4 years or about 7.4% per year. It's up 653% over the last 14 years or about 15.5% per year. The reason for the difference between actual earnings and EPS is share buybacks. Apple has repurchased 43% of its outstanding shares over the last 14 years juicing EPS while actual earnings consistently fail to justify the company's valuation. Even with buybacks the valuation isn't justified.

Adding to this, from 2012 to 2019 Apple's PE ratio averaged around 13x, which was more in line with actual growth. Since Covid the PE ratio has expanded to 34x, despite similar middling growth following the onetime jump in its baseline.

So what has made Apple a $4T market cap company? Not it's financials, that's for sure. No, like everything else driving the bubble, it has been the incomprehensible fiscal and monetary policies of governments the world over, particularly the US. Adjust for the $15T and growing US federal debt taken on since 2020 alone and Apple isn't a $4T company at a 34x PE, but a $1.8T company at a 15x PE.

It's pretty amazing what 5 minutes of analysis can reveal.
ok bro short it... nobody reading this waffle
Burying your head isn't an investment strategy. If you're so sure, you need to be 100% in Apple. No risk. It's just numbers.
I gotta admit, as a youngling taking his first steps into making sense of corporate financials - that was pretty cool!!
No youngling here. This is basic financial math. No need to get fancy. You're unwillingness to understand is your choice.
He just complimented your analysis, no need to get snarky.
Precisely. 😅
(Edited)
Errr no its not.

As someone who has studied maths in high class settings well beyond basic this was never covered in my education system. Feel free to correct your statement to something more akin to ‘foundational business/accounting’.

I think you need to pull your head out of your…
Interesting points, however I think you may be missing some.

While it is true that a 13x P/E in 2012 -> a 34x P/E in 2025 is quite a big change, we must not forget that in 2012 Apple was heavily reliant on lower-margin hardware sales and was largely seen as a company selling mostly hardware (which, at the time, was true).

Nowadays, apple’s service segment generates a rather large part of revenue with gross margins way higher than its hardware segment (~70% gross margin on service vs ~35% gross margin on sold hardware).

I think that the 34x P/E is partly justified by the fact that the predictability and margin profile of its earnings have transformed into those of a recurring revenue software company.

Granted, the broader tech and AI premium certainly plays a role in inflating that multiple, but directly comparing the quality of 2012 earnings to today's earnings ignores this upgrade.
(Edited)
Apple's gross margin is up, but it's operating margin is unchanged from 2011-2012. It had been on a long decline leading into covid, but has recovered to 2012 levels. Same with net margin.

With a market cap of $4T, to generate a 10% free cash flow return, which is not an unreasonable expectation, it isn't a utility after all, it needs to generate free cash flow of $400B per year, which is just shy of total revenue. Apple has good margins, but not 100% margins.

The major mistake of Apple is not being ambitious enough with M&A. Elon Musk tried to sell Tesla to Apple at one point and they could have bought Nvidia, Netflix, Anthropic, and many others.
Thank the stars they didn't!

Their brand would have been diluted....
They have designed their own chips, gotten into streaming, tried and failed to build a car, are working on robotics, and wanted to use Anthropic across Apple products. All of these would have made sense.
Yeah, No.

Cook selected a “safe” successor in line with his administrator’s inclinations.

Playing it safe worked for Cook as he first ramped up capacity and then lowered cost.

Penultimately he led into a box; supply chain captured by China in a geopolitically fraught world and bystander status in Wild West of AI.

Apple’s only remaining bet is to create The AI hardware-and-a-system device without the chops of Steve Jobs. Instead, “a nice guy dad” engineer without any notable product successes, let alone system creating ones, is tasked with the bet. Jobs, while sometimes a dad (though see his relationship with his first daughter) was not a nice guy, didn’t program, and had experience with the Apple II e and the Macintosh before developing the iPod and the iPhone.

Maybe Ternus will succeed but it will be improbable.

Cook, on the other hand, departs on a crested wave, sort of like Jack Welch at GE.
(Edited)
Apple sells hardware. The operating systems are free. Their office software is free. Updates are free.
They do charge for Music iCloud and A Development Environment but not much.

And they are making profits. Don’t change.

They just need to create new devices for ai and make sure all their devices support their target customers.
(Edited)
Do you mean, they need a CEO will ditch everything to jump on the next hype bandwagon?

Like AllBirds shoes selling the shoe business and labeling themselves AllBirds AI and the stock shooting towards the moon?
inexplicably, it fell straight back to earth 😂😂😂
NO. Are you from Microsoft/
Apple really needs to stick to its core competency.
What would you that is/they are today?
Dunno but at the moment apple seems to be the smartest of the FAANGs.. the rest are in some scortched earth battle for AI models
Apple might consider RISC V as the next platform after ARM? Further taking control of hardware and perhaps making cheaper products?
(Edited)
They make their own CPU designs independent of ARM and have unrestricted usage of the ARM ISA instruction set for compatiblity. Really no need. They don't even have to pay royalties per chip.

If they wanted to, they could just build a completely new ISA at this point and not even bother with RISC V.
They have their own instruction sets for the GPU and the Neural engine, and I’m not sure they’re even the same between generations as they’re undocumented (publicly) and hidden behind frameworks.
Who cares?
Shareholders !
The 3rd largest public company on earth gets its 3rd ceo of the millenium and a newspaper called the Financial Times reports on it and you think they shouldnt?
Only the third ceo in Anno Domini. Wow
Apple will be one of the biggest winners of AI trade by not burning billions on this bet. Will have cash for acquisition if needed when the dust settles after the bubble bust.
Totally agree!
Apple will do what it does best, take something that is popular, then polish the hell to perfection. The NEO is an amazing idea, the next version will start to pick at the business end of the laptop users. the whole windows ecosystem needs to rethink its approach.
I don't expect a paper as the FT end the opening headline with a question mark. This is petty click bait.
The headline is out of place. LLMs are about as good as they are going to get snd they aren’t great. Future improvements will be slow and incremental.
(Edited)
.
Couldn’t agree more.
What's funny is I was
trying to delete the
comment because I
posted it in the wrong
place. They won't let
you leave it blank, so
I stuck in the period.
Now it's getting these
"recommended" counts
for a period.

Next time I'll try a tap
on the space bar...
(Edited)
.
No you need a character!
I am a character.

Ain't that good
enough to plough
the field with but
drop no seeds?
Quite understandable to question if a hardware guy should be running a company when software seems so important. Recent iOS update has not been so great possibly due to departure of the Alan Dye who was head of UI design until 2025 (he left for Meta-stasis)
Apple is much smarter to wait for the incoming AI unraveling.
The technology is not mature so it can’t be brought in the iOS/macOS ecosystem yet.
Their moat is so consequent that they can take their time before integrating AI anywhere else than in email and photos.
(Edited)
Is it just me or has everyone forgotten that Apple’s value is as an interface company bringing software and hardware together? Jobs’ vision was to make the awesome power of computers available to people who don’t know how to use computers (he said this at the apple 2 launch c1977). . Using Moore’s law to make that possible. Then launched the Macintosh and the rest is history. Ie the Mac was an interface play. For apple, AI should just be a natural language interface.
Apple is great at hardware . After Jobs they don't "get" software .
They need to hire younger engineers and executives and give them full rein on AI.
Or buy Anthropic
See my comment below, if they don’t get software there’s no point to apple any more. It’s the hardware/software combo that has made apple, the Mac, the iPhone etc
Buying Anthropic would be a really exciting move
Dario is not going to trust someone else with his baby
Google 'Swift language' and 'SwiftUI', just for starters.
(Edited)
If he wants to sell computers like hotcakes he should include an AI kill switch with every unit so we can turn that junk off.
(Edited)
Nope, AI just makes it a computer you can command by voice like you talk to a person, not pointing with a finger. Hence why the AI/siri point is the one so many people make.
voice recognition is not the same as AI
(Edited)
Yes. Of course, but thats not my point. Voice recognition without AI is a dead end. Without AI, every single command Siri could receive has to be pre-programmed with the correct answer. Think of the millions of commands and queries it might receive from its billions of users, now consider the task of anticipating every single one and pre-coding the correct answer. Now consider that it can’t really take a second question that builds on that, or work out a new action to take as a result. It’s incredibly limited. AI removes all that - it can work out what you are asking for and create a custom reply, build and refine through conversation, and then take actions. It’s the back end to a voice interaction that actually works.
For Apple, artificial intelligence remains the most challenging aspect they must overcome to continue their progress, as their devices serve as platforms that enable the application of these AI models to perform tasks. Therefore, the question arises whether Apple devices will merely act as conduits or become indispensable key elements. If the former is the future, there will be no additional value derived from Apple devices, and there will be minimal effort from Apple to make the significant shift. In fact, Apple Intelligence at this point is only a writing tool with limited capabilities and raises questions about whether it can be considered AI, even in beta mode.

Meanwhile, the original innovation that Steve Jobs introduced was to bring seamless, intuitive, and simple computing by integrating hardware and software into devices. I would not be surprised if this approach is extended to include AI as the third pillar. Relying on external foundation models is the best strategic choice for Apple’s long-term success, and this decision will need to be clarified by the new management team. The initial phase of operating system development and its potential to transform user interaction with computing devices have hinted at Steve Jobs’s vision to engineer and establish its own OS, a significant bet, which remains the backbone of the company.

Whether Siri will be replaced by Apple Intelligence or become the name of the conversational mode of Apple Intelligence could be the key. However, the voice assistant was not developed as an agent with AI’s probabilistic (without complete control) response capabilities. Of course, Apple needs to clarify the fundamental question: what Apple Intelligence is. It is still not defined.
AI replaces the mouse, to simplify
(Edited)
Firstly get Siri right it’s awful at the moment. Use Google probably or anthropic for AI. And get some nice colours into the products and covers again for a change
Ternus latest hardware products have been a flop and Apple/Siri are completely missing the AI wave to the point that it feels really too late. Tim Cook has been surfing on the wave that Steve Jobs had created decades ago fine tuning already existing products again and again. Long story short, Apple is facing a real existential question down the road and they need someone who can propel the brand’s products into the AI sphere or something similar. Big challenge for Ternus and probably not the right guy for that, just a bridge man unless proven otherwise.
Having a leader with technical background could prove to be beneficial and a right message, especially in a context where tech choices are pretty heavyweight... and to signal outward a "build attitude" , in line with the trend today
Focus on engineering was what cause the demise of many major tech companies. Apple better be careful
As opposed to focusing on what?
Design, hardware-software interface, innovation. The things Steve Jobs focused on to build Apple In the first place.
Exceptional hardware is now the only most - smart choice.
(Edited)
Steve Jobs’ focus on product storytelling and marketing, to Tim Cook’s operational excellence . . . and now a leadership bench that is deeply rooted in engineering.
This is arguably a somewhat worrying trajectory for Apple.

It must be mindful not to devolve from a forest into a set of trees.
(Edited)
Will he kneel before the political pressure he will undoubtedly attract? Cook put me off the company for life and may well have made things much more difficult for many future business leaders.
It looks like Cook took one for the team at a time when the Trump admin was making business with China overly complicated.
So far not rushing through AI useless features has not been detrimental to Apple.
(Edited)
What do I know, but for what it is worth I imagine that in the background Apple R&D continues to build competence in hardware, software and services. Which big new idea that ties in the full Apple ecosystem are Apple naysayers missing here? Which companies have stolen Apple’s thunder with better integrated hardware and software? I can’t think of any. I think they will place their bets when the time is right.
Apple have made it clear they are buying in Ai. Makes sense. Smart. Just like the didn’t produce their own search engine for safari. Google pay $20billion. Im Sure one day ai companies will pay Apple to be the default Ai provider for iPhone
Yes.
MacOS and iOS natively link with ChatGPT, they are incorporating Gemini into Siri and are looking at developing native links to other AI models.

They haven't joined the arms race by spending hundreds of billions of dollars in trying develop their own in-house model. Rather they are looking to extend the range of AI models natively supported by their software to give their customers the choice.

Combine this with their top-notch hardware and maybe this will end up being the right approach.
They need to do much more work on allowing AI to integrate with other apps. You only need to run Gemini on an android device to see how fa4 behind Apple are.
Steven jobs was a great visionary- who had a genius in Steve Wozniak to execute his ideas, and one of worlds greatest business men Tim Cook to run the ops.

I am not sure where John Ternus fits in, and if this is classic Peters Principe- people in a hierarchy tend to get promoted to a level of respective incompetence.

Apple has been one of the greatest success stories in business, ever. But its innovations have lacked the initial stardom that made it a success. And Ternus has been involved in many of these failed ideas.Ternushas had a few hits, a few misses, but nothing remarkable that warrants the seat at the worlds 2nd biggest company, in need of reinventing its business model...

Is Apple going to lose its stardom.... I think so. It will still be a good company, but I I think its turning into a classic case study for how its hard to stay at the top, and corporate obsolescence
No one stays at the top forever. Apple's peak probably has passed.
I just hope the software improves, the latest updates appear to be designed by someone trying to vibe code Apple into bankruptcy.
(Edited)
The FT's AI obsession / psychosis strikes again...

Apple seems to be doing pretty well, occasional stumbles notwithstanding, and the overall impression I have is that the company is charting an astute course without betting the farm on developing a foundational model (seems to be trending towards commoditization) or pledging investments in outsize data centers (will provide ROI...sometime, maybe).
Apple devices already are the best in class for cheaply running LLMs. An M3 Ultra mac studio (used to, at least) support 512GB configurations, and you can chain them with unbelievable speeds together. It’s by far the cheapest solution to running very large models like the newly released Kimi K2.6 (arguably on par with Claude Opus). It’s not cheap still and not as fast as a bunch of Nvidia GPUs, but it’s at least half the price, more like 1/5th the price.

Apple should stick with the local AI push, stick with the premium for privacy (and no ads, looking at you apple maps), etc.

If apple can develop advancements for the NPUs on the M-chips for faster processing speeds then they are going to be the winners. AI companies are desperately seeking a path to profitability, and you can expect to see regular users cut off from these top tier models when the companies behind them are forced to actually make money. This will leave a huge market for people who want to use AI models that are good, but not pay out the nose for them. Which is where partnerships with Google and Alibaba will shine here to get customised models that will perform excellently on Apple’s hardware.

The Siri team’s shocking performance at doing anything useful with Siri has accidentally led Apple to be, in my opinion, in the best possible position to profit off of the work of others.
New insightsThanks
I think the biggest risk is actually managing Apple's global supply chain with the current level of geo-political risk, which is Cook's natural habitat.

I'm far less concerned about AI - Apple was never really great at cutting edge technology (except perhaps the latest ARM chips that it enhances), its success was mainly due to its ability to package cutting edge technology in a way that is trusted by consumers.

The same will probably apply to AI, with the likes of evil genius like Altman, Amodei and Hassabis pushing the front tier, I for one would continue to look for Apple to vet them probably, to protect my data and ultimately, make sure technology serves me instead of the other way round.

Android ecosystem makes far better phones by whatever technical measure possible (camera/memory/chip capacity), but we are all iPhone users for a reason (except those student subscribers on FT)
Apple’s global supply chain prowess seems to just come from making multi year deals and paying a premium price to ensure they are the customer chip makers always try to avoid disappointing
In a word, no. That's a lazy stereotype.

Read "Apple in China" and you will see how Apple trained and funded a generation of component makers to enable their $300bn+ product business today.
Apple is notoriously harsh on margins. Unclear how you could get such a false idea.
nothing wrong with the FT student subscribers ;)
An equally goofy and ideological bunch as compared with the boomer retireee crew.

Always good to have a balance of bad ideas 😆
I would consider Apple's hardware excellence to be cutting-edge technology. It may not be in the software or their AI capabilities, but phone hardware is definitely a technology that they've leveraged well.
The only people saying Apple needs to adopt AI are the AI shills desperate to pump their investments.
Apple Intelligence lol - they are much better off starting over or buying tech or just hosting it
Cook tired himself to the Trump
anchor and it sunk him
Forest? Trees?
Cook 'took one for the team' and looked out for Apple, which was his job. Quite a feat.
Sometimes it’s best to come late to the party
Apple makes it habitual

Guess they will claim they designed the fordable phone

How's the apple car going ?
The second mouse gets the cheese.

How is EV profitability holding up for Western automakers?
Yes Chinese phone makers like Apple are far more profitable
(Edited)
Who cares about an Apple car?
That would be a huge distraction.
Yes don't get distracted from making phones in China
(Edited)
One challenge Apple faces is that products and services in general are getting more expensive while the income consumers make is not growing at the same pace.

Food prices have increased 30% between 2022 - 2026 in many countries. Salaries have not increased as much for most consumers. Adding to that you have a contracting job market that is ever more competitive with AI itself being a cause of many layoffs (such as the last one of 10,000 people laid off at Meta).

So while the ambition seems to be to be able to raise prices for monthly app subscriptions on the app store or sell iPhones at ever higher prices, there is a major uncertainty how this will be paid for. A millionaire only needs so many phones or watches. The affordability crisis among the long tail of consumers though will lead to lower demand. Consumers will have to pay for food but they might not need all those mobile apps.

Apple is an incredible company but I think their major challenge is not what breaking new AI tools they will build but rather how consumers will be able to afford their products in the coming years.
Do not agree. Even a relatively poor person will pay for an iphone if they spend 4+ hours on it a day and it gives them a status boost as well. 4+ hours a day is between 20-30% of your conscious existence on this earth
You can buy a used phone or a cheaper model. You won’t buy a pro max ultra de luxe if you can’t afford it and if your old phone is not broken you’ll keep it another year. The affordability crisis means a lot of people can’t even afford to pay their bills. A new phone is not an option then.You can blame it on the inflated auto insurer or the food but it won’t change the fact.
I believe Gene Munster is way off track, perhaps, even needing to read a little more Ed Zitron.
Apple does not need to reinvent itself.
Patience pays in a rudderless world.
Zitron is so on the money with this AI stuff
I just wish he was easier to listen to. The histrionics are wearying
The shouty guy that’s been saying it’s plateauing and will collapse any day now, for the last 3 years?

Like a broken clock I guess…,,one day he might be right
Zitron is like a man saying human flight isn't possible years after the wright brothers proved otherwise.
Why would Apple invest into AI software, with rather questionable economics, when they control the end device people use? Every single AI company will want to be on such a device and pay a lot of money for that (Google search as an example). So Apple should rather keep its focus on what they do best, offer products that people want to use...
With a super reliable, safe, private, trustworthy, software platform.
Turn us loose from
Apple Intelligence.

ha ha
It's hard to argue against that point.
One word - Privacy.

Trusting Google or any of the other AI companies with your data is unwise.