When Apple sued OpenAI last week, the argument it made was that former employees had stolen Apple data and then used it to benefit OpenAI. 

The technical details — an employee used “a rare, previously unknown authentication bug to access Apple’s shared network folders” — are interesting. But the larger story is Apple’s ridiculous attempt to stop its people from using anything they learned at Apple in other jobs.

“Hiring managers don’t mind some files being brought into the org during onboarding, but suddenly take umbrage when that same employee exits with some files later on,” said Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security. “Legal should be equally concerned about both events.”

The lawsuit focused on Chang Liu, an employee who had been recruited to work at OpenAI after working at Apple for eight years as a Senior System Electrical Engineer. The full text of the filing depicts a comedy of errors by Apple, offering the perfect “do not do” list of handling employee resignations — especially when they’re going to a direct competitor. 

“When Apple contacted Mr. Liu to sign Apple’s confidentiality reminder, schedule an exit interview, and confirm that he had returned his devices and complied with other exit procedures, Mr. Liu did not respond.” And “after leaving Apple, Mr. Liu failed to return an Apple-issued work laptop that he had previously authenticated to Apple’s network.”

First, typical procedure for handling departures is to tie the return of all equipment and the signing of documents to any final payments. With Apple, that is likely to be a large amount of money. The lawsuit does not say whether Apple exerted any financial pressure on their employee for compliance. 

But in terms of equipment with high-level access, why weren’t all privileges revoked, both for the employee and any and all company-issued devices? Did they not maintain a remote-wipe capability for these devices? Although remote-wipe is usually used when devices are missing or stolen, it should work as well when a departing employee refuses to return company equipment. 

According to Apple, Liu apparently had help at Apple from Tang Yew Tan, who was supposedly also interviewing with OpenAI. “While employed by OpenAI, [Liu] accessed and used his former colleague’s Apple-issued work computer that was authenticated to Apple’s network, without Apple’s authorization.”

Apple tried to make much of this Liu’s fault. Legally, yes, there might be liability there; still, Apple made itself look as if it couldn’t protect its own data. “Upon discovering that he had this unauthorized access to Apple’s systems, [the former employee] did not report it, return his stolen Apple-issued work laptop or delete the program that allowed the access.” 

Really, Apple? Your data-protection plan relies on ex-employees to “delete the program that allowed the access”? I’m not so sure you didn’t bring some of this data-leakage on yourselves. 

This gets worse: “Over several weeks, while developing hardware for OpenAI, Mr. Liu surreptitiously accessed and downloaded dozens of Apple’s confidential hardware-related files, including voluminous, detailed information about unreleased products, engineering presentations, technical specifications, and proprietary project data.”

Setting aside the issue of privileges, access, and unreturned equipment that apparently had its own privileges, that statement points to massive data exfiltration from Apple systems. Even if it is coming from a current employee, why didn’t that raise any red flags? 

Let’s get back to the broader implications. When professionals move from one company to another, they — of course — are bringing their experience and knowledge with them. Can Apple reasonably tell them that they can’t do so? Isn’t that experience and knowledge exactly why another company would want to hire them?

Now, to be sure, stealing diagrams and product spec sheets is a clear violation. Let’s say Apple spent a lot of money on some hardware research projects. A member of that technical team would learn an awful lot, all on Apple’s dime. 

But is it fair and reasonable for Apple to say that the former employee can’t leverage that knowledge at his or her next job? 

This brings us back to the point Wilkes made: If Apple is going to try to prevent any former employee from leveraging on-the-job experience, then it should instruct all new employees not to use anything they learned in a previous job. 

That would be ridiculous. Companies pay for experienced talent because of that experience. Why pay for expertise if you insist employees not leverage any of it?

Then there’s the amorphous nature of knowledge. So, it’s wrong to take detailed diagrams and spec details and hand them over to a new employer. But what if that worker heading out the door memorizes the documents (photographic memory) a day before resigning? Is a person prohibited from using something from memory?

There’s also the fruit-of-the-poisonous tree legal argument. Even if a former employee doesn’t directly use stolen data, what if their knowledge leads to other money-saving insights for the new employer? 

Given that Apple hires as many specialists as it loses to rivals, wouldn’t it make sense to leverage everything your workforce knows and then let new employers do the same? But before you do that, Apple, tighten your exiting employee tech controls. 

Then maybe you wont’t have to file lawsuits like this down the road.

OpenAI’s first device will be a screenless home AI system that can play music, control appliances, and respond to messages and questions, according to Bloomberg. I can’t help but ask what makes this device different from Apple’s HomePod with SiriAI?

The OpenAI product is intended to be the first of a family of solutions and is expected to use the recently-introduced GPT-Live large language model (LLM). The latter is an advanced model capable of processing information swiftly and of providing natural responses to conversations. 

A potential gold mine for hackers

This expertise might help it deliver more accurate responses to requests, though the information could also become a gold mine for data brokers, hackers, and advertisers if there turns out to be any way they can get their hands on it. It’s not yet known how — or even if — OpenAI proposes protecting user privacy within its systems. 

The device, which is still under development, is explained as being a home companion that also includes a built-in camera and sensors so it can gather contextual information about where you are, becoming an expert on you and your needs. It also features autonomous mechanical elements that physically shift on their own, intended to give the product a “personality,” rather than being a boring black box.

Can we live without this?

While OpenAI’s development is not yet complete and things could change before it reaches market, based on Bloomberg’s report I’m not terribly clear how unique it is going to be. After all, as LLM support is introduced in existing smart speaker systems from Apple, or even Amazon, what unique features does this device bring that consumers can’t live without? More particularly, what problems does it solve and why does it exist?

Manufacturing economics

What’s also unclear is how far along OpenAI is on the road to mass manufacturing the device. Apple’s recent lawsuit against OpenAI confirmed the challenger is speaking with Apple’s own manufacturing partners as well as hiring hundreds of Apple engineers. Despite the talent war, I consider it unlikely OpenAI will be able to lock in the kinds of manufacturing deals it needs to bring the product to market at an acceptable price. 

That suggests either that its inaugural “home companion” will seem incredibly expensive (as so many of the products Jony Ive has designed since leaving Apple seem to be), or that OpenAI will sell these things at a subsidy. 

Bloomberg suggests the systems will cost $200 to $300. That seems low given the current component market, expected design quality and the technology used if the plan is to make something good. And it leaves me wondering how deeply investors will underwrite hardware sales, given the eye-watering losses the company is already making.

Apple’s trade secrets case

Given ongoing speculation that Apple plans something similar in the form of a hybrid HomePod/iPad equipped with AI and limited mobility, the recent lawsuit strongly suggests Apple feels some of OpenAI’s plans cross the line into using proprietary technologies and ideas Cupertino has spent years pursuing. Apple’s lawsuit seems to bring much more meaningful evidence than just an argument concerning product design. 

Betting the farm on Ive

We also don’t know the extent to which consumers will be open to semi-sentient AI devices lurking in their lives. While Apple can lean into its loyal customer base and broaden its offering with rock-solid promises concerning user privacy, OpenAI has less to bring to the launch party.

That means it is attempting to pivot millions who use its services into investing in its hardware. It presumably hopes that it will be able to drive that transition by using the design involvement of acclaimed Apple designer Jony Ive as a form of magic talisman. 

The challenge is that while Ive is a big name in Apple history, Apple users are extremely loyal and may react against the involvement of their favorite designer. It’s like finding out someone you thought was on your team actually supported someone else. 

It will be different outside Apple, where less loyal cohorts might see the product introduction as a chance to put a design from Ive through its paces without signing up to a Mac, iPhone, iPad, or HomePod. 

For the rest of us, the question will be whether OpenAI’s Ive-designed product channels the successful design ethic of the iMac, or that of the far less successful hockey puck mouse. Like (timely World Cup klaxon) France against Spain, OpenAI’s investors have to hope the best version of Ive’s design principles show up, because their risked fortunes potentially depend on it. 

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

Passkeys have been around for some time, but enterprise-wide adoption to this point has been slow for a number of reasons. But soon, many Microsoft customers won’t have a choice.

Starting September 1, Microsoft will roll out passkeys as the default authentication method in its cloud-based identity and access management (IAM) service Entra ID. And following a transition period, Microsoft-provided SMS and voice authentication will officially end on February 1, 2027.

With this move, Microsoft seems to be underlining the urgent need for a more secure authentication standard, as attackers up their game with AI.

This is an “important milestone,” because it moves passwordless authentication from an optional security enhancement to the expected standard, noted Ensar Seker, CISO at SOCRadar. “That shift is significant as attackers increasingly rely on AI to automate phishing campaigns, generate convincing login pages, and conduct large-scale credential theft.”

Microsoft’s six-month passkey roll-out

Passkeys require users to authenticate via a fingerprint, facial scan, or lock screen mechanism, rather than a password. They can be stored on physical USB keys (like YubiKey), or as digital credentials on computers, phones, or in cloud accounts.

This method, Microsoft contended, reduces reliance on phishable authentication tools like SMS and voice, and hardens protection against credential theft.

Passkeys “work better for users and worse for cyberattackers,” Nadim Abdo, Microsoft corporate VP for identity and network access engineering, wrote in a blog post.

Microsoft’s announced timeline for rolling out passkeys is relatively aggressive:

• September 1, 2026: All SMS or voice-enabled users will be “auto-enabled and nudged” to register a passkey upon multifactor authentication (MFA) sign-in.
• September 18, 2026: Pricing, commercial terms, and a list of supported telecom providers will be shared for scenarios that still require SMS or voice authentication due to regulation or technical or operational challenges.
• October 30, 2026: Enterprises still using SMS and voice must select and configure a supported telecom provider through the Microsoft Security Store. From then on, they will be responsible for any telecom-related costs.
• February 1, 2027: Microsoft-provided telecom delivery for SMS and voice authentication ends as a native Microsoft Entra capability.

After February 1, enterprises that require SMS or voice for MFA must register a passkey before sign-in. There will be no opt-out option.

It’s important to note that these dates apply to public cloud-hosted Entra ID. Support for other cloud environments will follow a separate timeline; additional guidance and dates are to come.

While SMS and voice have served their purpose well, Abdo said, bringing MFA to billions of users who otherwise would have had none, the threat environment has changed in “speed, scale, and sophistication,” necessitating this move to passkeys.

The benefits of passkeys

SOCRadar’s Seker pointed out that passkeys fundamentally change the attack surface because, unlike with passwords, there is no transmission of shared secrets that can be stolen by threat actors. Authentication requires possession of the user’s device, along with biometric verification or a PIN.

“Even highly convincing AI-generated phishing pages cannot simply trick users into handing over a passkey the way they can with passwords or one-time codes,” he said.

So why haven’t we seen widespread enterprise adoption? Identity ecosystems are “fragmented,” Seker noted, and many enterprises still rely on legacy applications that only support passwords. They also struggle with cross-platform compatibility, lifecycle management, recovery processes, shared accounts, and employee onboarding and offboarding.

Further, “until recently, many organizations viewed passkeys as a consumer technology rather than an enterprise identity strategy,” he said.

Microsoft’s move changes that equation, because Entra sits at the center of many organizations’ identity infrastructure, Seker noted. Default settings are typically the strongest drivers of security adoption, so when passwordless authentication becomes required rather than optional, organizations are far more likely to deploy it at scale.

Its biggest benefit would be a “dramatic reduction” in credential-based attacks, Seker said. He pointed out that most successful compromises still begin with stolen credentials obtained through phishing, infostealer malware, password reuse, or adversary-in-the-middle attacks. Passkeys “eliminate or significantly reduce” many of those attack paths, while reducing password fatigue and the help desk costs related to password resets.

In addition, rather than trying to continuously improve users’ ability to detect increasingly sophisticated phishing attempts, passkeys remove the credential from the equation altogether, Seker noted. “That represents a more sustainable long-term security strategy than relying solely on user awareness training.”

Still, passkeys are not a silver bullet, as they do not stop endpoint compromise, session token theft, malicious insiders, or attackers who already have control of a trusted device. Enterprises must complement passkeys with endpoint protection, continuous monitoring, conditional access policies, and identity threat detection, Seker advised.

How enterprises can prepare

To prepare for the shift to passkeys, Microsoft advised enterprises to review their authentication policy and identify the groups still using SMS or voice authentication. They should then select the best authentication method for user devices and workflows, and ensure all employees are given passkeys and security keys.

Entra ID supports both synced passkeys (those stored in platform credential managers like iCloud Keychain and Google Password Manager), and device-bound passkeys such as Microsoft Authenticator passkeys, Entra passkey on Windows, or FIDO2 security keys.

Seker advised enterprises to evaluate support for FIDO2 and passkeys across their identity infrastructure, and to develop clear enrollment and recovery procedures. They should also educate users on what’s changing, how passkeys work, and how they can complete registration. Further, Seker said, it’s important to establish secure device management practices and to continue enforcing least privilege, conditional access, and risk-based authentication policies throughout the transition.

Ultimately, he pointed out, the move is crucial. “Over the next several years, organizations that continue relying primarily on passwords will likely face higher operational risk as AI continues to lower the cost and increase the effectiveness of credential-based attacks,” he said.

Apple has released the first public betas of its “27” series of operating systems, and feedback so far suggests they’re already very stable builds, even at this early end of the release cycle. 

For most intrepid public beta testers, the big attractions here are Siri AI and the heavily improved Apple Intelligence tools – though Siri AI is not yet available in Europe due to regulatory problems there. Overnight social media commentary has been highly positive, with Siri widely seen as delivering on what we always thought it should be rather than the limited product it became.

Caveat emptor

Once installed, the new operating system is fast and better performing on the iPhone, though there are some limitations anyone considering the beta should consider first:

• This is beta software; things can and sometimes do go wrong. So don’t install it on your primary device unless you know how to restore your device and its data.
• Some critical apps such as banking tools, VPNs and some smart home management software are reported to be unstable at times.
• Once the public beta is first installed, there’s a lengthy period during which your device will rebuild its database; this can take many hours and performance will be affected.
• As the OS beds in, users might experience sudden battery drain or the device might seem warmer than usual.
• You’ll need to join a lengthy Siri waitlist before you can install the updated Siri AI.
• Siri AI requires significant hardware capabilities and only runs on iPhone 15 Pro, iPhone 16 and iPhone 17 models. Alternatively, you must have an M1 or later Mac or an iPad running an M1 chip or later, or A17 Pro (iPad mini).

Siri AI is a big improvement

Siri AI is the big reward here. Joanna Stern called it “significantly better.” It will provide you with much better responses than its predecessor, and its contextual understanding is sophisticated and advanced. 

That’s because Siri can search across your messages, emails, photos and more to help you find what you’re looking for and has some understanding of where you are and what you are doing to help it make even more accurate decisions. It is faster than it’s ever been with a dedicated app (which includes logs of your interactions) and a new glowing design when activated. 

The assistant can now hold an ongoing conversation with you, understands what’s on screen, and take some actions in apps. One way that might be useful is if you are looking at a recipe online, you can ask Siri to write up a shopping list for the recipe ingredients and paste it in a Note. Siri has become much more knowledgeable than in the past thanks to its expanded and updated world knowledge database.

Apple Intelligence has been beefed up, too, with keyboard tools much improved on the last version. Siri can even reflect your personal tone and style based on the person you’re communicating with when sending a Mail or Messages post. 

Apple and the image

The Camera app now has a new Siri mode; it can do things like identify objects and people, or import event details from a leaflet. You can easily search or ask questions about what’s around you, and there are useful new actions you can take, such as getting nutritional insights about a plate of food.

Image Playground wasn’t terribly impressive when it first appeared, and a lot of people did little with it. It seems much better now, capable of generating photo-realistic images in virtually any style from natural language prompts or editing existing images. It’s a useful step up.

Another impressive feature is Spatial Reframing. This lets you shift the composition of a photo after you’ve taken it, using AI to create accurate renditions of what is outside the frame. A new Extend tool lets you expand images, which is useful for adjusting aspect ratios or creating Lock Screen wallpapers.

The future on your wrist

If you use an Apple Watch, you’ll be impressed, as the contextual AI extends to that device. So, you can have context-savvy conversations with your watch and ask it to do tasks on your behalf. It makes it feel like a bona fide computer on your wrist and bodes well for other future wearable products from the company. 

There are lots of other interesting features in the beta. Call Context can automatically surface the information you need, like a confirmation code or reservation number, when calling up a business. And a new Notify Me feature in Safari lets you know when a web page changes, so you can watch for stock availability or ticket sales.

How to install the beta

If you’re interested in installing the new OSes, Apple’s Beta Software Program website should be your first port of call. You’ll need to sign in to access the betas using your Apple Account. Once you’ve done that, open Settings and go to Software Update; there you can select Beta Updates and choose the 27 series Public beta. Tap Update Now and the installation will begin.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, Mastodon, and subscribe to The Core.

Microsoft’s big lead over AI competitors like Google and others has vanished, and the company is now playing catch-up. As a result, Microsoft’s stock has tanked in the last year — down roughly 23% compared to a year ago, due mainly to its massive AI spending and an inability to monetize Copilot. 

The company clearly needs to do something. And last week it did, though not what you might expect. It laid off 4,800 people, a little more than 2% of its worldwide workforce, with its Xbox division hit hardest. And it’s not reducing its massive spending on AI data centers or other AI-related costs.

The New York Times explained the cuts this way: “It is Microsoft’s latest employee culling as it plows tens of billions of dollars into the infrastructure for building artificial intelligence.”

Was cutting back on gaming (while still going all-in on AI) the right move for Microsoft? To answer that, let’s take a look at the details of the company’s July layoffs.

A year of layoffs

The recent cuts come in the wake of larger Microsoft workforce reductions over the last year or so. In May 2025, the company laid off 6,000 employees, about 3% of its workforce. Then a few months later, it laid off 9,000 more, about 4% of its workers. In both rounds of cuts, the company’s gaming division was hit — though it wasn’t the primary target.

This year, in April and May, the company rolled out its first voluntary retirement program for US employees. Approximately 3,000 people took the money and ran.

Then came last week, when Microsoft primarily targeted gaming. When the cuts take full effect over the next year, 2,850 gaming employees will be let go. In addition, Microsoft is cutting loose several of its gaming studio brands, which will become independent companies or be sold to buyers.

The layoffs hit the two remaining gaming studios, Activision Blizzard, which makes the big-selling games Call of Duty and Candy Crush, and ZeniMax Media, which publishes series including Fallout and The Elder Scrolls. Three years ago, in 2023, Microsoft bought Activision Blizzard for $69 billion. That followed its purchase of ZeniMax Media in 2020 for $7.5 billion. Both seemed like sizable acquisitions at the time. 

Compared to Microsoft’s AI spending now, they’re chump change.

Follow the money

A memo sent to employees about the July layoffs by Amy Coleman, Microsoft executive vice president and chief people officer, made clear the layoffs were more about AI than they were about gaming. 

Of the cuts, she wrote: “The “why” is this: our business is changing because the world around it is changing. The way technology is built, deployed, and used is transforming faster than at any point in my time here. Our customers’ needs are shifting, the business models that serve them are shifting, and that means the work itself — what we do, where we focus, and how we’re organized — has to transform, too.

“Our customers are navigating this same shift, and they’re counting on us to help them through it.”

That last sentence is an oblique reference to the early July launch of the Microsoft Frontier Company, which will embed 6,000 engineers inside customers’ businesses to help them more effectively deploy AI. The cost: $2.5 billion.

That sounds like a substantial amount of money. But it’s only a drop in the bucket of how much money the company plans to spend on AI. In April, Microsoft told investors it would spend $190 billion on data centers and other AI infrastructure this year, a 60% increase over what it spent last year. At the same time, Microsoft said it would shrink its workforce.

Its latest layoffs are clear-cut evidence of that. It’s also evidence that the company recognizes how badly Xbox has performed, and that it needed to do something about it. 

In early June, Microsoft sent a memo to everyone in its Xbox division entitled “Next 100 Days: XBOX Reset.” The memo laid out the problems with its ailing game business and pulled no punches. It noted that beyond the $69 billion the company spent three years ago to buy Activision, “Over the past five years, we have spent over $20 billion on ongoing investments in our content, platform, and hardware subsidy, but our annual revenue has declined nearly half a billion during that time. Going forward, this cannot continue.” 

The layoffs and spinoffs were the first steps. They won’t be the last.

There’s no doubt this is just the beginning of Microsoft’s disinvestment in gaming. The issue isn’t just that the company’s investments haven’t paid off. It’s that Microsoft’s AI ambitions are so large and expensive that it can no longer afford to seriously fund gaming.

Ultimately, it was the right thing to do, at least from a business perspective. The future is AI. It’s not in gaming.

So, for the foreseeable future at Microsoft, when it comes to AI — the sky’s the limit. But when it comes to gaming, things look much less rosy.

Except for the second user/refurbished smartphone markets, AI means the days of cheap phones are over, with huge price pressures putting low-end vendors out of business. 

Omdia data confirms that Apple and Samsung are undisputed kings of the hill, combining for 42% of the market even as smartphone sales overall have seen a 4% average decline. 

The two companies increased market share by 4% (Apple) and 2% (Samsung) compared with 2Q25. Meanwhile, the situation is becoming much worse for smaller vendors as memory prices spiral, leaving their businesses under immense strain. Data from Counterpoint Research tells a similar story, indicating Apple growth against a background of market decline. 

It’s important to put the impact of raised RAM costs into perspective. While Apple and Samsung make products at the kind of scale that enables them to cut better deals, smaller makers don’t have the same advantage, leaving them far more exposed to memory price driven pressures.  

Memory prices are crushing the low end

And they really are exposed; not only are sales declining, but Omdia analyst Runar Bjorhovde notes that vendors at that end of the market are dealing with hugely destructive DRAM price hikes over just the past year — up to four or five times higher in some cases. That degree of increase is the kind of business-focused tsunami that drives people out of the market altogether and certainly leaves companies exposed to M&A activity.

Right now, memory and storage can account for more than 60% of the product cost, Bjorhovde said. And as costs continue to increase, what profitability that does exist in the low-cost, high competition lower end smartphone space is being utterly mauled. Omdia forecasts a 22% decline in the sub-$400 smartphone segment as a result.

“Samsung Electronics and Apple — the two market leaders — made huge market share gains…, whereas most players beyond went through steep volume declines,” Bjorhovde said.

From volume to value

Apple’s decision to expand its addressable market with the iPhone ‘e’ series just adds pressure, while Samsung’s enduring popularity helps make it difficult for smaller vendors to generate profit through market scale. “To adapt, vendors are shifting their strategies from volume to value by reoptimizing portfolios and adjusting retail pricing,” he said. 

“Although memory and storage costs are the biggest challenges for vendors, they are far from the only challenge,” Bjorhovde said. “New semiconductor bottlenecks, such as within foundries, are adding further cost pressures.”

With the cost of manufacturing set to continue to rise, it’s generally accepted that we’ll see the average selling price of smartphones climb in the coming 12 months, with Apple set to lead the market toward higher cost builds with the new Pro and Ultra iPhones this September.

Apple’s decision to hold smartphone prices so far has added another price pressure to low-end vendors; the longer it holds its prices down, the longer and more painful will smaller vendors hang onto their own low-price structure to compete.

Future shock: AI hardware

A further wild card is in Apple’s recent lawsuit against OpenAI, which accuses the ChatGPT maker of “illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets” in its hardware plans. OpenAI is thought to be planning an AI-driven iPhone competitor.

We’ve heard speculation about these plans before, of course. But what seems to be emerging in the wake of Apple’s litigation are hints OpenAI intends to introduce its first AI hardware product at some point in 2027.

Assuming that schedule remains on track, OpenAI will likely impose further component pricing pressure across the whole industry. After all, Apple’s customer loyalty leads the industry, and Samsung has built something similar. So, the companies with the most to lose to OpenAI will be the same set of smaller vendors who are already struggling with component price-driven market complexity.

OpenAI products will demand the same memory, similar processors, manufacturing, and other components as other devices, prompting further pricing pressure. That’s likely to put some small vendors out of business entirely, even as standard smartphone prices increase. 

Fragmentation will be next

Those outcomes won’t be universal, as the desire for sovereign data services and growing mistrust of US tech companies suggest OpenAI’s products might see limited adoption in most markets. But they could serve to accelerate divergence in smartphone purchasing patterns worldwide, while adding to market pressure.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, Mastodon, and subscribe to The Core.

Meta pulled a new AI feature on Instagram just days after its launch because of criticism about how the tool handled publicly posted photos.

The feature was part of the new AI image generator, Muse Image, and allowed AI-generated images to be created using content from public Instagram accounts. By specifying a public account with an @mention, users could let the AI ​​model use the person’s images as a reference without informing the account holder.

The launch quickly prompted concerns about privacy and the risk of abuse, with critics saying the feature could be used to create manipulated or offensive images based on other people’s public content.

Meta said its the goal was to give users a creative tool where they could decide for themselves whether their public content could be used. But it removed the feature after feedback that the feature did not meet expectations.

Apple surprised the tech industry after financial markets closed Friday with news the company has sued OpenAI, alleging theft of trade secrets for ChatGPT hardware. The lawsuit particularly targets some senior ex-Apple employees now working at OpenAI.

Apple’s suit names two former employees — Chang Liu and Tang Tan, former vice president for product design, iPhone and Apple Watch — as well as OpenAI and that company’s recently-acquired firm, io Products, alleging “trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract.” 

Jony Ive, who sold io Products to OpenAI, is not named in the lawsuit, though it seems relevant that Tan was one of the senior ex-Apple executives who founded that company.

For its part, OpenAI issued a brief statement in response to the litigation. “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets,” the company said. “We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.”

The allegations against Tan

Some of the claims and allegations included in Apple’s lawsuit include:

• That in the months before leaving Apple, Tan met with OpenAI or its collaborators and discussed meetings with a key Apple supplier.
• He emailed himself information about suppliers and internal summaries.
• When interviewing former Apple staffers for jobs, he used confidential information, such as internal project code names, to gain even more knowledge.
• He asked candidates to bring actual parts from Apple to interviews to discuss — and a then-Apple employee screenshotted and downloaded files concerning a highly confidential Apple project before attending an OpenAI recruitment session.
• Tan asked Apple employees to bring CAD/design artifacts to their interviews.
• Tan allegedly instructed new hires on how to avoid scrutiny when leaving Apple, such as instructing them not to tell the company they had taken jobs at OpenAI.

The ‘so funny’ laptop bug

The lawsuit also claimed that after quitting Apple for OpenAI in January 2026, Chang Liu managed to keep or “otherwise acquire” an Apple-issued notebook which he used to access confidential data on the company’s private network while at OpenAI. “LOL, I found out I can access the [server], so funny,” Liu texted a friend still working at Apple.

The suit alleges that he made no effort to report the situation, which was a bug in the system he had uncovered. Apple eventually discovered the exfiltration was taking place and took steps to prevent it, but Liu allegedly downloaded more than 1,000 pages of data, including “confidential technical presentations, spreadsheets, PDFs, and written work product,” Apple said.

“Only OpenAI and Mr. Liu know all the ways they have been exploiting the trove of Apple confidential information he stole, and to the extent they have not concealed or destroyed the evidence of these misappropriations, it will be investigated thoroughly in discovery.” 

Apple’s lawsuit also alleges Liu was simultaneously coaching a current Apple employee named Alyssa Peng on how to copy files from Apple workstations without triggering the security team, asking her to get specific confidential information and using Apple’s stolen data to help her get ready for an eventual OpenAI interview.

Why this could get bigger

There’s much in the litigation that it will garner serious international attention as it unfolds. Apple’s argues that a competitor with access to so much of its own proprietary information could “bypass years of independent research and development, skip the capital expenditure required to build genuine expertise, and bring products to market faster and at lower cost, harming the value of Apple’s investments.”

It’s not just the secrets behind actively-used processes Apple is protecting; the company is also asserting its rights to regain control of information it has assembled over time concerning processes and manufacturing attempts that have failed. That’s understandable – you can invest a lot of money in finding out what doesn’t work and knowing that is a trade secret in itself. 

“OpenAI coaches candidates to prepare for their interviews by studying Apple’s confidential engineering documentation, internal presentations, and proprietary technical materials,” the litigation claims. “OpenAI then uses its insider Apple information to ask detailed questions to extract more: about Apple’s proprietary tools, vendor management processes, engineering methodologies, manufacturing workflows, and supplier relationships, for example.

“OpenAI has turned to trade secret misappropriation to free-ride off Apple’s decades of innovation,” Apple said. “This is the tip of the iceberg.” 

The lawsuit also confirms that Apple often designs and customizes the specialized machinery used in its suppliers’ factories, and that trade secrets concerning those efforts have been grabbed. The suit notes that OpenAI works with established Apple suppliers Foxconn, Luxshare, and Goertek on its own hardware.

If true, these allegations go right to the top of OpenAI’s hardware development plans. Tan is now OpenAI’s Chief Hardware Officer.

The lawsuit points out that OpenAI now employs more than 400 Apple engineers and executives (including the company’s former Vision Pro Vice President), suggesting its entire approach to hardware recruitment is based on extracting Apple’s proprietary knowledge from potential hires. 

“Apple lacks visibility into what’s been happening behind closed doors at OpenAI, where such misconduct is normalized and exemplified by leadership,” the lawsuit argues. “This much is clear, however: at every level, from members of its Technical Staff to its Chief Hardware Officer, and in coordination with business partners, OpenAI has been stealing Apple’s trade secrets and confidential information. As a natural result, OpenAI’s nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets.”

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, Mastodon, and subscribe to The Core.

Consumer electronics prices are shooting up. Energy prices are increasing fast. Even water bills are climbing. For a technology that promises “efficiency,” the ongoing AI gold rush seems to be taking things away, much like the proverbial gift that keeps on grabbing.

With hundreds of billions in AI investment already racked up for 2026, it’s important to remember the entire industry is currently built on a mountain of debt — and much of this borrowed money is being spent on data center capacity. That’s true, even though consumers would probably rather have a cheap Mac than spend money on an AI subscription service. 

All this debt is being amassed because a small number of people at a very small number of firms have decided to make huge investments in the tech, which at present requires huge quantities of energy, memory and data center capacity to run. 

But it won’t always be this way.

A mountain of debt, but we’re short of memory

Look, the industry as it is now just doesn’t seem sustainable. Trillions are being spent and memory vendors are shifting capacity to make the high-value, high-bandwidth memory these server farms require — at the expense of traditional consumer electronic suppliers. 

The rapid rollout just creates AI tech will need to be replaced, likely at greater cost, in a few years’ time. In a nutshell, the industry is spending trillions to make billions; Sequoia’s David Cahn estimates the AI revenue gap between infrastructure expenditure and the revenue to justify it has already fallen $600 billion a year short. 

At some point, the VC money will run dry, after which it is inevitable deployment will slow and demand for all the components — including memory used in these large language model (LLM) data centers will fall. Some analysts think capex growth in the sector could halt by mid-2027.

At that point, memory vendors will have expensive production facilities and extensive defaults on their order books. If the 2027 prediction is true, those vendors will feel this impact in the form of reduced forward orders by the end of 2026.

The problem is that the investments have become so vast that any slowdown will have consequential effects across all sections of the economy. 

After the gold rush

Almost certainly, the technology will continue to improve, and the problems we’re looking to solve today might no longer be challenges once fresh innovation strikes. So, what happens next? 

Let’s think about memory, the biggest pain point at the moment and where we will (hopefully) find future innovation. At present, some of the largest LLMs sit inside data centers supported by vast quantities of memory. These machines are built to handle really complex tasks, but most of the time are used to search the web, deliver writing assistance and summarize documents. Those frequently-transacted tasks barely stretch the capabilities of these services and Apple, and others have already figured out how to run such tasks on device.

That’s the first obvious space in which to innovate – to invest in 1-bit data LLM systems to miniaturize and distill models so they actually run on the device you’re using, rather than relying on all those remote servers. 

The Apple shopping list

Apple’s interest in 1-bit data LLM pioneer PrismML speaks volumes about where the iPhone maker sees LLM development going, as did its acquisitions of Kuzu Inc., WhyLabs Inc, Pointable Inc., and Datakalab Inc. in recent years. 

The beauty of PrismML’s tech is what it can do. It was recently used to compress Alibaba’s huge 27-billion-parameter Qwen 3.6 model from 54GB down to under 4GB, running with all 27 billion parameters active simultaneously — all without sacrificing benchmark performance. 

The kicker? It managed to run that advanced, sophisticated AI model on an iPhone 17 Pro. My take? Just as music used to be captured on reel-to-reel tape and is now digitized and in the air, AI will move from the data center to the device, possibly faster than people expect. 

Apple has three pillars for AI: On-device for most of what you need, on Private Cloud Compute servers for most of the rest, or via third-party server-based systems for the most demanding tasks. That’s a blueprint for how the industry will evolve as technologies represented by PrismML tend toward bringing more of that intelligence to the device. Over time, those local tasks will become more sophisticated, eroding the available market for today’s heavily-indebted AI incumbents. 

Emerging priorities such as the need for privacy, data sovereignty, and trusted cloud will also spur the emergence of a multipolar AI future in which no one vendor dominates, further complicating their journey to profitability. It’s a model that favors the kind of service-agnostic, edgeAI approach Apple has taken.

EdgeAI for the rest of us

In the end, I don’t think there will be a need for much of the AI data center capacity now being built, because Apple and others will figure out how to use data minimization to transact sophisticated AI tasks on the device. For the most part, EdgeAI will deliver the consumer AI experience, while data centers cater to more sophisticated use. One day, after this gold rush has run its course, we’ll peer outside of our basements to see which of today’s AI firms actually are the chosen ones.

They may not be the ones you expect.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, Mastodon, and subscribe to the human-curated daily Apple news briefing at The Core.

The AI IPO tsunami on the stock market has only recently gotten under way, with SpaceX’s more-than-$2 trillion IPO likely to be followed in several months by OpenAI’s and Anthropic’s IPOs — each of which is likely to hit $1 trillion.

That will mint three new trillion-dollar AI companies in a matter of months, all of which compete with Microsoft. 

Wall Street has never seen anything like it. Previously, the most money raised by all IPOs in a single year was $671 billion in 2021. It took 38,644 deals to get to that figure. Compare that to three deals this year that by themselves will likely total $4 trillion.

The numbers are eye-popping. 

For Microsoft though, it’s not the numbers themselves that are important. It’s what will happen to the company once it as three newly minted trillion-dollar AI competitors. Until recently, when it came to AI, Microsoft was king of the hill. But can it keep that place?

Microsoft’s weakened position

The IPOs come at a particularly fraught time for Microsoft. At one point, it was the most valuable AI company in the world, with a big head start on the tech industry.

No longer. Microsoft’s stock price has tanked in the past 12 months, even as the S&P index has soared. In the last year, Microsoft’s stock price has dropped 24%, while the S&P has jumped 24%. The two were pretty much in sync until last fall..

Microsoft has fared even worse against its most powerful AI competitor, Google. In June 2025, Google’s total value was $2.1 trillion, well behind Microsoft’s  $3.57 trillion. By  mid-June this year Google was worth $4.5 trillion, Microsoft, $2.8 trillion. That’s entirely due to Google’s AI push and Microsoft’s failure to improve Copilot significantly.

Matt Vellosso, who worked for Microsoft for 14 years — including four as technical advisor to CEO Satya Nadella and then as Partner Director for fostering AI innovation in Windows before leaving in 2023 — is scathing about what he views as Microsoft’s AI failures. 

He warned: “Microsoft missed the internet wave, the mobile wave and now it missed the AI wave.”

Show me the money

The most immediate likely impact on Microsoft after the three massive IPOs take place will be on the company’s stock price, which could well take another hit. Investors don’t want to miss out on the AI boom, and until now, there’s been a relatively small number of companies in which they could. When Anthropic and OpenAI join SpaceX as publicly traded companies, investors will have three more choices than they did only a few months ago. That could make it tougher for Microsoft to attract AI-focused investors. And that, in turn, could knock down its stock price. 

A lower stock price means the company will have a harder time raising money when it needs it. In addition, Microsoft won’t be able to as easily buy other companies in stock-only deals, because the value of its stock will be less.

Still, the IPOs are not all bad news for Microsoft’s stock position. It does, after all, own 27% of OpenAI. So if OpenAI is valued at $1 trillion after its IPO, Microsoft has a $270 billion stake in it.

Thumbs up for increased Azure revenue

One area where these mega IPOs should be unalloyed good news for Microsoft is in Azure revenue, which should significantly. Microsoft’s final divorce settlement with OpenAI requires the latter to buy $250 billion in Azure services through 2030. And its  estimated trillion-dollar valuation ensures the company will be around for the long term, meaning Microsoft can count on that revenue — and possibly more on an ongoing basis.

Microsoft will likely also get tens of billions of dollars from Anthropic for Azure cloud services. Anthropic might spend $43 billion annually on Azure cloud services by 2030, according to estimates by HSBC, one of the world’s largest banking and financial services companies.

Thumbs down for the effect on Copilot

Although Azure use will boom thanks to the IPOs, Microsoft’s own Copilot could face significant competition at a time when it’s having serious problems gaining traction. In its April 2026 earnings call, the company said Microsoft 365 Copilot had 20 million paid seats. That’s up from 15 million paid seats as of January, but still a minuscule number, considering Microsoft has 450 million Microsoft 365 commercial subscribers. That means only about 4% of the company’s business customers have been willing to pay for it since its launch in late 2023.

Beyond that, developers have been leaving GitHub Copilot and turning to Anthropic’s Claude Code and SpaceX’s recently purchased Cursor. A survey by the software development company JetBrains of more than 10,000 developers found that 29% used GitHub Copilot, 18% used Cursor and 18% used Claude Code. 

Early in 2025, GitHub Copilot had a commanding 67% market share.

More downside than up from the IPOs

Although the IPOs do have some upside for Microsoft — dramatically increased Azure revenue and several hundred billion dollars in OpenAI stock holdings — mostly, they’re bad news thanks to increased competition. 

Unless Microsoft significantly improves Copilot for businesses, developers and consumers, the company’s one-time AI dominance will erode even further.

Forty million UK iCloud users could be owed up to $100 (£77) each after a $3.9 billion (£3 billion) class action lawsuit against Apple was cleared for trial — and the company’s problems may be just getting started. 

For Apple, the worry is that this case could snowball to become yet another existential regulatory problem. The action was brought by consumer group Which?, which accused Apple of breaching UK competition law by giving its iCloud storage service preferential treatment and “trapping” customers with Apple devices into using iCloud. 

Trapping happy customers

Apple achieves this by encouraging its customers to sign up to iCloud for storage of photos, videos and other data while also making it difficult for them to use alternative providers to backup key data. The company also squeezes extra dollars out of customers by providing a stingy 5GB of storage for free, while putting important data including messages and photos inside that allocation. Even Google provides 15GB of storage in its free tier.

The problem is that the scale of Apple makes it difficult for competitors to reach customers with alternative solutions, while Apple’s control over the operating system gives it integration advantages third-party competitors don’t get. 

While there may well be justifications for constraining access to some personal data, those privacy and security challenges don’t apply to all of it. 

You are the product

When it originally filed the claim, Which? explained that Apple could resolve the claim without litigation by offering consumers their money back and opening up iOS to allow users a real choice for cloud services. This is unlikely to happen.

This case has been slowly making its way through the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which last week finally gave permission for the case to go to trial.

Apple won’t be looking at a hefty fine just yet. The first available trial date is in October 2028 and the legal fight is expected to last nine weeks, which might, or might not, equate to a Christmas surprise for Apple’s then CEO. There’s no time to sit back, however, as the company must still file its defense papers with the court by the end of next month, July 31.

The snowball factor

The UK is not alone. Italy has launched its own antitrust probe into Apple’s iCloud dominance under the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). The problem with that litigation is that since Italy has commenced the probe, other nations across the bloc might also act.

Italy is looking to see whether Apple has failed to open up its iOS and iPadOS ecosystems to rival cloud services, arguing that third-party providers are unable to access the same system components as iCloud. The DMA insists competitors should enjoy the same degree of access as iCloud because Apple is seen as a gatekeeper, which means it is required to meet a higher set of standards.

Apple, of course, will inevitably — and rightly — argue that customer privacy needs to be protected, and that open, free, access to some of the data its trusted iCloud service can use is not in the consumer interest. 

The company has already proposed one way in which it can provide third-party services with access to confidential data with a trusted intermediary system that anonymizes that information in use. 

Why we need a Trusted System Agent model

That’s precisely what it offered Europe when it proposed a solution called Trusted System Agent — an intermediary that would allow virtual assistants to safely access the same features and capabilities as Siri AI for devices in the EU. Unfortunately, EU regulators didn’t accept Apple’s justification concerning the need to protect customer privacy, which is why Apple Intelligence won’t be available in Europe for a while, if at all.

In the event Apple’s iCloud service falls short of the Italian probe and therefore the DMA, the danger is that if EU regulators take the same evangelically hard-line stance with iCloud services as they have done so far with AI, customers might find themselves losing access to the service. 

First blood

That’s in Europe, of course. But the UK case is likely to get to court long before litigation processes in Europe get going, making the UK action an important test case in which yet another important component of Apple’s offering to consumers is up for trial.

Please join me on social media at BlueSky,  LinkedIn, or Mastodon, even better, please subscribe to The Core for your daily fix of human-curated Apple News.

Not-yet-profitable AI companies are constructing a vast and expensive global network of server farms to support cloud-based generative AI (genAI) services. Deeply financed by venture capitalists who will one day want to see return on their investments, these centers are consuming enough memory to drive consumer technology prices higher and higher.

Yet, for all the investment now going on, it’s inevitable that new on-device genAI models will emerge. When they do, the AI tasks for which you use cloud services today will be handled on device tomorrow. And at the speed we’re going, tomorrow is not very far away.

We already know it is possible. Just look at Siri AI. To create it, Apple worked with Google Gemini — using the latter to help build and distill Apple’s own AI models, many of which now work entirely on device.

The hidden cost of the AI buildout

This move toward edge AI takes place as the tech industry pours its eggs into the AI basket, with major memory suppliers redirecting manufacturing capacity toward higher-value memory products for AI servers, such as advanced-layer 3D NAND. They’ve done so while failing to invest in additional capacity, prompting a shortage of the kind of general purpose RAM you use in your computer, console, or smartphone.

This is having a dramatic impact. Gartner says the memory shortage will cause PC shipments to drop 10.4% in 2026 and smartphone shipments to decline 8.4%, with prices on those products rising 17% and 13%, respectively, versus 2025 levels.

The AI consumer tech tax

This leaves electronics manufacturers quarrelling over the remaining supply, while shrinking profit margins force them to increase prices. Sony has already raised the PS5 price by $100, Microsoft has raised Xbox prices, and Nintendo has raised the price of its first-generation Switch. Samsung has quietly increased prices across Galaxy smartphones, tablets, and laptops. Analysts also warn that “shrinkflation” is escaping from the supermarket and coming to your tech, an insidious move in which manufacturers quietly reduce the features/performance of their devices to maintain familiar price points. That laptop you purchase could ship with a downgraded display, for example.

Apple is not immune. The iPhone 18 Pro is tipped for a significant price increase in 2026, potentially adding $100 to $150, even before tariffs are considered. Apple CEO Tim Cook recently warned of price increases ahead as a direct impact of demand for memory components.

A business model under pressure

Surely all this investment in AI servers and the increased cost of tech products will be worth it in the end, right? Writer and tech critic Ed Zitron disagrees, pointing out that for $200 a month, a user can burn $8,000 in Anthropic tokens or $14,000 in OpenAI tokens. 

He argues that subsidy at this scale suggests AI economics are already broken, and that the actual value of AI may be inflated, forming a big bad bubble ready to burst once market opinion (and investment) catches on.

By spending billions chasing market share, AI has fundamentally undermined its own value, making it harder to achieve sustainable business success. Costs might well fall in future, of course, but edge AI could be the biggest cost reduction exercise of all.

Make tokens pay

Perhaps AI companies have finally begun turning things around? Maybe not. Less than three months into paying the actual costs of LLM-based services, both OpenAI and Anthropic are considering drastic price cuts, with one Cisco executive stating publicly that AI token costs are far higher than the actual value those tokens are generating at scale.

Even Meta has imposed strict limits on token usage after finding it was on track to spend billions on internal AI alone in 2026. The Times reports that two large banks spent an astonishing $1 billion on AI experiments without seeing any significant return.

That’s the use value, but what about the hardware investment? It is really hard to ignore the irony that billions of dollars are being poured into a server-based infrastructure that might become obsolete before turning any kind of profit. Today’s H200-based servers will need to be upgraded sooner or later, and when they are, where will the money come from? 

Apple has a different approach

Consumer electronics leader Apple clearly sees this. While it has been accused of being behind in AI, perhaps it was just being realistic. After all, the reality seems to be that we’re experiencing something akin to venture capital backed economic socialism in the AI sector, with billions invested for no visible — or, if Zitron is right — possible return. 

At the same time, Apple seems focused on building edge AI as a privacy-preserving, cost-saving alternative to the massive data center buildouts rivals have pursued. 

Rather than squandering billions on a revenue-draining chatbot, Apple worked with others to create its own alternative. As part of its agreement with Google, Apple is using a large version of Gemini to train a smaller, distilled version capable of running locally on Apple hardware.  Siri AI can hold conversations, pull context from a user’s emails, messages, and photos, answer live questions from the web, and act across apps, with much of the work taking place on the device itself.  

These tools are also available to app developers, thanks to Apple’s Foundation Models framework. At WWDC, Apple showed how its devices can work together to run local LLMs using MLX Distributed, which means users can run on-premises, highly private AI models. And the company continues to make strategic acquisitions, such as the recent purchase of on-device AI startup Liquid AI.

On-device or off, the move has caused Apple to break with years of tradition to pack its systems with more and more memory, ironically feeding the same component pricing narrative.

The squeeze isn’t over

Who pays for all this? You do. Memory prices will continue to rise across the year, with TrendForce predicting up to 75% increases on top of the already 100% spike we’ve seen in recent months. Memory suppliers seem unwilling to ramp up supply to help bring costs down, potentially because they don’t want to be left with unused capacity once the AI bubble does burst. That means existing manufacturing is being pointed at the highest value memory components, further feeding price hikes.

When AI leaves the cloud

What happens to investors when AI stops needing a data center to be useful?  The companies that survive this shift won’t necessarily be the ones who built the biggest and most costly clouds. They are more likely to be the ones who identified cloud-based AI as the start of a transition toward more intelligent devices equipped with their own on-device AI. That is precisely what Apple is building toward.

Please join me on social media at BlueSky,  LinkedIn, or Mastodon, even better, please subscribe to The Core for your daily fix of human-curated Apple News.

Apple execs are now acknowledging the company is going to need to raises prices to cope with higher component costs, particularly memory. Apple has been battling to avoid doing so, but warned this week that those efforts are “unsustainable.”

The price pressure is being felt across the tech industry. Omdia predicts the average selling price (ASP) of smartphones globally will increase by around 20% this year — partly because AI industry demands have pushed up RAM prices and partly because of rapid cost increases in processor production as a direct consequence of war in the Middle East. This impacts anything that uses memory or processors.

Apple must raise prices, CEO warns

“We’re doing our best to mitigate the huge increases that are being passed to us, and we’ve been trying to shield our customers from the increases, but the situation has become unsustainable,” current Apple CEO Tim Cook told the Wall Street Journal.

OK, so prices are going to go up. But how?

If Apple must raise prices, the way it does so matters. Will it increase prices across the board, or choose a subtle, strategic approach that protects margins while also maintaining rapidly accelerating market share growth?

Until now, Apple has been benefiting from the rising tide in memory prices. While competitors have been steadily increasing prices across the board, Apple introduced its first $599 laptop even as it eats into mid-range smartphone sales. 

To grow, or to grow less?

The PC industry is not growing (outside of Cupertino), and Apple and its investors already know that the inordinately high customer satisfaction ratings its platforms enjoy mean that when people switch to them they tend to stick around. That’s why it matters that Cook highlighted record switchers and first-time platform users during the company’s most recent fiscal call. Apple is growing new customers, people who are likely to sign-up for services, accessories, and future upgrades. Winning the customer is an investment in future performance.

When it comes to increasing prices, we’ve seen some gentle experimentation in the Mac mini line, where the entry-level $599 model was effectively replaced by a more expensive $799 SKU. There have been suggestions Apple could do the same with the $599 MacBook Neo, dumping the entry-level build in favor of the (better) $699 model. I’m not certain that’s the best approach. 

A matter of choice

I’d argue that the $599 price point is psychologically the best bit of marketing Apple has ever done as it draws new users to look at its platforms. I also think substantial numbers of people already shift up to the $699 version, if they can, making that entry-level price an incredibly effective marketing tool with which to woo customers. It looks like that approach is working; the MacBook Neo has led the Amazon Laptop Sales chart ever since it was introduced and is selling in huge quantities globally.

Francisco Jeronimo, IDC vice president for data and analytics, sees this, writing: “It will be interesting to see whether Apple raises prices across its entire portfolio or plays strategically by subsidizing its more affordable products to gain market share and grow its installed base.”

If Apple raises prices at the price sensitive, entry-level end of its market, it runs the risk of slowing its own resurgence. Given that a 10% price hike here is only worth around $60, the revenue generated might not justify blunting Apple’s offer to new users.

Pricing and strategy

But Apple isn’t defined by its entry-level markets. Its biggest earning opportunities continue to be generated by the aspirational middle class, who, while feeling the pinch of declining living standards in many markets, can still handle the price of a top-of-the-range iPhone Pro. A 10% price increase at that end of the market will generate a much more significant chunk of revenue – and since rival vendors are raising their prices at this end of the market, Apple can follow suit while still seeming affordable. It’s an approach that maintains growth while optimizing margins.

Apple generates roughly half its revenue from iPhone sales, with the Pro and Pro Max devices accounting for a significant chunk of that money. Consumers looking to buy one of Apple’s high-end devices are likely to be less price-sensitive than those making purchases at the low- and mid-points of the company’s market range. 

With that in mind, it makes more sense for the company to raise prices at the top, while working to maintain the cost of entry at the lower end. It could, of course, raise prices universally, but doing so makes less sense.

What next?

Whatever strategy Apple adopts, company leadership is clear that component pricing is hitting hard. “We definitely need memory pricing and supply to return to reasonable levels for consumer products. That’s the bottom line,” Cook said.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core for your daily fix of Apple News.

A federal judge has rebuffed Workday’s claim that it cannot be held liable under California anti-discrimination laws when its tools are used to screen (and potentially reject) job candidates in other states.

This week, US District Judge Rita Lin indicated that she will likely allow additional state discrimination claims against Workday to move forward. This would significantly expand the closely-watched case and likely ratchet up scrutiny of AI recruiting tools and their potentially inherent biases when it comes to age, race, sex, disabilities, and other factors.

Further, it could indicate that, even if a company is not the final employer, it may be held liable if its tools materially influence who gets rejected. This could set new legal standards for AI hiring systems, and have implications across industries, experts note.

“This case reinforces the importance of actually managing AI risks,” said Valence Howden, advisory fellow at Info-Tech Research Group. “If an AI-enabled model or ATS [Applicant Tracking System] is making decisions based on historical information, it can raise questions about whether bias in outcomes and datasets has been properly addressed.”

The case so far

Mobley v. Workday, Inc. alleges that Workday’s AI screening tools discriminate against job seekers based on age, race, and disability. The suit was filed in 2024 in the US District Court of California by Derek Mobley, a Black disabled man over 40, who claimed Workday’s algorithms continually screened him out as he applied for more than 100 positions on the platform.

The claims alleged discrimination prohibited by several US and California statutes: Race and sex under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII); disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA); and race, gender, and age under California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Specifically, the suit centered around Workday’s use of automated, algorithm-driven tools for applicant screening. It alleged that these systems rely on historical data and statistical modeling that can make them susceptible to existing biases, even if protected characteristics like race, age, sex, or disability are not explicitly provided.

Bias may enter these systems in different ways, the plaintiffs argued, including via training data, model design, and evaluation criteria for candidate fit. The system could reproduce discriminatory outcomes by making correlations from data. For instance, years of experience on a resumé may indicate age; long employment gaps may infer a disability or caregiving responsibilities; educational and institutional affiliations could reflect race.

Workday has argued that it is not subject to liability under employment statutes because it does not qualify as the job applicants’ “employer.” But federal judges have allowed key parts of the lawsuit to move forward, ruling that Workday could potentially be treated as an employer’s “agent” for the purposes of anti-discrimination law.

The latest dispute centers on FEHA. According to legal sources, the California statute is among the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the US, in many cases providing broader protections than federal employment laws.

Workday asked the court to dismiss claims brought under California law, saying FEHA should not apply to the hiring decisions of out-of-state employers and applicants. The company’s lawyers argued that enforcing this would effectively allow California law to supersede that of other states, just because a company used their platform.

But Lin disagreed, saying FEHA does apply, and in fact, Workday is directly liable for its “own engagement in FEHA-regulated activities on the employer’s behalf.” Holding businesses liable for “their own discriminatory conduct” is within the scope and purposes of FEHA and consistent with public policy.

However, the issue is still to be decided; Lin did not indicate when she would release a final ruling.

Workday’s defense

A Workday spokesperson called the claims in the suit “false.”

“Workday’s AI recruiting tools don’t make hiring decisions and are designed with human oversight at their core,” the spokesperson told CIO. “Our technology looks only at job qualifications, not protected traits like race, age, or disability. We rigorously test our products as part of our responsible AI program to confirm our tools do not harm protected groups.”

Workday’s platform is meant to provide insights on how well a candidate’s qualifications match the requirements of a posted job, the company said. Those tools focus only on qualifications listed in a candidate’s application, which are compared to qualifications identified by the employer as important for the job.

Workday’s Chief Responsible AI Officer Kelly Trindel said its AI does not make employment decisions, automatically reject candidates, or determine who gets a job; further, she said, there is no evidence that the company’s tools result in harm to protected groups.

Trindel, who is former chief analyst of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), leads a dedicated team composed of psychologists and PhD-level data scientists whose sole focus is to ensure that its AI is “responsible, fair, and ethical.” She said that the company’s AI systems undergo ongoing reviews throughout their lifecycle to help prevent unintended consequences, and Workday is “committed to accountability, transparency, and trust,” and invests “significant resources” into identifying and mitigating bias.

Further, she said, Workday has a company-wide commitment to ethical AI, and an independently-evaluated AI governance program based on standards from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the International Standards Organization (ISO).

“Workday builds AI to support people, not replace them, and this is of particular importance when it comes to hiring,” Trindel noted. Its platform is designed to help employers “manage high-volume processes more efficiently, surface relevant information, and reduce administrative work so teams can spend more time applying their expertise and judgement to hiring decisions.”

What this means for enterprise leaders

Workday isn’t alone in its legal challenges; other AI hiring tools are also being scrutinized over their methodologies, algorithms, and data-collecting practices. Eightfold, for one, is also facing a California class action lawsuit alleging that its tools unfairly rely on job candidates’ online data to predict whether they’d be a good fit for a position.

This means that enterprises, who are already feeling increased pressure to document hiring decisions, conduct AI bias audits, and maintain human oversight in recruitment and hiring, must be even more diligent in their vetting of AI tools.

Organizations must be actively defining how these recruitment tools should work, identifying bias in their algorithms, and setting up structures to test for bias across the tools’ decision-making logic, Info-Tech’s Howden advised.

“Validation of non-biased outcomes also needs to be active and ongoing, rather than a point-in-time exercise,” he said.

While Workday and others say human oversight is paramount, “it’s hard to incorporate humans into the process if the platform does the weeding out before humans have the ability to intervene,” Howden pointed out.

Discriminatory biases can exist in past hiring decisions, so it’s easy to forget that AI can “emulate and adapt those biases as part of its perspective,” he said. That includes how AI looks at language: Different cultures use different phrasing, and AI can capture that and use it to exclude candidates.

Ultimately, he called the case a “cautionary tale” illustrating how lightly some organizations have been treating AI risk. It also highlights the urgency involved in building out more advanced enterprise risk practices, “rather than relying on the limited capabilities they may have employed up until now.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Adobe’s Firefly Graph is now available to Creative Cloud customers, offering a node-based workflow tool designed to help business create content at scale with generative AI (genAI). 

With Firefly Graph, users can connect multiple tools in visual workflow, with each “node” performing a specific task before passing its output to the next node. This gives creative professionals more control over generated outputs, according to Adobe, and makes it easier to try out ideas by swapping, adjusting or adding components.

For example, a user could start with a text prompt box that connects to a node that generates an image using an AI model from Adobe or third-parties such as Google and OpenAI. Further along the chain, the user could add nodes to remove a background or upscale an image, for instance, before producing an image, video or other asset ready for use.

Changing one aspect, such as adding a reference image or adapting the text prompt, would change the final output.

It’s an approach similar to node-based workflow tools such as ComfyUI — a startup valued at $500 million which claims more than 4 million users. Others include Weavy, acquired by Figma last year for a reported $200 million. 

With so many AI tools available to creative professionals, workflows can get complex and hard to replicate, said Elliot Sedegah, director for strategy and product marketing at Adobe. Firefly Graph provides access to more than 300 different node types, including images, video editing and AI generation tools across Adobe’s portfolio and third-party tools. 

“Whether you’re working at a mom-and-pop shop or a larger enterprise, you’re looking for consistency and then bringing that into a workflow so that you’re not hopping in and out of different tools,” he said. “Putting all that together takes massive amount of time, and sometimes it’s very difficult to even know what you did.”

Once created, workflows can be shared across an organization as repeatable processes for other individuals or teams to use. “Think of that rock star creative that you have and the recipes they create: those are now canonized as workflows, as assets, that the rest of the organization can take and reuse over and over again,” said Sedegah.

In addition, while creative professionals are needed to created high quality assets, reusable workflows can be put into the hands of broader teams to create content for large audiences, said Sedegah.

Firefly Graph addresses a challenge that most large creative organizations face, said Lisa Gately, principal analyst at Forrester — namely that their best creative workflows “live inside the heads of a few experts.

“Teams can generate images and video with AI, but reproducing the exact sequences of creative decisions, model selections, edits, and refinements that lead to a high-quality result is difficult and inconsistent. Firefly Graph turns those workflows into reusable assets,” she said.

While other node-based workflows aim to address similar problems, Adobe’s pitch is that Firefly Graph provides customers with the benefit of integration into its product suite. 

“Firefly is a full, broader AI creative studio, not just a node-based tool, so [Firefly Graph] is a part of a bigger picture,” said Sedegah. “The strength is having everything in one place with the tools that people know.” 

“Where Adobe differentiates is in enterprise integration,” said Gately, with Adobe connecting Firefly Graph to a range of other Adobe tools. Those include Creative Cloud applications; Firefly Boards for ideation; and Firefly Creative Production. 

“The workflow becomes part of a broader content supply chain instead of a standalone creation tool,” she said. ”Organizations committed to other tools are unlikely to migrate for a node-based canvas — making a change is about the broader content supply chain.”

Firefly Graph is available now to Adobe Creative Cloud for Enterprise subscribers. Creative Cloud for Enterprise is licensed by seat, requiring custom, volume-based enterprise agreements. Creative Cloud for Enterprise customers receive credits for Firefly Graph. Creative Cloud for teams customers can sign up for a public beta online. Creative Cloud pricing starts at $99.99 per license each month.

This article was updated on June 19 with pricing information from Adobe.

Beth Tschida, who became Jamf CEO in May after serving as CTO and as interim CEO, is the first woman to lead the company in its near 25-year history. I spoke with her this week at the London Jamf Nation event, where the company introduced its new AI Governance solution.

How the transition to CEO is going 

“It’s been a great privilege and an adjustment,” she said. “Jamf has always been a company deeply focused on culture, which is exactly why I love being here. Having the ability to influence and improve that culture from this role is something I feel very supported in doing.”

The last few years have seen a variety of changes at Jamf, which was briefly a public company. “We’ve come through a period of change, not all of it easy,” Tschida said. “But we now have a great partnership with Francisco Partners. We’re private, we’re focused on solving customer problems, and we’re finding ways to lean into what we’re good at.”

Women in tech and mentorship

Tschida is a good choice to lead a software engineering company, as she’s an engineer herself. She originally joined Jamf as vice president for software engineering in 2018, moving up to CTO in 2022. She’s also one of the few women in leadership positions in tech. (To Jamf’s credit, the company also has CIO Linh Lam on its team.)

“I think it’s important for women to stay deep in the tech, build their skills and find their voice confidently,” Tschida said. “You’ll never know all the technology out there. Nobody does. What matters is the ability to keep adapting and evolving.”

Tschida stressed the importance of mentorship. “I feel very honored to have a chance to be a role model for other women,” she said. “I had women who forged a path for me, including a female CIO early in my career who I asked to mentor me and learned an enormous amount from. I’m certainly not the first woman in tech, but I do want to play my part in helping others grow in their careers.

“Ultimately, I want to be respected for what I do, not for my gender. That’s how everyone should be judged.”

AI Governance

Tschida’s product focus means she knows what matters to Jamf. “If you focus on the problems customers have and how your product can help fix them, that’ll take you to where you want to go.”

For many in the enterprise, both in and beyond the Apple space, the next big problem is AI — how to deploy it, how to manage it, and how to regulate it.

AI Governance is a new Jamf solution that has been developed in response to those pain points. Countless surveys, including Jamf’s own data, show that AI is being widely used across every company, but IT lacks visibility into its use. It’s hard to know what data is being shared with AI tools, which services are being used, and how to report on that use effectively — particularly in regulated industries.

AI Governance is designed to make it possible for anyone managing an Apple fleet to get granular insight into AI use across their Mac, iPhone, and iPad devices. It uses telemetrics to shed light on that use, offers governance and management tools to help IT gain better oversight and control over it, and provides highly comprehensive reporting tools suitable for internal or regulatory review.

“AI is happening whether organizations know it or not,” said Tschida. “That’s the problem. You can try to block it, but that’s very hard to do well. It’s far better to build visibility and governance around it.”

The offering makes it possible for companies to enable the AI use they already know is taking place while protecting corporate interests and enabling fast and accurate reporting. You can find out more details here.

Empowering better AI

Jamf’s approach is focused on endpoint management. AI Governance means IT can see what’s running on a device, categorize it, and understand what AI tools and models are in use. “If you know how people are running AI on your fleet, you can open it up safely. Then all of your customers and employees can find their way to figure out how AI is going to optimize their workforce,” she said.

What does that look like in practice? Think of it as an orchestration layer. IT can define different AI configurations for different teams: HR might use one set of models, engineers another. And admins can apply opinionated postures per group: what models are permitted, what cloud services they connect to, what’s visible to IT versus the CISO versus the CFO. “It’s an extension of what Jamf has always done, it just now applies to AI endpoints too.”

What about regulatory complexity across geographies? “A lot of governance controls are shared across regulations; a good base set is a healthy way to run regardless. But each regulation has its own twists. Our mission is to make sure customers operating in different markets can expand on that base and fit the specific models and regulations they need, getting the right configurations to the right devices.”

Managers must prepare for AI cost challenges

There’s a second dimension beyond management — cost. The industry is developing quickly, with new AI models appearing almost every week. Yesterday’s leading LLM is tomorrow’s fading star, even while the cost of AI infrastructure goes through the roof. As that churn slows, investors will want to start seeing returns on their bets, which is why token costs — the price of running AI services, at least in the cloud — are climbing fast.  

As costs become more realistic, that’s going to change the nature of AI deployment from the laissez-faire, anything goes approach to a more strategic management of such use. “Models keep dropping fast, but token costs are only going to go up,” said Tschida.

“Organizations will need to decide: just because you can build something with AI, should you? What’s the right model for what work? We’re helping customers move from, ‘We’ll just block it’ or ‘We’ll turn it on and hope for the best,’ toward a place where they have a real viewpoint and can manage and change that viewpoint over time.”

The ever-changing AI world is also prompting Jamf to make more of its APIs externally available. “We’re used across every industry and every geography, at every scale,” said Tschida. “There’s no way we can build every workflow every customer needs, we’d never get to all of them.”

Embracing openness also helps build future foundations. “Thinking about where we’re heading next — agentic endpoint management — having platform APIs allows our customers to build things they can imagine, that we can learn from, in a way that solves their specific problems.”

Apple, WWDC, and the enterprise

Tschida’s comments come shortly after WWDC 2026, where Apple introduced a raft of AI advances that formed a strong foundation for its future, improvements that matter to Jamf. “When Apple innovates, Jamf celebrates,” she said.

“Apple is doing great things in their AI ecosystem, revamping Siri, expanding their AI capabilities, making Apple the platform people want to run AI on because those machines simply perform better. Our job is to take what Apple builds and bring it into the enterprise in the way that enterprises actually need it.”

Most of the industry recognizes that Apple’s enterprise story has changed dramatically as its products see accelerating use, and momentum is not slowing. Tschida reflected on how just a few years ago, Apple in the enterprise was an option in employee choice programs. “Now it’s becoming the clear choice,” she said. “We expect that trend to continue. And the more Apple invests in AI running natively on device, the stronger that argument gets.”

Where is Jamf going?

AI Governance is a unique answer to an increasingly important set of questions that are now beginning to affect the IT management of Apple’s platforms. (It’s not clear whether anything as sophisticated exists for other platforms at al, but as the need to manage AI grows, demand for such solutions will grow.)

Ultimately, the company’s latest move reflects Jamf’s inherent strategy under its new CEO. “Focus on customers, listen to them, solve their problems, and don’t throw tech at it. Ask: what’s the problem? Can we solve it? That focus is what takes you where you need to go.

“We’re on a good trajectory, customers stay with us, and the culture has always underpinned us. Now we’re finding ways to lean into it even further,” she said.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

Microsoft has introduced usage-based billing for Copilot Cowork, which is now generally available. 

Microsoft unveiled Copilot Cowork in March, pitching it as an AI agent that’s capable of independently performing long-running, multi-step tasks — even when a user’s computer is off. 

It’s built on the same technology that underpins Anthropic’s Claude Cowork. Unlike Claude Cowork, which can interact directly with files and applications on a user’s computer, Copilot Cowork runs in Microsoft’s cloud environment and acts on documents held in a customer’s Microsoft 365 tenant.

On Tuesday, Microsoft unveiled pricing details for Copilot Cowork, which involves usage-based billing in addition to a Microsoft 365 Copilot license ($30 per user each month for large enterprises before discounts, and $20 for Microsoft 365 Copilot for Business). 

The usage-based pricing is calculated from four components, according to Microsoft: “model use, context retrieval, tool calls, and runtime.” 

In practice, this means more intensive tasks that draw on multiple sources, use “deep reasoning” and generate two or more outputs will lead to higher costs — denoted in Copilot Credits. 

There are two payment options: pay as you go — priced at 1 cent per credit — and P3, where customers commit to usage volume in advance and receive a discount.

Cowork is turned off by default; IT admins can decide when to make it available and which employees get access. Admins can also impose spending limits at the tenant, group, and user level, and receive notifications when spending reaches a certain level.

Users will also be able to see how much each tasks costs in credits (available “soon after” the general availability launch, Microsoft said). 

Copilot Cowork customers can select from multiple AI models, including Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 and Sonnet 4.6, while those enrolled on the Frontier program can access OpenAI’s GPT 5.5 and Microsoft’s own Cowork 1 model.

Microsoft is considering hosting a version of DeepSeek’s open source models. “We are actively exploring a range of options that meet those requirements, and DeepSeek is one of several models under consideration. We’ll share more specifics on the underlying model closer to release,” said a Microsoft spokesperson.

Microsoft also announced new integrations with third-party apps such as Miro and Monday.com, with more — such as Adobe, Box, and Canva — coming soon.

This article was updated on June 19 to add Microsoft’s comment on DeepSeek.

Despite best efforts by defenders, malicious emails continue to slip through the cybersecurity cracks, leading some enterprises to implement a layered “defense in depth” strategy that incorporates multiple tools.

Microsoft seems to be challenging this idea, revealing that there are only nominal returns from adding integrated pre- and post-send partners to Defender for Office 365’s protections.

According to its new quarterly benchmarking data, the tech giant catches the vast majority of malicious and spam emails before delivery, misses the fewest compared to competitors by a wide margin, and removes nearly 100% of dangerous emails that do reach the inbox. Collectively, its integrated partners improve that catch rate by less than .05%.

While these numbers seem to tip the scales towards a one-vendor email security stack, experts urge enterprises to be skeptical and cautious of such vendor claims.

Seva Ioussoufovitch, senior research analyst at Info-Tech Research Group, pointed out, “percentages obscure the true quantity and severity of what’s getting through, and, considering it only takes one message to result in an incident, it’s simple enough to argue that there is real value in the defense in depth that having multiple tools provides.”

Malicious and spam email catch by the numbers

Microsoft introduced its quarterly benchmarking report in July 2025 alongside a Defender integrated cloud email security (ICES) ecosystem designed to support multi-vendor security strategies.

The SEG players it ranked itself against this year includes Mimecast, Proofpoint, Hornetsecurity, Trend Micro, Iron Port (Cisco), Barracuda, and FireEye (Trellix); ICES companies include Abnormal, Checkpoint Harmony, Cisco, DarkTrace, KnowBe4 Defend, Tessian, and Trend Micro.

Redmond reported that Defender “consistently leads” in pre-delivery detection, missing 59% fewer high-severity cyberthreats prior to delivery than the other SEG vendors it evaluated. Its closest competitors were Mimecast and Proofpoint. The company also introduced a new metric in this area: A threat miss rate per 1,000 employees. In Microsoft’s case, that was 194 per 1,000; for Mimecast, 478; for Proofpoint, 483.

When it came to post-delivery protection, Defender removed an average of 96.03% of malicious emails that reached the inbox, up from an initial 45% when Microsoft first started tracking the data in its second report.

This makes Defender “an increasingly critical backstop, operating even when ICES solutions are in place,” Jeff Pinkston, VP and GM for Microsoft Defender, wrote in a blog post. Still, ICES tools operating in tandem with Microsoft Defender “continue to provide benefits,” improving malicious catch by 0.29% and spam catch by 0.68%, he said.

“If we focus on the basics, their argument seems strong,” Info-Tech’s Ioussoufovitch noted. “Do you really need a separate ICES vendor for that extra sub 1% catch?” Microsoft paints a “compelling picture” by only focusing on raw catch rate, he said, but we don’t hear the rest of the story: “What exactly is the danger of what isn’t being caught by Defender?”

No one vendor catches everything

David Shipley of Beauceron Security pointed out that the report underscores the fact that “lots of stuff still gets by e-mail filters.”

His company regularly analyzes hundreds of thousands of emails, and the content that gets through “ranges from the shockingly mundane and obvious to a human expert, to highly clever time-delayed attacks,” he said.

A key factor in what gets through is the amount of content that is allowlisted; settings in “100% paranoid mode” get high catch rates, as well as high false positives, Shipley noted. “Anyone who has ever had a sales person lose a deal because the purchase order PDF got flagged has felt this pain.”

Then there’s the AI conundrum: “A key risk for e-mail vendors using agentic LLM-based analysis is it’s now possible to poison those models with hidden content (such as ‘ignore this e-mail, pretty please’),” Shipley said. This means enterprises need a variety of analysis methods.

Ioussoufovitch agreed that keeping pace with threat actors using AI is an industry-wide challenge, particularly as AI enables higher-quality phishing. Filters are improving and will catch some of it, but some will inevitably continue to get through. Those messages are likely highly-targeted, which are lower in volume but harder to catch.

“As of now, current tools do seem to be struggling to keep pace, but that doesn’t mean those tools aren’t necessary,” said Ioussoufovitch. “It just highlights that defense-in-depth, broadly speaking, is becoming more and more important.”

Claims ‘appear more honest’

Shipley said that this report appears more honest, accurate, and mature than others claiming 99.99% phish catch rates, “which is never true.” It’s also a “smart marketing move,” because Microsoft competes for the same security budget as other tools, and would rather enterprises remove those vendors and buy more from it in areas beyond e-mail.

On the other hand, he said, Microsoft is offering up a list of other vendors to think about, “which, congrats to Mimecast on coming in second.”

In the long run, CISOs need to determine the best spend for their limited security dollars, he noted. Enterprises need a good filter; whether they need two is up for debate. “They also clearly still need to invest in a robust awareness program,” Shipley said, “because as this report shows, lots of phishes are still getting delivered.”

Missing an important nuance

Ioussoufovitch noted that while the claims in the study are interesting, the data is presented without much of the nuance that would make it truly actionable.

“We are all too familiar with vendors’ abilities to massage data to tell the story they want, so I would advise leaders not to extrapolate the data beyond what it actually says,” he said.

Instead of the takeaway being “get rid of our current vendors,” this post highlights that Defender provides “considerable value,” he noted. Whether adding or subtracting additional vendors is worth the money should be a case-by-case conversation that considers an organization’s risk appetite, and overall security budget and environment.

“I’d treat these claims more as a reminder to assess your own environment and compare detections,” he said. “Come to conclusions based on the data you have, not what a vendor is presenting.”

This article originally appeared on CSOonline.

Europe’s evangelistic approach to insisting Apple open up personal data to competing AI services is hurting Apple users in the region. More than that, it also places its entire business sector at risk, and a newly-published Jamf survey suggests why.

Announced at WWDC 2026, Apple Intelligence/Siri AI relies on personal, contextual data to run. Europe wants that same information to be made available to third-party services for competing apps, but has not worked with Apple to protect user confidentiality. It’s an approach that places your data at risk of exfiltration using those apps because Europe is insisting Apple share personal information with the developers of other apps.

The desire to protect that data is why Apple won’t distribute Siri AI in the EU for a while.

Jamf survey exposes the IT risks of AI

It’s not as if Europe doesn’t understand the risk of data leaks in an era of AI. Just look at the bloc’s focus on things that do matter, such as sovereign AI or managed AI services like Orange Live Intelligence. These locally-produced AI services, alongside Europe’s attitude toward them, tell me the confederation understands the risks.

How real are these risks? Very. Jamf on Monday published survey results confirming the scale of that risk, telling us that one-in-five IT and security leaders in the enterprise sector has already experienced an AI-related incident involving unexpected costs, a security issue, or both.  The survey also found that:

• 72.9% of organizations have already deployed AI in some form.
• 59.7% see an AI-related incident as a near-term risk.
• Organizations with deeply integrated AI are 40% more likely to report an AI-related incident than organizations still in the exploratory stage. 

The implication is that AI governance is becoming an operational requirement and — as Apple has told us umpteen times in the past — the best way to maintain operational confidentiality is not to collect or share any data at all. That’s the whole point of its approach: the data doesn’t need to be shared, it just needs to be turned into another signal that promotes utility while protecting confidentiality. 

Crafting trust in a crowded market

There’s another challenge to emerge. There are now multiple brands of AI, with more coming on stream all the time. That’s great in terms of finding a model that suits your needs, but challenging when it comes to ensuring all the services you or your employees use of are equally secure. You don’t want your business to become deeply reliant on any service only for that vendor to subsequently get bought out and/or shut down, nor do you want a service to be hacked or otherwise exploited to your detriment.

“AI isn’t arriving as a single application that IT can approve and move on from,” said Jamf CEO Beth Tschida. “It’s showing up in developer tools, productivity apps, autonomous agents, and other software they already run. The challenge is maintaining visibility and control as that footprint expands.” 

The survey described the challenges IT faces with AI deployment: shadow IT, vendor sprawl, and the need to grapple with highly unpredictable use-based pricing models. And that’s even before considering the governance challenges of agentic and developer AI.

AI and the emerging governance nightmare

“What our survey shows is that governance must keep pace with adoption,” Tschida said. “For organizations built on Apple, the foundation is already an advantage. Apple’s privacy model and the management controls built into the platform give IT teams a strong foundation to build on and … that advantage depends on using tools built for Apple from the start.”

That’s the point of the curated, private and secured service offered by Siri AI, of course. It’s also part of what Apple is building toward with its wider ambitions toward AI on its platform. Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman discussed elements of this in his weekend newsletter, in which he suggested Apple might introduce some subscription services using AI, and that it is building an App Store for Siri Extensions, which would allow third-party chatbots to work with Siri. 

There is a need for curation and management in AI

What makes that model work is the curation with which Apple surrounds it, and its determination to extend Private Cloud Compute so it can protect your data even when using third-party servers (in this case, Google’s server clusters). It makes sense to think Apple intends to use that system to protect all approved third-parry AI interactions provided across its platforms by its own routes. That’s true, even if users access services free of those safeguards using a web browser, which they currently can.

But the key thing is that if Apple can get this right, offering up a managed, curated, and controllable ecosystem for AI agents and services, it will be going a long way toward building the kind of managed AI ecosystem the Jamf survey shows our modern digital enterprises increasingly need. 

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

Extremely powerful large language models (LLMs) still operate as though they’re typing on a keyboard, processing workloads in a simple left-to-right fashion. But in locally-run, single-user scenarios, this sequential processing can leave graphics processing units (GPUs) and tensor processing units (TPUs) underutilized.

Google is betting that DiffusionGemma can get around this bottleneck. The new experimental open model generates text “exceptionally fast,” creating entire blocks of text simultaneously through diffusion techniques rather than through token-by-token processing. The company says this technique results in 4x faster inference compared to auto-regressive models that rely on sequential processing.

It can also save users money. Technology analyst Carmi Levy noted that existing pay-per-token monetization models “penalize the use of less than optimally efficient AI solutions.”

But DiffusionGemma “could herald a new generation of task-defined, efficient solutions that can enable expanded compute capacity without draining the operations budget,” he said.

A contrast to left-to-right processing

Built on Google’s Gemma 4 family and its Gemini Diffusion research, DiffusionGemma is a 26B mixture-of-experts (MoE) model designed to maximize text output generation.

It essentially shifts how models use hardware, giving processors a larger hunk of work each cycle so it can draft full 256-token paragraphs in sequence. This allows the model to generate text up to 4x faster on GPUs, Google claims. It activates only 3.8B parameters during inference, and, when quantized, can fit within 18GB VRAM on high-end consumer GPUs like Nvidia RTX 5090.

“It upgrades your model inference from a single, sequential typewriter to a massive printing press that stamps the entire block of text simultaneously,” Google research scientists Brendan O’Donoghue and Sebastian Flennerhag wrote in a blog post.

AI image generators begin with pure, random ‘visual noise’ and iteratively refine that into a finalized picture (what’s known as ‘diffusion’); DiffusionGemma applies this same process to text. It does not generate tokens in order, but begins with a “canvas of random placeholder tokens” that it processes in multiple passes, identifying the context tokens it feels are most relevant and using those to refine the rest.

The model has the ability to self-correct, using confidence scoring to re-evaluate tokens in the next pass. “The model iteratively refines its own output, allowing it to evaluate the entire text block at once to fix mistakes in real-time,” O’Donoghue and Flennerhag explained.

DiffusionGemma also has bidirectional attention, they wrote. “Generating 256 tokens in parallel with each forward pass allows every token to attend to all others.” This can be particularly helpful in domains that are non-linear in nature, such as mathematical graphs, code infilling, and in-line editing, they said.

DiffusionGemma is optimized across Nvidia’s hardware stack, making it compatible with consumer setups as well as with high-performance enterprise systems like Hopper and Blackwell.

Because it is released under the Apache 2.0 license, developers can freely use, modify, distribute, and commercialize the software using their preferred tools. It can be run on GPUs or in the cloud through Google Cloud Model Garden or Nvidia NIM, and is available on Hugging Face, GitHub, and vLLM, with support for the open-source library llama.cpp coming soon.

Key use cases

The model is particularly useful in local workflows that are “speed critical,” such as generation of non-linear text structures, and unlocks what Google calls “new patterns of model behavior” like multimodal understanding and generating and rendering code in near real-time.

Levy explained, “DiffusionGemma is particularly well suited for interactive coding and editing where its efficiency allows rapid processing and iterations,” noting that its ability to fit within 18GB of VRAM and its deployability on commonly available local GPUs can potentially benefit customer service-related workloads that lean heavily on real-time interaction and local processing.

“DiffusionGemma also incorporates a thinking mode that is especially adept at problem solving,” he said. For instance, the model was fine-tuned to play Sudoku, a typically challenging task for autoregressive models because each token depends on future tokens. This “rather handily” illustrates the model’s capability to solve more complex problems, Levy noted.

Limitations

Google freely admits that DiffusionGemma is geared to specific workflows, and there are “key trade-offs.”

The model is engineered for small batch size inferencing and low-latency, high-speed generation low-to-medium batch sizes on a “single capable accelerator.”

In high-QPS cloud serving environments, (where infrastructure is designed to handle tens or hundreds of thousands of requests per second with ultra-low latency), DiffusionGemma’s parallel coding “offers diminishing returns,” and can even result in higher serving costs, Google conceded. In addition, its overall output quality is lower than that of standard Gemma 4, which is built for apps demanding maximum quality.

However, Levy noted that while DiffusionGemma “can be less precise than other models in certain workloads,” subsequent refinement cycles could overcome this limitation.

While Google isn’t sharing runtime costs, it’s clear that this is an efficiency play, he added. “When deployed across the kinds of workloads that would optimally benefit from its architecture, DiffusionGemma seems to have the potential to reduce processing overhead and related costs,” he said.

This article originally appeared on InfoWorld.