Campaigners hope move will force commercial banks to rethink holding assets linked to the fossil fuel
Climate campaigners have declared a victory after the Bank of England said it would no longer accept bonds linked to one of the most polluting industries on the planet for key loan arrangements.
The ban, which comes into force in October, marks a fresh crackdown on thermal coal, which is burned in power plants to create electricity, and has long been a target of green policy activists.
Campaigners say field will bring minimal benefit for UK economy, as industry lobbies Burnham for go-ahead
More people can fit on to the top deck of a standard London bus than will be directly employed on the new Jackdaw gasfield in the North Sea, industry documents show.
EU tech regulation, Digital Markets Act, Apple Europe sales, Apple regulation, European Union, Siri AI, iPhone features, device interoperability, App Store changes, alternative marketplaces, iPhone Mirroring, AirPods translation, Apple privacy, iPhone security, app sideloading, platform competition, DMA compliance, Apple Intelligence, European technology, government control
EU tech regulation is no longer limited to App Store payment rules or competition disputes hidden from ordinary consumers. It is beginning to determine which features reach European devices, how quickly they arrive and how deeply third-party companies can interact with the iPhone, iPad and Mac.
The Digital Markets Act was designed to reduce the control of large technology platforms over software distribution, payments, browsers, digital assistants and connected hardware. For Apple, compliance has already produced alternative app marketplaces, web distribution, third-party payment options, additional default-app controls and expanded access to iPhone technologies.
The next phase reaches much deeper into the operating system. European regulators want competing accessories, cloud services and AI assistants to receive access to capabilities traditionally reserved for Apple’s own products.
Apple argues that some of those demands could weaken privacy and security. The European Commission says the company is responsible for creating compliant systems that preserve both competition and user protection.
Between those positions sits a large and commercially significant group of customers. Europe generated $28.06 billion in Apple sales during the quarter ending March 28, 2026, up from $24.45 billion one year earlier. Six-month European sales reached $66.20 billion, compared with $58.32 billion during the same period of fiscal 2025.
Europe therefore represented more than one-quarter of Apple’s latest quarterly revenue. It is too valuable to leave behind, but increasingly difficult to serve with the same software experience available elsewhere.
EU Tech Regulation Is Splitting Feature Availability
Regional differences once centered mainly on language support, licensing agreements or local services. EU tech regulation is creating a more structural divide.
Apple has blamed Digital Markets Act requirements for delaying Siri AI across the European Union. The company says regulators expect competing AI assistants to receive extensive access to personal information, apps and device actions before Apple can reserve those capabilities for its own assistant.
The disagreement concerns more than answering questions. Siri AI is designed to read personal context, understand onscreen information and complete actions across apps. That may include finding messages, accessing files, making purchases or sending information on the user’s behalf.
Opening those capabilities to outside AI systems requires new permission structures, technical interfaces and safeguards. Apple says it cannot release its assistant first and add competing access later without risking regulatory action. The Commission says Apple had sufficient time to design an interoperable solution.
Other delayed European features have included iPhone Mirroring on Mac, Live Translation through AirPods and certain location-based Maps capabilities. Each feature touches a different part of the ecosystem, but all depend on privileged communication between Apple devices, software and services.
The consequence is becoming visible at purchase. Two customers can buy the same iPhone model at similar prices and receive different capabilities because one lives inside the European Union.
Image Credit: Apple Inc.
Feature Adoption Becomes Slower and Less Predictable
Delayed availability can weaken the adoption of new hardware features even when the devices themselves continue selling well.
Siri AI is intended to become a central part of newer iPhones, iPads and Macs. Buyers who cannot access it lose part of the justification for newer chips, additional memory and on-device AI processing. Developers also face a smaller addressable audience for apps built around the new assistant.
AirPods Live Translation presents a similar problem. A feature designed to demonstrate the combination of iPhone processing, microphones and wearable audio becomes unavailable in a region built around dozens of languages and frequent cross-border travel.
iPhone Mirroring affects the relationship between iPhone and Mac. Users outside the EU can interact with the phone from macOS, while European users may receive notifications without gaining the complete experience.
These differences do not necessarily stop hardware sales. Apple’s newest results show strong European demand despite years of regulatory conflict. They can, however, reduce the speed at which customers use the ecosystem’s newest capabilities.
The effect may grow as software becomes a larger part of hardware differentiation. A faster processor has limited emotional value when the feature designed to demonstrate it is unavailable.
Apple Sales Show Why Europe Cannot Be Ignored
Apple does not report European Union revenue separately. Its Europe segment also includes countries outside the bloc, along with India, the Middle East and Africa. The official segment remains the best regularly published measure of the region’s commercial weight.
European sales rose approximately 15% year over year in Apple’s latest reported quarter. During the first six months of fiscal 2026, the segment expanded by roughly 14%.
Those figures weaken the argument that regulation is already driving customers away from Apple hardware. Demand remains strong, supported by the iPhone 17 family, Mac sales, services and the company’s installed base.
The financial risk is more gradual. Regional software fragmentation can raise engineering costs, delay launches and make European devices less competitive against products able to offer complete feature sets.
Apple must maintain separate distribution rules, payment systems, browser options and eligibility checks. Developers must decide whether alternative stores, external payments or EU-specific business terms justify additional work. Support teams must explain why features differ between countries using the same operating-system version.
A market responsible for more than $28 billion in one quarter can absorb considerable compliance expense. It can also influence Apple’s global product decisions when regulators demand interfaces that cannot be restricted to Europe easily.
A Slow Transfer of Ecosystem Control
The escalating regulatory environment also creates a more fundamental concern: control over complex technology ecosystems can gradually move away from the companies that designed them and toward government committees, regulatory bodies and administrative processes.
That transfer rarely happens through one dramatic order. It develops through repeated obligations covering app distribution, payment systems, browser engines, digital assistants, hardware access, data portability and interoperability. Each requirement may appear narrow when considered alone. Together, they can redefine who determines how the ecosystem operates.
Apple built its platform around tight integration between hardware, software, services and security. Regulators increasingly treat parts of that integration as market power that must be opened to competitors. The danger is that an ecosystem designed as one coordinated environment becomes subject to decisions made by committees that do not carry direct responsibility for product quality, reliability or long-term maintenance.
This can become a slow trap. Once a platform is required to expose one layer, regulators may use that access as the basis for demanding another. A payment exception can be followed by alternative app stores. Alternative stores can lead to broader installation rights. Device interoperability can expand into access for AI assistants, personal data and system actions.
The boundaries of the platform are then set less by engineering judgment and more by regulatory negotiation.
Government agencies have legitimate authority to address competition and consumer harm. The concern appears when regulation shifts from preventing abusive conduct to directing product architecture. At that point, public authorities begin influencing feature design, release timing, software permissions and the relationship between first-party and third-party services.
That creates consequences beyond Apple. Any company considering a tightly integrated product may decide that deep integration invites intervention. Businesses could avoid building ambitious ecosystems if successful coordination later becomes grounds for forced access.
Innovation then becomes shaped by what regulators are likely to permit rather than by what engineers believe will produce the safest or most coherent experience.
Image Credit: Ink Drop / Alamy Stock Photo
Competition Gains Come With Real Consumer Choices
EU policy has produced benefits that Apple rarely emphasizes. Users can install apps through alternative marketplaces or directly from authorized developers. Developers can offer external payment methods, promote different prices and avoid relying entirely on Apple’s distribution system.
Alternative browser engines can compete with WebKit, while users have more control over default apps. Contactless payment access has expanded beyond Apple Pay, allowing competing wallet providers to use the iPhone’s NFC technology under approved conditions.
Interoperability requirements could also improve third-party accessories. Smartwatches, headphones and other devices may gain better notification access, background connectivity and proximity pairing with the iPhone.
These changes can increase competition and reduce the advantage Apple gives its own services and accessories. A third-party smartwatch should not become artificially less useful simply because it was not made in Cupertino.
The difficulty is separating legitimate platform access from unlimited access. A notification interface is one thing. An autonomous AI assistant capable of reading messages, accessing files and acting across apps introduces a different level of sensitivity.
Privacy and Security Risks Are Not Theoretical
Alternative app distribution increases user choice, but it also moves some responsibility away from the App Store. Apple continues to notarize apps distributed through approved alternative channels, checking for known malware and severe fraud. That process is narrower than a complete App Store review.
Purchases made outside Apple’s payment system also fall outside its normal refund and billing support. Users may need to resolve disputes directly with the developer or payment provider.
A malicious marketplace, deceptive payment page or compromised developer account can create opportunities for fraud. Enterprise users face additional concerns when employees install software from sources their organization has not approved.
The AI question reaches further. A third-party assistant may need permission to access messages, photos, calendars, documents and app controls. Even a reputable provider can collect more information than the user expects or introduce vulnerabilities through poorly designed integrations.
Apple can build permission prompts, app isolation and revocation controls, but technical access always creates some exposure. Security depends on how narrowly permissions are defined, how visibly they are used and whether the operating system can stop unauthorized actions.
The Commission maintains that interoperability and privacy can coexist. Apple maintains that regulators are demanding access before adequate protections are ready. Both positions contain a legitimate concern: dominant platforms should not block competition, and competition should not require users to surrender control of personal data.
When regulators require a company to alter its architecture, responsibility can become blurred.
Apple remains the company customers blame when an iPhone feature fails, a third-party marketplace distributes a harmful app or an outside assistant misuses personal data. Regulators may have required the access, but they do not operate the device, provide technical support or repair the damage to the platform’s reputation.
This creates an accountability gap. Government committees can mandate openness without assuming the commercial and security consequences of that openness. Apple must comply, maintain the system and explain the outcome to users.
The same problem applies to delayed features. Regulators may argue that Apple chose not to release a service, while Apple may argue that the required conditions made the launch unsafe or technically impractical. Customers are left with less functionality and no simple way to determine who caused the delay.
Over time, the ecosystem can become a negotiated compromise rather than a product with one coherent direction. That may satisfy formal compliance while producing a weaker experience for everyone involved.
The risk is not that governments will literally operate Apple’s software. It is that committees increasingly define the conditions under which Apple can design, connect and release its own features. Control shifts through constraints.
The Industry Will Follow Europe’s Experiment
The consequences extend beyond one company. Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon and other platform operators face related European obligations. Hardware makers must consider whether ecosystem advantages can survive when core services are required to support rivals.
Smaller developers may gain new distribution and payment choices, but they may also inherit more compliance, customer-service and security responsibilities. Accessory companies could compete more effectively while becoming accountable for handling sensitive device data.
Other governments are watching. Rules introduced in Europe can influence legislation elsewhere, particularly when companies decide that maintaining one global technical framework is easier than operating several regional versions.
Apple is unlikely to abandon Europe or stop adapting its products. Its sales provide too much evidence of the region’s importance. The company will continue negotiating, appealing decisions and building compliance systems while withholding features it considers unsafe under current demands.
European customers may receive more app stores, payment choices and accessory compatibility. They may also wait longer for headline features included with the same hardware elsewhere.
The deeper consequence may be a technology industry that becomes more cautious about building tightly integrated products. Companies may design around anticipated regulatory demands from the beginning, limiting exclusive features, reducing private-system integration or avoiding innovations that depend on controlled access.
EU tech regulation began as an effort to constrain dominant platforms. Its long-term effect may be to transfer part of the power to shape those platforms from companies and users to regulatory institutions.
That shift deserves scrutiny equal to the market power it is intended to correct. Competition rules can restrain abuse. They can also become a slow mechanism for placing product design, security choices and ecosystem evolution under government supervision.
Shady Control and Bureaucracy
The danger grows when regulatory discretion becomes buried beneath permits, approvals, negotiations and technical committees that operate beyond meaningful public scrutiny.
The more power officials hold over which features, contracts or technologies may proceed—and when—the greater the opportunity for lobbying, favoritism and selective enforcement to influence outcomes. What begins as oversight can gradually become a system in which delay itself is leverage, while responsibility disappears inside layers of administration.
For the technology industry, that risks replacing transparent product decisions with political access, negotiated exceptions and regulatory influence exercised far from the consumers expected to live with the consequences.
Moonshot AI’s Kimi K3 offers 2.8 trillion parameters and planned open weights, raising new questions about AI costs, control, and US-China competition.
The Spanish-language broadcaster has won over millions of US viewers with its energetic commentary during games
Soccer fans looking to watch the 2026 World Cup on US television have been presented with two very different options this tournament.
The first is Fox Sports, a cousin of Fox News owned by the same parent company and the sole network airing matches in English in the US. Audiences tuning in to Fox, which acquired the exclusive English broadcast rights in 2015, are met with coverage that reflects the network’s “America first” aesthetic, with promos for pro-Donald Trump talkshows, advertising breaks during games and the frequent, grating presence of host Alexi Lalas.
Google’s new Gemma model brings offline AI processing to the Pixel 10, enabling local text, image, and audio tasks while reducing reliance on the cloud.
Dozens of former Apple employees now working at OpenAI have been put on notice after Apple reportedly sent legal letters ordering them to preserve documents and communications relevant to its trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI.
The Financial Times reports that “around 40” employees have been targeted with these letters, which repeat Apple’s claim that its confidential information might have been exfiltrated, alleging “trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract.” The letters also require them to arrange to meet with Apple’s lawyers.
The underlying lawsuit
This comes on the heels of Apple’s explosive lawsuit against OpenAI in which Apple accused the AI company (and former Apple Vice President Tang Tan) of extensive coordinated data theft. Tan was at Apple for 24 years and is now Chief Hardware Officer at OpenAI.
Apple’s lawsuit is defined by claims OpenAI took a range of steps to pry confidential Apple data from existing Apple employees, including using information such as internal project code names, to gain even more knowledge during interviews. The company says the evidence it has presented so far is only the “tip of the iceberg” concerning OpenAI’s approach.
The lawsuit requests that OpenAI be prevented from using any Apple information during the development of its hardware. Apple is also seeking damages and suing two former employees for breach of contract for violating their employment agreements.
The letters are significant. They represent formal directives that require former Apple staff to preserve documents, messages, emails, and other communications that could be relevant to the case. The demand reflects Apple’s belief that the alleged misuse of confidential information could be more widespread across the competing company. What’s critical is that orders of this kind override any standard data destruction policy and deletion of the requested information becomes a legal offense.
Why this matters beyond the protagonists
In making its move, Apple shows this is not a dispute about just one or two hires, but an attempt to constrain the movement of intellectual property between the two firms. With AI hardware emerging as the next major battleground in tech, the case could become a defining one; whatever resolution is eventually reached could define the extent to which former employees can carry experience and knowledge between competing firms. The case might also define what the line is between experience and knowledge and the sharing of trade secrets.
This is important, because modern hardware development relies on far more than just finished designs. Product design leans into supplier relationships, manufacturing assumptions, physics, extensive prototyping, and product-roadmap priorities. If courts treat those accumulated insights as protectable secrets, hiring between major technology companies could become far more legally sensitive.
The Jony Ive question
The case comes as Apple prepares to combat OpenAI in hardware. Its competitor is now working with legendary former Apple designer Jony Ive. Ive is not named in the litigation, but Apple will be keen to find out whether confidential product knowledge, design processes, or supply-chain insights have travelled with former staff into OpenAI’s device work.
Ultimately, for Apple, it’s about protecting its many blueprints for whatever hardware the company expects will come after the iPhone.
For its part, OpenAI has refuted Apple’s lawsuit, arguing that it is “not aware of any evidence” that the lawsuit has merit. “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets,” said OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri. “We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.” The company’s lawyers also claim it did respond to Apple’s initial inquiries on the matter.
What’s at stake
The significance of Apple’s newly-shared communication preservation orders is that if discovery uncovers evidence supporting Apple’s claims, the case could complicate OpenAI’s hardware plans and create unwelcome scrutiny ahead of any future public offering.
China has created an international organization to set standards and introduce regulation for AI, inviting 28 other countries to join — but the US, a leading AI powerhouse is not part it.
The World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO) was established by 29 countries, including China, Russia and Brazil, at a ceremony in Shanghai, China, on July 16. Notably absent are the US, the European Union and its member states, the UK, Japan and South Korea.
WAICO has been some years in development and has been designed to set some universal guidelines in AI. Researchers say WAICO differs in three ways from other initiatives to create global AI organizations: membership open to any sovereign state, there is no regime-type test for entry, and its agenda is built around development and the global capability divide.
The signing ceremony to create WAICO comes just days after Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, called on the US to take a lead in global AI regulation. “The US is well-positioned to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives,” Hassabis wrote.
Meta is reportedly planning a cloud business that would sell access to AI computing power and models, extending its internal infrastructure into a commercial service for outside developers and enterprises. Reuters, citing Bloomberg’s reporting, noted that the planned offering would allow customers to access AI models hosted on Meta’s infrastructure and pay based on usage, effectively positioning the company in the infrastructure-as-a-service and AI platform markets. On the surface, this seems like a logical next step. If you are already spending enormous amounts of money to build AI infrastructure, there is a natural temptation to ask whether some of that investment can be monetized beyond your own internal use.
I have seen this pattern before. A company builds sophisticated internal systems, recognizes their value, and then begins to imagine that becoming a cloud provider is simply a matter of exposing those capabilities to external customers. It sounds straightforward, especially given the excitement around AI and the demand for high-performance infrastructure. But cloud computing is not just another distribution model. It is not simply a matter of offering on-demand multitenant services and charging a fee. It is a deeply operational, trust-based business in a market that punishes companies that do not fully understand what enterprise customers require.
A crowded neocloud market
The first problem Meta faces is that this is not an open opportunity. The neocloud space, meaning purpose-built AI infrastructure delivered as a service, is already crowded and increasingly difficult to enter. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google dominate the conversation for obvious reasons. They have years of cloud operating experience, broad service portfolios, global reach, mature ecosystems, and deeply established enterprise relationships. Oracle remains a serious player as well, especially in enterprise applications, data platforms, and performance-sensitive workloads. IBM still matters in hybrid cloud, operations, and industries where governance and regulatory rigor remain central.
That list alone should give Meta pause. These companies are not just infrastructure vendors. They are experienced cloud operators. They have spent years building not only the underlying platforms, but also the native capabilities enterprises now expect by default. Those capabilities include security, governance, identity management, observability, support, compliance, billing controls, resilience planning, and integration with the broader enterprise technology estate. These are not secondary features. They are part of the core value proposition.
This is why late entry into the cloud market is so hard. A new provider is not just competing on price or capacity. It is competing against accumulated trust. Enterprises are not casual buyers. They are selecting long-term operating environments for applications, data, AI models, and business-critical processes. They want confidence that the provider understands how these services will be consumed, governed, and supported over time. Meta is entering a market where the incumbents already have a major head start on all of those fronts.
Harder than it looks
Over the years, I have had many technology companies come to me and say they wanted to reposition their technology in the cloud space, either as software as a service or infrastructure as a service. In the beginning, enthusiasm is always high. The technology is impressive. The market size looks attractive. The revenue models appear compelling. Investors love the story. Then we begin to walk through what it really means to operate as a cloud provider, and the optimism usually fades fast.
The questions become very practical and very uncomfortable. How will tenants be isolated? How will identity and access controls work across different kinds of customers? What governance models will be built in natively? How will workloads be monitored, optimized, and secured? What does support look like 24 hours a day, across regions, across industries, across compliance boundaries? How will outages be handled, communicated, and remediated? How will the platform integrate with existing customer tools for operations, policy management, and security response? How much investment will it take just to become credible before you even begin to differentiate?
Once companies fully understand the complexities, market dynamics, and the capital and execution required to compete even with secondary players, many of them back off. They realize that cloud technology is not a packaging exercise. It is a transformation in how a company designs, operates, supports, sells, and evolves technology. That is why I remain skeptical when any company assumes it can translate internal infrastructure excellence into external cloud success without a very long, disciplined commitment.
Meta’s market readiness
Of course, Meta is not lacking in financial resources. If any company can afford to spend aggressively in this space, it is Meta. The company has the capital to build infrastructure, absorb losses, hire experienced talent, and stay in the market long enough to make a serious attempt. I would never argue that Meta is too small or too poor to try. Quite the opposite. If there is any non-traditional entrant with the financial scale to force itself into the conversation, Meta would be high on the list.
But money does not erase complexity. It only gives you the chance to confront it. The real question is not whether Meta can afford to become a cloud provider. The question is whether Meta has what it takes to become an excellent cloud provider. Those are two very different things. Enterprises are not going to move meaningful workloads to a new platform simply because the company behind it is wealthy or technically famous. They are going to ask whether the provider understands enterprise consumption patterns, enterprise risk, enterprise governance, and enterprise operations.
That is where the challenge becomes much more serious. Meta has extensive experience running infrastructure for itself. That is valuable, but internal operating excellence is not the same thing as external service maturity. Running systems for your own workloads allows a high degree of control over architecture, standards, priorities, and operating assumptions. Running systems for paying customers requires flexibility, consistency, transparency, and support across a wide range of use cases that you do not control. Those are very different disciplines, and companies often underestimate the gap between them.
What exactly is Meta?
Another concern here is strategic clarity. Meta already has a complicated market identity. It is a social media company, an advertising platform company, a hardware company, an AI company, and still, in the minds of many, the company that spent billions pursuing the metaverse. If it now wants to be viewed as a serious cloud infrastructure provider, it will need to explain not only what it is offering, but why customers should believe this is a durable long-term commitment and not just another adjacent experiment.
That uncertainty can be damaging. Customers want stable providers with clear strategic intent. They do not want to architect important systems around a platform if they suspect the provider may lose interest, shift direction, or reframe the business after a few years of uneven results. Cloud computing requires patience, consistency, and deep customer orientation. It is not a market where strategic ambiguity helps.
This could become confusing for Meta internally as well. Building a true cloud business demands focus. It demands years of investment in areas that may not be glamorous but are absolutely necessary, such as governance, operations, controls, support frameworks, partner programs, and enterprise sales alignment. If the company is not willing to make those sacrifices fully and for the long term, the initiative will struggle.
Hyundai workers in South Korea strike over pay and job protections as the automaker plans to deploy Atlas humanoid robots across Hyundai and Kia factories.
This is Apple’s biggest US procurement deal so far, but it won’t be the last; when it announced the arrangement, Apple confirmed it is, “working with the administration and businesses across the US to help create an end-to-end silicon supply chain in America.”
That statement implies that the 15 billion chips Broadcom will produce won’t be the only processors in Apple devices to carry tiny little “Made in the USA” slogans. Broadcom is making custom silicon components and wireless connectivity technologies such as RF/wireless chips (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular, FBAR filters) and ASIC work, rather than application processors. But they are still chips for Apple devices.
TSMC doubles down
That’s why it is significant that TSMC confirmed plans to extend its own manufacturing in America. It already has a $165 billion US commitment; now, it is investing an additional $100 billion in four more chip plants — including one dedicated to churning out the company’s most advanced 2nm (and smaller) processors.
“We believe this investment will help to further foster the development of the US semiconductor ecosystem, strengthen the supply chain, and support an increasing number of high-tech, high-paying jobs in the United States,” CEO C.C. Wei told analysts.
TSMC has also confirmed plans to invest in packaging facilities for processors, which is basically the process where memory, processor, and networking nodes can all be combined and packaged on the chip. That sort of packaging is needed to make the final SoC chip. That means TSMC factories in the US will be able to churn out the advanced processors used in Apple’s current and, presumably, future devices.
The bill so far
That’s three investments — in processor manufacturing, packaging, and Broadcom radios and chips — all of which are strategically important to Apple devices. TSMC makes the brains, Broadcom brings the connectivity. Total value so far: $295 billion, around 1.5 times Apple’s annual revenue in the Americas.
It isn’t all about Apple. TSMC has other clients, and Apple is no longer the company’s biggest customer thanks to the drive to AI. But it is still an important one. That means at least some of TSMC’s newly invested US manufacturing capacity will be dedicated to making chips for Apple. The open question is how much US-manufactured chips will cost in contrast to those made elsewhere.
It’s bigger than two deals
These aren’t the only chip-focused partnerships Apple has made domestically. Apple’s American Manufacturing Program (AMP) launched in August 2025 as part of a $600 billion four-year US investment commitment. TSMC and Broadcom were both named AMP partners, but they weren’t alone, and some arrangements have already been announced:
GlobalFoundries is bringing mixed-signal chip manufacturing to make advanced ICs for Face ID.
Texas Instruments expanded production for analog/power chips.
Samsung is making a new chip-making process at its Austin, TX fab, described by Apple as having “never been used before anywhere in the world.”
Applied Materials is making chip manufacturing equipment under AMP.
Bundle all these deals together and it’s crystal clear that Apple’s $600 billion investment is at least in part focused on the technologically advanced components on which its devices are built. These components also have the advantage in being incredibly small, which means they are easy and cheap to ship for final assembly at increasingly automated final production locations worldwide.
So, is it coming home?
That’s the strategy: keep the high-value, hard-to-automate work — and the jobs it requires — in America, while leaving final assembly flexible enough to go wherever that makes sense now or in the future. Is Apple bringing manufacturing home? Partially, in that the bits that matter the most — brains and networking— are coming back, even if assembly is not.
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.
Microsoft fixed a record 570 vulnerabilities in July's Patch Tuesday as AI-powered tools play a growing role in vulnerability discovery and cybersecurity.
Your Apple gear wasn’t cheap. And if you drop your iPhone, your iPad stops turning on, or you smack your Apple Watch into something and shatter it, getting it repaired probably won’t be cheap either.
Apple includes a one-year limited warranty with all hardware so if there’s a manufacturing defect, you’ll be covered. To also protect against accidental damage, get priority tech support, and in many cases replace your product if it is lost or stolen, you can opt to purchase AppleCare+. Here’s what it is, what it covers, and what you can expect to pay.
Is AppleCare+ worth it? Only you can decide for your own situation, but this should be everything you need to know to make a smart choice.
Updated July 16 ,2026: Apple has slightly increased the cost of AppleCare+ on iPads and Macs, by $0.50 per month or $5.00 per year.
What is AppleCare+?
If you’ve never even heard of AppleCare, start here! Otherwise, feel free to skip to the sections that cover your particular devices.
How AppleCare+ is different from the standard Apple warranty
AppleCare is Apple’s term for its warranty programs. Every Apple device comes with a certain stretch of AppleCare warranty service and phone/chat support for free, typically one year for the warranty and 90 days of phone support. You can pay to extend that protection for longer, get discounted repairs on accidental damage, and in some cases replace your device if it is lost or stolen. That’s called AppleCare+.
Do I have to buy AppleCare+ at the same time as the product?
No. If you already know you want it, buying AppleCare+ with the product is a good idea, just so you don’t forget. When you’re shopping at the Apple store and Apple.com, you’ll be offered AppleCare+ at checkout, and authorized Apple resellers can offer AppleCare+ too.
But you have some time to decide. Generally you get 60 days from the purchase date to buy AppleCare+ (only 30 days if you’re in Japan), and Apple has a page where you can check your exact device’s eligibility.
The latest iPhones and iPads will show you an AppleCare+ signup prompt right there near the top of Settings, if you’re still eligible. You can tap on it to see how many days remain, and purchase AppleCare+ (with or without Loss and Theft protection) right on your device.
If your new iPhone or iPad is eligible for AppleCare+, you’ll see a signup prompt near the top of the Settings app.
Still, to buy AppleCare+ after the fact you generally have to run a diagnostic test on the device in question, so Apple knows it’s in good working order. And no matter when you buy your AppleCare+ plan, the coverage starts from the day you bought your device. So you don’t get an “extra” two months of coverage if you wait two months to buy the plan.
If you want to buy an AppleCare+ plan after the 60-day period has ended, you can bring your device into an Apple Store for an inspection up to a year after purchase. If the technician allows it, you’ll be able to sign up in person.
How do I buy AppleCare+ for products I didn’t buy directly from Apple?
The easiest way is online. Apple’s site has a page to Check Your Service and Support Coverage. Enter your device’s serial number and it’ll tell you if you can still buy AppleCare+ and walk you through the process of purchasing and registering your plan.
Keep in mind that buying an AppleCare+ plan after the fact often means you have to complete a diagnostic test on the device. After all, Apple has to make sure you’re not trying to buy coverage on a device that’s already broken. So do it right away, just in case.
Can you buy AppleCare+ for refurbished products?
You can! Apple offers a range of refurbished items on its website, and they’re all backed by the same one-year warranty as new products. Plus, you can buy AppleCare+ for a refurbished item just as you can with a new one.
How do I check how much time is left on my AppleCare plan?
Head to Apple’s Check Your Service and Support Coverage page and enter your device’s serial number. You’ll find out how much time you have left on your AppleCare plan, and if you can still buy AppleCare+ for this device.
If there’s no Apple store near me, is AppleCare+ a bad idea?
No, you can still use AppleCare+ if you can’t make it to the Apple store. You have several options, actually.
Apple retail stores. If you can get to an Apple store, you can even make a reservation for AppleCare+ service.
Drop off at the UPS Store. Apple can provide you with a Repair ID number for an iPhone, iPad, or iPod needing service, and you can take it to any UPS Store in the U.S., which will ship the device to Apple at no cost to you. When Apple finishes the repair, you get the device back in the mail, again with no shipping fee.
Direct mail. Alternatively, Apple will send you a box and shipping labels for you to ship any Apple product back to them for repair. Apple pays the shipping both ways.
Onsite service. If the problem is with a desktop Mac, Apple can sometimes even send an authorized repair technician to you.
DIY. If the problem is relatively small, Apple can sometimes just send you a part, like a new iPhone charger or Apple TV remote.
Do I have to pay for AppleCare+ up front?
AppleCare+ used to be a single purchase that extended warranty services for a set span of time (usually two years). It has since changed to an ongoing discounted repair and replacement service, which you can pay for monthly or yearly. You are covered for as long as you continue to pay for AppleCare+.
How am I supposed to survive without my device while Apple is repairing it?
Apple offers an Express Replacement Service for the iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch. When you use Express Replacement, Apple sends you a new device right away, and you don’t have to mail in your broken device until you receive it. Conditions apply, but ask Apple about it when you contact them and they can let you know if you qualify.
What if I sell the product before AppleCare+ runs out?
Most AppleCare+ plans, which are paid montly or annually, are linked to your Apple Account and do not transfer with the product. Older AppleCare+ plans, which were one-time fees for a set period of coverage, can be transfered to the new owner. See this support document for more information.
Does AppleCare cover loss or theft?
There used to be a second tier of AppleCare+ that included coverage for loss or theft, but Apple now only offers this tier. So yes, it covers loss and theft (on applicable products) and there is no longer an option to get AppleCare+ without that.
Is AppleCare+ only for U.S. customers?
No, Apple provides global coverage for most Apple devices (iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Mac, iPod, Apple TV, and Apple displays). Service options do vary between countries, but any AppleCare service is always performed by authorized techs with genuine Apple parts.
Obviously, you should always read the full agreement before you purchase any warranty or insurance.
Can I cancel an AppleCare+ plan?
Yes, you can. If it’s within 30 days of purchasing the plan, you’ll get a full refund minus any service you received. Outside of 30 days, you’ll get a prorated refund, minus any service, minus a fee of $25 or 10 percent of the prorated refund, whichever is less. Call Apple at 1–800-MY-APPLE to ask how.
Can I extend AppleCare+ after a policy runs out?
Yes, though some devices have a limit as to how many times you can extend coverage. Apple has a 45-day window where a policy can be extended 24 or 36 months, paid monthly or annually. In China, the window is 30 days.
The iPhone is covered in glass, easy to drop, and goes everywhere with you. No wonder iPhones break so frequently! Here’s the skinny on buying some extra protection.
How much does AppleCare+ cost for iPhone?
It varies by the device. Here’s the price for both monthly and annual coverage.
I bought my iPhone with the iPhone Upgrade Program. Doesn’t that have AppleCare+ included for free?
It’s included, but it’s not free. The cost of the two-year AppleCare+ plan is included among the 24 loan payments you agree to pay. (But at least you aren’t charged interest.)
If you upgrade your phone after a year, your two-year loan starts over again, but you still get the second year of AppleCare+ on the new phone. Read the iPhone Upgrade Program terms for more detail. The iPhone Upgrade Program is a loan, so again, be sure to read all the fine print before you sign up.
For the iPhone, AppleCare+ extends your warranty coverage from one year to two, and extends phone and chat support from 90 days to the full two years as well.
You also get up to two incidents of accidental damage coverage per year for a relatively low service fee. If you’ve only damaged the screen, a screen replacement is only $29/£25. But if the iPhone has other damage, the fee is $99/£79. iPhones are eligible for the Express Replacement Service, letting you request a replacement device in the mail before you send your original damaged device in for repair.
So let’s say you drop your iPhone on the corner, which breaks the screen but also dents the enclosure enough that Apple can’t fix just the screen—that’s a $99/£79 repair. If the screen shatters but the rest of the phone is relatively unscathed, $29/£25.
The warranty against defects covers the phone as well as the battery and the included headphones and accessories. Accidental damage can include almost anything, such as water damage, drops, running the thing over, your kid pours paint into the Lightning port—as long as you only have two incidents (or less) in the two-year coverage period.
The plan also covers two incidents of theft or loss per year.
You might also want to check your homeowner’s and renter’s insurance policies to see if they cover stolen electronics. Some cell phone service providers’ own insurance plans cover loss and theft, but it’s relatively rare.
Should I get it AppleCare+ for my iPhone?
If you’re going to buy AppleCare+ on anything, it’s probably going to be your iPhone. But it’s not always a slam dunk. Depending on the age of your iPhone and how expensive some future repair might be, you may end up spending more for AppleCare+ and a repair than just a straight repair cost.
Really it depends on how careful you are with your iPhone. Do you use a case? Avoid action sports? Rarely drop your phone? Or are you a total klutz who’s broken every phone you’ve ever owned? Be honest with yourself and proceed accordingly.
An Apple Watch is another prime candidate for AppleCare+, if for no other reason than because it’s on the outside of your wrist where it can constantly bump and scrape on things.
AppleCare+ for iPad
Whether you agree that an iPad can replace a laptop, its AppleCare+ plan certainly is cheaper than AppleCare+ for a Mac—and iPads are eligible for Apple’s speedy Express Replacement Service too.
Apple recently raised the price of AppleCare+ for iPad by $0.50 per month or $5.00 per year.
Pad, iPad mini
$5.49
$54.99
iPad Air 11-inch (M4)
$6.49
$64.99
iPad Air 13-inch (M4)
$7.49
$74.99
iPad Pro 11-inch (M5)
$10.49
$104.99
iPad Pro 13-inch (M5)
$11.49
$114.99
What does AppleCare+ for iPad cover?
You are covered for unlimited damage from accidents like drops or spills.
You also get two incidents of accidental damage coverage per year, with a service fee of $49/£39 for most damage, plus tax. AppleCare+ covers the iPad as well as its battery and included accessories like the power brick. You are covered for up to two incidents of loss or theft in 12 months.
Should I get it AppleCare+ for my iPad?
This answer might hinge on how you use your iPad. My iPad, for example, almost never leaves my house—but I also share it with a 6-year-old who doesn’t always treat it like an expensive and fragile device. Still, our iPad is mostly for entertainment, so I’m living (dangerously?) without AppleCare+.
On the other hand, if I was a road warrior with an iPad Pro that I relied on every day to make my living, I’d be more likely to shell out the $129/£129 for AppleCare+.
AppleCare+ for Macs and Apple displays
Apple doesn’t sell its own Apple-branded displays anymore, and AppleCare+ for Macs might seem like a bargain if you’ve ever paid hundreds to get a laptop serviced—or overkill if you’re an iMac user who’s never run into a problem.
For Macs, AppleCare+ does not include coverage for loss and theft. Apple recently increased the price for Mac coverage by $0.50 per month or $5.00 per year.
Mac mini
$3.99
$39.99
Mac Studio
$6.49
$64.99
iMac
$6.49
$64.99
MacBook Neo
$5.49
$54.99
MacBook Air 13-inch
$7.49
$74.99
MacBook Air 15-inch
$8.49
$84.99
MacBook Pro 14-inch
$10.49
$104.99
MacBook Pro 16-inch
$15.49
$154.99
Mac Pro
$17.99
$179.99
AppleCare+ for the Apple Studio Display costs $4.99/$49.99, and for the Studio Display XDR it costs $9.99/$99.99.
What does AppleCare+ for Macs cover?
AppleCare+ for Macs covers unlimited accidental damage for a lower service fee than you would pay for an out-of-warranty repair. If you damage just the screen or Mac’s enclosure, it’s $49-99 and all other damage is $149-299, plus tax. You get unlimited battery replacements for no extra charge (Apple requires your battery hold less than 80% of its original charge before replacing it).
For Macs, your computer is covered, plus the battery, power adapter, and other included accessories.
What doesn’t AppleCare+ for Macs cover?
It doesn’t cover loss or theft. Your homeowner’s or renter’s insurance might, depending on your policy.
Should I get it AppleCare+ for my Mac?
For Macs, AppleCare+ makes more sense if you’re buying a laptop and you’re worried about the screen, or you just tend to be rough on your computers. Desktop Macs probably aren’t as important to cover, since the likelihood of, say, dropping one is a lot less. Still, Macs have a long life, so you may decide three years of (transferable) protection is worth the extra cost.
AppleCare+ for Apple Watch
For Apple Watch, your AppleCare+ subscription now covers loss and theft—it didn’t originally do so.
Fancier editions like the Hermes, Titanium, or Ceramic watches may have different AppleCare+ pricing, however.
What does AppleCare+ for Apple Watch cover?
You get unlimited repairs for accidental damage, and up to two instances of loss or theft in 12 months.
Should I get it AppleCare+ for my Apple Watch?
It’s pretty difficult to get an Apple Watch repaired anywhere but the Apple store, as we found out. The Apple Watch is designed to be tough, so most users hopefully shouldn’t have problems. But if you’re paranoid or accident-prone, or you just love the idea of Express Replacement Service so you never miss a step, AppleCare+ is there.
AppleCare+ for Apple TV
Your Apple TV is probably the last thing you’d buy an extended warranty for, but Apple is happy to sell you one!
It’s only $29/£25, both for the regular Apple TV and the 4K edition. That gets you two years of warranty coverage and tech support.
What does the AppleCare+ Apple TV cover?
The Apple TV itself, the Siri Remote, and even the Apple AirPort router you use with it, if you bought it within two years of the Apple TV. Tech support by phone or chat includes help with setup, connecting to Wi-Fi, iCloud, renting or buying from iTunes, AirPlay, and even connecting to third-party streaming services. You also get coverage for accidental damage (spills, drops, earthquakes, fires) or cosmetic damage. But since it just sits there that’s unlikely to be used. Each incident has a service fee of $15.
What doesn’t it cover?
Loss and theft, including losing the remote. (But if the remote stops working, that’s covered.)
Should I get it AppleCare+ for my Apple TV?
Nah. I mean, you could. But you probably don’t need to, because it’s a box that sits under your TV and doesn’t go anywhere.
Login
