Ancient Greek sophist Protagoras famously said, “There are two sides to every question.” But OpenAI’s latest attempt at reality distortion seems determined to narrow this dispute to just one. In its motion to reject Apple’s complaint, the company does not meaningfully acknowledge the criticisms levelled against it, preferring instead to recast the case as a grievance over talent retention and product-market failure.
The filing
In case you missed the news, OpenAI filed a motion to the court to dismiss Apple’s recent lawsuit against it. In that filing, OpenAI argued that, “Apple should not be permitted to use a baseless and pretextual lawsuit to make up for its shortcomings in the market for talent and retaining its employees, and its failures to integrate AI into its products.”
The company’s dismissal claims Apple’s case was, “plainly filed without adequate investigation and built on selectively excerpted communications and ordinary conduct stripped of context,” adding, in a turn of phrase borrowed from Apple’s own complaint, that it is “rotten to its core.”
The narratives can change
As ever with litigation, these are allegations and counter-allegations rather than findings of fact. The value of the filings is that they show how each side wants the court, and the public, to understand the same disputed events. At the moment, we don’t yet know how Apple will respond to OpenAI’s response; it follows that company’s failed attempt to woo public opinion earlier in the week when it deployed what some see as a “cookie jar” defense, arguing that Apple’s secrets only slipped out because the figurative jar lid was open.
OpenAI likely hopes for more success with its latest attempt to defend itself against Apple’s claims it engaged in a coordinated attempt to obtain trade secrets through questionable recruitment practices.
Central to the company’s counter-argument are its attempts to recharacterize some of Apple’s claims. For example, Apple alleges that one former staffer, Chang Liu, downloaded confidential files after leaving the company. OpenAI argues that Liu was instead attempting to help ex-colleagues who asked him for assistance. This is a useful example of the Protagorean frame: both companies are trying to extract different meanings from the same event.
What the truth might be
The courts will need to decide which version of events is closer to the truth. What is already clear is that OpenAI has been actively involved in recruiting Apple staff, including the services of former Chief Design Officer Jony Ive, as it develops a product that, to a layman like me, sounds likely to compete with Apple hardware. OpenAI says those recruitments reflect Apple’s failure to retain its staff; Apple argues its competitor is using exfiltrated confidential information to guide its hiring. The court will need to decide that story as well.
Ultimately, I don’t expect OpenAI’s efforts to have the court reject Apple’s lawsuit to succeed. Apple is asking for discovery precisely so it can test whether its reading of this distorted reality is supported by OpenAI’s internal procedures and the available facts. One of OpenAI’s arguments seems to be that Apple has not researched the matter thoroughly enough; Apple is quite literally requesting discovery to do just that.
What happens next?
I don’t know what discovery might turn up, but it does amuse me to think Apple could build its own large language model to boost the discovery process and identify communication conduits that might otherwise be obscured in the evidence initially available to it. How high, and in what direction, do OpenAI’s claimed recruitment practices go, and who is implicated in them? That’s something we might find out in the coming months.
OpenAI’s Protagorean defense extends a little further, of course, as the company also said it had “no use, need or desire for Apple’s trade secrets” because it is building “something entirely new.” This may surprise Apple, which has already alleged that OpenAI contacted its manufacturing partners and sought access to secret manufacturing processes Apple developed with them.
Once again, it will be up to the courts to decide whether those events took place, or if OpenAI’s defense has substance. Given that this dispute centers on product design and involves the AI company’s growing army of former Apple design and development staff, I find the denial hard to accept. But courts tend to make their own decisions, for good, or for ill.
Fight or settle
What happens next? I think this attempt to reject the original litigation will fail, which means the case will enter the discovery process before one of two outcomes becomes more likely: A bitter public battle that lasts for years and might well end up in the Supreme Court, or an out-of-court settlement shaped by which side gains the most compelling evidence.
Like any war, there are really only two options: one side fights until the other can no longer continue, or both sides find a way to settle. The path to settlement may begin by recognizing that two stories can be applied to the same facts, and that the version closest to the truth often sits somewhere between them. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t have insider insight into the practicalities of the case, but based on what has been revealed so far, the most plausible combined story may be that Apple’s own vulnerabilities helped create an environment OpenAI chose to exploit. If so, Apple’s legal team will be searching hard for evidence of intent.
Until recently, it was common for companies and organizations to engage in “tokenmaxxing” — that is, maximizing their use of AI. But with AI costs going up, companies are now looking to save money, a trend underscored by a recent Microsoft decision to limit AI use by its employees.
“As we ramp up our use of GitHub Copilot to achieve our goals, we all need to be mindful of how we consume tokens,” Microsoft Executive Vice President Jay Parikh wrote in an email to the company’s employees.
Starting now, each department at Microsoft will be allocated a certain pool of tokens, with usage then adjusted up or down as needed.
The change prompted concern among some employees. “It’s very telling that a company that has invested so much in AI and subsidized so much AI inference is now advising its own employees to cut back on spending,” an anonymous Microsoft employee said in a comment to 404 Media.
The memory crisis is getting worse for Apple, which is struggling to get enough memory chips together for its upcoming iPhone 18 Pro series smartphones. That’s according to tech journalist Tim Culpan.
As he details it, Apple and its assembly partners are still attempting to secure sufficient quantities of memory, and though they’re confident they can meet initial demand once the devices are introduced, they apparently remain concerned that wait times could rapidly extend as retail inventory evaporates.
Apple’s manufacturing process compounds the problem. The A20 processor is packaged with memory using a new TSMC process, meaning processors are reportedly piling up while manufacturers wait for memory chips. You should read Culpan’s report to get the full picture.
What’s the frequency?
You don’t need to read between the lines to see the challenge. Despite demand for TSMC’s new processors, Apple seems to have been able to secure the supply it needs. But when it comes to churning out the final packaged chips memory, supply constraints have created significant obstacles to producing in quantity.
This is bad for Apple, particularly as the challenge doesn’t appear to be confined to iPhones; customers are experiencing delays getting new Macs. “Many new orders are now not arriving until September,” Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman wrote earlier this week.
It isn’t just Apple that will be impacted by the AI-driven memory drought. The scale of Apple’s orders is among the greatest in the industry, and if its product plans are feeling the pain, every other manufacturer will be feeling it as well.
Conscious uncoupling
This is certainly in tune with expectations voiced at the beginning of the year when Ranjit Atwal, senior director analyst at Gartner, warned: “This is the steepest contraction in device shipments witnessed in over a decade. Higher prices will narrow the range of devices available, prompting buyers to hold on to devices for longer, fundamentally altering upgrade cycles.”
Gartner in February predicted a 10.4% decline in global PC shipments and an 8.4% drop in smartphone shipments as a result. The analyst also predicted a 130% surge in combined memory and SSD storage prices by the end of this year, with steep product price increases to follow. Recent data from IDC, Gartner, Counterpoint, and Omdia confirm PC market declines, but only at around 4% (the estimates vary).
Today’s report from Culpan suggests we’ve not yet experienced the full extent of this decline — hinting that while the initial fall reflected price, the next impact will be defined by lack of supply. While this hurts big brands like Apple, smaller entities could be left high and dry.
When the chips are down
It is interesting to reprise Atwal’s warning in February that, “the sub-$500 entry-level PC segment will disappear by 2028,” as this seems to be what’s happening. That’s something long-time Mac users like me find particularly ironic, given it was only this year Apple briefly offered up its superbly priced $499 MacBook Neo. The industry direction we’re seeing now suggests we’ll never see that again, though the success of that device gave Apple a phenomenal 28.7% increase in sales in its just-revealed June quarter.
Despite memory supply challenges, Apple seems to be faring fairly well, with market share increasing across its business. Counterpoint data reveals that Apple has achieved an astonishing 65% share of the premium smartphone market. In part, that’s because as an existing premium brand, Apple was able to better absorb rising memory costs through higher margins and reduced promotions. Realistically, this means we can expect an overall increase in iPhone prices when the new range is announced up to $300 more, Jeff Pu, of GF Securities, recently claimed.
Building the moat
Once again, what’s sustainable but difficult for larger brands such as Apple is existential disaster for smaller players — and it’s only now a matter of time before we see some real blood. That’s particularly true in smart home and device markets, where manufacturers lack the margins to sustain higher memory prices while delivering products customers can afford. A recent Global Electronics Association report tells us 62% of electronics manufacturers are already experiencing constrained availability or extended lead times. It also tells us 82% expect rising prices, including 33% who cite a “significant increase.”
This is already being felt by consumer and business users, as networking equipment is experiencing significant shipping delays. So, while we may find ourselves waiting a month or more for an iPhone, the wait for new routers, external storage devices, and home automation systems could be even longer once available inventories disappear.
This doesn’t appear to be a short-term challenge; a recent Digitimes report warns that vendors have already sold their entire allocation of memory capacity for 2027.
Don’t even get me started on the likely impact on the military and defense markets as high-performance memory, storage, and processor supplies become constrained. Just like declining river levels in Europe, lack of memory threatens severe disruption. With so much turbulence impacting the tech economy, all we need now is for one or more of theinvestor-supported AI companies that have helped create the memory shortages to default on loan payments.
Got to keep the customer satisfied
Eager to protect sales, Apple recently introduced the Apple Upgrade leasing service in the US. This should enable consumers to purchase new devices at prices more sustainable to them over time. Apple isn’t alone in taking such action, which will inevitably extend beyond America.
“OEMs are expanding financing, trade-in and buyback programs to improve affordability,” said Counterpoint’s Harshit Rastogi. “Samsung has also expanded its Galaxy Forever program to several markets to make flagship devices more accessible.”
Such schemes are all well and good, of course. Consumers will embrace them in hopes of a better tomorrow. But the tech industry is not immune to the wider constellation of existential challenges impacting economic environments.
In the end, if Apple, the industry’s biggest buyer of advanced components, is struggling to secure memory, the rest of the electronics sector is likely to face even greater challenges. For consumers, the initial impacts will be longer waits and higher prices. But the longer term consequences could be slower innovation and increased consolidation across the industry.
In an open letter, OpenAI this week turned to the court of public opinion in its existential war against Apple with a public notice in which the company refutes the iPhone maker’s claims concerning wholesale use of confidential information.
You can detect the depth of enmity between both firms in OpenAI’s opening lines to its letter, which begins: “Apple is one of the greatest companies of all time,” and then moves swiftly into defending itself against company’s claims, while attempting to characterize Apple’s complaints as weak.
What Apple claimed
As reported elsewhere, Apple filed suit against OpenAI in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on July 10. The litigation names OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC, io Products, Chang Liu (former senior systems electrical engineer), and Tang Yew Tan (former vice president of product design for iPhone and Apple Watch, now OpenAI’s chief hardware officer), and alleges breach of intellectual property agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. The company has since then filed preservation orders to protect evidence.
Apple’s complaint is more detailed than that. Among many other things, it claims Tan allegedly directed job candidates still at Apple to bring “actual parts” to interviews for “show and tell” sessions. It also alleges Tan distributed an internal Apple document describing Apple’s own departure security protocols to new hires before they resigned. Liu is separately accused of failing to return an Apple laptop and using it to download confidential technical documents.
OpenAI’s rebuttal
Now, OpenAI argues Apple’s trade-secret lawsuit is based on factual errors, poor communication and misleading claims. It says Apple mistakenly contacted the wrong OpenAI lawyer after confusing two people with the same surname, falsely claimed a phone call had occurred, then acknowledged both mistakes without raising the allegations later included in the lawsuit. (Apple says it sent OpenAI a warning letter back in February with no response, which undercuts OpenAI’s “we offered to resolve this before litigation” statement.)
OpenAI argues that Chang Liu was responding to requests from Apple colleagues seeking help locating Apple files, reflecting Apple’s own access-management failures rather than misconduct. It also claims Tan consistently instructed OpenAI staff not to seek or use competitors’ confidential information. OpenAI maintains it neither possesses nor wants Apple’s trade secrets, offered to resolve concerns before litigation, and finally argues that Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction is unnecessary and unsupported.
What Apple might actually argue
Will Apple see it the same way? That seems unlikely, in part due to the extent of the claimed infractions. Apple will point to the hundreds of former Apple employees now at OpenAI, including former Chief Designer Jony Ive. In doing so, it will likely argue that the remit of the case is not defined by erroneous legal correspondence, though that is probably seen as an error. Instead, the substantial claims it’s likely to focus on are that OpenAI has been engaged in a multi-front attempt to accumulate information pertaining to Apple and its design processes through recruitment and the way it recruits.
It’s feasible both arguments have some validity. OpenAI might be right in pointing out weaknesses in Apple’s own approach to internal communications in terms of secrecy. And Apple is correct in pointing out that OpenAI moved to abuse those vulnerabilities, weaknesses in its approach that have only been identified during OpenAI’s campaign to grab secrets.
While the Apple lawyer’s error in approaching OpenAI might be an unforced error that helps the AI firm cast doubt on Apple’s claims, it doesn’t necessarily invalidate them — and both sides believe themselves to be justified. Deciding which company is in the right will be a matter of law and not of public opinion.
Which side does the smoking gun face?
To prove its position, OpenAI shared some correspondence. These communications do seem to show a failure at Apple to properly implement device management over employee accounts, including the claim that personal iMessage accounts are routinely used to share corporate correspondence. That may be true, and shouldn’t be – it’s an obvious weakness in corporate security.
At the same time, the correspondence also shows hints of job opportunities at OpenAI for and to a former colleague, which kind of proves part of Apple’s point in terms of steady employee poaching. “I can always give you some fun side projects,” one message said.
Of course, interaction between former colleagues is inevitable,. But at the level of seniority here, it feels plausible this could be in breach of any off-ramping arrangements reached between Apple and its former employees. No doubt, courts will decide that – though it does underline Apple’s claims that OpenAI instructed former Apple staffers about how to leave without reaching such agreements.
“This isn’t Apple getting it wrong. It is OpenAI getting caught with its hand in the hardware cookie jar and then writing a blog post about how the jar was left unlocked,” US tech thought leader Brian Roemmele wrote on X.
Where happens next?
Ultimately, what comes next is up to Apple and OpenAI. The two companies might reach a deal out of court, or be forced into an agreement by the legal system. The existential nature of the rivalry suggests the latter, rather than former.
It is also very telling that OpenAI, which now has more than 400 former Apple employees on its teams, including many former designers, also claims: “Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction is both based on false information and completely unnecessary because we do not have, nor want, any of their trade secrets. We’re much more interested in building innovative products and technologies that push the frontier.”
While Apple hasn’t yet responded, it will be interesting to see whether whatever hardware OpenAI ships looks and behaves like any released or unreleased Apple products; the latter will now be able to bring details of its own historical project design decisions — and the people who made them — to court.
I think this case will play out over time. Perhaps the most interesting question is whether OpenAI has taken what it knows about Apple to create its own internal product design and development LLM models. Would that use be legitimate? It would, after all, not be the first time an AI company has trained its models on other people’s creative energy.
Apple has had to introduce a quota on security researcher reports because its systems are being overwhelmed by low-quality warnings generated by AI.
It’s a classic illustration of the rule of unintended consequences: a technology meant to help us has become a barrier to getting things done. After all, not only has AI driven the cost of consumer electronics higher, but it is also being used to identify and exploit security vulnerabilities — while also overwhelming security teams with low-grade reports, thus eroding their attention span.
The cost of good intentions
This is what’s happened at Apple, as security researchers use AI as a tool to identify new bugs. Perhaps the reports are well-intended. Hopefully, the researchers aren’t just motivated by the promise of easy bug bounties. Or maybe this is a cynical attempt to overwhelm platform security teams with low-grade bug reports — while holding back larger attacks for actual use by well-resourced state-backed actors.
We can’t know whether attackers really are trying to overwhelm active platform defenses before going in for the kill. But given that it’s an actively used military strategy, it’s pretty hard to ignore the possibility.
Apple’s response
So, what’s happening at Apple? The company has put some limits in place to bug reporting as things got out of hand. It introduced a quota cap and a 30-day cool-off period for submitted reports, though researchers who exceed the cap can request an extension.
A Financial Times report tells us the many of the reports were about identical bugs, some already resolved, some trivial, but in combination comprising a fog of war that made it harder and more time-consuming to identify the really big flaws. The situation became so febrile the company made the decision to put limits in place in June.
There is a little wriggle room to the approach: Apple has worked with the security community long enough to recognize some research teams. Those it trusts most can have their quota extended. Apple also deployed its own AI systems to triage incoming reports in an attempt to identify and remove AI-generated slop.
The company also uses internal systems from Anthropic and OpenAI to help identify and fix vulnerabilities; that led to an extensive collection of fixes in its most recent software patch.
The Times details an Italian company called Bynario, which identified a fairly nasty-sounding privilege escalation chain that lets attackers take complete control of a Mac. The company also reported a second bug, CVE-2026-43760, a macOS Screen Sharing flaw that allowed an authenticated VNC viewer to access protected data and create files with root privileges.
Unfortunately, the hard-working research team was unable to report the first bug, as it had filed more than 50 reports in just three weeks thanks to AI. In other words, it’s possible some security researchers right now are unable to file warnings of critical vulnerabilities to Apple because the system is overwhelmed by slop.
This is not just an Apple problem
What makes this far more problematic is that it isn’t just Apple that is affected – security teams on multiple platforms are grappling with the same problem. Rafe Pilling, a security expert at Sophos, told the FT that bug bounty programs across the industry have had to shift from finding vulnerabilities to validating reports of them “at machine speed.”
That follows comments from Jamf security expert Adam Boynton, who last week characterized AI use in security as, “an arms race between defenders and attackers who are both, increasingly, running the same kind of tools.”
When it comes to platform security, it is possible that AI has added a new dimension of complexity to an already complex environment. Hopefully, the real threats will continue to be swiftly identified as they emerge, rather than being wrongly characterized as AI slop.
When no one comes running
To understand how this works, try reading Aesop’s fable about a shepherd boy who raised the alarm so often that when the real wolf arrived, no one came to help and the young shepherd? He was eaten.
Apple’s outgoing CEO, Tim Cook, bade an emotional farewell to analysts and shareholders on Thursday as the company announced a record June quarter. His successor, John Ternus, takes over at the beginning of September with the company seemingly in solid shape.
The results were impressive, though some worrying challenges were confirmed. Apple managed to set a new June quarter record, but acknowledged slowing services growth and an unexpected mishap in forecasting future demand. Mac sales jumped an absolutely astonishing 28.7%, as the MacBook Neo grabbed consumer imagination, and overall the company saw growth everywhere except the iPad.
Apple’s fiscal Q3 2026 results saw the company generate $109.4 billion in revenue, up 16% year-over-year for a net quarterly profit of $29.8 billion. Gross margin for the quarter was 50.1%, compared to 46.5% in the year-ago quarter (though two points of this was attributed to tariff returns).
More specifically:
iPhone sales were up 21.7%, an unusually high number for what is traditionally a slower quarter.
Wearables increased 6.5%.
Services revenue increased 12%.
And the iPad declined 5.9%.
The Mac is out the bottle
Apple’s huge Mac quarter is a bellwether moment for the company. The platform is benefiting from both the iPhone halo and the MacBook Neo/MacBook Pro blessing. Apple confirmed MacBook Neo is drawing interest from education and enterprise clients, with Apple CFO Kevan Parekh noting that roughly half of the large US education Mac purchases during the quarter displaced Windows and Chromebook devices.
Big business wins included a massive 20,000-unit iPhone deployment at Morgan Stanley as the company shifted from employee-owned to corporate-owned/managed devices. The only problem is that demand for both Macs and iPhones is greater than Apple originally anticipated; as a result, some systems could be in short supply moving forward.
Memory, components, and demand
Cook described the current memory pricing environment as a “100-year flood” that forced Apple to raise prices on iPads and Macs. Parekh explained that memory cost changes explain more than 100% of the sequential gross margin decline, with adjusted gross margin falling from 49.3% in March to 48.1% in June (excluding tariff refunds). They’re projected to decline further.
Cook noted the DRAM market has only three primary suppliers, and Apple is evaluating options for additional supply flexibility.
The company also has a fresh problem on its hands, in that its iPhones and Macs are selling in much bigger quantities than Apple expected. And while the company managed to meet demand in the quarter, it might be constrained in the next. “It’s not a regular supply issue. It’s a demand forecast issue, to be candid,” Cook explained. “The iPhone and the Mac are both doing remarkably better than we thought they would do.… We continue to expect high levels of demand. However, with less flexibility in supply chain, we expect the impact from the supply constraints to increase significantly sequentially.
“We’re seeing some very significant constraints currently with limited flexibility in the supply chain to remedy it.”
Services grew, right?
Apple’s services revenue also grew, but not as much as many analysts had anticipated. Apple passed $30 billion for the first time in a June quarter, buoyed by all-time records in cloud and payment services, while the company’s paid subscription base surpassed 1.5 billion.
At the same time, Apple confirmed headwinds to services income, principally around currency exchange impacts and volatile economies, softness in mobile gaming, and – confirming the punitive impact of regulation on this part of the Apple business model – App Store business model changes.
What no one yet can know is the extent to which Apple’s recently announced Klarna product leasing deal will contribute both to services income and to accelerated replacement cycles. With 1.5 billion people in its addressable market, it’s very possible that a substantial number of customers will decide to pay for their Apple products on a monthly basis. The result would be a stable, predictable income stream for the company.
What about AI?
Apple’s introduction of Siri AI is delayed in the EU and China due to regulatory hurdles, though the situation in China could soon change following recent reports of an AI support deal with Alibaba and Baidu.
Goldman Sachs analyst Michael Ng asked about Siri AI plans and experience. Cook said the company remains “off the charts excited” about Siri AI, and the company continues to receive positive feedback, though he added some warnings about cost.
Cook explained that to handle users who might want to use Siri AI extensively, the company plans an upgrade option through iCloud+, though it is too early to define the specifics. (Incoming CEO John Ternus said Apple is focused on its own approach to artificial intelligence, but continues to see “enormous opportunity” in the sector.)
What the analysts said
Discussing the results, Morgan Stanley analyst Erik Woodring pointed to decelerating services growth and memory costs nibbling at the edge of Apple’s margins. “Apple’s leverage over the supply chain appears to be in question,” he said, adding it’s not clear whether AI is serving as a measurable tailwind to products or services, with its future monetization impact still uncertain.
Bank of America analyst Wamsi Mohan noted that continued demand means supply constraints are the biggest inhibitor for the stock, since demand will be shunted into subsequent quarters. Wells Fargo also pointed to the longer range picture that despite supply challenges in the current quarter, Apple still has plenty of momentum going into Q1 2027.
Finally, Jeff Pu, of GF Securities, speculated that demand might also be impacted by an estimated $300 increase in the cost of the upcoming 18 Pro series of devices, though this may be partially mitigated by Apple’s new leasing deal.
Cook’s watch is almost over
This was Cook’s 19th and final earnings call as CEO, with his successor joining the call for the first time. Cook closed the meeting with this message: “As you know, this will be my final earnings call, and John will lead these calls going forward. The transition is going seamlessly, and I am beyond excited for John to step into his new role and lead Apple into its next era.”
Apple stock was down around 9% at mid-day Friday as investors consider the quarter’s record results.
All of the major AI providers want you to use, and ideally stay within, their super apps, and now Microsoft is looking to capture that attention, too.
During an earnings call this week, CEO Satya Nadella confirmed that the tech giant is building a Copilot ‘super app’ that will be rolled out this quarter. The new platform will bring together various Copilot tools, including chat, Cowork, long-running Autopilot agents, and the always-on Microsoft Scout, powered by OpenClaw.
Microsoft said the super app will be wired into many of its other governance platforms, including Agent 365, IT Ops, SecOps, FinOps, and business processes. And, it said, CRM and ERP systems will “serve as skills and plug-ins that go into core work.”
“You’re able to take that enterprise-wide workflow and wire it into the super app,” Nadella said, describing it as “the coming together of a new way to work.”
With this move, Microsoft will compete with OpenAI’s ChatGPT Work, Claude Cowork, and a growing number of others trying to capture as much of a user’s workflow as possible. It could prove a strong contender, as everyday Copilot “usage intensity” is at the same level as that of Outlook or Teams, Nadella said, and paid seats now surpass 30 million.
Every model should be ‘swappable’
Even as it builds a super app to bridge workflows, Microsoft is acknowledging enterprise demand for model choice. Customers are making it clear that they don’t want to be locked into one model; they want the ability to move between open, closed, and frontier options based on the best tool for the job.
This trend is reflected in Redmond’s own usage statistics: Since the beginning of the year, it has tracked a 5x increase in the number of customers building with models from multiple providers featured on its platform.
The company claims it has the broadest model catalog in the cloud, offering more than 11,000 models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Mistral, its own MAI family, and others.
“We are building a new model system, where the harness, context, memory, and action space are separate from any one model family, thereby moving the frontier on the cost-to-outcome curve,” Nadella said. “That’s really the enterprise design architecture that we are going to evangelize.”
He described enterprises as “learning machines” that need their own internal learning machines, and said that they will be evaluating how providers are helping them reach their business goals and support knowledge creation.
“The models are an input, not some extraction of the knowledge of the enterprise,” Nadella said. “This is not going to be about, ‘come in and take all my knowledge and benefit yourself, [and] I am not getting anything out of it.’”
The key is in balancing the advantages of frontier models with lower-cost options, open weights with closed weights, and having the ability to train internal models based on outputs, traces, and context. “You should and you can use frontier models,” Nadella said. “There’s no reason not to.”
However, he said, any given model at any given time should be swappable to democratize design.
For instance, data from cybersecurity evaluation framework CyberGym showed that Microsoft’s new MAI-Cyber-1-Flash coding agent achieved Claude Mythos-level performance at 50% of the cost. This is because 90% of tasks were completed by Cyber-1-Flash and 10% by frontier models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and others.
This ability to use the right model for the right task in what is essentially a pipeline job is a “super important characteristic,” Nadella said. Microsoft Copilot, Security Copilot, and GitHub Copilot are all built to support movement between different models based on the task.
This strategy is also reflected in the company’s new Project Perception cybersecurity offering. The platform features three specialized types of agent (red, blue, and green), and the underlying harness decides which AI model is best suited for a given task. Guided by specialized playbooks, red team agents discover vulnerabilities, blue team agents triage, and green team agents propose remediation plans.
“You create your own agentic system that’s continuously operating to create the cyber defense you need,” Nadella explained. “Especially in cyber[security], it becomes critical to have that multi-model approach.”
Nadella also pointed to the recent Hugging Face incident, in which an OpenAI model went rogue, broke out of its sandbox, and launched an attack against the popular open-source platform, noting that enterprises will likely need to use multiple models to offset and remediate the various challenges of each, and should not be “subject to the refusals of one model.”
“We talk about the frontier as if it’s one thing,” Nadella said. “The frontier is about every firm having a frontier, the choice, the cost control, and the capability that they need in order to be able to control their destiny.”
Increased push to usage-based pricing, closing demand gaps
As Microsoft emphasizes its model-agnostic architecture, it is also shifting from per-seat to per-seat-plus-consumption pricing; the company recently added usage-based billing to Cowork and Agent 365, and plans to continue that trend across its products.
While these moves have resulted in sticker shock and ‘tokenmaxxing’ at many companies, Nadella framed it as a revenue driver. “We are advancing the frontier on the cost-to-outcome curve, ensuring every customer can turn tokens into business results.”
Meanwhile, Microsoft said it will continue to close data demand-capacity gaps.
The company added 88 data centers in FY 2026, including 31 across five continents this past quarter. It contended that it is bringing capacity online “faster than ever,” reducing dock-to-live times for new GPUs in its largest regions by nearly 50% over the fiscal year.
However, CFO Amy Hood acknowledged during the earnings call, “the situation is obviously that demand exceeds available supply in a relatively extreme moment.”
Reflecting this, revenue for Azure and other cloud services grew by 43% in Microsoft’s fiscal year ended June 30, and the company expects similar revenue growth (45%) in fiscal year ‘27.
Hood said that Microsoft remains “focused on delivering efficiencies,” including in its CPU and GPU fleets, and engineers are also working on process improvements. The company added another gigawatt of capacity this quarter and is on track to roughly double its overall capacity in two years.
“We are also getting more from the infrastructure we already have by optimizing across silicon, systems, and software,” Hood said.
Apple may be moving faster than expected in its modem development work, and Qualcomm’s latest comments suggest that shift is already reshaping the iPhone supply chain.
While he wasn’t specific, that likely reflects the broader industry shortage in memory, storage, and everything else and means the company’s share of components used for the next iPhone launch will fall “well below” its anticipated estimates. Amon says this is part of a transition in which future Qualcomm income will be generated by AI datacenter demand.
The company also intends to boost modem prices on Sept. 1 (And remember, the patent licensing agreement between Apple and Qualcomm expires in March 2027.)
Given Apple is selling plenty of smartphones (even as the broader industry shrinks), supply constraints won’t necessarily be because of demand for the devices; this could reflect Apple’s plan to divide the iPhone release schedule across several months, as well as its future modem development efforts.
Reports for months have indicated Apple plans to introduce new iPhones twice a year, with the Pro range updated each fall and entry-level devices scheduled for spring. It’s a move that’s likely to help build more consistent quarterly earnings by spreading demand across different parts of the year and could reduce short-term demand for components.
Things look a little different this year, of course; the expected introduction of the new iPhone Ultra means Apple will be making three new iPhone models, not the customary four – though there is also speculation the Ultra may not ship in quantity until later on this year.
Those C-series modems are already used in Apple devices. The iPhone 16e, 17e and iPhone Air carry Apple’s C1/C1X modem, with the C2 variant expected in the 18 Pro series this year.
Apple’s new modem is expected to deliver better battery efficiency, improved cellular network privacy, and AI-supported network efficiency. So, your device should last longer, be less visible to your carrier, and better able to get a connection — even when connectivity is constrained.
Next year’s 18-series devices will certainly stick with Apple’s modems, meaning Qualcomm’s remaining Apple business should be wrapped up in the release this fall. As Apple’s modem appears in more devices, you’ll probably only see Qualcomm modems used to provide mmWave support, which realistically has very little traction or carrier support outside America.
Waiting to replace mmWave
That view is supported by reports based on information recently stolen from Apple’s India-based iPhone partner, Tata. It claimed Apple will use the C2 in internationally sold iPhones Pro and Max, while keeping to Qualcomm in US devices.
If Apple takes the same approach with next year’s iPhone releases, it would mean only US iPhones — and probably not all of them — have mmWave. As a result, Qualcomm’s modems will only be available in a very small subset of iPhones sold. That would almost certainly account for the modem maker’s reduced Apple optimism. (Apple is also part of the 6G standard development group, which implies it hopes to find some way to replace mmWave.)
It also indicates Apple is less likely to renew its current patent licensing deal, though it could still require some licenses since Qualcomm’s SEPs include some 5G-essential technologies. The other takeaway here: Apple has a high degree of confidence in its forthcoming C2 modem, which makes sense given how well-received its C1 modem has been.
A clean sweep
One more thought. It is interesting the extent to which Tim Cook’s Apple seems to be finalizing much of its business before the transition to new CEO John Ternus on Sept. 1. (It is also notable that Qualcomm also intends to raise its prices on the same date.)
This fall, with watchOS 27, Apple Watch will finally get access to Siri AI with a software update that turns your wrist into the most widely-used wearable AI platform on Earth.
One important caveat is to observe that Siri AI on Apple Watch still requires your Apple Intelligence-enabled iPhone to do the heavy lifting. The interaction is easy: tap the Digital Crown and Apple’s new glowing icon appears on screen (you’ll also find this in the App viewer). The experience looks identical across every Apple device — iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, and Vision Pro — making the assistant feel like one consistent product rather than a different experience per device.
The Siri app lets you access all your past Siri conversations (unless you turn that feature off) and pick up an old conversation right where you left off. Conversation history syncs privately through iCloud, so you can start an exchange on your iPhone and continue it later from your wrist. You can also pin a conversation you expect to revisit.
You can also use Siri on the Apple Watch to ask questions, launch apps, or even get more complex responses, such as step counts on a specific day. It can also answer difficult and specific queries with detailed answers and can summon real-time information from the web.
Personal context is the real story
That’s key, of course, as it means the smartwatch on your wrist can help you access specific details from all your contextual information; it can get details from messages, emails, and notes, for instance. Or you might use it to find a number and call it, access your door code, or look up customer information for business — all without touching your phone.
One of Apple’s own examples demonstrates this well: Saying, “Show me photos from when I went to Spain,” results in precisely that. You can also ask follow-up questions and keep the conversational going naturally, rather than being confined to single, isolated commands.
Beyond personal data, the watch can also act in apps — get directions home, send an email, play a playlist, or even more specifically, “Play the song that Brandon sent me.”
Context runs deep. A new Call Context tool can proactively surface relevant information from across your apps when phoning a business or help locate a confirmation code from Mail while calling an airline. This arguably challenges a real pain point when speaking with providers and is a good illustration of Apple’s broader AI strategy: to use on-device intelligence to remove everyday friction without asking you to track down the information yourself.
Where we are, where it’s going
It’s frustrating that you still can’t use the Watch to remotely run applications on your Mac, iPhone, or iPad. What you can do is trigger Shortcuts that run on your iPhone: enable this first on your phone by selecting the Shortcut you want and switching on “Show on Apple Watch.” Once that’s done, you can run the Shortcut from your wrist, even by voice.
That’s useful now, but as more complex apps add Shortcuts support and App Intents become more widely adopted by developers, it should be easy to trigger genuinely complex, multi-stage tasks on your iPhone from your wrist.
It’s worth noting: early hands-on testing of the watchOS 27 beta has found Siri AI genuinely impressive on personal-context queries, but still buggy in places. This is very much a first-generation feature — promising, but not yet fully reliable.
Watch the developers
Developers are already beginning to experiment with the potential for wearable AI. One of the best current examples is Granola, which just launched a Watch app built specifically to take notes during in-person meetings away from a laptop. The idea is that you tap your wrist, the screen turns green and makes a sound to alert your companion(s) that it is recording and then you carry on as normal. Once the meeting stops, switch the app off and you’ll get polished notes with meeting summaries and action items provided to you.
The only reservation I have with Granola is the lack of documentation on privacy and data retention on the developer site. Tools like these will almost certainly become more private, more secure, and more prevalent once Apple’s on-device dictation APIs extend fully to watchOS.
That last thing is perhaps the most important as wearable AI emerges: the decisions Apple makes around watchOS and SiriAI will be foundational to its future wearable AI glasses products.
Artificial intelligence is becoming a force multiplier for Apple security research. Apple’s latest 26.5.2 software update includes patches for a record number of bugs — many of them identified by security researchers using AI-assisted tools.
A record haul of fixes
The numbers tell the story. Apple fixed 87 security vulnerabilities in iOS and iPadOS 26.6, along with an additional 155 patches for Macs. Roughly 100 flaws have been patched in each of Apple’s other operating systems: watchOS, tvOS, and visionOS. Taken together, these represent record numbers for an Apple security update.
This is only the beginning. The scale of the release echoes the impact AI coding agents are already having on security research and may well reflect Apple’s Project Glasswing research with Anthropic and others to use AI to identify software vulnerabilities.
Apple’s use of AI for security research is visible in the official release note. Read through it and you’ll see multiple credits to Claude, Codex, and AI adjacent tools, labs, and researchers. These tools identified flaws across Apple’s systems, including in WebKit, WebDAV, and WebKit Storage.
For good and ill
It’s a neat illustration of the sea change under way as AI adoption accelerates. This release highlights how security researchers are leaning into AI tools to check platform security just as heavily as attackers are. One fix in today’s release is credited to researchers from Calif.io, who some may recall used Anthropic’s Mythos Preview model to create a working macOS kernel memory corruption exploit in just a few days.
The release is proof positive that while AI can be used to identify vulnerabilities to undermine protection, it can also be used to identify opportunities to further secure the platforms. It is also true that as AI use across the security industry grows, the number of flaws identified will also accelerate; it’s doubtful we’ll ever reach a point at which there are no flaws at all. Apple is likely to beef up its own internal observability tools following the acquisition of SigLens, which might help it identify even more bugs using AI.
Don’t delay, install today
None of these matters much, though, if the security patches never get installed — and the delay between security patch release and installation represents a huge opportunity for attackers. Recent analysis from Fleet Device Management found that 79% of organizations take more than a day to deploy critical security patches, even as attackers increasingly exploit vulnerabilities within hours of disclosure. The same report also showed something else to worry about: AI tools are spreading fast across the enterprise, often without the version control or auditability that would let anyone track how they’re actually being used.
Despite their number, the tally of fixes Apple has published isn’t the end of the story. In this case, while Apple has published its latest fixes, how many of those vulnerabilities have already been abused in the weeks between discovery and security patch release? More to the point, how swiftly will Apple’s installed base update devices now, and how many attackers will use that delay to dive in and do the damage?
It’s a security arms race
Adam Boynton, senior security strategy manager at Jamf noted that one vulnerability, CVE-2026-43810, can be exploited by a remote user to corrupt kernel memory. “The WebKit fixes are easy to read as a phishing story, when they are actually something slightly different,” he said.
“The raw material for targeted spyware is browser engine memory corruption, and those chains are expensive enough that they get pointed at specific people like senior executives, journalists, anyone whose access justifies the cost. That’s the honest reason to update promptly rather than eventually.
“In other words, this update matters less for its raw numbers than for what those numbers represent: an arms race between defenders and attackers who are both, increasingly, running the same kind of tools,” Boynton said.
The 19th-century French novelist Honore de Balzac is believed to have said that behind every great fortune lies a great crime.
That’s even more true today than it was 200 years ago — just look at how Big AI, including Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and others have built their trillion-dollar fortunes.
They all use vast amounts of copyrighted material to train their large language models (LLMs) without paying the copyright holders. In other words, they steal it. They don’t call it stealing, though. They call it “fair use,” which in this case amounts to the same thing.
Generative AI (genAI) training requires massive amounts of text. The better-written and more information-dense that text is, the more it helps. AI gets a lot smarter a lot faster when it’s trained on well-written books and magazine and newspaper articles than when it’s trained on social media banter (or most everything else you find on the internet).
Since the dawn of AI, companies have been hoovering up copyrighted material wherever they find it — on the open web, behind paywalls, even in manually scanned books — and then used the scanned text. And they do it all without asking authors’ or publishers’ permissions, and without paying them.
It’s the greatest intellectual property theft in history by a long shot — billions and billions of dollars worth. Books, articles, music, photographs, artwork, you name it. If a human being has created it, Big AI has likely grabbed it and ingested it without asking, then made big profits off it.
I know this from personal experience; I’ve got skin in the game. Big AI companies have used at least 30 of my books to train their models without asking. And that’s only what I’ve confirmed. Big AI might well have stolen even more. And it also might have stolen many of the thousands of articles I’ve written through the years.
For the AI bigwigs, it’s standard operating procedure. So it was surprising to see Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella calling out Big AI for its hypocrisy in using other people’s intellectual property without paying, then crying foul when small AI companies use Big AI’s work to train their own models using a technique called distillation.
He wrote on X: “While the great innovation that comes from model providers having fair use rights to train models on public data is needed, I find it ironic that the status quo is to then turn around and impose restrictive terms on distillation, and to reserve the right to learn from customer usage and interaction data.”
One important note here: Nadella believes Big AI should be allowed to steal copyrighted material for training purposes. He makes that clear by his mention of “fair use.” His issue is that he believes smaller AI companies should be able to use Big AI’s work to train their models — and Big AI doesn’t want to let them do it.
Alistar Barr, in Business Insider, makes a related point: “Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google are discovering what the rest of the internet has already learned through painful experience: once you put something online, people will find ways to use it in ways you don’t like and can’t stop.”
Before we look at whether Nadella is right in calling Big AI’s actions hypocritical, let’s examine the technique at the heart of the issue: distillation.
The lowdown on distillation
Distillation refers to an AI training technique in which you take outputs from one AI model, such as the answer to a prompt, and use that output to train your own model. AI companies do that quite frequently and have been doing so for a long time.
Barr explains distillation this way: “Distillation looks an awful lot like what AI companies have been doing to the rest of the internet. Scrape web content for free and without permission. Turn it into a product you sell. Argue it’s fair use. Hope the lawyers sort out the details later.”
Analysts point out the AI industry is built on distillation. Neil Shah, vice president of research at Counterpoint Research says, “The reality is none of the models is an island and the entire industry has mostly evolved based on recursive learning. The newer entrants are in many instances going through the same routes of ‘distillation’ and ‘optimization.’”
It’s only become an issue now because Chinese AI companies have been using distillation techniques to catch up to American AI companies.
So are OpenAI, Anthropic and other big US AI firms hypocritical, as Nadella claims? Absolutely. They’ve built their businesses on the theft of billions of dollars of stolen intellectual property and call it fair use. Now, they’re playing the victims when competitors do the same to them. (They’re also in some cases paying up; Anthropic just last week settled a copyright suit, paying out $1.5 billion.)
So, don’t praise Nadella for speaking out. Criticize him (and other AI tech leaders) for stealing billions of dollars in intellectual property from countless writers and publishers and calling it fair use.
A court has dismissed Google’s case against SerpApi over that company’s scraping of search results to train AI models.
The US District Court for the Northern District of California found that there was no indication that any copyright had been breached.
Google announced in December that it was suing SerpApI for its alleged web scraping, claiming that it was protecting copyright holders. In February, SerpApI fought back and asked the court to dismiss Google’s case. And this week, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with SerpApi that Google’s case has no merit.
Google’s argument was that SerpApi’s actions breached the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). It made two claims: first, that no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title, and second that no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, or component protected by the Act.
SerpApi claimed that the URLs and other links that were being served by Google did not in themselves entail copyright and the judge agreed. In her judgment, she said that there was no indication that the copyright holders had authorized Google to take action against SerpApi.
The case is not completely over as the judge has given Google 21 days to amend its complaint to demonstrate that it was acting on behalf of the copyright owners. It remains to be seen whether its war against the web scrapers is finally over.
The European Commission has fined Google a total of €890 million ($1 billion) for its breaches of the Digital Market Act (DMA).
Just over half the fine — €460 million — was because Google illegally gave preference to its own services in Google Search results.
The remainder was because in the Google Play store for Android apps, the company prevented app developers from leading consumers to alternative, often cheaper, purchase channels. Under the DMA, app developers who distribute their apps via Google Play or Apple’s App Store should be able to inform customers of alternative offers.
Now Google must give third-party services featuring in its results the same treatment as its own services, and allow developers of apps in the Play Store to communicate about offers both in and outside the Play Store, or face further fines.
AMD executives took to the stage at its Advancing AI 2026 event in San Francisco today to detail the company’s next generation of AI infrastructure solutions, from Instinct MI455X AI accelerator GPUs and 6th Gen EPYC “Venice” CPUs, to Pensando networking, ROCm.AI software and its Helios rack-scale platform that ties it all together.
AMD has been working towards rack-scale AI system solutions for years. Its ZT Systems acquisition last year added valuable engineering talent and intellectual property that is now finally bearing the real fruits. Its Helios AI platform is a major platform evolution for AMD, with shipments scheduled to begin in the second half of this year (which is here and now).
The announcements at Advancing AI show how the company has engineered its AI platform solutions for large reasoning models, sustained inference and agentic workflows. These workloads pressure memory capacity, data movement, networking and CPU orchestration. AMD’s approach is to keep as much data close to the compute engines as possible and move it more efficiently throughout the system, but there’s deeper nuance here that’s obvious versus AMD’s chief rival, NVIDIA.
AMD’s MI455X targets the AI memory wall
The Instinct MI455X GPU is the compute engine that fuels the Helios rack, and the first GPU based on AMD’s new CDNA 5 architecture. Built with a modular mix of 2nm and 3nm chiplets, it carries 432GB of HBM4 and 23.3TB/s of peak memory bandwidth.
Compared to AMD’s current MI355X, the MI455X offers 1.5 times the memory capacity, up to 2.9 times the peak memory bandwidth and up to four times the peak matrix performance with MXFP4 and MXFP8 data types, which are lower-precision numerical formats designed to accelerate AI processing while reducing memory demands. With MXFP6 (6-bit floating point), performance is rated at up to twice that of MI355X.
AMD also shared some actual, measured internal results using production silicon. The company claims MI455X delivers 3.8 times higher FP8 decode performance, 3.5 times more measured FP4 compute performance and between 2.5 and 3.5 times more networking bandwidth than MI355X, depending on the transfer path tested. Those figures provide more context than just numerical specifications, though they remain AMD-provided comparisons that will need independent validation.
AMD
The architectural choices behind the numbers are important. Reasoning models and long context windows require sizeable KV caches for maintaining AI attention states, while mixture-of-experts models frequently move large amounts of data across accelerators. MI455X should let more model data, activation states and cache remain local. New dedicated IP in hardware can transfer data while the GPU continues processing, and expanded cache and multicast capabilities are designed to reduce redundant data movement to further improve efficiency.
The aforementioned lower-precision formats can also raise throughput and reduce memory use, but model developers still have to determine where they can be applied without unacceptable accuracy loss.
AMD’s Helios rack takes aim at Vera Rubin
Dave Altavilla
Helios is AMD’s primary rack-scale competitor to NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin platform. Each liquid-cooled rack combines 72 MI455X GPUs, 18 single-socket Venice host CPUs and Pensando networking technologies.
In its most complete, premium configuration, AMD rates Helios for 2.9 exaflops of low-precision AI compute, with 31TB of aggregate HBM4 capacity, 1.7PB/s of memory bandwidth, 260TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth and 43TB/s of scale-out bandwidth.
These are formidable figures, but they are technical specifications rather than actual application benchmarks. The more consequential development is AMD’s move from collections of eight-GPU servers to a 72-GPU shared-memory domain. Models too large for one node can operate across the rack without treating every exchange as a scale-out networking transaction, which benefits large-model inference as well as training.
AMD uses UALink over Ethernet, or UALoE, for an open standard scale-up fabric. Each MI455X provides 3.6TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth, while the complete rack delivers all-to-all connectivity through a single switch layer. AMD also claims six times more scale-out bandwidth per GPU than MI355X when MI455X is configured with three Pensando Vulcano 800 AI NICs.
While open standards give cloud providers more control over suppliers and system design, AMD and its partners now have to prove those components can deliver the predictable performance, reliability and deployment experience customers expect from a tightly controlled, more vertically integrated platform.
Finally, AMD designed Helios with automatic rerouting around failed links, virtual rack partitions, tray-level serviceability and rack-wide power, cooling and health monitoring. Major hyperscalers and potentially large-scale enterprise customers will likely key in on these capabilities, which can affect the availability, total cost and consistency of the AI services they consume.
Kind of like cowbell, AMD Venice gives agentic AI more CPU
AMD
AMD’s agentic CPU messaging regarding its upcoming Venice-based EPYC processors is mostly marketing speak, but the underlying requirement is very real. An AI agent can invoke retrieval, databases, security checks, code execution and other tools before a GPU generates a response. Running many agents concurrently increases the amount of conventional compute requirements surrounding the accelerators.
Venice scales to 256 Zen 6 cores with support for 512 threads, 16 memory channels, up to 1GB of L3 cache per socket, along with PCIe 6.0 and CXL 3.1 connectivity. AMD is also offering several Venice configurations for other applications, including general-purpose servers, high-frequency workloads, GPU hosts and high-density CPU sandbox systems used to execute agent tools.
Treating the CPU solely as a GPU host understates its role. Gateways, tokenization, vector search, databases and short-lived code execution stress different mixes of per-core performance, thread count, memory bandwidth and I/O. Specifically, AMD’s internal testing shows Venice significantly outperforming its current EPYC 9965 Turin CPU across five parts of the agentic AI pipeline, including gateway processing, context assembly, vector search, enterprise applications and short-lived tool execution. Individual gains vary by workload, but AMD details the overall generational improvement at up to a 1.7 times lift. As with the MI455X figures though, these comparisons come from AMD and will require independent validation.
Pensando networking and ROCm software advance
Keeping GPUs fed with data and coordinating traffic across racks directly affects utilization and operating costs. In fact, GPU utilization is a pretty sad state of affairs currently for some of the major frontier model providers.
As such, Pensando networking has become central to AMD’s roadmap. Helios can connect each MI455X to as many as three 800Gbps Vulcano AI NICs, while Salina DPUs handle front-end networking and infrastructure services.
On the software side, which is an equally critical component, AMD also introduced ROCm.AI, an AI-assisted development layer due to arrive in August. It includes reusable skills for coding agents, simplified management and Hyperloom, which can profile workloads, tune serving configurations, modify kernels and validate results.
These tools address two persistent AMD challenges: developer efficiency and ease of use, and software tuning. Automated optimization still has to produce repeatable gains without creating hard-to-maintain code, however. And while ROCm has progressed significantly over the last few years, NVIDIA’s CUDA retains an advantage in maturity, tooling and developer familiarity.
AMD now has commitments that give its MI450 generation and Helios considerably more weight. Meta and OpenAI have announced multi-generation agreements composed of up to 6GW of AMD compute capacity, with initial 1GW deployments planned for the second half of 2026.
Oracle plans a 50,000-GPU public cloud cluster beginning in the third quarter, while Microsoft will deploy Helios for Azure AI inference. Finally, just before the AMD event, Anthropic announced a strategic partnership for up to 2 Gigawatts of AMD-fueled AI compute, with its first gigawatt expected online in the first half of 2027.
Commitments of this scale reflect confidence in more than just MI455X performance. These customers are evaluating the complete architecture, including Venice CPUs, Pensando networking, ROCm software, rack integration, serviceability and AMD’s ability to deliver and execute across multiple product generations.
There is some financial alignment behind the agreements as well. AMD issued OpenAI performance-based warrants and committed to investing up to $5 billion in Anthropic. That context matters when evaluating these deals as market validation, but these planned deployments are substantial nonetheless and put Helios on a much stronger foundation as it begins shipping.
AMD expands its robotics and embedded foundation
AMD also expanded its physical AI portfolio, building on credible traction from its Xilinx-derived Kria adaptive system-on-modules and embedded technologies that are already powering robotics, machine vision and industrial automation applications.
The new Ryzen AI Embedded X100 combines up to 16 Zen 5 CPU cores, integrated Radeon graphics, a second-generation NPU and as much as 128GB of unified LPDDR5X memory shared across its compute engines. To me this looks a lot like a repackaging and optimization of the company’s Strix Halo platform, but with specific optimizations for the embedded space. Regardless, AMD is pairing X100 with the Kria AI Robotics Developer Platform, which includes a System Module or SOM, and a new Robotics Partner Network spanning hardware, software and platform providers.
Samples began shipping in June, with full production expected in the fourth quarter. This broader objective is to give developers a path across AMD x86 CPUs, GPUs, NPUs and FPGAs for real-time autonomous systems, rather than requiring them to assemble those hardware engines and software components independently.
Execution for AMD is now the test
AMD has assembled a credible platform for the burgeoning agentic AI market that’s blowing up currently with no signs of stopping. MI455X addresses memory and data movement, Venice handles dense agentic CPU workloads, Pensando networking connects global system resources, and ROCm.AI addresses software complexity. Finally, Helios assembles these components into a true competitive threat for NVIDIA’s latest Vera Rubin platform.
AMD’s open architecture may appeal to customers seeking supplier choice, but openness must also translate into reliable deployments, competitive total cost and software that does not require a significant rip-up. NVIDIA enters this cycle with a stronger ecosystem and far more rack-scale deployment experience. The true test will be how easily and reliably customers can integrate, operate and maintain these AMD solutions at scale.
As it stands, AMD now has major customers and a clearly defined architecture with systems engineering expertise behind it. Delivering Helios on schedule and showing that its performance claims translate into a real production workload throughput advantage and total cost of ownership gains will determine how much the competitive gap narrows. And of course, this is in a market that is clamoring for ever-more compute resources with a seemingly insatiable demand for AI services and capacity. That’s an environment for big iron success. Now AMD just has to deliver optimized, turnkey AI platforms. This is far easier said than done, but time will soon tell as deployments take shape this year.
This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network. Want to join?
Google CEO Sundar Pichai has sought to allay concerns over the delayed release of the Gemini 3.5 Pro large language model. He dodged questions about it in Google’s quarterly earnings call on Wednesday by focusing on the company’s next frontier AI model, Gemini 4, and plans to release subsequent LLMs at an almost monthly cadence.
His comments came a day after Google unveiled Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash Cyber but offered no update on the release of Gemini 3.5 Pro, the company’s delayed flagship reasoning model that many developers had expected to arrive weeks earlier.
Google introduced the Gemini 3.5 family at its annual I/O conference, promising to release the Pro model in June. That timeline has since slipped, with Bloomberg suggesting Gemini 3.5 Pro is months late because the model’s coding performance is falling short of internal expectations, especially when compared to better performance by similar models from OpenAI and Anthropic.
Instead of revisiting the Gemini 3.5 Pro timeline, Pichai used the earnings call to shift the discussion toward Gemini 4, when asked about how his company planned to navigate an increasingly competitive race to release frontier AI models by to Barclays Investment Bank analyst Ross Sandler.
“We are creating a baseline on top of which you will see us rapidly iterate on subsequent model releases. And so picking up pace and releasing models almost at a monthly cadence is part of our road map as we are building Gemini 4 as well,” Pichai said during the call.
Sandler’s question followed one from JPMorgan Chase & Co analyst Douglas Anmuth, who asked Pichai if Google was releasing frontier AI models frequently enough to keep pace with rivals OpenAI and Anthropic.
Pichai had responded to Anmuth’s question that Google remained confident of competing at the frontier and was investing heavily in a larger Gemini 4 base model.
Analysts, though, aren’t as confident as Pichai.
While delays to Google’s frontier model roadmap have not triggered an exodus of existing customers, either because of high switching costs or because many enterprises already running multi-model architectures, they have made CIOs evaluating AI platforms more cautious about making new commitments, said Bhupendra Chopra, chief revenue officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.
A monthly model release cadence could prove to be a double-edged sword for enterprises and their CIOs.
While a monthly release cadence could help enterprises gain faster access to improvements in model performance, cost and capabilities, it will also require CIOs to invest more heavily in testing, governance and version management to safely adopt those updates, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research.
Similarly, Pareekh Jain, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting, said enterprises will embrace a faster release cadence only if each successive model delivers measurable improvements in performance, cost or safety, rather than simply changing version number.
The challenge for CIOs, Jain said, is not just keeping up with model releases; it’s deciding whether each new version is worth the cost of validating it.
It’s difficult to ignore the fact that Apple seems to have turned its MacBook Neo into a weapon to promote platform growth, with enough performance under the hood to make competitors seem inferior.
And even as the PC industry moves to try to compete with Apple’s last huge Mac success, the company is already planning a powerful follow-up.
That points to the discipline Apple has applied to the Mac since the introduction of Apple Silicon. The company has built a clear product roadmap, strong entry-level pricing, and steady performance gains. This focus is now paying dividends, giving people the impetus to keep placing their trust in Apple and its Macs — even as the industry raises prices in the face of RAMageddon and price increases.
The numbers don’t lie
“Apple’s recent price increase seems to be an inevitable response to these cost increases. In the second half of the year, other PC OEMs are expected to continue to raise prices, and the overall ASP increase is expected to continue,” Counterpoint said in a post Wednesday. The researcher tells us global PC shipments shrank 4% in the second quarter of 2026 as rising costs hit demand. The Mac maker, by contrast, moved in the opposite direction, generating 13% growth in the quarter — mainly on the back of the MacBook Neo introduction.
Recent IDC data gives Apple 10.1% year-over-year growth and just under 10% (9.9% to be exact) of the worldwide PC market, even as the overall market declined 4.9%.
“With emerging supply chain and tariff challenges inflating memory prices…, Apple’s incredibly aggressive price-point for the MacBook Neo makes its release feel all the more like a gut punch to one of the PC market’s most valuable price tiers,” Futurum Research Director Olivier Blanchard said when the Neo was released.
Neo 2.0 is already coming
In the immediate future, as competitors raise prices on the PCs that compete with Apple’s lower-cost device, Cupertino is already plotting the path toward MacBook Neo 2. Reports claim this will debut in March in new colors and use the A19 Pro chip from the iPhone 17 Pro, with performance boosted by slightly more unified memory (12GB, rather than 8GB). That’ll make it a much better Mac, likely with 10-15% performance gains and the ability to run Apple Intelligence, making it the best and most affordable AI PC in its class.
Just four months after the Neo’s rollout, Apple is already in position to leak rumors of an even more computationally capable follow-up, while competitors struggle to compete with the original on performance, build quality, and price. Still, the Neo might get more expensive, reporting warns, with the lowest-price 256GB model now gone, making the $599 Mac a mirage we can only wistfully hope to see again.
That might matter less in context, as PC makers everywhere boost prices while RAM, chips, and storage prices head north, along with transport, logistics, and energy costs. “While [Apple] did raise prices in line with the broader market, it still remains well positioned against rivals facing the same cost pressures,” said Jean Philippe Bouchard, vice president for consumer devices at IDC.
“As market conditions continue to worsen, the importance of supply chain management and capabilities are increasingly important,” Bouchard said. “The largest vendors, with their buying power and long-standing supplier ties, are best positioned to take share from smaller rivals.”
This was never about luck
This isn’t solely a market take about competition, it’s about planning.
Few in the industry seemed prepared for the massive memory price increases that hit this year. Apple clearly planned its low-cost Mac well before that happened, hoping to seize the PC market at the low-mid-range. This is precisely what it seems to have done, what it continues to do, and what it will continue to do.
The recent reports that it has a successor planned shows the breadth of the Mac company’s strategic vision, as Apple has quite clearly sought to fully exploit the failings of Windows and the internal contradictions of a value-conscious industry in stiff competition with itself.
With the first M-series Macs about to enter the replacement cycle, Apple has built a market it can capitalize on for at least a decade, meaning it already has a vision for PC sales that extends at least as far. That’s the kind of road map corporate purchasers want when they make platform deployment decisions, which is why Apple’s 10% share gains are the beginning of even more significant market change.
You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to my daily Apple-related news summaries at The Core.
Just in time for the iPhone’s 20th anniversary, Apple is moving closer to becoming a service company. It is set to launch its new deal with Klarna next week and when it does, Apple enthusiasts in the US will effectively be able to subscribe to their favorite Apple hardware, with the cost spread across up to three years.
This matters because when combined with Apple One and Apple’s Creator Studio subscriptions, the Klarna arrangement brings Apple closer to offering a full subscription model for hardware, software, and services. The only thing you don’t get under the new arrangement is AppleCare, for which you’ll allegedly need to pay extra.
Moving closer to hardware-as-a-service
Apple has slowly been transitioning toward hardware-as-a-service for almost a decade. Back then, Forrester analyst Frank Gillet predicted the company would eventually offer bundles of services and products for a monthly, all-in, fee.
This isn’t quite where we are yet; you still need at least three subscriptions to get close. But, after the better part of a decade, Apple has moved much nearer to the hardware-as-a-service idea.
There are some products reportedly excluded from the arrangement, including MacBook Neo, Apple Watch SE, the entry-level iPad, and iPhone 16. Clearly, Apple sees those products as sufficiently affordable.
Easy payments for RAM-ageddon
The new Klarna arrangement comes as Apple is forced to increase product prices as AI-driven memory price inflation becomes widely felt across every economy. In theory, I assume, Apple hopes to make its products available to cash-strapped consumers who need new hardware, while also navigating a time of deep economic tumult and uncertainty. It’s thought the company has previously rejected these plans to protect normal hardware sales, but normality is a kingdom we no longer seem to possess. Interesting times. Probable inflation incoming.
“Apple Upgrade lands at precisely the moment Apple needs it,” IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo wrote in a note seen by Computerworld. “Having just pushed Mac and iPad prices up on the back of the memory shortage, with iPhone increases widely expected in September — as well as the new iPhone foldable expected at $2,500 — Apple’s real risk is that rising prices even further can impact the upgrade cycle.”
New age, new shopping habits
The introduction of the scheme gives consumers a way to purchase the company’s popular high-end devices when they are introduced — no doubt,at higher cost — this fall. Plus, of course, if it’s good enough for GM, it’s good enough for Apple.
Reluctance to embrace “Access Not Ownership’”purchasing models has dropped dramatically since Apple — and CEO Tim Cook — first began banging the drum for services income. Apple’s services stream has now become its second-biggest revenue driver after the iPhone. It has over 1 billion paid subscriptions, and an active hardware installed base of more than 2.5 billion devices globally.
A combination of changed customer habits and external threat means the stars are now aligned for hardware-as-a-service models. “Reframing a device as a low monthly payment protects that [upgrade] cadence and allows Apple to start marketing their products as device-as-a-service to consumers, which no other vendor was ever able to do,” Jeronimo wrote to me.
There is a one-more-thing aspect to this: the products are effectively being leased, a new approach that will give Apple a stronger grip on EOL devices, helping it grab more of them for refurbishment, resale, and recycling. Over time, this will give the company a much stronger grip on the lucrative second-user market that exists around Apple equipment, even while for almost every consumer product we find the life we want is something we can rent, but probably can’t afford to own.
Managing future risk
The other solid reason to take a partnership approach is risk management. Apple had intended to develop its own buy-now, pay-later scheme via Apple Pay Later, but abandoned that plan as it became riskier with rising bank rates. “Also, by backing the program with Klarna rather than reviving the in-house subscription plan it shelved in 2024, Apple captures the demand upside without taking the credit risk onto its own balance sheet,” Jeronimo said.
As Apple gears up to anoint John Ternus the new company CEO in September (while current leader Tim Cook takes a seat on the board) the company appears to be firing on all cylinders ahead of the leadership transition.
What’s going well
Just look at the evidence:
Apple is building market share across its entire product range; even memory-driven price inflation doesn’t seem to have dampened demand for its hardware yet.
While Apple had to raise prices, the company’s MacBook Neo remains seriously popular. It’s sitting atop Amazon’s US best-selling chart, which currently includes six Macs in the top 10. The Neo has topped this chart since its introduction.
Apple’s iPhone 17 series continues to sell well, with recent market data showing sustained growth. Both Counterpoint and IDC tell us that iPhone shipments continue to increase, even as other vendor shipments slide.
IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo recently estimated that Apple’s upcoming foldable iPhone Ultra could grab 29.4% of global folding smartphone sales this year, rising to 34.9% in 2027.
The company’s new 27 series of operating systems is attracting a great response as beta testers report that it is already solid, stable, and performing well.
The AI narrative has really changed, with analysts no longer quite so starry-eyed at the prospects for the big frontier AI firms. Apple’s edge-AI-enabling approach is winning converts.
What’s coming up
The company’s newly-filed lawsuit against OpenAI may or may not succeed, but it will certainly help consolidate recognition of the importance of Apple’s designs and intellectual property in whatever hardware emerges from the AI firm. It also means both Apple and OpenAI are already competing in hardware, even though neither company yet offers anything that directly challenges the other.
Apple has just set out its stall to brand-loyal fans in a big way and did so before OpenAI gets to woo the same set of customers with a wriggle of its Jony Ive-tinged talisman.
The stage is set for intense competition between the two. Though some say Apple’s needs to improve employee retention, if it does find proof of efforts to use recruitment to engage in industrial espionage, it’ll be easier to represent its own products as being the OG for new hardware.
If nothing else, it means consumers will forever be asking, “If OpenAI’s designers are so good, why did it need to poach them from Apple?” Doubt is a weapon.
Managing perception
It doesn’t matter how the case goes, because there fight is already affecting consumer psychology. It also means that as Ternus prepares to take his seat atop the rainbow-colored Apple throne, we can already size him up. “A man is measured by his enemies,” Joe Abercrombie wrote in “The Trouble With Peace.”
Given the proximity of the leadership transition, it’s highly probable that Ternus signed-off on the litigation; in doing so he — and Apple — tell us to expect more of the same.
Apple has, rightly or wrongly, decided that OpenAI will become its new existential bugbear, following in the footsteps of Microsoft Windows, Real Networks, Adobe Flash, Android, and Samsung, all of whom have been useful foils against which Apple has been able to build and maintain its identity.
Looking at that list, you’d be tempted to believe that nothing much is new. Apple has often defined itself by the enemies it sometimes keeps. What has been will be again, which in this case means even as OpenAI attempts to carve out an identity as a hardware manufacturer delivering solutions to compete with Apple and Google, Ternus’ team’s looks to drive a consensus-shaped wedge into the pro-LLM propaganda.
That blow comes as Apple finally gets its act together around AI, and as the company prepares for a future in which the world’s most-used wearable device also becomes the wearable way to woo Siri AI.
My kingdom come
Rising market share, powerful solutions, an increasingly recognized and respected approach to AI, and an ideological crusade — these details constitute Apple’s place today and are Tim Cook’s coronation gift to Ternus. He’s passing along a strong and hyper-profitable baton that screams of timeliness and relevance even as the company gets set, ready, to go with a year or two of new product designs, new product families, and a 20thanniversary iPhone.
This is Apple’s party. OpenAI’s name didn’t make the list.
Looking ahead just a short time, Apple could hold a powerful position in AI where it most makes sense: deployment.
Not only will the company offer up its own AI models for the kind of tasks millions use ChatGPT to do today, but it will provide more sophisticated on-device agentic models to help users get things done through Siri AI.
Apple also offers limited capacity for more complex tasks through Private Cloud Compute, and, in partnership with the likes of Google in the US and Alibaba in China, the company is giving users a trusted conduit through which to access even more sophisticated AI services.
Apple is also coming up the inside lane around frontier AI, with iterative OS and hardware enhancements that mean its devices become increasingly effective for Edge AI use cases, on device — no cloud service required.
The company appears to be digging down into those use cases. Mark Gurman at Bloomberg recently predicted that future M7 Ultra Macs will support as much as 1.5TB RAM, making these systems more than capable of running full weight frontier models in people’s offices, colleges, and homes.
While that does assume the AI-flationary memory market can supply that much RAM at prices humans can afford, it is also true that people are already running AI clusters using off-the-shelf Mac minis networked over Thunderbolt cables. It’s no stretch to believe this will continue to be the case, and that it will even broaden as the power/performance offered at the high end grows.
What’s wrong with good enough?
When combined with open AI stacks, particularly newly emerging varieties, Apple’s platforms should become leading contenders for private AI services and edge AI. Many business users will leap at the chance to offer their workers powerful, self-hosted, private AI services using one or more daisy-chained Mac Studios or Mac minis. The recent craze in deployment of both Macs to support OpenClaw instances shows they already are.
Ultimately, these different slices of momentum mean I agree with investor Jason Calacanis that Apple is in position to apply a great deal of pressure on OpenAI and Claude just by putting models on their devices.
It’s also worth thinking about how people use AI today. How many of the queries made in the world right now constitute relatively simple tasks that could be transacted by on-device AI, such as the emerging new version of Apple Intelligence or even smaller LLM models running on device? You can even run PrismML’s 1-bit, 27-billion parameter Bonsai on an iPad using the Locally app, and that’s in the here and now.
What happens? Pretty soon you’ll find people recognize that they can already run the vast majority of their AI-augmented workflows using services they have on their existing device or can access on their on-prem Mac set-ups. And, of course, as people get used to running small tasks locally and larger tasks on premises, the actual space in which they need to turn to cloud-based frontier models will erode. That’s even as companies like PrismML work towards slimming down full-weight models so they don’t need to run on a server at all.
“It’s going to be wild when people have unlimited tokens on their desks,” said Calacanis in a podcast round table discussion.
Who has the most to lose?
The current incarnations of AI felt like they came from nowhere. Most people weren’t aware of the technology until returning to work after the 2022 holiday season. Since then, the industry has proliferated with dozens of competing models, most recently including powerful but affordable frontier models such as Qwen and Kimi.ai.
These models aren’t necessarily all as good as one another, but in many cases for much of what we do, we’ll find them to be good enough. That’s an existential crisis for some, as industry observers now think the inevitable pricing pressure means some services might have over-invested in capacity before finding any way to turn a profit.
Those profit-seeking services are the ones with the most to lose as Apple extends its hardware advantage, democratizing AI access for all while providing platforms suitable for edge AI, on-premises AI, private AI, and even AI access using third-party services. (The need for the latter will shrink as the capabilities of the former get better.)
Cupertino rising
What does this all mean? While the industry remains young, it is already fragmenting. And striding through the dust of that process comes Apple, equipped with the hardware, software, and approach to build its business even as the enterprise of first mover AI services erodes.
You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to my daily Apple-related news summaries at The Core.
Long before Taco Tuesday became part of the pop-culture vernacular, Tuesdays were synonymous with security — and for anyone in the tech world, they still are. Patch Tuesday, as you most likely know, refers to the day each month when Microsoft releases security updates and patches for its software products — everything from Windows to Office to SQL Server, developer tools to browsers.
The practice, which happens on the second Tuesday of the month, was initiated to streamline the patch distribution process and make it easier for users and IT system administrators to manage updates. Like tacos, Patch Tuesday is here to stay.
In a blog post celebrating the 20th anniversary of Patch Tuesday, the Microsoft Security Response Center wrote: “The concept of Patch Tuesday was conceived and implemented in 2003. Before this unified approach, our security updates were sporadic, posing significant challenges for IT professionals and organizations in deploying critical patches in a timely manner.”
Patch Tuesday will continue to be an “important part of our strategy to keep users secure,” Microsoft said, adding that it’s now an important part of the cybersecurity industry. As a case in point, Adobe, among others, follows a similar patch cadence.
Patch Tuesday coverage has also long been a staple of Computerworld’s commitment to provide critical information to the IT industry. That’s why we’ve gathered together this collection of recent patches, a rolling list we’ll keep updated each month.
In case you missed a recent Patch Tuesday announcement, here are the latest six months of updates.
July’s Patch Tuesday sees an end-of-support collision amidst a massive, record-setting patch wave
Microsoft addressed 722 CVEs this month once the 427 Chromium upstream relays are set aside — roughly three times a normal cycle and one of the largest single months in recent memory. Two vulnerabilities arrive under active exploitation: an elevation of privilege in Active Directory Federation Services (CVE-2026-56155), and an elevation of privilege in SharePoint Server (CVE-2026-56164). A third, a BitLocker security feature bypass (CVE-2026-50661) is publicly disclosed but not yet exploited.
The July 2026 Patch Tuesday earns Patch Now recommendations for Windows, Office, Exchange, and SQL Server. SharePoint has two critical RCEs on top of its exploited zero-day, and Exchange Server returns with a critical on-premises spoofing flaw. Adding to our (dear) administrator’s efforts, SharePoint Server 2016/2019 and SQL Server 2016 all reach end of support today. The Readiness team has provided a handy infographic of the expected risk profile of this month’s Patch Tuesday updates.
Microsoft this month released 206 updates affecting Windows, Office, Exchange Server, and its developer tools — including three Windows vulnerabilities already publicly disclosed. That trio includes an elevation of privilege in the Collaborative Translation Framework (CVE-2026-45586), a denial of service in HTTP.sys (CVE-2026-49160), and a BitLocker security feature bypass (CVE-2026-50507). At the moment, none appear to be under active exploitation, but all three are rated “Exploitation More Likely.”
Even without an exploited zero-day, the June 2026 Patch Tuesday release requires Patch Now recommendations for Windows, Office, and Exchange. The latter is back in the patch picture with a consolidated security update that Microsoft recommends installing “as soon as possible.”
For May, Patch Tuesday means 139 updates — but no zero-days
Microsoft this month released 139 updates affecting Windows, Office, .NET, and SQL Server (though there were no updates for Microsoft Exchange Server). Despite the absence of zero-days, the May Patch Tuesday update still requires Patch Now recommendations for Windows and Office.
The combination of three unauthenticated network RCEs (Netlogon, DNS Client, and SSO Plugin for Jira and Confluence), four Word Preview Pane RCEs, the large TCP/IP vulnerability cluster, and the carry-over BitLocker recovery condition (still active on Windows 10 and Windows Server) warrants an accelerated deployment release schedule.
Microsoft’s Patch Tuesday release for April is a whopper
Windows admins are going to be busy this month, dealing with the largest Patch Tuesday cycle in memory. The April release involves 165 updates and roughly 340 unique CVEs from Microsoft — including two zero-days, one of which is already being actively exploited in the wild.
The Readiness team recommends “Patch Now” schedules for nearly every major product family: Windows, Office (with a zero-day), Microsoft Edge (Chromium), SQL Server, and Microsoft Developer Tools (.NET). April also brings Phase 2 of Microsoft’s Kerberos RC4 hardening with full enforcement set for July. There is a lot to cover, so here’s a useful infographic mapping the deployment risk for each platform.
For March, Patch Tuesday delivers fixes for 83 vulnerabilities
Microsoft’s March Patch Tuesday release addresses 83 vulnerabilities across Windows, Office, SQL Server, Azure, and .NET — with two publicly disclosed zero-days affecting SQL Server and .NET (though neither is being actively exploited in the wild.) Six additional vulnerabilities spanning the Windows Kernel, Graphics Component, SMB Server, Accessibility Infrastructure, and Winlogon are flagged as “Exploitation More Likely.”
February’s Patch Tuesday release fixes 59 flaws, including 6 being exploited
The company’s Patch Tuesday release for February addresses 59 CVEs across the company’s product family — roughly half the volume of January’s 159 patches. Six vulnerabilities, affecting Windows Shell, MSHTML, Desktop Window Manager, Remote Desktop, Remote Access, and Microsoft Word, are already being actively exploited. (All five Critical-rated CVEs target Azureservices rather than Windows, however.)
Login
