Technology companies announced 38,242 job cuts in the US in May 2026, the highest monthly total for the sector since August 2024, according to research by employment placement company Challenger, Gray & Christmas. So far this year the company has observed 123,653 US technology job cuts, a rise of 66 percent from the same period in 2025.

These figures represent the third successive month that there has been an increase in job layoffs across all sectors, the company said.

“The labor market is being reshaped by technology in real time. AI is now the leading reason companies give for cutting jobs and the primary industry citing it is technology,” said Andy Challenger, chief revenue office at Challenger, Gray and Christmas.”

AI was blamed for 38,579 of the 97,006 job cuts announced across all industries tracked by the company. It accounted for 40% of the cuts observed in May, up from 7% in January.

This year has already seen some major layoffs in technology. In March, HPE slashed 2,500 jobs from its wage bill, while Oracle announced plans to shed an unspecified number of developers. And the cuts keep on coming, just last month, Meta shed 8,000 employees.

As we lean into WWDC, three strategically brilliant Apple moves have been exposed in the last couple of weeks, two of which will have immense consequences in the coming year, while one sets the scene for essential future growth.

In each case, Apple’s leadership has found counter-intuitive gambits that actually secure the company’s future. Let’s start with Vision Pro.

It came from the future

News this week is that incoming CEO John Ternus has made some tough decisions around Apple’s approach to spatial computing, terminating development of Vision Pro (even as leaked images of a black model emerge) while focusing R&D on two smart glasses projects to compete with Meta. 

The intention is to introduce XR and AR glasses priced at around $300 to $500 each. While not as richly-featured as the Vision Pro, they will be within the reach of more people and draw deeply on the huge R&D effort that went into the original Apple AR visors. Apple hopes a focus on trust and privacy will be enough to push Meta aside, helping Cupertino dominate this part of the category. If that plan succeeds, don’t be at all surprised to see plans for Vision Pro 2 return to the table, though that’s not the focus now.

Apple frequently described the Vision Pro as a product “pulled from the future,” a device for enterprise users and early adopters. For many such users, the existing product will be useful in their work for time to come. 

What’s strategically solid about this is that Apple has now defined a good future for spatial computing and is bringing components of that future to the mass market on the basis of a provable technology you can already try for yourself in any Apple Store. This is a long game, and while it will take time to play out, it’s a game the company has proved it can join.

Privacy as a standard

Apple has apparently chosen to use Nvidia and Google technologies to support at least some of the Apple Intelligence/Siri improvements to be announced at WWDC next week. This seems to fly against the company’s general approach to privacy on its platforms, with the silicon, operating system and — thanks to Private Cloud Compute — the cloud all in its control.

How, you might ask, can Apple ensure privacy when using third-party infrastructure to manage some AI transactions? How can it do so without damaging its trusted brand?

One direction that makes sense is to consider that Apple and its partners have reached consensus on what privacy should be and how it should be delivered. That’s a very important consensus, as it suggests Apple is building an approach that makes privacy an attestable standard.

The company has been pushing governments for years to agree to such standards, but all it seems to have had in return are continued government attempts to erode personal privacy. That’s particularly evident in the UK government’s egregious move to undermine encryption to the detriment of all. (The UK isn’t really alone in preferring surveillance above liberty.)

Android developer Google has had the same experience, and while its approach to privacy differs from Apple, both companies understand the need for encryption. As such, any form of consensus on some form of privacy standards is welcome — and while I’d very much prefer an enforceable, verifiable approach, some industry agreement has to be better than nothing at all. 

While I don’t believe Apple’s approach to privacy in the new breed Siri/Apple Intelligence will be introduced in this way at WWDC, it will be interesting to see what does emerge from the new tech triptych (Apple, Google, Nvidia) in the coming months. Certainly, all three have a great interest in guarding encryption against Quantum attacks for which hidden backdoors would be easy pickings.

Winning the PC War

Apple has won the PC war.

• MacBook Neo is selling in such vast quantities; IDC had to boost its laptop market growth forecast even while predicting a huge Windows PC sales decline. 
• Competitors are churning out products they’re marketing as MacBook Neo competitors, even though many reviewers note higher prices and lower build quality.
• Rapid component price increases, particularly around memory, are prompting some Neo competitors to come with just 8GB of RAM.  

That last point needs explanation: Apple’s entry-level MacBook Neo also has just 8GB RAM, but it also has custom-designed Apple processors and an operating system optimized to run on the hardware. That means those Macs use memory far more efficiently than their competitors. 

So, you can pick up some mass market Windows laptops for $800 that hold just 8GB memory, or spend $699 for a MacBook Neo with double amount and that can also run Windows in VM extremely well. 

Component prices are not going to shrink back for a while, any more than further magical thinking is going to end the war in Iran. At this point in the cycle, Apple has the PC market advantage. Millions are purchasing its entry-level Mac and the vast majority of those new users will love the platform, as new users usually do. That’s going to lead to a spike in Apple services sign-ups, and prompt solid future upgrade and accessory sales cycles.

Apple accomplished this by selling a low-cost Mac at a time when competitors face existential problems maintaining their grip on the mid-range market. The longer Apple holds prices on the device, the greater the advantage it builds, while applying huge pressure on PC competitors.

Summing up the goods

With the Mac hitting its iPod moment as it achieves mass market sales, Apple finally seeing something like progress in its attempt to secure privacy in a digital age, and a strong position from which to grow in the wearables market, the company has played a fine hand. 

That’s even before it introduces us to its improved Apple Intelligence, and an era of AI access in which many everyday tasks take place token free directly on the device. Indeed, when it comes to AI, if it gets things right at WWDC, Apple appears to be making money, while AI competitors are bleeding financial oxygen as their inflated bubble heads to its inevitable demise. What about the enterprise? Take a look at this chart.

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

Forget “Florida Man.” Want to hear a California Man story? 

Here goes. 

A California man rolled up to a yoga studio in San Francisco’s Marina District in a self-driving Waymo car, walked into the studio, grabbed an armful of yoga shorts, got back in the Waymo and took off. 

Six months later, police still haven’t found him, according to a story this week in The San Francisco Chronicle. Since the rider’s credit card information didn’t lead to an arrest, we can assume the perp used a stolen phone’s Waymo account and financial information to hail the ride. And by the time police requested interior video of the man’s face, Waymo had already deleted it. 

This is a “California Man” story in part because of the association of Waymo with the city of San Francisco. Soon that association will be obsolete. (In fact, while Waymo is headquartered in San Francisco and is more visible there, Arizona got Waymos two years before San Francisco did.) 

At the moment, Waymos are publicly available to riders in 11 US cities — San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Austin, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Nashville.

Before long, riders will be able to enjoy robot car rides from Waymo in Las Vegas, San Diego, Washington DC, Denver, Detroit, Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa, London, and Tokyo.

Historically, Waymo has been taking a bath on rides. 

(I’m not talking about recent stories where Waymo cars have driven onto flooded roads. On May 12, Waymo issued a voluntary recall of 3,791 cars after a software defect allowed an autonomous vehicle in April to drive into a flooded, impassable roadway in San Antonio and be swept into a creek. A week after the recall, the company paused all freeway rides and suspended service in Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Nashville because of construction-zone navigation issues.)

To date, self-driving ride-hailing services like Waymo are a loss-leader business. Waymo is secretive about its costs, but independent estimates suggest that a $20 ride for the rider may be a $50-$100 ride for Waymo, when you factor in all costs. 

But help is on the way. 

Cars that drive themselves don’t pay for themselves

A big part of why Waymo rides have been so costly is that the car is a retrofitted Jaguar I-PACE. It’s true that Waymo got a deal on the roughly $70,000 car (a steal at $50,000 per vehicle because the company bought thousands of them). 

But then Waymo had to bolt on all kinds of costly sensors and electronics to make them self-driving, including a roof-mounted lidar assembly of five units, 29 cameras all around the car, six radar units, a custom Waymo-designed AI inference compute platform, and the wiring harness and power distribution system. 

Estimates for the total cost per car for Waymo are in the $120,000 to $200,000 range. 

Another problem is that the Jaguar I-PACE is notorious for a lack of reliability, especially involving its batteries and its longevity. Jaguar stopped making I-PACE cars two years ago. 

Finally, Waymo can’t do what regular car owners do and sell the car to recover some of the initial investment. Nobody wants an electric car with a depleted battery covered in electronics and sensors that can’t be used. 

The good news is that we learned this week that used Waymo batteries will be repurposed as backup storage for power grids in California and Texas. 

Say “Oh, Hi!” to the Ojai

The combination of growth and the end of manufacturing for the Jaguar I-PACE means that Waymo’s next platform is right on time. The car is called the Ojai, named after the unaffordable artsy hippie mecca located 80 miles northwest of Los Angeles. 

Waymo announced last week that the company will soon open Ojai cars to free rides for select riders in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. (See this Redditor’s drone photos  of the current fleet of Ojai cars in Mesa, AZ.)

The Ojai is a purpose-built electric minivan made by Zeekr, an arm of China-based Geely Automobile Holdings. It’s got doors that slide open like an elevator door, more legroom than the I-PACE, three screens for passengers, Braille instructions, grab bars, a flat floor with low-step height for easier entry, charge ports, cupholders, more cargo space, better batteries, faster EV charging, and easier cleaning and maintenance than the I-PACE cars. 

It’s much cheaper for Waymo to buy — and much cheaper and faster to integrate Waymo electronics. 

The Ojai gets Waymo’s sixth-generation Driver as a factory-co-engineered system with just 23 sensors (13 cameras, four lidar, six radar). While that’s far fewer sensors, they’re much more capable than the older generations of Waymo systems. One of my favorite details of the Ojai sensor package is that each car will have 10 sensor wipers with heaters and fluid sprayers specifically designed for snow, rain, and adverse weather. They’re like tiny, high-tech windshield wipers, but for the glass in front of the sensors. Ojai cars will likely do far better in rain and snow conditions. 

Weirdly, the Ojai still has needless controls, like a steering wheel and gas and brake pedals. And the only reason for those is that the US Congress is asleep at the wheel. US. federal motor vehicle safety standards require steering wheels and pedals for street-legal vehicles, and neither NHTSA nor Congress has granted a permanent exemption for purpose-built driverless vehicles. 

Despite the vestigial controls, the difference between the two cars is that the Jaguar was an old-school car designed for drivers, while the Ojai is the new concept for cars, one built for riders. And for riders, the Ojai is better in every way that matters. 

The Chinese factor

There’s only one factor keeping Ojai cars from replacing the full Jaguar I-PACE: They’re  made in China. 

Waymo is getting around the 100% tariff imposed by the Trump Administration by “location-laundering” the build. Zeekr completes the Ojai shells in Gothenburg, Sweden, and because the “substantial transformation” occurs within the EU, the vehicles are classified as EU-origin products. The stripped-down gliders arrive with no modems, ECUs, or autonomy software, and Waymo installs all connected technology at its Mesa facility, which satisfies the Commerce Department’s 2027 and 2030 rules prohibiting Chinese-linked vehicle electronics. 

Some lawmakers are using Waymo as a case study for general anxieties about Chinese technology infiltration into American infrastructure. The other problem is protectionism. If un-tariffed Chinese cars were allowed into the US market, the US car industry would likely be decimated by the competition. Chinese carmakers like BYD enjoy a 25% material cost advantage over Western carmakers. They would enter $5,000 to $10,000 cheaper than comparable U.S. offerings, according to some estimates. 

So, Washington is jittery about Chinese-made cars. 

I drove a BYD rental car in the UK last month. And I can tell you, they’re great cars and very enjoyable to drive. (My only complaint was that the steering wheel was on the wrong side.)

Instead of Waymo taking a risky bet on Ojai cars, they’re instead expanding with Hyundai Ioniq 5 EVs, which are produced locally and will be retrofitted with Waymo’s sixth-generation Driver at that Mesa facility. This is a massive deal in which Hyundai will supply Waymo with 50,000 cars by 2028. 

Waymo hasn’t disclosed plans for Ojai cars, but it’s unlikely to even come close to the number of Hyundai cars it is on the hook for. 

(The company also has around 100 Zeekr cars, but plans to expand that fleet to a few thousand.)

The right solution for Waymo’s next few years would be all Ojai cars with no steering wheel or pedals. The Ojai is purpose-built for autonomous car ride sharing, affordable, and capable in all weather. But that’s not going to happen because of Congressional inaction, China panic, and protectionism in Washington. 

Instead, Waymo’s future is to use too many cars from the past, by which I mean much or most of its fleet will be driverless cars retrofitted from cars that prioritize the driver, rather than the passengers. And reports suggest that the price of Hyundai cars will be comparable to the overpriced Jaguars. 

I’m sure the Hyundai Ioniq 5 will be nice. But an all-Ojai fleet would have been the better future for Waymo. Instead of the right car for the job, Waymo is stuck with an expensive, less comfortable, less capable car than the Ojai. 

The age-old IT defense when compliance violations are investigated by regulators is to try and keep a low profile — and hope no one looks too closely. But with enhanced SEC interest in all data breaches encouraging regulators around the globe to take those closer looks at IT, data breach disclosure rules are becoming more strict.

While that might be unsettling for cybersecurity executives, it is also disturbing news for IT admins, who could find themselves under a remarkably uncomfortable spotlight. 

Consider this recent move by the New York State Department of Financial Services against the Delta Dental Insurance Company. State officials hit the insurance company for improper and inconsistent enforcement of its own data retention policies; improper incident response plan protocols; and improper notification of the security incident itself. 

The company was fined more than $2 million.

The data retention violations are perhaps the most problematic. Had that policy been enforced properly, much of the stolen data would have been destroyed long before the attackers could have accessed it. 

It’s not simply a matter of whether the IT rules for retention were sufficiently strict. Some regulators — and especially the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — focus extensively on companies who don’t do what they say publicly. If a corporate website promises something to customers, the FTC will hold companies to their word. 

Think about that the next time you assign a summer intern to handle your website’s copy. 

Inconsistent implementation of data retention policies can deliver other legal headaches. Having a good policy approved by the general counsel is fine, but it means nothing if all of your people do not follow it strictly. 

Let’s say one of your business units is being sued for having done something naughty. Opposing counsel subpoenas your business records, including emails from a few years ago. Your attorney responds that those email records no longer exist; they were deleted last year in accordance with corporate policy on data retention that says everything of a certain nature has to be deleted after one year. 

Fair enough. But what if opposing counsel in a deposition asks,“Really? Does that policy apply to all records of that nature?” You say that it does. 

“It might interest you to know that we have sworn testimony from four other employees who showed us emails of the same nature that were more than five years old. So why did you adhere to your policy regarding emails that might prove the fraud but somehow you did not delete others? Sounds a little selective, no? I think the judge would agree.”

In the dental case, the company had a strict policy on retention rules. But corporate software was programmed with “the ability to shorten, extend, or disable MOVEit Transfer’s default retention settings on a folder-by-folder or file-by-file basis.” 

The regulators then swooped in because the insurance company “had no written policy or procedure for requesting, reviewing, or approving such changes to folder retention settings.”

The best retention policy would, in theory, have no exemptions. But if you’re going to allow exemptions, you need a precise policy documenting how and when they can occur. There should be a required form so that a manager can write out the reasons for this specific exemption.

The New York state document is an important one to carefully review; it provides an excellent roadmap to how compliance can go wrong — and useful information on how to keep something similar from  happening to your company.