I will sit right down (waiting for the gift of sound and vision)
And I will sing (waiting for the gift of sound and vision)

— David Bowie

Apple is planning to sponsor and present 14 AI research papers at the annual IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) in Denver next week, just days before it introduces major new AI features at its Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC).

The fresh research explores topics such as using LLMs in image generation, quality testing, and user interface prototyping. For months, supply chain rumors have hinted at a radical evolution for the ubiquitous AirPods in the form of built-in ambient cameras. With this in mind, it’s noteworthy that one of the research papers, “From Where Things Are to What They’re For: Benchmarking Spatial–Functional Intelligence for Multimodal LLMs,” specifically seems to cater for such use cases. 

Accessibility for the people

In application, this tech promises profound potential for accessibility. It suggests that someone with limited vision might be able to get their AirPods to guide them through an unfamiliar room. This is something that should fit well inside the company’s ongoing narrative around machine vision intelligence and accessibility. 

Accessibility is central to a second presentation to be made during the Generative AI for Sign Language Workshop at the conference. Led by Apple’s Colin Lea, who presented a session on speech tech for people with speech disabilities at a similar event, this focus on machine vision intelligence and accessibility is entirely deliberate. 

Indeed, even though the industry and critics condemn Apple for lagging behind others in the AI space, the publication of these 14 papers at a key industry session just before WWDC shows the company has been doing a great deal of foundational work behind the scenes. We expect this work to bear its first fruit at WWDC, and it is important to understand the disclosures as a power move. Apple is using the show to celebrate its strengths in AI development, and given its decade work on Apple Car, many of those strengths relate to machine vision intelligence. 

Apple is so advanced in the field it is already deploying advanced models that empower consumers. Just last week, it promised to introduce a new tool called Image Explorer in VoiceOver to help partially sighted customers later this year. Among many other features, this will arrive alongside a system to let disabled users control compatible wheelchairs with spoken word commands. 

Apple is pushing boundaries all the way. Its paper “VSAS-Bench: Real-Time Evaluation of Visual Streaming Assistant Models,” proves it is actively refining models to process live video instantly on consumer hardware. 

What matters, the human or the machine?

The difference between Apple and its competitors is deep and philosophical. I’d argue that while others build cloud-dependent chatbots, Apple is embedding AI tools that solve real human problems in its systems. 

This extends to its plans at WWDC, where it will introduce a raft of AI tools made with help from Google Gemini and a host of AI services it has developed in house. The latter will include a great many accessibility tools of the type it will discuss at the CVPR event, the beauty of which being that they will run privately and on-device. You could argue that while other tech giants are using AI to automate white-collar jobs or build a surveillance dystopia, Apple is searching for applications of machine intelligence that solve real human problems. 

The company seems pretty realistic about the ongoing AI transformation. It recognizes that its own ecosystem must become a peer player in the emerging AI-augmented environment the tech industry seems intent on building. 

With that in mind, Apple is willing to engage in strategic, mutually beneficial partnerships, such as permitting Siri to use third-party AI services to handle requests. But even as it does that, it is also focusing on those areas in which it can make a unique difference, such as the accessibility features Apple as a platform has always provided.

Open up

As the Vision Pro demonstrated, and as these mythical video-enabled AirPods will in the future suggest, computers are steadily getting smarter. So, the way we use them is also changing as we move away from the rigid boundaries of keyboards, mice, and touchscreens. Apple’s quest for ambient computing began long before the sudden gold rush for generative AI chatbots. 

In the end, as the latter services become commodified, the way humans interact with them will define the next generation of hardware. That’s exciting for Apple, given that product design is where it excels. The era of sound and vision may finally have arrived.

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

Apple publishes its App Store fraud prevention report every year,. And when it does, the company presses the point that its curated system brings much value to developers and customers, including highly effective protection against fraud. It says it prevented more than $2.2 billion in potentially fraudulent transactions in 2025 alone.

A tax worth paying

The company said it has prevented $11.2 billion in such fraud in the last six years. That’s a lot of value for the 15% or lower commission that all but the biggest-selling developers are required to pay on their store sales.

Don’t believe the hype, as most developers are not generating the $1 million a year required before the 30% payment kicks in.

You might reflect that if there is an Apple Tax, it’s a progressive tax in which those with the broadest shoulders help support the wider developer community, which is probably why some tech billionaires don’t like it. 

But I’m not here to write about taxation; I’m here to highlight the value the App Store brings. Apple diligently works to protect customers and developers against the ever-growing threat of cybercrime at a scale few other companies could hope to match. That matters in an environment dominated by ever more sophisticated attacks, including scenarios in which a developer submits a benign app for review and then modifies it once the app is online to commit financial fraud.

More than fraud prevention

It’s not just fraud Apple protects App Store customers from. It also attempts to protect privacy. Look, we know that tech firms now exist for whom privacy is a roadblock to profit; they want to take all your information for free to sell it for money, or worse. Apple stands against this and has done so for years, which is why it is under steady attack by entities that want privacy destroyed to boost their bottom line. Nation states and nation-state-adjacent attacks don’t help in the battle for your private digital life, throwing huge resources at undermining personal protections.

Apple’s report gives you a solid glimpse at the anti-privacy environment. App Store rejected 443,000 app submissions for privacy violations; it also rejected 22,000 apps for holding undocumented anti-privacy features. 

The upshot is that while Apple’s protections aren’t 100% perfect, they’re still industry leading. Where incidents do take place, they are resolved swiftly, and the bait-and-switch approach (in which an app pretends to be benign but carries malware) remains the biggest threat. That’s why customers should always verify they trust a developer before downloading apps.

The threats coming over the hill

The thing is, all of these threats are evolving, and Apple is equipped to evolve in parallel with them. In part, that’s because it has scale, in part because it has that huge 2.2-billion-device ecosystem, in part because the company entered the app store race with deep understanding of how online transactions were evolving in the first place. It didn’t run iTunes for years only to learn nothing.

Coming up over the hill we can see new-breed quantum-based threats. Along with artificial intelligence, that combination will likely spawn a mass attack of AI-generated, malware-infested apps being built and submitted at a record pace. 

We will also likely see increased attacks made against developers in order to extract their Developer ID to help in the submission of such apps. And we will see increasingly sophisticated algorithmic hacks to attack security, identity, and even app ownership. Protecting against those consequential evolutions will be neither easy nor cheap. Doing so will require near state-level protection, a degree of security no small entity can meet. We have no idea if smaller app stores can even visualize such protection — and the EU doesn’t know, either.

In time, hopefully, new businesses will emerge offering quantum-safe security to protect online purchases. But for now, we’ll mostly need to look to large entities such as Apple, or payment services providers, to make the grade. 

Near state-level protection

Will Apple put protection at scale in place to protect against these incoming threats against its App Store? It seems likely, given it is already investing in OS-level mitigations to protect encryption on its services, including around encrypted communications. 

It is also in Apple’s interest to future-proof protection around payment services, ergo also the App Store. At the same time, as Apple’s latest fraud report confirms, the threat landscape remains highly volatile. Time will show that the store’s degree of protection is well worth the cost of Apple’s progressive App Store tax. 

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

Apple has spent billions of dollars to develop satellite connectivity for iPhone; I very much doubt it did so solely to rescue stranded hikers. The company will most certainly have had a bigger prize in its sights when it first began working with GlobalStar (now owned by Amazon).

The most logical reason to invest in satellite coverage for its devices is the most obvious — to provide network infrastructure for new breeds of device and new service models. You don’t acquire access to massive amounts of bandwidth for nothing. And Apple’s steady introduction of new satellite-supported services shows it is interested in introducing these services, even though the offer isn’t extensive enough yet to require iPhone users to pay for access, yet.

The decision not to charge for those satellite services suggests they’re just the thin end of the company’s plans for satellite deployment.

It’s possible the company’s ambitions were limited by GlobalStar’s ability to put satellite constellations in orbit. That work was ongoing last time I looked, and I fully expect existing Apple satellite services will be extended to new nations, even under Amazon’s watch.

Amazon enters the room

Amazon’s recent $11.6 billion acquisition of GlobalStar is interesting. You can see that Apple is now forced to work with its old frenemy, even as both partners already profit from strong, steady Apple hardware sales via the online retailer. So they know they can make money together.

“Apple and Amazon have a long and proven track record of working together through Amazon’s core infrastructure services, and we look forward to building on that collaboration with Amazon Leo,” Greg Joswiak, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said when the deal was announced. (The transaction isn’t expected to close until next year.)

Making money together is often seen as a strength in business relationships and Amazon has agreed to continue supporting Apple products and to collaborate with Apple on future satellite services.

When it comes to mobile telecoms, Amazon isn’t the only game in town, and neither is Starlink. Cellular operators are inking deals with satellite providers all over the world, all with the intention of bringing network access to those who otherwise can’t get a decent connection.

Just today in the UK, Virgin Media O2 announced plans to switch on the O2 Satellite service for iPhone users tomorrow, enabling customers — particularly in rural areas — to get a satellite connection where traditional cellular coverage is unavailable. It could simply identify new ways to enhance the Find My service.

Orange last year offered its own satellite comms to French customers, while Deutsche Telekom partners with others to provide SMS via satellite in Europe and the US. You’ll find similar alliances in most key territories, including Australia and Japan. The direction of travel exposes an industry embracing satellite as a way to widen existing cellular infrastructure, which makes sense given the relative cost of installing conventional masts in some regions. 

Many ways to crack it

There’s speculation Apple could become a satellite carrier, a move that would put it in competition with carrier partners. But Apple doesn’t need to do to provide satellite communication services to iPhone users, nor would it want to relinquish the symbiotically profitable relationships it’s developed with carriers.

It could, for example provide satellite calling as a hardware feature available with every iPhone across all supported carriers, possibly as an additional service that guarantees customers can get a connection, even in the countryside. It could evangelize the service as being “Private by Design,” and supplement this with data over satellite to support apps, particularly agentic AI apps. 

Combined with the next wave of AI enhancements Apple is expected to deliver for its systems, the combination of an always-on, resilient, private data connection and AI could prove invaluable to many customers. That’s particularly true for enterprise customers seeking global solutions that respect sovereign data, privacy, data retention policy and managed AI services – especially as terrestrial infrastructure becomes an attack target. Such scenarios will only become more widely understood as 6G emerges, with its built-in support for satellite infrastructure.

What will Apple do?

Will Apple move in that direction, or maintain its focus on the consumer markets? Will it decide that rather than deploying its own part-owned satellite constellations as it was with GlobalStar, it is better to work with carrier partners? Will it wait for 6G with its enhanced, standards-based support for satellite communications? 

Those are answers we don’t yet have. But it is quite clear that as satellite communications truly enter the mass market, Apple has put together many of the technical, hardware, software and infrastructure pieces it will need to ensure the iPhone is a peer player in whatever use cases emerge. 

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

If ever there were a lawsuit in which a jury and judge should have ruled against both the accuser and the defendants, Elon Musk’s suit against OpenAI and Microsoft was it. 

The high-profile legal battle pitted the world’s richest man against a company worth more than $3 trillion, another that might soon launch a $1 trillion IPO, and tech execs claiming to have only the good of the world in mind, not mere filthy lucre, while they develop a technology some fear could eventually destroy humankind.

The lawsuit was eventually thrown out, but only on technical grounds. Meanwhile, unregulated AI marches on, with Musk, OpenAI and Microsoft all getting richer.

The only winner in this suit was hypocrisy. Here’s why.

Back to the beginning

To understand how this unfolded, we need to go back to OpenAI’s beginnings. The company was founded by current CEO Sam Altman, Musk and others in 2015 — back when AI was a niche technology, used primarily for image and speech recognition, robotics, and experiments in self-driving cars.

The founders funded OpenAI out of their own pockets as a nonprofit company aimed at developing AI for the good of the world. Then, as the technology evolved, Altman, Musk and others grew worried it might become so powerful that, without serious guardrails, it could pose a danger to humans. They feared what might happen if AI reached the level of a super-powerful artificial general intelligence (AGI) system, superior to humans on a variety of tasks, with general problem-solving skills rather than narrowly targeted ones – and the ability to think for itself rather than heeding humans. 

In an earlier version of Musk’s suit against OpenAI and Microsoft, Musk put their fears this way: “A.G.I. poses a grave threat to humanity — perhaps the greatest existential threat we have today.”

Early on, OpenAI wasn’t on many people’s radar. When Microsoft invested $1 billion in the company in 2019, few outside the tech industry took notice. Between 2021 and 2023 Microsoft invested $2 billion more, still without drawing a lot of attention.

Then in November 2022, OpenAI released ChatGPT, launching the generative AI (genAI) revolution — and all the disruption that has followed since. Eventually, as it became clear how important and valuable genAI technology would become, Microsoft’s investment ballooned to $13 billion.

Nonprofit no more

OpenAI insiders were convinced several years before ChatGPT’s release that the company could become tremendously profitable. With potentially trillions of dollars at stake, in 2017 they started looking for a way to turn the nonprofit operation into a for-profit company.

It was at that point, OpenAI says, that Musk pushed to gain majority equity in the company if it went public, take control of the board, and become CEO. When the other founders balked, Musk withheld funding.

Last year, OpenAI released copies of emails he sent to it during the height of their in-fighting. In one, in February 2018, he lobbied for the creation of a for-profit arm, pointing out that, “a for-profit pivot might create a more sustainable revenue stream over time and would, with the current team, likely bring in a lot of investment.” 

Musk then suggested that OpenAI “attach to Tesla as its cash cow.” When the other founders dismissed the idea, Musk threw a fit and quit the company. OpenAI went ahead and launched a for-profit arm, becoming a hybrid of a for-profit and nonprofit company in 2019.

Years later, in 2024, Musk filed suit, targeting OpenAI, Altman, OpenAI co-founder and president Greg Brockman, and Microsoft — accusing them of “stealing a charity” by creating the for-profit arm of OpenAI, and taking the $13 billion Microsoft investment. He claimed they had all illegally enriched themselves through the profit/nonprofit setup and sought $150 billion in damages. (OpenAI fired back last year with a counter suit.)

It took only two hours for the jury to rule against Musk, though the ruling didn’t address his actual claims. Rather, the suit was thrown out because it had been filed after the statute of limitations had run out.

Cynicism and hypocrisy win out

Everyone in this case was driven by venality. Altman portrayed himself as only wanting to develop AI to help humanity — and as evidence, pointed out he has no equity in OpenAI. What he neglected to add, though, is that he has more than a $2 billion stake in companies that have deals with OpenAI, and stands to gain billions more if those deals grow after any IPO.

Microsoft, meanwhile, has used its investments in OpenAI to become a multi-trillion-dollar company. And if, as expected, OpenAI becomes a trillion-dollar company when it files its IPO later this year, Microsoft’s 27% ownership stake in the company would make it $270 million richer. That’s not a bad payoff for turning a blind eye to the way in which OpenAI performed a bait-and-switch from nonprofit to for-profit company. 

As for Musk…, well, what can you say about someone who claims he wants to save humankind from the evils of AI, while at the same time lobbying for OpenAI to become a for-profit company and milking it like a cash cow? 

He’s shown he’s not only the world’s wealthiest man. He’s also the world’s most hypocritical.