Apple isn’t being picked on by regulators. It’s practically inviting scrutiny. In trying to protect its moat, it may be digging a reputational trench. Here’s how it got here—and what it must change.
After 100s of articles and years of analysis to Apple 3.0, long-form gratis, I’ve been formally disinvited — not for rudeness or inaccuracy, but for “getting a free ride.” My screenshotted CMS-value? $0. So Tommo moves permanently to .fyi now. No paywall, no tribes. Just high-signal writing, for $0.
Apple’s Q3: solid on paper until scrutinised. iPhone strength? US tariff and China subsidy-fueled, and Services grew but without acceleration thanks to financial services. No new growth engine. Just some existing lines doing their job. Except iPads wearables: pigs, with no lipstick. Here’s why.
It’s summer 2025, and the AI panic chorus is back on cue decrying data centres as the new tulip mania and CapEx as collective delusion. Michael Roberts leads the charge, warning of bubbles, GPU overload, and investor madness. But maybe the pipes being laid aren’t the problem but the point?
Apple’s AI journey reads less like a roadmap and more like a séance. For 15 years, the faithful have insisted a grand plan exists—somewhere, someday—while Siri stumbles on, lobotomised. The real mystery? Why Apple, once the master of interface revolutions, keeps mistaking silence for strategy.