Chris De Armond on Saturday Apple video: Susan Kare biography - 'I enjoyed the fleshing out of her background and career after having been introduced to her and her work in David Pogue’s book APPLE. I recommend the book and the time to view this article. I’ve also had the same thought about scrolling the length of previous posts.'
on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'Yes, Michael. She is an ‘iPhone counter’. She has actually said that Apple is essentially an iPhone company. And went further predicting that cloud-based AI, both agentic/inference and frontier/foundation, will obviate the need for Apple’s powerful, easy-to-use devices. That’s why she sees the “existential” bet. In AI terms, it’s hallucination.'
on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'She’s building her case for OpenAI to buy Apple in 5 years time.'
on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'To the list starting with Rod Hall, Tony S., Pierre Ferragu, you can now include Laura Martin. She probably still counts iPhones as part of her scintillating analytical research. All Lemmings walking off the cliff just as Apple portrayed in one of their many earlier commercials. They all went the way of the buffalo.'
on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'She put a hold on Apple last June when it was $201. Enough said about her accuracy.'
on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'Apple won’t need to develop its own LLM AI, not in the sense of what we think of “develop” anyway. LLM AI, as a sector, will have devolved into a commodity. In a few years there will a flood of startups that couldn’t make scale, but were very good at what they did, and being auctioned off. As is Apple’s strength it will acquire 2 or more of these also rans polish them up with Apple’s vision and reintroduce them as Apple’s version.'
on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'I like Philip’s take. “My take: Martin has been wrong on Apple for years, and yet somehow she survives.” She has been one of my contra indicators of the analyst crowd. Why she survives is a mystery.'
on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'She’s f’in wrong. First off, I am using the Public Beta on my iPad and the new Siri is a revelation. I keep finding amazing ways she can tap into my files, messages, and find and organize things for me. Whether it’s on device or in cloud, that’s what I’m looking for. And now Apple is delivering. And that’s what consumers are going to want. If Apple is delivering that at a fraction of the CapEx, and protecting my privacy, it sounds like a home run.'
on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'Laura, Laura, Laura: Maybe it’s the others who actually ARE betting the farm that they DO need their own AI models. The croupier is standing by to rake up their “chips”.'
on The day PC Magazine fired John Dvorak - 'And let’s not forget to add Rob Enderle to the Apple Hall of Shame.'
on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'Oh…and how ironic! She downgraded AAPL…for THIS!?! And now she’s pissed they’re not spending enough?? “April 2024 – June 2025: Noted anemic growth and heavy Generative AI spending headwinds, culminating in a downgrade from Buy to Hold in June 2025.”'
on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'Let’s add this to the long list of “Reasons Apple is Doomed”…'
on Apple's tiny capex gives it big Street cred - 'Hi, John. I prefer the gold mining analogy. IMO, AI isn’t the gold, it’s just another tool to mine for gold. Apple’s going to put that tool in the hands of more users, and take its cut in the process, like every shopkeeper ever, and every gold rush ever. Also, Apple’s going to help protect you from those who are perfectly willing to steal your gold from you, and laugh all the way to the bank. What’s that worth?'
on The day PC Magazine fired John Dvorak - '“ MACUSER Magazine” Boy does that bring back memories. And great memories at that.'
on Apple's tiny capex gives it big Street cred - 'Apple’s business model is much different than the business models of the hyperscalers. While Apple isn’t deploying hundreds of billions of dollars to build out its AI infrastructure, in FY2025 the company spent nearly $200 billion on the costs of the hardware products its sold to consumers. The hyperscalers will deliver AI services at much higher gross margins than the gross margins Apple generates on the products it sells. In other words, there’s no free ride and there’s no “free lunch” so-to-speak. An advantage Apple has in making its investment case with analysts is the company knows what it will likely pay to manufacture each product sold and has publicly announced price changes already. The hyperscalers have no way to accurately forecast what their respective capex deployments will be over the next few years or when when revenue will ramp commensurate with the huge capex spend. Additionally, each of the hyperscalers are apt to experience different levels of revenue and revenue growth success. At this time Apple doesn’t have a similar enterprise on the planet for close comparisons and certainly not among the other so-called Mag 7 stocks.'
on Apple's tiny capex gives it big Street cred - 'I like the analogy the other day to Standard Oil. They let others take risks discovering the oil then made money distributing it. The other analogy is to the gold rush. Those who made money were mostly those selling supplies, not those digging for gold.'
