Apple’s Stealthy AI Revolution: Millions Invested Daily in Game-Changing Tech

Apple, a tech giant known for its secretive approach, is making substantial investments in the development of artificial intelligence (AI), a field that has become a focal point for the tech industry. Despite Apple’s outward restraint in hyping AI, it is actively participating in what has been dubbed the “AI arms race,” allocating a significant portion of its computing budget, reportedly “millions of dollars a day,” to AI endeavors.

While Apple has traditionally kept its AI efforts relatively low-key, recent revelations shed light on its ambitious projects. In July, Bloomberg reported the existence of “Apple GPT,” Apple’s large language model (LLM), which was initially for internal use. This LLM, known as Ajax, was mentioned as a potential asset for Apple Care customer support. Impressively, Apple expressed confidence that its Ajax GPT outperformed OpenAI’s ChatGPT-3.5.

As the pieces of Apple’s generative AI puzzle come together, it’s apparent that multiple teams within the company are dedicated to AI development. One notable entity is the “Foundational Models” unit, comprising 16 members, which is focused on advancing conversational AI. Leading this initiative is John Giannandrea, Apple’s head of AI, who joined the company after working at Google, with a mission to enhance Siri.

Much of Apple’s investment in conversational AI revolves around Siri, aiming to empower it with the capability to automate complex tasks. For instance, one envisioned feature is Siri’s ability to transform a sequence of photos into a GIF, a functionality that aligns with Apple’s Shortcuts app. This app allows users to manually program a series of actions using different apps and is anticipated to be released alongside a forthcoming iPhone operating system update.

Beyond conversational AI, Apple is reportedly exploring other AI domains, including multimodal AI, which encompasses text-to-image and image-to-text generation. Additionally, the company is working on software for generating 3D scenes, indicating a broader scope for its AI applications.

While Apple maintains its characteristic discretion, its substantial investments and innovative AI projects underscore the company’s commitment to staying competitive and advancing the state of AI technology within its ecosystem. As Apple’s AI initiatives gradually come to fruition, they are poised to reshape the way users interact with their devices and services in the future.

Apple might space out the upcoming iPhone models to accommodate a foldable

Elon Musk’s replacement was denied by the Tesla board

Without the Google search agreement, Firefox may be gone, according to an executive

News

A judge recently overturned Apple’s authority over the App Store

by George Mensah 2025-05-01

In a landmark decision, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has ruled that Apple can no longer impose fees on purchases made outside its App Store or restrict developers from directing users to alternative payment methods. The ruling, effective immediately, marks a significant victory for Epic Games in its ongoing legal battle against Apple.

Apple has announced plans to appeal the decision, but the court’s order is a clear rebuke of the tech giant’s previous attempts to circumvent antitrust regulations.

Key Takeaways from the Ruling

Judge Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple “willfully” defied her 2021 injunction, which required the company to allow developers to link to external payment options. In her latest ruling, she stated:

“That [Apple] thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation.”

The judge also referred the case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for potential criminal contempt proceedings, signaling the severity of Apple’s non-compliance.

What Apple Can No Longer Do:

Charge commissions on purchases made outside of apps.
Restrict how developers design, format, or place links to external payment options.
Block or limit buttons, calls to action, or other methods that direct users to alternative payment systems.
Interfere with users leaving an app—except for a neutral warning about third-party transactions.

Apple’s Response & Industry Reactions

Apple’s Senior Director of Corporate Communications, Olivia Dalton, stated:

“We strongly disagree with the decision. We will comply with the court’s order and we will appeal.”

Meanwhile, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney announced that Fortnite will return to the U.S. App Store next week. He also extended a “peace proposal” to Apple:

“If Apple extends the court’s friction-free, Apple-tax-free framework worldwide, we’ll return Fortnite to the App Store worldwide and drop current and future litigation on the topic.”

Spotify, another vocal critic of Apple’s policies, hailed the ruling as:

“A victory for developers everywhere.”

Why This Ruling Matters

For years, Apple has enforced a 30% commission on in-app purchases, a policy that sparked backlash from developers and regulators. Even after the 2021 ruling, Apple introduced a 27% fee on external transactions—a move the court deemed an attempt to maintain its revenue stream unlawfully.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers revealed internal tensions at Apple, noting that App Store chief Phil Schiller advocated for compliance, while CEO Tim Cook and CFO Luca Maestri chose defiance.

What’s Next?

Apple’s appeal could prolong the legal battle, but the immediate ruling forces significant changes.
Developers gain more freedom to steer users toward cheaper payment alternatives.
Consumers may benefit from lower prices if developers pass on the savings from avoiding Apple’s fees.

This case sets a major precedent in the fight against Big Tech’s monopolistic practices, reinforcing the need for fair competition in digital marketplaces.

News

Due to his connections to DOGE, Elon Musk may be able to shield his businesses from a $2 billion liability

by George Mensah 2025-04-28

A new Senate investigation has found that Elon Musk’s empire of companies—including Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boring Company, and xAI—may avoid over $2.37 billion in potential legal liabilities due to his unprecedented influence over U.S. government policy.

The report, compiled by Democratic staff on the Senate Homeland Security’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), highlights how Musk’s close ties with former President Donald Trump and his role in shaping the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have shielded his businesses from regulatory scrutiny.

Key Findings: How Musk’s Influence Shields His Companies

1. Estimated $2.37 Billion in Avoided Legal Exposure

The report identifies 65 “actual or potential” legal actions across 11 federal agencies that Musk’s companies faced as of Trump’s inauguration. Of these, 40 cases had quantifiable financial risks, including:

Tesla: Up to $1.19 billion in liabilities for misleading claims about self-driving capabilities.
Neuralink: $281 million in potential penalties for understating risks in brain-implant trials.
SpaceX: $630,000+ in fines for allegedly skirting rocket launch regulations.

2. Regulatory Agencies Weakened Under DOGE

Many agencies overseeing Musk’s companies—such as the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), and NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)—have faced budget cuts and reduced enforcement power under DOGE’s restructuring.

3. Alleged Interference in Investigations

The report cites instances where legal actions against Musk’s companies were allegedly stalled or dismissed, including:

The abrupt resignation of an FAA official after clashing with SpaceX.
Delayed investigations into Tesla’s Autopilot safety concerns.
Reduced scrutiny of Neuralink’s medical trial disclosures.

“Mr. Musk’s position may allow him to evade oversight, derail investigations, and make litigation disappear whenever he so chooses—on his terms and at his command.”
— Senate PSI Report

Senate Democrats Demand Transparency

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), the subcommittee’s ranking member, has sent letters to all five Musk-led companies, demanding:

Full disclosure of ongoing federal investigations.
Details on safeguards preventing government influence over legal matters.
Preservation of communications between Musk’s firms and federal officials.

The companies have until May 11th to respond. However, subpoena power rests with the Republican majority, meaning further action depends on bipartisan support.

Why the $2.37 Billion Figure May Be an Underestimate

The report warns that the true financial benefit to Musk could be far higher because:
✔ 25 additional legal actions couldn’t be quantified.
✔ Legal fees and compliance costs (potentially billions more) may be avoided.
✔ New government contracts (like SpaceX’s NASA deals) could bring additional revenue.
✔ Competitive intelligence advantages from insider access.

The Bigger Concern: Unseen Consequences

The most troubling implication? “The cases never filed, investigations quietly neglected, and potential witnesses silenced will be harder—if not impossible—to detect.”

What This Means for Corporate Accountability

This report raises critical questions about:
🔹 Corporate influence over regulatory bodies
🔹 The erosion of checks and balances in government oversight
🔹 Potential conflicts of interest when tech moguls shape policy affecting their own industries

Will Congress Take Action?

If Republicans block further investigation, Musk’s companies may continue operating with reduced oversight.
If Democrats gain more leverage, expect hearings, subpoenas, and stricter enforcement.

Final Thoughts: A Test for Democracy or Just Business as Usual?

Elon Musk’s case is a litmus test for corporate power in government. While some argue his disruptive innovations deserve flexibility, others warn that no billionaire should be above the law.

What do you think?
✅ Should Musk’s companies face stricter oversight?
✅ Is this a dangerous precedent, or just smart business?

Let us know in the comments!

Load More Posts