It looks like a normal email but has the word “Ad” in small letters. When you click it, it opens a link, rather than rendering email content in another pane.
It’s a pretty tacky design, in my opinion, even if it was only serving “legitimate” ads.
These switches don't control whether your emails are used to train models. They control whether you get to use machine inference features on your own emails.
> Mea Culpa! I have said a few times “$40 billion” is the total amount of AI revenue in 2025, and I need to correct the record. $35 billion is what hyperscalers will make this year (roughly), and when you include OpenAI, Anthropic and other startups, the amount is around $55 billion. If you include neoclouds, this number increases by about $6.1 billion. In any case, this doesn’t dramatically change my thesis.
No, the article incorrectly cites/summarizes the original blog post [1] which indeed seems to pull some numbers out of thin air:
> "I’m going to use a bunch of numbers here that I believe to be directionally correct,"
> "Let’s start with total datacenter spend for 2025. Insiders think it’s going to clock in at around $400 billion."
(in the US? worldwide?)
> "I am sure I’m off by a few percent in these categories, but I’m relying on AI and we all know it’s still imperfect."
> "the AI datacenters to be built in 2025 will suffer $40 billion of annual depreciation, while generating somewhere between $15 and $20 billion of revenue."
In a follow-up article [2], the author says that he learned that the investments probably have much less than the 10 years of depreciation time he originally assumed. Again, no external sources are linked.
> "Personal self-doubts disappeared, and high-placed individuals reached out to share their epiphanies "
So, it seems the author estimated how much money will be invested in AI datacenters in 2025. The 20 billion of annual revenue mentioned in the article are just the share of all AI revenue for these new data centers.
And these numbers have just been estimated by the author - apparently with the help of AI.
While the article and the blog posts may have some merit, it seems all based on some guy's assumptions and conversations he claims to have had.
I'm just surprised that people pay to be lied to constantly by LLMs. I guess the politicians have normalized lying, so as long as the LLM says what you want it to, why not pay for that.
I don’t like that Apple feels emboldened to demand that laws be repealed. I don’t recall if Apple has done this in the past but it’s a shift in tone that makes me uncomfortable.
The actual words from Apple quoted in the article:
>The DMA should be repealed while a more appropriate fit for purpose legislative instrument is put in place... Despite our concerns with the DMA, teams across Apple are spending thousands of hours to bring new features to the European Union while meeting the law’s requirements. But it’s become clear that we can’t solve every problem the DMA creates.
The headline could just have easily said "Apple Requests" or "Apple Suggests".
I doubt it would make waves if Apple expressed the same opinion about some US legislation. Is Apple allowed to have an opinion about legislation in other countries where it operates?
> Is Apple allowed to have an opinion about legislation in other countries where it operates?
Laws like the DMA were specifically made to fight the influence of mega corporations like Apple. For them to use language like "it should be repealed" instead of "it should be changed" shows their intent.
I mean, they suggest creating a "more appropriate fit for purpose legislative instrument". Seems like you're kinda splitting hairs?
I support the EU's right to shape their digital environment.
But if you're being threatened with fines on the order of $38 billion which are levied based on vague, ever-changing rules, then of course you will want that situation to go away while the law gets fixed.
On the other hand, cynically speaking, maybe "fighting Apple's influence" through arbitrary fines is actually the point.
Apple has repeatedly, willingly, knowingly, on purpose violated EU orders. Like when they were ordered to allow alternative app stores, they said "fine, but we have to approve both the app store and the apps it sells" and then just didn't approve anything that wasn't already on Apple's store. They were fined a few billions for this and told to fix it. They didn't. They were fined a few more billions. The fines will keep increasing until compliance occurs. That's why Apple is throwing a temper tantrum.
The fundamental reason why I fear a tyrannical corporation less than a tyrannical government is that generally speaking, for a tyrannical corporation, you can just stop using their products if you want.
My understanding is that Apple's proposed approach to CSAM prevention (which was subsequently abandoned) made significantly greater attempts to protect user privacy compared with the current EU chat control proposal.
The chat control proposal which, I note, has been rejected every time it's been tried, and therefore has no impact on user privacy at all, versus the Apple solution which has actually been implemented and randomly uploads your private photos to Apple for a human to view.
I expect there are many other falsehoods of yours in this thread, but I'm not going to try to identify all of them. I just want to know: What motivates you to make claims which can be refuted with a 30-second Google search?
Not so much with smartphones though. While there is Android, it's slowly becoming just as bad as iOS, and modern society requires everyone to have one of those (and an aftermarket OS may not be a possibility either due to some apps using Play Integrity API).
Places are increasingly expecting people to have a smartphone, and using an app for things like parking your car, charging you car, going to the gym, paying for stuff, identifying yourself online etc. Sure, for now most of the time you can get away with most things without one (possibly ate the cost of being a second class citizen), but every now and then you run into something that straight up requires a phone.
For example, at the gym I go to they do have a card reader as an alternative to checking in with the app, but at one point it was not working, which meant a smartphone was mandatory to go to the gym. And it was left that way for months; fixing it was clearly not a priority because the expectation of society is that everyone has a smartphone (you'll be met with surprise if you tell people you don't have their app installed, and incredulity at the idea that someone might not have a smartphone). And outside my workplace they put up car charging stations that have no way to pay for charging without an app.
And then (at least here in Sweden) there are increasingly places that accept no payment methods other than mobile payments (Swish here in Sweden), and online services like healthcare services requiring you to authenticate with BankID on a smartphone (or sometimes Freja e-ID, which also requires a smartphone), for things like ordering from pharmacies, doing your taxes online (and getting your tax return sooner), accessing healthcare services etc, and meanwhile physical alternatives like physical pharmacies are increasingly getting outcompeted and shutdown. So you may be able to get by without one, but at the cost of getting cut off from parts of society, and that's likely to increase.
It’s about who blinks first — or at least that’s what Apple thinks. Just keep in perspective at what acute angle Apple bends in China. It’ll be a shame if EU chooses to blink.
FWIW, the headline is spun. Apple is providing feedback for the law via a routine legislative process. But yeah, they hate the law and they want it repealed, and they said so.
I mean, I think they're wrong. But that said... what's the argument here? Apple shouldn't be allowed to say that they hate a law that they actually hate? Apple should absolutely feel entitled ("emboldened" even) to express their opinions. That's the whole point about civil discourse, no?
I think you’re inferring a tone from the headline that isn’t actually present in Apple’s statement. They’re not demanding anything, they just think it would be a good idea.
A similar thing worked for Google when they were trying to stop Canada's Digital Services Tax. You can probably expect Trump to start threatening more tariff's over this any day now, although Tim Cook might need to have another 24K gold plaque made first.
You can only shake someone down so many times before they say no mas. There have been hints from the US administration that they recognized the DMA as something to be addressed. I'd imagine it was a topic of conversation when Cook gave Trump the gold statue.
Which doesn’t read like a demand to me. Now, we may all agree or disagree with Apple’s claim, but characterizing it as a “demand” is pure modern journalism.
I read that statement and while I have some sympathy for the technical and privacy challenges, they made their bed by using the iPhone to lock people into the rest of their ecosystem, which is illegal under EU law.
