The-history-of-Apple-in-photos-from-the-early-Steve.jpeg

The history of Apple in photos, from the early Steve Jobs era to the iPhone launch to its 50-year mark

Apple marks the 50th anniversary of its founding on April 1.

The tech giant is one of the world’s most valuable companies, known for innovative products like the iMac, iPhone, and iPod. Its storied past is one of incredible highs, including a $4 trillion market cap, and alarming lows, like its series of stumbles in the 1990s.

It’s had many leaders over the years — most notably Steve Jobs, who put the company on the map with his lofty ideas and unique leadership style. After Jobs stepped down from the position to focus on his health, Tim Cook took over as CEO and has guided the company through much success and turbulent times.

During Cook’s tenure, Apple has launched new products like the Apple Watch, Vision Pro, and AirPods. The company has also launched its own artificial intelligence software, Apple Intelligence.

Here’s a look at Apple’s history in photos, from its inception through its hard times to the triumphant return of Jobs and beyond.

Matt Weinberger and Avery Hartmans contributed to earlier versions of this story.

Apple was cofounded on April 1, 1976, by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in Los Altos, California.

Steve Wozniak, left, with Steve Jobs. 

Kimberly White/Reuters

Apple’s first “office” was the garage at Jobs’ parents’ house. There was a third cofounder, too: Ronald Wayne. Jobs brought Wayne on board to provide business guidance for the two young cofounders.

Wayne sketched the first Apple logo by hand.

The cofounder left the company before it was officially incorporated. He took an $800 check for his shares in the company. Apple would officially incorporate in 1977.

The company’s first product was the Apple I.


Apple I computer Apple 1

An Apple-1 computer built in 1976. 

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

It was just a motherboard with a processor and some memory, intended for hobbyists. Customers had to build their own case and add their own keyboard and monitor, as seen in the picture above.

The Apple I was invented by Wozniak, who also hand-built every kit.

Meanwhile, Jobs handled the business end, mainly trying to convince would-be investors that the personal computer market was primed to explode.

The Apple II was introduced in 1977.


Apple II computer

The Apple II was a one-of-a-kind personal computer that the company released in the late 1970s. 

Eric Risberg/AP

The personal computer was designed by Wozniak, and it would go on to take the world by storm. The Apple II’s killer app was VisiCalc, a groundbreaking spreadsheet software that propelled the computer ahead of market leaders Tandy and Commodore, according to the National Museum of American History.

With VisiCalc, Apple could sell the Apple II to the business customer. By 1978, Apple would actually have a real office, with employees and an Apple II production line.

Xerox PARC convinced Jobs that the future of computing was with a graphical user interface (GUI).


steve jobs young lisa computer 1983

Jobs with the Lisa computer in 1983. 

Ted Thai/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images

In 1979, Apple engineers were allowed to visit the Xerox PARC campus for three days, in exchange for the option to buy 100,000 shares of Apple for $10 a share, according to Newsweek.

A year later, Apple released the Apple III, a business-focused computer intended to counter the growing threat from IBM and Microsoft.

But the Apple III was only a stopgap, and Xerox PARC had led the young Jobs to think in a different direction.

Jobs spearheaded the effort to equip Apple’s next-generation Lisa computer with a GUI, but was bumped from the project thanks to infighting.

Lisa was released in 1983 to much fanfare, but disastrous sales — it was too expensive and didn’t have enough software support, CNBC reported.

Jobs led the next project, the Apple Macintosh.


Steve Jobs

Jobs and the new Macintosh personal computer following a shareholder’s meeting in Cupertino in 1984. 

AP Photo/Paul Sakuma

It was billed as the most user-friendly computer to date. It would go on to become popular with graphic-design professionals, who liked its visual chops (even though it was in black and white).

It was still very expensive, however.

Around the time of the launch of the first Macintosh in 1983, Apple got a new CEO: John Sculley.

Sculley was serving as Pepsi’s youngest-ever CEO, but Jobs, then head of Macintosh development, managed to bring him to Apple with the now-legendary pitch: “Do you want to sell sugared water for the rest of your life? Or do you want to come with me and change the world?” Forbes reported.

In 1984, Apple released the TV commercial that made it a household name.

This ad, appropriately called “1984,” was directed by Ridley Scott and cost the company $1.5 million. It aired during the third quarter of Super Bowl XVIII, and never again.

This was also when tensions between Jobs and Bill Gates started to run high.


Bill Gates Steve Jobs

Jobs (left) had beef with Bill Gates over the creation of competing products. 

Kristy MacDonald/AP; Gary Stewart/AP

Originally, Microsoft was working hard at making software for the Macintosh. But those plans were scuttled in 1983 when Microsoft revealed that it, too, was working on a graphical user interface called Windows.

The Macintosh had strong sales, but not enough to break IBM’s dominance.


steve jobs john sculley steve wozniak

From left to right: Jobs, Sculley, and Wozniak. 

Sal Veder/AP Images

This led to a lot of friction between Jobs — the head of the Macintosh group who liked doing things his own way — and Sculley, who wanted stricter oversight of future products in light of the Lisa disaster and the Macintosh’s disappointment.

Things came to a head in 1985 when Jobs tried to stage a coup and oust Sculley — but Apple’s board of directors took Sculley’s side and removed Jobs from his managerial duties.

A furious Jobs quit and went on to found NeXT, a computer company making advanced workstations where he had total control.

Wozniak later left and sold most of his shares around the same time in 1985, saying the company was going in the wrong direction. With Jobs gone, Sculley had a free hand at Apple.

At first, things seemed great.


John Sculley Apple Computer

Under Sculley’s leadership, Apple introduced color to the Macintosh with the System 7 operating system. 

Associated Press

Apple introduced its PowerBook laptop and System 7 operating system in 1991. System 7 introduced color to the Macintosh operating system, and would stick around (with updates) until OS X was released in 2001, according to Cult of Mac.

The 1990s would see Apple enter many new markets, none of which really worked out.


Apple Newton

Apple’s Newton MessagePad, pictured above, wasn’t a hit with consumers. 

SSPL/Getty Images

Possibly the most famous Apple flop of the ’90s was 1993’s Newton MessagePad, which was Sculley’s brainchild.

It literally created the market for “personal digital assistants,” but it was $700 and did little more than take notes and keep track of your contacts, according to MacWorld.

At the same time, Microsoft’s influence was on the rise.


bill gates windows

Gates holding Microsoft Window’s operating system in 1992. 

AP Photo

Macs offered an excellent, but limited, software library on expensive computers.

Meanwhile, Microsoft was selling Windows 3.0 on cheap, commodity computers.

Sculley was relieved of his duties in 1993.


Michael Spindler Apple

Michael Spindler, pictured above, stepped up as Apple’s CEO in 1993 after Sculley left the role. 

Luc Novovitch/AP

After Apple missed on its first-quarter earnings in 1993, Sculley stepped down and was replaced as CEO by Michael Spindler, a German expatriate who had been with Apple since 1980, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Spindler had the unfortunate job of following through with Sculley’s big PowerPC processor plans, which would prove to be a mistake.

In 1994, the first Macintosh running on a PowerPC was released.


amelio jobs

Gil Amelio, left, and Steve Jobs on a podium during an Apple event. 

AP

Apple’s fortunes continued to sag as Windows took off. After acquisition talks with IBM, Sun Microsystems, and Philips all fell through, Apple’s board replaced Spindler with Gil Amelio in 1996, The New York Times reported.

Amelio’s tenure was equally troubled.


Steve Jobs Next

Amelio brought Jobs (pictured above) back to Apple after a disappointing year for the company under his leadership. 

Dick Drew/AP

Under his reign, Apple stock hit a 12-year low (largely because Jobs himself sold 1.5 million Apple shares in a single transaction), according to CNET.

Amelio decided to purchase Jobs’ NeXT Computer for $429 million in February 1997 to bring him back to Apple.

On the July 4 weekend that same year, Jobs would stage a boardroom coup.


steve jobs

Jobs was later reinstated as Apple’s interim CEO. 


Lou Dematteis/Reuters


Jobs convinced Apple’s board to install him as interim CEO. Amelio resigned a week later.

1997 would also see the introduction of Apple’s famous “Think Different” ad campaign.


Apple think different

A billboard for Apple’s “Think Different” ad campaign featuring Yoko Ono and John Lennon. 

Gilles Mingasson/Liaison/Getty Images

It celebrated famous artists, scientists, and musicians. Jobs opposed parts of the original idea for the commercial, such as his narrating it.

Ultimately, Jobs got his way, and the famous ad was narrated by actor Richard Dreyfuss.

Under Jobs’ leadership, the company would make nice with Microsoft.


steve jobs bill gates microsoft 1997

Jobs (on the podium) and Gates (on the screen) at an Apple event in 1997. 

Jim Bourg/Reuters

In August 1997, Jobs took the stage at Apple’s Macworld Expo to announce that Apple had received a $150 million investment from Microsoft.

“We need all the help we can get,” Jobs said, to boos from the audience, CNBC reported.

The late 90s were a new era for hardware and software, too.


steve jobs imac 1998

Jobs posing with the Apple iMac G3 computer launched amid a hardware boom. 

Mousse Mousse/Reuters

Jobs had Jony Ive spearhead the design of the iMac, an all-in-one computer released in 1998.

In 2000, Jobs introduced Mac OS X, based on the NeXT operating system, finally replacing System 7.

And in 2006, Apple finally moved to an Intel-based system architecture.

Apple had two massively influential product releases in the 2000s, beginning with the iPod in 2001.


ipod steve jobs john mayer 2004

John Mayer (left), Jobs, and the iPod. 

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The iPod blew other MP3 players out of the water and radically altered the way we listen to music. It birthed a number of iterations that would span over a decade, including the iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle, and iPod Touch.

The iPod also launched Apple’s white earbuds as a status symbol.

But the single biggest victory for Apple was 2007’s introduction of the iPhone.


Steve Jobs

The launch of the iPhone in 2007, which Jobs is holding in the picture above, was a game-changing product for Apple. 

Alessia Pierdomenico / Reuters

When the iPhone went on sale, customers lined up outside stores in the US to get their hands on one.

The iPad came out in 2010.


Steve Jobs holding an ipad

Steve Jobs announced the iPad onstage. 

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Apple positioned the new product as a cross between a smartphone and a laptop. It helped define the modern tablet product category.

The company expanded into services, helping fuel Apple’s growth as iPhone sales lagged.


Tim Cook

AppleTV+ has won Academy Awards in major categories. 

Alberto Rodriguez/Variety via Getty Images

Under Cook — who took over after Jobs’ death in 2011 — Apple introduced new hardware product lines, including the Apple Watch and AirPods.

Apple also launched its own music and video streaming services, as well as other subscription offerings, such as news and gaming.

The Apple Watch was announced in 2014.


Apple watch display

Tim Cook announced the Apple Watch in September 2014. 

Stephen Lam/Getty Images

The Apple Watch marked the company’s first venture into wearable technology. It quickly became one of the world’s most popular smartwatches.

Apple’s chief design officer, Jony Ive, left Apple in 2019 and set up his own design shop, LoveFrom.


Jony Ive Met Gala 2016

Jony Ive at the 2016 Met Gala before leaving Apple. 


Dimitrios Kambouris / Getty Images


Apple said at the time that it would become one of LoveFrom’s “primary clients.” The two companies’ relationship wound down in 2022, according to The New York Times, which reported there were frustrations on both sides about the arrangement.

In August 2020, Apple hit a new milestone before other companies.


Tim Cook

Apple hit a $2 trillion market cap in August 2020 under the leadership of CEO Cook. 

AP

It became a $2 trillion company — the first company to do so — just 24 months after reaching the $1 trillion threshold.

Apple became the first public company to close with a market cap above $3 trillion.


People walk near the Nasdaq building in Times Square on January 24, 2023

Hitting the $3 trillion valuation was a milestone for Apple. 

Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/VIEWpress

The stock closed at $193.97 in June 2023. Apple’s ecosystem, led by the iPhone, iPad, and Services, has driven consistent growth through booms, downturns, and even a pandemic. Months later, Apple’s valuation dropped to $2.8 trillion ahead of the iPhone 15 launch in September.

Some Apple fans were disappointed by the new iPhone 15.


Apple iPhone 15 family of devices

A line of iPhone 15 devices displayed at the Apple store. 


Apple


Following the September launch, some Apple fans said the iPhone 15 looked nearly identical to its predecessors. They claimed it’s a design choice that reflected Apple’s lack of innovation on the smartphone front. 

The biggest change was the shift away from the Lightning charging port to USB-C. The launch reflected Apple’s transition into a more incremental phase rather than era-defining moments.

Apple has faced regulatory scrutiny.


European Commission press conference

European Commissioners at a news conference in Brussels. 


Reuters


In January 2024, Apple was forced to crack open its App Store after the European Commission pushed the company to comply with the Digital Markets Act.

Under the DMA, third-party app stores would finally be allowed on Apple’s iOS operating system in the EU. That would allow developers to distribute their apps beyond the App Store, which takes a cut from app sales. 

The law aims to prevent Big Tech, which the EU calls “gatekeepers,” from dominating the digital marketplace. It forced Apple to open up parts of its digital walled garden in Europe.

Apple also saw iPhone sales slump in China, a major market, at the start of 2024, losing its rank as the top smartphone provider in the country.


iPhone Shanghai Apple store

An Apple Store in Shanghai, China in March 2024 amid a dip in iPhone sales. 

CFOTO/Future Publishing/Getty Images

iPhone sales in China dropped by 24% during the first six weeks of 2024, according to Counterpoint Research, as local rivals like Huawei took a larger share of the region’s smartphone market.

In February 2024, Apple launched its nearly $3,500 Vision Pro headset.


Apple's Vision Pro

The Vision Pro lets you see your surroundings with breakthrough ‘EyeSight’ tech. 

Apple

It’s an AI-driven “mixed-reality” headset that allows users to toggle between the digital and real worlds. However, the reception to the Apple Vision Pro was mixed. 

Some initial users expressed awe over the Vision Pro’s spatial computing capabilities. Others, however, said the headset’s design, blurry screen, and lack of use cases don’t justify its high price. These issues may have led some customers to return the product within two weeks of purchase. 

Following the Vision Pro release, Apple killed its electric car weeks later, shifting its focus to generative AI.


A graphic of a fictional Apple Car.

A graphic of a fictional Apple Car, a project the company abandoned earlier this year. 

Grafissimo/Getty, Apple, Tyler Le/BI

Apple worked on its self-driving electric car, a multibillion-dollar effort dubbed “Project Titan,” for nearly a decade before deciding to pull the plug, Bloomberg first reported. 

Execs told nearly 2,000 employees part of the electric-vehicle team that many would be moved to the company’s artificial-intelligence division, per the outlet. 

The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Apple in March 2024.


A flag waves outside the federal Department of Justice building in Washington, DC

The US Department of Justice. 

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

The DOJ accused the iPhone maker of using anti-competitive tactics to dominate the smartphone market. It was a direct challenge to how the iPhone ecosystem works and how Apple makes money from it.

In the suit, the DOJ and 16 attorneys point to everything from the Apple Watch’s incompatibility with non-iPhones to the awkward green-bubble text messages sent through Android phones as evidence that Apple uses unfair practices to beat its competitors. 

Apple denies these accusations. 

The iPhone 17 lineup and iPhone Air came out in 2025.


iPhone 17 Pro Max

Apple said the iPhone 17 Pro is equipped with its most powerful chip yet. 

Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The base iPhone 17 features a 6.3-inch display, upgraded Ceramic Shield 2 for added durability, and Apple’s A19 chip designed to power its Apple Intelligence features.

Apple said the iPhone 17 Pro is equipped with its most powerful chip yet, and boasts camera capabilities comparable to having eight professional lenses in a single device.

The model has helped the iPhone regain its footing in China.

Meanwhile, the iPhone Air is the company’s thinnest and most power-efficient model to date at 5.6 millimeters, with Ceramic Shield on both the front and back. It also introduces a new “plateau” design that integrates the front and rear cameras, speaker, and other components.

Apple hit a $4 trillion market cap for the first time in October 2025.


Tim Cook

Tim Cook has seen Apple through major financial milestones. 

Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP via Getty Images

Apple secured a $4 trillion market capitalization for the first time in October 2025, becoming only the third public company ever to be worth that much, after Nvidia and Microsoft.

The company introduced its cheapest laptop yet in the MacBook Neo.


Apple MacBook Neo

The MacBook Neo costs $599. 

Apple

The tech giant unveiled its new MacBook Neo in March 2026 at a special event in New York City.

It sells for $599, making it $500 cheaper than the new M5 MacBook Air, which starts at $1,099.

Tech YouTuber Marques Brownlee described the MacBook Neo as “potentially Apple’s most disruptive product in the last 10-plus years.”

On April 1, 2026, Apple celebrates 50 years in business.


Thinking Different sign

Apple hit 50 years on April 1. 

JUSTIN TALLIS / AFP via Getty Images

Apple has survived a lot of ups and downs to celebrate its 50th anniversary. It’s commemorating the milestone with a series of celebrations attended by public figures, Apple execs, and loyal fans, including a presentation at Shanghai Fashion Week and live music performances.




Source link

New-era-of-drone-warfare-creates-higher-risks-for-civilians.jpeg

New era of drone warfare creates higher risks for civilians

With wars in the Middle East and in Ukraine, a new era of drone warfare has arrived that’s harming more civilians.

Skies are full of large, powerful, and lethal drones that are much cheaper than cruise and ballistic missiles. That means more of them are being launched and need to be stopped.

The United Arab Emirates, for example, said that as of Wednesday, it had intercepted far more drones than missiles: 876, compared to 183 ballistic and cruise missiles.

The process of defeating drones and missiles can cause problems of its own. There are more targets to intercept, and US allies have said that objects hit in flight have killed civilians and damaged homes.


Sparks, smoke, and yellow light in a dark sky

Militaries want to shoot most incoming drones down, but that can still leave missile fragments and dangerous debris.

AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka, File



“Large-scale drone war is a civilian risk because there are more projectiles in the fight than if it were just missiles, thus inherently creating more debris,” Molly Campbell, a drone and counterdrone warfare expert at the Center for a New American Security, told Business Insider. It’s not that drone debris inherently causes more damage than missile debris, but there can be so much more of it.

The use of drones in warfare is surging. Ukraine says Russia attacks with about 6,000 Geran drones modeled after Iran’s Shaheds each month. A Shahed drone has a wingspan of roughly 8 feet and can carry a warhead up to 110 pounds.

Militaries want to stop attacks before they reach a military target, and that could be dangerous if they’re flying over populated areas.

The problem is that “what goes up must come down,” Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told BI.


Black smoke rises into a blue sky, with a black tarmac road in the foreground

Iran has struck countries across the Middle East with its drones and missiles.

Mahmud HAMS / AFP via Getty Images



A missile that hits its target will typically cause more damage than a drone due to its higher speed and larger warhead.

It’s simply dangerous when “large numbers of drones are being intercepted over populated areas,” as James Patton Rogers, a drone expert at the Cornell Brooks Tech Policy Institute, put it to BI.

Most drone interceptions in the Middle East appear to be kinetic, which involves a projectile launched to hit and destroy them. “Kinetic interceptions create debris, and the risk of collateral damage is real and particularly complex in the urban settings we’re seeing in the Gulf,” said Campbell, the drone expert at the CNAS think tank.

Interception comes with its own risks. It could merely deflect the threat or achieve a partial hit that divides the missile into fragments that leaves its warhead active.

The problem of debris from intercepting an attack isn’t new, and it’s long been a factor in missile defense. In Europe, for example, Douglas Barrie, an air warfare expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told BI that there has always been the knowledge of “if you try to intercept things at extended range, then you might be shooting something down effectively over somebody else’s airspace,” and cause damage to an ally.


A man in camouflage stands on the back of a black truck pointing weaponry in the air, with another man in camouflage standing beside it, all under a black sky

Ukraine uses systems like truck-mounted machine guns to take down incoming drones.

Pierre Crom/Getty Images



The problem with drones, Barrie said, is that “there are so many of them that if you intercept them at comparatively short range and it’s a kind of urban or a quasi-built-up environment, then some of them are going to fall in populated areas. It’s inevitable.”

Militaries can and do try to intercept attacks while causing minimal damage. Modern air defense systems track threats like drones and missiles to give air defense crews a sense of what they threaten and whether they should be countered.

Rogers said that civilians can often become better protected over time in a long conflict or war, as “a kind of bunkerisation begins to take place as societies adapt to the risk.” In Ukraine, for example, people receive alerts about bombardment and move to hardened shelters. But that’s also a negative outcome: “In that sense, drones don’t just kill people, they take the life out of a city.”

The low cost of drones enabled so many more of them to be used. Iran’s Shahed one-way attack drones cost an estimated $20,000 to $50,000 each, for example. Missiles cost far more: hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars each.

The effects of large-scale drone warfare are clear in Ukraine, where drones are being used more than in any other conflict in history. Ukriane’s military relies on them, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in January that Russia had fired more than 57,000 of its Shahed-style drones since the full-scale invasion began in 2022.

Russia’s drones have devastated Ukraine. Many still caused harm even after being intercepted.


A ruined house at night, with people in head torches searching outside

Russia’s drones have devastated Ukraine’s buildings and maimed its civilians.

Diego Herrera Carcedo/Anadolu via Getty Images



Both the Middle East and Ukraine show that “future conflicts will likely feature high-volume drone and missile attacks designed to saturate air defenses,” meaning more of them flying over and near civilian areas, Campbell said.

Countries will need to stop these attacks, making the debris risk unavoidable, Campbell said.

“Debris from kinetic interceptions compounds this risk — but it remains far preferable to allowing an armed drone or missile to hit its target.”




Source link

Amazons-cloud-reboot-shows-the-future-of-consulting-in-the.jpeg

Amazon’s cloud reboot shows the future of consulting in the AI era

My youngest daughter, Tessa, just accepted an internship with PwC in San Francisco. We’re overjoyed she’ll be home for a few months after heartlessly leaving us 18 months ago to study accounting at Wake Forest in North Carolina.

What surprised me: her internship isn’t until summer 2027. I had no idea these things were locked in so far ahead.

With AI reshaping so much, I can’t help wondering what consulting will look like by the time she starts. This week brought some clues, via another megascoop from Business Insider’s Eugene Kim.

He reported on ProServe, Amazon’s in-house cloud consulting arm. The unit influences more than $10 billion in annual revenue for AWS. Read the full story, but here’s the big takeaway: AI is driving radical change inside ProServe, offering a glimpse of where the broader consulting industry may be headed.

I asked Polly Thompson, who covers the Big Four at Business Insider, for her view:

  • This confirms many trends I’ve heard from these firms. How to deliver value and how to charge for it in the AI era — that’s the big question.
  • ProServe focuses on technical consulting for AWS clients, while the Big Four span audit, tax, risk, and strategy. That diversification could make them more resilient. AI isn’t the only force at work: global instability is increasing demand for complex risk consulting, for example.
  • AI’s ultimate impact on consulting remains unclear. Firms are embracing the technology and adapting their business models, but unevenly.
  • Hiring shows the divide. McKinsey, Accenture, and PwC are reducing hiring. EY is generally increasing entry-level hiring. KPMG isn’t making hiring changes.

Sign up for BI’s Tech Memo newsletter here. Reach out to me via email at abarr@businessinsider.com.




Source link

The-Anthropic-OpenAI-fight-could-usher-in-a-new-era-chatbot.jpeg

The Anthropic-OpenAI fight could usher in a new era: chatbot monogamy

Anthropic vs. ChatGPT: Who ya got?

The AI giants behind two of the world’s most popular chatbots, Claude and ChatGPT, have escalated their beef. Now people are picking sides.

(It looks like Katy Perry picked Claude Pro … and she liked it.)

It could represent a new stage in the AI wars. One where people settle down with one chatbot instead of playing the field.

In case you’re out of the loop: Anthropic and the Department of Defense disagreed over the government’s usage of its tech. Anthropic refused to back down. President Donald Trump banned federal agencies from using Anthropic. OpenAI cut a deal with the Pentagon a few hours later.

It shows how heated the rivalry between the two startups has gotten. From snarky Super Bowl ads to refusing to hold hands, here’s the history of the Anthropic-OpenAI relationship.

Anthropic isn’t shying away from the attention. It streamlined how users can import data from competing chatbots into Claude, which is now topping the App Store chart. “Every single day last week was an all-time record for Claude sign-ups,” a spokesperson told BI.

If you’re wondering about the differences between the chatbots, we break it all down here.

Ultimately, this could mark a new era of chatbot monogamy.

All signs point to AI giants pushing for more of a commitment from users.

Their top models all sit behind paywalls, with the gap between premium and free versions continuing to grow.

AI companies are also under considerable pressure to demonstrate a viable business model, potentially ahead of a public debut. A stable base of paid subscribers is a lot more appetizing to investors than a bunch of non-committal freeloaders.

Users also might gravitate toward a preferred chatbot. As experimentation fades into practical use, navigating multiple AI chats to be productive doesn’t feel … productive. And if it’s not free, are you really willing to pay for multiple subscriptions?

Which brings us back to Anthropic. The fight with the DoD is a perfect way to try and juice customer acquisition efforts. There are plenty of concerns about AI use. Anthropic can pitch itself as a safe antidote.

But catering to that crowd could prove challenging as competition ramps up and pressure to move quickly intensifies. Anthropic, which was founded on the proper development of AI, already weakened its foundational safety principle last week.




Source link

Why-Berkshire-Hathaways-New-York-Times-bet-is-a-fitting.jpeg

Why Berkshire Hathaway’s New York Times bet is a fitting end to the Warren Buffett era

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway bought one new stock in his last quarter as CEO: The New York Times Company. It’s a fitting final bet for the Buffett era.

The famed investor’s conglomerate scooped up around 5.1 million shares of the newspaper publisher, securing a stake worth $352 million at December’s close, a Tuesday filing revealed.

The position’s small size points to one of Buffett’s two investment managers at the time — Ted Weschler and the since-departed Todd Combs — making the purchase.

Read all about it

Buffett is a lifelong lover of newspapers. He delivered 500,000 papers as a teenager running multiple routes, and for years, he challenged shareholders to best him at newspaper tossing during Berkshire’s annual meetings.

He went from throwing newspapers to owning dozens of publishers, including The Buffalo News and The Omaha World-Herald. He was close friends with the late publisher of The Washington Post, Katharine Graham, and one of the paper’s biggest financial backers.

By 2010, the billionaire stock picker was openly worried about declining circulation and advertising revenues for newspapers.

During Berkshire’s 2010 meeting, he recalled looking at the circulation of major titles such as the San Francisco Chronicle, and said it “blows your mind how fast people are dropping it.”

“The world has really changed, in terms of the essential nature of newspapers,” he said.

In 1965 or 1970, there was “probably nothing looked more bulletproof than a daily newspaper where the competition had melted away,” he continued. “But it’s a form of distributing information and entertainment that has lost its immediacy in many cases.”

Buffett pointed out that people no longer rely on papers to find out how their stocks were performing, or whether their sports team won. The resulting decline in circulation made newspapers less attractive to advertisers, he noted.

“And so you get this chicken and egg thing that the newspaper becomes less valuable as the advertisers float away, and the advertisers float away as the subscribers diminish,” he said.


Warren Buffett newspaper toss

Warren Buffett made the newspaper toss a fixture at Berkshire Hathaway’s shareholder meetings.



Rick Wilking/Reuters



Despite his concerns, he acquired 28 daily papers in the early 2010s.

“Charlie and I believe that papers delivering comprehensive and reliable information to tightly-bound communities and having a sensible Internet strategy will remain viable for a long time,” Buffett wrote in his 2012 letter to shareholders. “Charlie” referred to his late business partner, Charlie Munger.

“Newspapers continue to reign supreme … in the delivery of local news,” he added.

Buffett struck a far more bearish tone in 2019, telling Yahoo Finance that he expected only a few national titles, such as The New York Times, to survive, while the rest would “disappear.” He also bemoaned the demise of the newspaper ad business.

“It went from monopoly to franchise to competitive to … toast,” he said.

Berkshire’s surprise return

Buffett offloaded Berkshire’s newspapers to publisher Lee Enterprises in 2020. Given his long history in the newspaper business and eventual exit from it, it’s striking to see Berkshire return with its recent stock purchase.

One reason was undoubtedly The New York Times’ recovery in recent years. It grew revenues by 9% to $2.8 billion and its net income by 17% to $344 million last year, as subscription revenues rose 9% and advertising revenues jumped 12%.

A key driver was the paper’s addition of 1.4 million digital-only subscribers, which lifted its total subscriber count to 12.78 million as of December 31.

The publisher’s stock price has already seen some of the benefits. After collapsing from over $50 in mid-2002 to below $5 in early 2009, it has surged roughly 15-fold — including 50% in the past year — to trade at a record high of $74 at Tuesday’s close.

The shares gained another 3% in Wednesday’s premarket, perhaps marking one of the final cases of the “Buffett Effect,” where other investors mimic his buys and sells, moving markets.

The publisher’s comeback might explain why Buffett and his team decided to revisit one of his favorite industries so soon after turning the page.




Source link

Kevin-Reilly-had-a-great-time-running-TV-during-the.jpeg

Kevin Reilly had a great time running TV during the Peak TV era. Now he’s in AI.

TV is an endangered species. People aren’t watching it, and don’t want to pay for it. And the companies that own TV networks are trying to find someone — anyone — to buy them.

But not that long ago, lots of us were reveling in the “Peak TV” era — a time when inventive TV programming was plentiful and, crucially, popular. A time when you could watch “The Sopranos” on HBO, “Friday Night Lights” on NBC, and “The Shield” on FX.

This was also a time when Kevin Reilly had great jobs in TV, where he steered programming at networks including NBC, FX, Fox, and Turner — and had his hands on all the shows I just mentioned. That run ended in 2000, when Reilly was re-orged out of what was then called WarnerMedia.

Today, Reilly is in AI, of course: He recently became CEO of Kartel, a startup that’s supposed to help big brands use the tech.

But in a recent episode of my Channels podcast, I talked to him about life during TV’s latest (and possibly last) golden age — and whether he thinks it will ever come back. (Spoiler: There’s a reason he’s in AI now.)

You can read an edited excerpt from our conversation below, and listen to the whole thing here.

Peter Kafka: You got to be a TV executive in what we now call the Peak TV era. What was that like?

Kevin Reilly: When I got to network television, there were still these rules, like “the good guy always wins” and “people don’t want to watch depressing things on television.”

And then cable, when I went to FX, that was really one of the most fun chapters of my career because it was the very early days of basic cable. All of a sudden, we started doing “The Shield” and “Nip/Tuck” and doing these things that the press had labeled “HBO for basic cable.”

Prior to this, basic cable was mostly infomercials and reruns.

Kevin Reilly: I was sitting there talking to great creators, and I was telling them we were HBO for basic cable. And on the monitor above my head was “Cops” running 24 hours a day, keeping the lights on.

I was like, “Don’t look at the monitor.”

But all of a sudden, we were able to do stuff that really wasn’t fit for broadcast by being very particular and being a little bit more forward.

Around the same time, streaming popped up, and Netflix debuted “House of Cards” in 2013 as an explicitly HBO-style show. There was a lot of fascination with streaming but also dismissiveness: Jeff Bewkes, who was running Time Warner at the time, famously dissed Netflix as “the Albanian army.” Did you believe that back then?

I think Jeff is an extraordinary leader, and I loved working for him. At the time, though, I think he had to do what he needed to do.

You don’t think he was really dismissive of Netflix? It was just something he had to say?

I think at that point, throughout the entire business, everyone was dismissive of Netflix. “We’re picking these guys’ pockets. They’re gonna go out of business. We’re selling them all the stuff that we can’t sell. They’re idiots.”

But at the same time, Netflix was all anybody was talking about, all day long. I remember flying to Detroit to talk to a big [advertising] client for one of our series. It was going to be a $50 million, $60 million transaction. And all they were talking about was Netflix.

They were buying advertising, and then telling me how all their kids are only watching things on their phones all day long. And I was like, “Isn’t this ironic that you, an advertiser, are talking about a non-advertising-based service and how your kids don’t watch TV anymore?”

What did you think?

I thought they would experiment and do stuff, but maybe not at scale. I mean, they don’t have the system for that, and it’s really hard. Well, first of all, they did what we did (at FX) — they took a page out of the HBO handbook: Fire the money cannon and say, “Hey, we’ll just dream. Bring us in your dreams. Do what you wanna do.”

Your last job in TV was at what was then called WarnerMedia, which had been purchased by AT&T, and there were a bunch of different justifications for that deal, but the real one turned out to be “maybe Wall Street will give us a Netflix stock multiple,” which never happened. Did you think that combination was going to work?

I mean, the product itself works and has been a success. But to take the entirety of Time Warner, and then it was going to be a one-product system that we would single-handedly launch and build an ad play around it, and all of a sudden compete with Google and Netflix …

I don’t know that even Wall Street ever bought that narrative, no matter how hard we sold it.

Comcast and Paramount are bidding for WBD. Netflix is bidding, too. There’s going to be some kind of consolidation no matter what. Do you think that when all of this gets done that there’s a future for traditional television, or do you think it becomes, in the end, a subset of a bigger tech platform?

I’d love to be able to just give you the knee-jerk answer, “Of course, there’ll always be traditional television.” I think unfortunately, everybody waited too long to figure out how we were going to prop it up.

So will it have a very long tail on it, like radio? The heyday of radio went away and we still have radio. I believe it will be around in some fashion. And as some of these assets get shed or reinvented — yeah, they might end up having a little bit more life in some ways than we thought they did.

And radio became podcasts…

Exactly. So there’s always new expressions of it.

But retooling traditional businesses, especially while you’ve got to pull the profit out from underneath, is really difficult.

Correction: December 1, 2025 — An earlier version of this story misstated one of the companies bidding for WBD: They are Paramount and Comcast, along with Netflix.




Source link