Office Hours #Q&A #WWDC #transcript
Recording and transcript of the June 9, 2026 Asymco One Office Hours, recorded the day after Apple's WWDC 2026 keynote. Horace Dediu shares his impressions of the event and takes questions from Asymco One subscribers.
Subscribe to Asymco One to listen to the recording and read the transcript.
Sign up and latest updates at asymco.com/live.
The commodities strike back
Alphabet generated $73.266 billion in free cash flow in FY2025, which sounds enormous until you look at what's coming. CEO Sundar Pichai has guided for 2026 capital expenditures in the range of $175 to $185 billion. For context, Alphabet's FY2025 operating cash flow was $164.713 billion. If capex hits the midpoint of that guidance range, it consumes essentially all operating cash the business generates.
The trajectory has been accelerating hard. In 2023, Alphabet spent $32.3 billion on capex. In 2024, that rose to $52.5 billion. In 2025, it hit $91.4 billion, a 74% year-over-year increase. The proposed jump to $175-185 billion in 2026 would be another near-doubling. Q4 2025 alone saw capex grow 95% year-over-year to $27.9 billion.
This dynamic is playing out across the peer group. Amazon already lived this story in 2025: FY2025 free cash flow collapsed 65.95% year-over-year to $11.194 billion as capex hit $131.8 billion. CEO Andy Jassy has guided for approximately $200 billion in capital expenditures across Amazon in 2026.
Meta and Microsoft are spending aggressively too. Meta's FY2025 free cash flow declined 19.39% year-over-year to $43.6 billion against 2026 capex guidance of $115 to $135 billion. Microsoft's Q2 FY2026 capex alone was $29.9 billion, up 89% year-over-year.
Patel's broader point is that tech insiders understand the technology better than financial markets, and that returns on AI infrastructure will ultimately justify the spend. The businesses backing these bets are not struggling — Alphabet posted Google Cloud revenue of $17.7 billion in Q4 2025, up 48% year-over-year, with a 31.6% operating margin at the Alphabet level. Full detail is in Alphabet's SEC filing.
Whether it's applied enough is exactly what Patel is questioning. If you believe AI infrastructure is a winner-take-most game and Alphabet and Amazon are positioned to win it, the FCF compression looks like the price of admission. If you think the returns won't materialize at the scale management expects, zero free cash flow at a $1.7 trillion market cap is a very different conversation.
Source: Yahoo Finance
NB: Even before these future investments are considered, for the trailing twelve months Alphabet's EV/FCF has his 73 vs. a P/E ratio of 29. If FCF goes to zero…
An Office Hours question asked by Fred S., May 1, 2026
Q: Ever since Johny Srouji started talking about Apple Silicon and the power consumption for the performance and the unified memory, and now we've seen the Mac mini surge, I just wonder about high-end computing. The whole area of where that Mac architecture may go beyond its success as an individual consumer computing product. From all the high-end workloads that might be coming their way.
The story of Apple is one of personal computing. It's not a story of servers, it's not a story of clouds, it's not a story of centralized computing. They've tried once or twice to make a server product, and they abandoned it. They've even abandoned the high-end Pro product, and created the almost-as-fast Studio product.
Now, that does not mean they're shying away from high-power computing. They're just saying, we're going to put that high-power computing in a desktop, or in the laptop, or even in the phone. Everyone who's grown up throughout the personal computer era can remember Moore's Law, and how exponential growth has driven computation to levels that seemed impossible just a few years earlier. We've hit some slowdowns, but fundamentally, the potential exists.
And by the way, it's not even a classic computational CPU problem. We're dealing with AI. We're mostly dealing with high bandwidth, large data, and we're dealing with simple calculations on it in parallel, which means the architecture is much more around large matrix computations. This is why Nvidia came from graphics. Graphics was the same problem — a graphics accelerator is a matrix problem. And so is machine learning. So different variations of these have come in as a sort of a parallel to the CPU, the general computation problem.
The idea Apple has is that they're going to catch up with whatever is done on the server, they're going to do it on the device. You can call it Edge, you can call it personal — the old term was personal computing.
I may be naive, but I think we'll get very powerful desktop computers that can do what is essentially AI, but for the individual. The other aspect here is that Apple is a consumer company, not a B2B company — it's a B2C. They want to bring that power to as many people as possible. And they're certainly delivering hundreds of millions of computers a year. Nvidia's making tens of millions of computers a year. Apple is capable of doing orders of magnitude more.
So I think they're going to affect the disruption in AI. It's not going to be that there's no profit in AI, it'll be that it'll be done with Edge more, especially as it doesn't have to be a world model — it can be a personal model. If you want to look up something globally, you can use the cloud, but if you want to deal with tasks in your world, you're going to work with Apple computers.
It may take years to get there. But in the meantime, I don't think a centralized service — these OpenAI, or Anthropic, or Microsoft, who are trying to make us a singular superintelligence — is necessary for everyone. It'll be a good reference, but it's not how you want to handle your personal information. So I think that's what the future is, and I think Apple's very much planning for it.
It sounds cliche, but when Apple started, it was IBM that dominated computing. And IBM was about centralized computing, and their thesis was everything we now call "the cloud" — but it was all in one big computer that served the entire organization, whether that organization is a government or a big company. And then we went to mini computers, then we went to desktop computers, then we went to portable computers.
Then, fast forward 25 years and we had Google. Well, now central computing is the internet. In the internet, everything needs to be indexed to be able to be found. So they created an index in the cloud. And then a lot of companies moved that computing they used to have locally into the cloud, as a shared resource from Amazon, AWS, and others, and that became cloud compute. Even now, those are the drivers for growth for Microsoft and Amazon and Google.
The AI part of that is tiny — there's revenue from AI, but there's a lot of revenue from cloud. That still is valuable. But that's not a job for consumers. You do some things in the cloud — you store things, you search, you communicate in messages and so on. But most of the data that matters to you will get also indexed locally, so you can pull up your photos, pull up these things, and it'll be a blend of the two.
So that's where Apple lives, and I don't see anything fundamentally changing about this, because computation tends to commoditize. Software tends to be replicated. Algorithms tend to be replicated. In fact, even the AIs we have today were all because people publish papers, and one company invents it, another implements it, as was the case with the transformer. As far as I understand, it was Google who actually wrote the paper on it.
Editor's Note: This was one of the questions asked by the participants in Asymco's May 2026 Office Hours live Q&A sessions, open to Asymco One subscribers.
Why give all your cash to Nvidia? Why not make your own chips? Then why not sell them?
Google said that it plans to sell its custom Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) to select customers who will install the chips in their own data centers.
The move is a change from Google’s prior strategy, which saw it rent out TPU capacity to customers from its own data centers — and is yet another strike at AI chip king Nvidia.
The announcement, during the company’s Q1 earnings call, comes a week after Alphabet announced two new TPUs: its TPU 8t for AI training and TPU 8i for inferencing.
Alphabet didn’t disclose potential customers, but it signed a multiple-gigawatt agreement for next-generation TPUs with Anthropic earlier this month, with chips expected to begin coming online in 2027.
And according to The Information, Alphabet has also entered into a multibillion-dollar chip deal with Meta (META).
Source: Yahoo Finance
NB: Alphabet Q1 sales grew 22% to $110 billion, with Cloud up 63% to $20 billion. Operating margins grew by 220 basis points, with services and cloud operating margins both increasing y/y.
The search business continues to benefit from AI. AI overviews and AI mode are sustaining as search sales grew 19%.
Asymco Bulletin is a digest of all the work we have published for the week ending Apr 19, 2026.
Revenues and growth rates for iPhone, Mac, iPad, Services, Wearables, plus Net Sales, Gross Margin, Operating Expense, Other Income and Expense, Tax Rate, Net Income, Share Count and EPS with a comparison to CFO guidance.
Ref. conference call's guidance, Kevan Parekh, Apple CFO: As we move ahead into March, I would like to review our outlook, […]. We expect our March total company revenue to grow by 13% to 16% year over year, which comprehends our best estimates of constrained iPhone supply during the quarter. We expect services revenue to grow at a year-over-year rate similar to what we reported in December. We expect →
In a recent interview Apple management was asked about AI, which is perceived as an area where Apple has been struggling. Greg Joswiak replied: We’ve been doing things with intelligence for many years, right? And gen AI allows us an opportunity to do that even more. So I’m excited about that, but boy, this is not a sprint. This is a marathon.
In contrast to AI, Spatial Computing is being largely ignored. It is however making significant leaps in utilization, especially in verticals. →
Apple's potential to double its Mac user base through strategic budget expansion and memory supply tactics presents a promising growth trajectory.
260 million Mac users? Huge room for growth.
Two analysts, two stories. The Neo will move the needle and the supply crunch will hamper competition…
Nevertheless, a doubling of the Mac user base is certainly a worthy and achievable goal over the next decade. →
At just $3,000, the Studio Display XDR democratizes medical imaging, undercutting specialized monitors by up to 90% and revolutionizing healthcare accessibility.
The Studio Display XDR is priced at $2,899 with a VESA mount, and it is more affordable than many specialized medical imaging monitors.
It allows a new set of people to do what previously required only specialists to do and allows specialists to do more than they used to do. →
Despite optimistic predictions for Mac growth, persistent skepticism argues Apple faces inevitable doom due to supply issues and product flaws.
As honored as I am to be the recipient of an antlers tip, I must respectfully disagree…
The only thing you could be sure of is that Apple is doomed. →
Bertrand Serlet, a pivotal yet understated architect behind Apple's OS X, exemplifies the profound impact of tech's quiet innovators.
Pay attention to the quiet ones
This is one in a series on Apple’s quieter heroes.…
That this interview only has 6000 views after three years shows how much untold history exists. →
BofA slightly ups Apple's price target to $325, forecasting $113B revenue and $2.00 EPS for Q2, driven by strong iPhone sales and Services growth, slightly above my estimates of $110B and $2.00.
Q2 forecast update
My own estimates for Q2 revenues and EPS are $110B…
More to follow as we get closer to the earnings release date but this is a good preview. →
Apple's Mac shipments grew 5.4% to capture 11% market share in Q1 2026, driven by MacBook Air and Neo sales, with revenue estimates slightly differing from unit projections.
Apple growing at double market rate.
Omidia estimates that Apple reached a market shar…
…e of 11% with shipments growing 5.4% due to solid MacBook Air sales performance and the initial sell-in of the MacBook Neo.. This means 5.4% growth for Apple y/y. As I noted in my Office Hour yesterday, I adjusted my Mac growth from 0% to 6% based on the new products launched. This is an estimate of revenues not units but it might be pretty close. Omidia estimates 7,112 million units whereas I’m a little above 6 million. We seem to disagree on ASP. →
Amazon's acquisition of Globalstar boosts its satellite internet ambitions and strengthens ties with Apple, while highlighting the limited reach of space-based networks compared to terrestrial ones.
I assume Apple has wanted to steer clear of Starlink but it’s not clear that was a primary consideration in choosing Globalstar.
Starlink, considered the dominant player, serves about 11 million users. I would note that 11 million is 0.1% of the number of cellular subscriptions worldwide. →
iPhone users boast nearly quadruple the loyalty of Android counterparts, with actual annual switching rates favoring Apple slightly, despite inflated survey intentions.
I did a deep dive into the data and came up with graph above. The original report shows intention numbers which seem quite high. For instance, the net switching rate between iOS and Android is 10% in favor of Apple. This would imply that the entire user base would flip in 10 years. It would also imply…
I think actual net churn is 1.7% of the base each year. That’s still 100 million a year. For now it seems Apple is happy to maintain that rate. →
Asymco Office Hours, April 8, 2026
Hosts: Horace Dediu and Gene Munster
This episode of Asymco Office Hours covers a wide range of topics related to Apple, including geopolitical risks, financial performance, AI developments, and business strategy. The discussion is led by Horace Dediu and Gene Munster, with insights from industry experts.
In this Asymmetric Podcast episode, Horace muses on buying flowers, highlights Apple's distinguishing product, and teases his new research. →
Asymco One gives you full access to our research, analysis, and commentary. Subscribe with code BULLETIN for a discount.
Feedback: Have questions or comments? Reach out to us at contact@asymco.com. We’d love to hear from you.
Counting satellites and subscribers
Amazon said on Tuesday that it’s agreed to acquire satellite company Globalstar, a major step for the e-commerce business as it works to build out a space-based Wi-Fi service through its Leo initiative.
Amazon also announced that it signed an agreement with Apple to provide satellite connectivity for current and future iPhone and Apple Watch features. The partnership was made possible via an existing deal Apple already had with Globalstar.
Amazon said on Tuesday that it plans to work with Apple on future satellite services. “Amazon will continue to support iPhone and Apple Watch models currently using Globalstar’s existing and planned upcoming low Earth orbit satellite constellations, being manufactured by MDA Space, and collaborate with Apple on future satellite services using Amazon Leo’s expanded satellite network,” a news release read.
Source: Barron's via Apple Stocks
NB: I assume Apple has wanted to steer clear of Starlink but it's not clear that was a primary consideration in choosing Globalstar.
A lively discsussion of Apple topics such as:
Contact us at events@asysmco.com if you have any questions.
For most up-to-date information, see
Cash flow is a fact, earnings are an opinion and share price is a dream.
A company's total worth is the number of outstanding shares multiplied by their value. This product is called the market capitalization or Market Cap.
That's a simplification. If you want to be more accurate, you should take the Market Cap and net out cash and debt--these are not part of the future flows of cash that can benefit shareholders.
More precisely, there is another measure called the Enterprise Value (EV) which is the total price tag of a company, representing what it would cost to buy the entire business and pay off its debts. EV = Market Cap + Total Debt + Preferred Stock + Minority Interest - Cash and Cash Equivalents.
This is the precise and complete measure of the firm's value but we use the shortcut of Market Cap since In most cases the Preferred stock and minority interest are negligible and if cash equals debt then the result is EV =~ Market Cap. it's easier to calculate anyways as the shares outstanding and share price are easily available. Not so for EV.
To get a sense of how much you're paying for the company it makes sense to divide the Market Cap by the company's Earnings so you get an idea of how many years it will take to get back your investment. When dividing both Market Cap and Earnings by the number of shares it becomes the famous P/E ratio or Price per share / Earnings per share.
But if you want to be fully precise, instead of using Market Cap you should use Enterprise Value. In that case the denominator should be Free Cash Flow or FCF[1]. The ratio becomes EV/FCF. Free Cash Flow is a better measure than earnings because it takes into consideration depreciation, change in working capital and capital expenditures. It measures the actual cash a company generates after paying for its operating and capital expenditures.
EV/FCF takes into consideration unusual situations such as huge amounts of cash or debt or capital expenditures which removes shareholder access to what the company "earns" on paper. This why the adage of "earnings are an opinion but cash flow is a fact" exists.
I used EV/FCF years ago to value Apple because at a time when it held huge amounts of cash. This was before it began aggressively reducing its cash through its capital return program. The P/E ratio at the time was very low but excluding the cash, it was even lower. It was a huge red flag indicating that the company was being priced for liquidation, or as some analyst put it, priced like a steel mill going out of business. If at that time you did not believe that its demise was imminent you would have surely been richly rewarded.
Today the anomaly that throws the P/E off is not Cash but CapEx. And it's not for Apple but for the other mega caps or AI "hyper scalers". Without worrying who is or isn't in the "Magnificent 7" I compiled the largest 10 market capitalization companies and looked at their P/E and EV/FCF ratios. At time of writing:
| Company | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EV/FCF |
| NVDA | $4,014,456,963,072 | 33.6 | 44.4 |
| AAPL | $3,624,949,514,240 | 31.3 | 30.3 |
| GOOG | $3,304,174,911,488 | 25.2 | 44.3 |
| MSFT | $2,667,926,257,664 | 22.5 | 35.0 |
| AMZN | $2,157,182,320,640 | 28.0 | 297.0 |
| TSM | $1,641,528,688,640 | 30.6 | 50.0 |
| TSLA | $1,333,163,982,848 | 332.0 | 225.0 |
| META | $1,356,802,949,120 | 22.8 | 32.6 |
| BRK-B | $1,023,780,323,328 | 15.3 | 44.1 |
| LLY | $793,550,454,784 | 38.6 | 142.3 |
As recently as six months ago, there was a lot of talk about an AI bubble. Back then I looked at the data then and by looking at the P/E ratios convinced myself that the valuations were not "bubble" level. They were in the mid-thirties. These were not historical high especially when considering the growth these companies were experiencing (over 30%). Since then prices have come down significantly.
This is as the CapEx elephant in the room has been making itself known and there is renewed alarm at the scale of capital spending. This is reflected in the EV/FCF number but not in the P/E number.
The table above shows how much more elevated the EV/FCF ratio is relative to P/E for many of the companies. This "truer" measure of what you are paying as a share buyer is now reflecting in reduced share price and hence reduced P/E.
Of course, this is not true for Apple. Apple's P/E ratio and EV/FCF are nearly identical. To see this more clearly I put together these graphs.
The graph shows the P/E vs. EV/FCF for the companies in the table. The graphs are the same data but the one on the right is zoomed in on the lower left corner (note the red squares).
The reason for the zoom is that there are three outliers. Tesla, Amazon and Lilly. Tesla has absurd valuation on both P/E (300 to 400 range in last 6 months) and EV/FCF while Amazon has an outrageous EV/FCF value due to abnormal capital spending. Basically, Tesla has negligible earnings (and negative growth) while holding astronomical share price and Amazon is spending far above its median on CapEx. Amazon's 10-year EV/FCF is much lower, at approximately 55.
But let's ignore the outliers and concentrate on the other seven in the cluster. These are below 50 P/E and 50 EV/FCF thresholds.
Note that I drew a diagonal line representing the equation of P/E = EV/FCF. This should, under normal circumstances, hold for most stocks. Just like Market Cap should roughly equal Enterprise Value so Earnings should equal Free Cash Flow.
Most companies should not stray too far from this line. But what we are seeing, with the notable exception of Apple, is that most tech companies have cash flow far below earnings. This is again due to the CapEx elephant.
The argument goes that this is a temporary situation with that capital being wisely deployed for returns from AI. Presumably, these companies will swing to the other side of the line, where cash flows will exceed earnings, compensating for the capex that was denied to the shareholders.
This is where the old adage comes into play: Earnings are an opinion but cash flow is a fact. I added to that "and share price is a dream". Take the free cash flow and multiply it by a "dream" and you get the price the market sets. This dream is the multiple.
What makes the AI "bubble" interesting is how it's not fueled by debt[2] but by cash flow. Companies are turning over large portions (almost all and sometimes more) of their cash flows to investing in the dream of AI profits. All but one, of course.
There is something obviously contrarian in Apple's strategy. Perhaps it's not Apple that is odd but rather there is groupthink on behalf of the others. The question of who's right will rest on whether it turns out that AI is going to commoditize quickly or perhaps never, whether AI turns out to be modular or integrated, whether AI exhibits disruptive or sustaining competitive responses, whether it's an infrastructure subject to regulatory corrosion or whether it will migrate to the edge and iterate freely, whether it's a new experience or simply better existing experiences, whether it creates new markets or just makes existing ones more efficient.
These are not new questions. They have been applied to all software and hardware innovations of the last 40 years. We have a lot of history to inform us.
Join me as we learn.
Asymco Bulletin is a digest of all the work we have published for the week ending Mar 28, 2026.
In Apple’s first 50 years it shipped 5.13 billion computers. This shipment total is higher than any other computer company in its first 50 years. There actually are no other PC makers that are 50 years old. But all these things were true also 40 years ago. So what are we celebrating now that we did not celebrate at Apple 40? The answer is Services, the consistency in growth in user base and the potential trajectory of growth to never-before imagine audiences. The biggest change is a change of horizons. →
Says Neal Stephenson who first coined the term “metaverse” This revelation came soon after Meta canceled the Metaverse. Let’s look into Neal Stephenson’s mea culpa:
When I was working at Magic Leap, and people asked me why I thought that [Metaverse] was a good idea, I would ask the rhetorical question: “do you really think that twenty years from now everyone is still going to be going around all day staring at little rectangles in their hands?” →
How everyone is wrong about AI. The newspaper was an unexpected development It was not a product that anyone asked for. Like many innovations, it wasn’t an invention. It was not patented or discovered in a laboratory. It emerged as a result of the convergence of three disparate technologies: continuous roll printing presses, the telegraph, and the railroad. This convergence occurred by the 1830s, facilitated by a business model aptly named “the penny press”. Stepping back, the printing press was initially developed in the 1450s, 40 years before Columbus’ voyage. It went through numerous evolutions. The big change was moving →
Apple, Samsung Dominate 2025 List of Highest-shipping Models Across Regions → In 2025, Apple dominated premium smartphone markets across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific, while Samsung excelled in entry- to mid-tier segments in Latin America and the Middle East and Africa. →
Tim Cook: Apple just had best launch week ever for first-time Mac customers → Neo brought Apple its strongest launch week performance, presumably by attracting first-time Mac buyers, and helping customers transition out of netbooks and Windows laptops. →
Running a data-center AI model on a MacBook → Apple's MacBook Pro, with its unique Apple silicon architecture, could revolutionize personal AI by enabling powerful AI models to run locally without relying on cloud data centers, potentially shifting the competitive landscape in Apple's favor despite current perceptions of lagging behind in AI advancements. →
Apple’s China smartphone sales jump 23% as overall market fell 4% to start 2026 → Apple defied market trends with a striking 23% iPhone sales surge in China, outpacing competitors despite broader smartphone shipment declines. →
“There’s So Much Left” in iPhone: Tim Cook → Apple's relentless focus on user-centric innovation, epitomized by the ever-ascendant iPhone, underscores its enduring dominance and untapped market potential. →
Amazon developing a new phone more than a decade after its first → Amazon's renewed attempt at a smartphone, "Transformer," aims to integrate AI and deepen Prime ecosystem ties, learning from past Fire failures by addressing trust, scale, and developer engagement challenges. →
Mac fastest growing PC brand in India in Q4 2025 → In 2025, India's PC market soared to a record 15.9 million units, with Mac sales impressively up 24% year over year, hinting at a bright future despite looming 2026 challenges. →
Forget Streetview, Immersion hints at what’s to come → "Waddle transforms visionOS into a portal of immersive exploration, where experiencing surpasses explaining." →
How to read the MacBook Neo as bad news for the stock → "Apple's Neo success is misleadingly painted as a margin threat, ignoring cost efficiencies and manufacturing leverage." →
Apple TV is a categorization failure → Apple TV, launched in 2007, struggled for 19 years as a misunderstood, underappreciated gateway to content, overshadowed by Apple's product-centric reputation. →
Apple’s Custom Silicon Opens up Potential for a Cellular MacBook → "Apple's C1X modem not only matches Qualcomm's performance but also reshapes the economic landscape for always-connected MacBooks, hinting at a future where seamless cellular integration redefines portable computing." →
Apple turns component crisis into competitive advantage → Apple leverages the memory crisis to aggressively capture market share from struggling Android, PC, and Chromebook competitors. →
Survey shows record upgrade interest for iPhones → Morgan Stanley forecasts Apple as the sole major smartphone vendor to gain market share in 2026, driven by strong upgrade intent and advanced features, while Android struggles with rising costs and declining loyalty. →
MacBook Neo Market Impact: Analysts weigh in → Market analysts predict the MacBook Neo will disrupt the low-end PC market, especially in education, by leveraging Apple's higher margins and user-centric design, despite challenges from price-sensitive K-12 sectors dominated by Chromebooks. →
World’s most respected Apple Analyst. —Macfilos
Like what you read? Get more from Asymco One:
full access to Asymco's research, analysis, and commentary.
Subscribe with code BULLETIN for a discount.
Feedback: Have questions or comments? Reach out to us at contact@asymco.com. We’d love to hear from you.
Who remembers the Fire?
The latest effort, known internally as “Transformer,” is being developed within its devices and services unit, according to four people familiar with the matter. The phone is seen as a potential mobile personalization device that can sync with home voice assistant Alexa and serve as a conduit to Amazon customers throughout the day, the people said.
The initiative is the newest chapter in a years-long effort to bring to market Bezos’ long-held vision of a ubiquitous voice-driven computing assistant akin to the voice-controlled computer in science fiction series “Star Trek.”
Bezos had envisioned a smartphone that had shopping at its core and could take on Apple by offering shipping convenience and discounts through the Prime membership. Along the way, Amazon could gain a wealth of new data about users only available through mobile phones combined with purchase history and content preferences.
As envisioned, the new phone’s personalization features would make buying from Amazon.com, watching Prime Video, listening to Prime Music or ordering food from partners like Grubhub easier than ever, the people said. They asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal matters.
A key focus of the Transformer project has been integrating artificial intelligence capabilities into the device, the people said. That could eliminate the need for traditional app stores, which require downloading and registering for applications before they can be used.
The project is being led by a year-old group within Amazon’s devices unit called ZeroOne, whose mandate is to create “breakthrough” gadgets, the people said. ZeroOne is led by J Allard, a former Microsoft executive involved in such devices as the Zune music player and Xbox gaming console.
The head of Amazon’s devices and services unit, Panos Panay, has been working to reverse years of unprofitability in the division. That includes a forthcoming tablet that will—for the first time—run Android instead of Fire OS and could sell for around $400, which Reuters was first to report.
One inspiration for the new phone has been the Light Phone, two of the people said, a $700 minimalist smartphone with a camera, map, calendar and not much else, such as an app store or web browser.
A dumbphone or feature phone could also help Amazon market it as a potential second handset to accompany iPhones and Samsung Galaxies already in customers’ pockets, the people said. Such handsets, like the Light Phone and flip phones, accounted for 15% of global handset sales in 2025, according to Counterpoint Research.
Source: Yahoo Finance
NB: The problem with any new phone, whether it's from Amazon or Google or Meta or OpenAI or Trump…
An allergy to centralized computing
Based on Tweets by MilkRoadAI
The 3rd? most valuable company on Earth watched as its rivals lit $650 billion on fire and did nothing. The biggest cash bonfire in history, by far, eagerly fed by all the usual suspects but one.
It's either the dumbest or the most brilliant move in corporate history.
Apple used to be the biggest capex spender, mainly because it paid for most of the property plant and equipment in the factories that made its phones and computers. The so-called tooling or equipment spending plus its leased store renovations and some data centers were costs no other tech giants had and so Apple was an outlier. It was, as I wrote at the time, equivalent to buying a few aircraft carriers every year.
But that all changed with AI. Amazon is spending $200 billion this year on AI data centers. Google, $185 billion. Microsoft, $114 billion. Meta, $135 billion. Combined: $650 billion. [Not including OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX/XAI.] That is like buying the US Navy every year. And yet Apple's capital budget is still a modest $14 billion, oscillating with new hardware tooling cycles.
Apple is refusing to transfer its cash flow to Nvidia. Curiously, it believes that its cash flow belongs to its shareholders, not to Nvidia's.
The hyperscalers are now spending 94% of their operating cash flows on AI infrastructure. Amazon is projected to go negative free cash flow this year with as much as $28 billion in the red. Alphabet's free cash flow is expected to collapse 90% from $73 billion to $8 billion. These companies used to be the greatest cash machines ever built. Now they're borrowing money to keep the data center lights on.
The Big Five raised $121 billion in bonds in 2025 alone. Morgan Stanley projects $1.5 trillion in tech debt over the coming years. For the first time in history, hyperscalers hold more debt than cash. Perhaps this is why their P/E ratios slumped from mid thirties to mid twenties.
And what are they getting for that $650 billion? AI services generate roughly $35 billion in total revenue or 5% of what's being spent on infrastructure. There are dreams of more of course, but the business models of AI have yet to resonate, especially for consumers.
Now here is where Apple's bet becomes genius. AI models are commoditizing faster than anyone predicted. Software and hardware both have tendencies to commodify. Protections exist but they have to do with integration and distribution. DeepSeek built a model for $6 million that matches systems costing $100 million. Open source models now power 80% of startups seeking VC funding. The moat these companies are spending hundreds of billions to build is evaporating.
Apple understood this before anyone else. It didn't build its own AI model, it licensed Google's Gemini for about $1 billion a year. Why spend $100 billion building a factory when outsourcing costs a billion? And if a better model appears next year, Apple just switches vendors.
But Apple is not sitting still. It just dropped the M5 chip with a 16 core Neural Engine and Neural Accelerators built into every GPU core. It runs 70 billion parameter AI models locally, eventually even on your phone. The M5 delivers 4x the AI performance of the M4 and Apple doesn't need $200 billion in data centers.
Because Apple turned 2 billion devices into the data center. Every iPhone, Mac, iPad gets distributed AI at a scale no server farm can match. While its rivals burn cash, Apple is doing the opposite. $90.7 billion in stock buybacks last fiscal year. Its competitors? Combined buybacks collapsed 74% from their peak.
Apple didn't miss the AI revolution. It just bet that the winners won't be the ones who build the infrastructure. They'll be the ones who own the customer and no one else on Earth owns the best customers.
