2026-08-04 19:46:41
Well, we've established one thing: there are perhaps too many people with the name 'Chang' that work at both OpenAI and Apple.
I mean, that's really the connecting thread in the messages that OpenAI has now published publicly to defend themselves against Apple's lawsuit (and hoping to halt a would-be discovery process, which is clearly Apple's bigger angle here). In both the iMessages posted between (former Apple employee and current OpenAI employee) Chang Liu and an unnamed current (at least at the time) Apple employee and in the emails posted between Apple outside counsel, Gabriel Gross and OpenAI’s General Counsel Che Chang, naming mix-ups play a central role.
We already knew this about the emails thanks to reporting by NBC News a few weeks ago. This just seemingly confirms what happened is that Apple's outside counsel, Gabriel Gross, got mixed up when corresponding with an OpenAI employee named Wang and accidentally emailed an OpenAI employee named Chang in a follow-up response.
It just so happens that the Chang here is actually Che Chang, who just so happens to be OpenAI's General Counsel. So yeah, that's never a great mistake to make, especially for a lawyer sending legal documents, but extra especially when the mixup involves the GC of the other company.
But actually, reading between the lines of these messages, it seems like Gross perhaps did intend to email Che Chang at least in that first correspondence at 5:53pm. It's impossible to know given the redactions, but Gross implies that the 5:53pm email was intended for Chang, but the follow-up one at 6:07pm (actually 6:06pm, but I digress) was meant for Wang.
Given the emails, it seems like Gross emailed Chang to discuss the situation about Wang (and included the letter sent to him alongside other documents seemingly related to Apple information being mishandled). He then followed-up with Chang 13 minutes later, but meant to message Wang, because the two had seemingly just had a phone call. The fact that he still addresses him as "Mr. Chang" (when he should be addressing "Mr. Wang") just makes this all the more confusing (likely because he was replying to the wrong thread – how amazing would it be if AI auto-inserted that greeting?). But that's seemingly what happened.
But again, the fact that Chang is not some other random OpenAI employee but instead OpenAI's GC clearly sent this mistake in a new and interesting direction.
OpenAI's lawyer was clearly like "what the fuck is this?" and quickly emails Apple's actual in-house legal team to see if it's legit or some sort of weird phishing expedition. And if it is legit, he immediately seeks to get Gross removed from the account "given this behavior". Gross emails Chang the following day to explain the mix-up, and then Apple's in-house legal team does the day after that to confirm Gross is legitimate and noting that he should have already sent an email explaining the error. And that's that. At least, that's the last email OpenAI shared here. And from their preamble, that's the last correspondence.
OpenAI notes (twice) that they believed that Apple was "resolving any issues", but that was just the wording from Gross – again, the outside counsel – to Chang, so it seems a bit misleading to frame that as Apple closing out the matter entirely. But at the same time, the person named "Wang" is not a part of Apple's actual lawsuit, filed months later, so it is weird for Apple to use this back-and-forth as the framing for that lawsuit.
Also adding to the confusion here is that another Chang – Chang Liu – is one of the two key figures in the lawsuit filed by Apple, but seemingly has nothing to do with the email back and forth here. Instead, it's this other former Apple/current OpenAI employee named "Wang" who seemingly was being monitored for the same or similar Apple information handling/mishandling issues that Chang Liu is being accused of. Got it? Because I barely do.
The fact that Apple framed this whole mix-up as OpenAI not responding to their initial inquiry is... not great. It does look like they were responding – well, at least Wang – and that at least that issue was being resolved. Apple is seemingly framing Che Chang not responding to actually talk with Gabriel Gross (in that first email) as the non-response bit, but again, that was sort of Apple's own fault! Well, their outside counsel's at least.
At the very least, it gave OpenAI an opening to not respond to the actual issue. But they probably still should have?! As OpenAI writes today:
Apple had claimed that they contacted OpenAI in February and that we didn’t respond. They now admit that their outside lawyers emailed the wrong person after confusing two Asian last names—only after we brought this to their attention. Apple also claimed they had a discussion with our General Counsel, which they now concede never happened. But they again hide the fact that they never raised the specific allegations in this lawsuit at that time, and that they in fact told us that they were “resolving any issues”. We then heard nothing for five months until they sued. In their latest filing, Apple tries hard to spin this sequence of events, but you can just read the emails for yourself here.
This reads like a fairly disingenuous retelling of events given the emails OpenAI shared. And the company has some history of being slippery in this regard.
(As an aside, is it too 3D Chess to think that Che Chang made such a big deal out of this mix-up knowing that it could help any potential legal issues down the road – and/or distract from what Apple's outside counsel is looking into? But then again, we don't know what documents were actually inadvertently shared, so... I'm just putting it out there!)
At the same time, the next paragraph from OpenAI reads like a decidedly more fair and level-headed assessment of the situation:
Apple accuses Chang Liu of accessing Apple confidential information after leaving the company, but only now admits that Apple employees reached out to him and asked for his help to locate this information (you can read the messages here). Apple now tries to shift the blame to “residual access”, but they also don’t disclose that this is a common issue with Apple which is caused by them failing to properly manage system access when people leave. What that means in practice is that former employees who are trying to do the right thing when they leave still have access to Apple files—despite not wanting them or even being aware of them.
Back to the iMessages, the current Apple employee clearly gets spooked when they get a notification that "Chang" has joined a spreadsheet. They note that they may have to "hit the workday button now" which suggests it would finally and fully cut off access to Chang Liu's files – which is fairly damning as it's an acknowledgement that they know they shouldn't be accessing these files and that they know how to turn it off. (And actually, it's Chang Liu who pushes to turn iMessage access off because it might leak OpenAI information the other way, to Apple!)
Chang Liu responds that he doesn't have access to the spreadsheet in question and that it's "Maybe the new Chang". Yes, it's seemingly another Chang naming mix-up!1So they keep going...
Anyway, most of the iMessages that OpenAI shares here are decidedly more murky, simply because there's so much that's redacted. Obviously this is to protect Apple's confidential information – largely, it seems project names but also clearly some details on timing; it's impossible to know what else given the redactions – and it's still not a great look that an OpenAI employee is talking about such things so openly with a current Apple employee.
The most damning portion may be when other current Apple employees are added to the chat thread and one promptly responds with:
Hi, this is highly irregular, please remove me from this thread
Yeah, not great.
Then again, these messages do help frame it as much more of a casual correspondence with the Apple employee seeking help from their former colleague. Anyone who has ever left a job can undoubtedly relate. Someone you used to work with pings you for some help on something you used to know about/work on. Technically, you shouldn't help them, but come on, we're all humans. So yeah, these messages make it seem less like some big coordinated effort to steal from Apple and more like some bad judgement on a former Apple employee's part. But also the current Apple employee's part too!
In that regard, it's probably a good thing for OpenAI that this is angling towards a jury trial, because they might be more um, open to seeing the human error side of this. Because technically, legally, there's still clearly some at the very least proprietary information changing hands here.
And that's not great for OpenAI even if it just opens the door to discovery. More and more that seems to be the real angle here. Apple appears to be using this situation as a wedge to pry open the doors to any and all communication within OpenAI about information that relates to what former Apple employees are now working on within OpenAI.
Like, say, an AI speaker. Or a phone-like device.
You have to believe there's going to be a lot of such information simply given the fact that some 400+ people who used to work at Apple now work at OpenAI! That doesn't mean any of it will be damning let alone illegal, but well, Apple would like to see that to decide for themselves!
OpenAI would not like Apple to see any of that, one imagines.
So the question now is if a judge is going to allow that discovery process to happen. It's clearly not a coincidence that OpenAI is releasing their side of the story now as yesterday Apple formally filed their request for a preliminary injunction against Chang Liu and Tang Tan (who OpenAI defended in their post today, but didn't release any documents/correspondence about). Most notably, Apple is also seeking "expedited discovery". And also seeking depositions of Chang Liu and Tang Tan and Yu-Ting Peng.
If you recognize that last name, it's because she's named in the suit as a co-conspirator with Chang Liu, but interestingly, wasn't actually sued by Apple. Given everything that has been reported, it sure seemed like Yu-Ting Peng is the other person on the end of those Chang Liu messages shared by OpenAI – but at one point he says "Thank you sir!" in response which suggests it's not Peng. Also their correspondence was previously said to be done using Line, not iMessage as is the stated form of communication here. So... who is this person Chang Liu is talking to? And what's in the Line messages with Peng?!
"Just iMessages might get you in trouble." For now, indeed.
One more thing: per the Reuters report on Apple's preliminary injunction, beyond Tang Tan, Chang Liu, and Yu-Ting Peng, Apple also is specifically looking to depose another "unnamed OpenAI employee who previously worked at Apple." Unclear who that might be. Could it be "Wang"?! Perhaps even more intriguingly:
Apple also sought depositions from corporate representatives of OpenAI and io Products, which is OpenAI's commercial arm and is listed as a defendant in the lawsuit.
Is this Apple's way to subtly rope in Jony Ive as well? Or are they going to continue to (clearly intentionally) leave him out of this? What about Sam Altman?
2026-08-04 04:38:19
If you live online, you'll have noticed the vibe has shifted pretty substantially against Anthropic in recent weeks. Whereas even just a few months ago, the company was seen as the more scrappy, idealistic underdog – one which happened to be formed by founders who left the seemingly unstoppable foe in OpenAI – that tide has now turned.
Certainly part of it is just the shift from underdog to presumed leader in AI. But a lot of it has to do with the way Anthropic carries itself as a company. Whereas the strong stances and rhetoric were once seen as almost endearing, now they're seen more as a problem. From the US Government to Big Tech and many in between.
The mood now feels so negative against Anthropic that it seems worth asking the obvious question that no one wants to bother with any longer: what if they're right?
2026-08-03 18:00:45
Look, the numbers are great. Perhaps even incredible given where the box office has been in the last few years post-pandemic. But what they aren't are actual records. At least if we're being honest with ourselves.
A powerful one-two punch from “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” and “The Odyssey” has fueled the biggest collective weekend in box office history, with roughly $430 million across all movies in the marketplace.
Prior to this, the top three weekends were led by 2019’s “Avengers: Endgame” ($402 million collectively), 2018’s “Avengers: Infinity War” ($314 million collectively) and 2015’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” ($313 million collectively). It’s a particularly exciting benchmark for the recently married Tom Holland and Zendaya, who star in “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” and “The Odyssey.”
I personally find it odd that these headlines keep coming unabated despite the fact that perhaps the only topic on which more ink has been spilled in the past few years than the death of the movie theater has been on the concept of inflation. Because of the way that money and time work, this is simply not a real comparison. It's not exactly apples-to-oranges, but it's certainly not dollars-to-dollars!
I harp on this a lot, and have for years, but I feel the need to dumb it down even further to make it clear:
Yes, $430M is more than $402M in 2026. But the problem is that only the $430M number is from 2026. The $402M number is from 2019. Thanks to said inflation, $402M earned in 2019 is actually closer to $525M in 2026 if you simply adjust using the consumer pricing index numbers. The reality is slightly more nuanced because movie ticket prices don't track exactly to this number, and actually overall inflation has caused the CPI to rise faster than ticket prices. Still, the 2019 number is almost certainly closer to $500M when adjusting for 2026 movie ticket prices.
$525M – or even just $500M – is still more than $430M. So what we're really celebrating here is that things are more expensive with time. That includes milk. That includes movie tickets. Congrats, everyone.
“We have conquered a box-office milestone that seemed forever out of reach,” says Paul Dergarabedian, Rentrak’s head of marketplace trends. “This is now only the second $400 million-plus weekend in box office history.”
$400M today is likely to look something more like $750M - $800M in 2050, so one imagines we won't be touting such "forever out of reach" numbers by then. Calm down, dude.
You know what other metric is at or near a record? The number of theaters that movies are opening in. When Batman set a record opening in 1989, it did so in just under 2,200 locations. Brand New Day just opened in 4,487,1 just shy of Top Gun: Maverick's 2022 record of 4,735 locations.
Look, again, it was a great weekend! But I don't see the point of not putting it into the actual, appropriate context. I mean, I certainly do if you're Hollywood! And I guess I do if you're a Hollywood trade publication. (Though, to be fair, another article about the weekend not fully centered around the "record" does caveat that the numbers are not inflation-adjusted.) Still, readers outside of the industry might want at least a dose of reality in such reporting.
The 2018 $314M weekend number adjusted with CPI ends up being about $418M, so this new "record" weekend would hold there, just barely. However the 2015 $313M weekend translates to $441M in 2026 money, so the "record" again falls there, just barely. But don't you think it's curious how every record weekend before this one occurred in a four year span from 2015 to 2019? Again, that's inflation!
The actual box office records for individual movies illustrates this point well. Gone with the Wind, which was released in 1939, remains the all-time leader at $1.85B. Second is Star Wars (aka A New Hope – the first of the first trilogy), released in 1977 at $1.63B. The Sound of Music, released in 1965 is third at $1.3B. In fact, to find a movie released after 2000, you have to go down to #11, The Force Awakens, the first of the third Star Wars trilogies which yes, powered the 2015 weekend mentioned above.
And wait a minute, it's sort of buried by Box Office Mojo, but those adjusted numbers are only updated for 2019 ticket prices! Updated to 2026 prices, $1.85B becomes... $2.4B for Gone with the Wind!Star Wars' 2019 figure would look more like $2.13B now. The Sound of Music would be at $1.7B today. That's just domestic.
In that regard, for context, the biggest movie released all of last year was either Zootopia 2 or The Minecraft Movie (depending on if you only include 2025 domestic box office), both around $430M. This year's crop will for sure finish far higher – Toy Story 5 is already past that number, Super Mario Galaxy is inches away, The Odyssey should surpass it this week – but let's just say the winner ends up being this new Spider-Man, and let's try to extrapolate out to say that it might end up in the $750M - $900M range (which is likely generous as it probably won't have the holding power of The Odyssey – superhero movies tend to be far more front-loaded and fall faster). That could come close to the current all-time box office champ (when not accounting for inflation): the aforementioned The Force Awakens at $937M.
But wait, actually, that Force Awakens number would be more like $1.3B in 2026 dollars. There's that pesky inflation again!
The only movie on that non-adjusted all-time list released before 2000 is 1997's Titanic at #9. Beyond that, there's only one other movie released in the 90s – 1999's The Phantom Menace, the first of the second trilogy – at #23. To find a movie not released in the past 30 years, you have to go to #28 where, yes, the first Star Wars again resides (after a few re-releases). To finally find a non-Star Wars movie to make the cut, you have to go to #34 with 1982's E.T (also after several re-releases).
Again, all of this is just meant to illustrate the roll inflation and ticket prices play in these numbers. We're celebrating an all-time weekend, but that's simply because money's value is also at an all-time high. If we wanted a more honest measurement, we'd use tickets sold or even something like per-capita filmgoing. But Hollywood would prefer we don't look at those numbers, for obvious reasons.
At the end of the day, I suppose the most important thing is unlike many of its high-grossing brethren, Spider-Man: Brand New Day will actually turn a profit at the box office. In fact, it undoubtedly already has! Ditto with The Odyssey and several other movies this year, thus far. That's great! And certainly better than years past. But it's also undoubtedly not that great when compared to the type of profit margins that the actual highest grossing movies of all time used to pull.
For those margins and profits, we probably have to turn to the talent streaming in from YouTube...
One more thing: sure, let's call this a new hope or a brand new day. And movie theaters and Hollywood will take whatever wins they can get. But just to keep the wet blanket wrapped around the narrative for a moment, I'll note that despite the shocked euphoria that Hollywood now seems to be expressing over these numbers, this was entirely predictable. In fact, it was one of my predictions for 2026! But it came with a warning:
A box office boom, but... – Spider-Man, Avengers, Hunger Games, Jumanji, Toy Story, Shrek, Mandalorian (and Grogu), Mario, Minions, Moana, Michael Jackson, Narnia, Odyssey, Dune, Steven Spielberg back with aliens – even if all of them don't hit (Supergirl?), enough of them will to boost the box office results for 2026, perhaps even past the pre-pandemic levels finally (not counting for inflation, because Hollywood ridiculously never seems to...). Everyone will trumpet the return of movie theaters, and yet it won't change any of the longer-term trends and issues with the industry. Of course, we won't be able to see that fully until 2027 and beyond...
Yeah... (Also, nailed it with the Supergirl sub-prediction there!)
Update: I've now seen Spider-Man: Brand New Day and I will just say, it's very good. Regardless of the money funny business with records, I feel like it's important to note that a huge reason for its success is that it's good, plain and simple.
1 Honestly, the most impressive think about Spider-Man's opening here is that it posted the numbers without IMAX, because those screens are still tied up showing The Odyssey. Of course, given their clearly maximum utilization, it doesn't change any point about the overall weekend numbers. ↩
2026-08-03 03:56:06
When I first wrote about The Bear four years ago, I had just finished season one and almost couldn't believe how well it worked despite it's almost comically short length. But really as the season went on, it felt like that's why it worked: each episode was exactly as long as it needed to be and not a minute more.1 All killer no filler.2
I'm happy to report that having just finished the fifth (and final) season,3 it ends just as it began – right up to the point of having a penultimate intense episode followed by a more meditative coda for the finale. After some up-and-down middle seasons,4 it's nice to know they once again stuck the landing.5
And it's also nice to know that I wasn't alone in thinking this. I've written before about the site TVCharts, which uses IMDb's star review system to give you a sense of how each episode (and season) of a show was received. Yes, yes, the IMDb ratings are sometimes gamed at first and have at times been a hotbed of weird and/or problematic behavior. But over time, I found them to be a fairly accurate representation of how "good" or "bad" movies or shows are, at least directionally. Perhaps that means my taste are to vanilla or mainstream, but I've long found such aggregated opinions to guide me fairly well.
But actually, more recently, I've been using a site called Series Graph to track such things. The idea is the same – IMDb scores aggregated – but their data is far more up-to-date. I'll often now consult these sites before diving into a new series to see if it's likely worth my time. But I started The Bear before I found such sites, so I didn't want to "spoil" the ending – meaning, knowing if they stuck that landing or not.
Anyway, it was nice to see The Bear close out those final two episodes with a 9.7 and 9.1 (out of 10) rating, respectively. Truly great scores to wrap up a series.
And this took me down a rabbit hole of looking at just how many series stuck the landing versus "shit the landing" as it were.
Game of Thrones is the most obvious and famous example, and it's showcased well by Series Graph. Over the first seven seasons, the series had eleven episodes that are currently rated 9.7 or above – three that are 9.9! Then came season 8...
Boy did they shit the bed.
Per these ratings, the season starts out troublesome – episodes that would be considered fine for any other show, but are way below the average for Game of Thrones. But the final three episodes are well... we've been over this. It's so clear that they ran out of runway or steam or ideas – or all three. It's honestly a travesty given how good and iconic the overall series was and is. I still wish they would re-do them, because at some point soon, you know someone is going to use AI to do just that.
Okay, focus. Some other fun ones:
I could go on and on. It's such a deep rabbit hole. And now I have a half dozen old series I feel like I need to watch. At least with The Bear wrapped, there's a slot.
1 As opposed to Ted Lasso, which always felt far too short in that first season. We'll see what format/lenght they go with when it returns this week! ↩
2 Honestly, my main nit would be the release strategy here. I continue to think it's dumb that once a show is established, as The Bear clearly is, to just dump all the episodes at once rather than let them build over several weeks/months, with conversations around each episode. And it's not even Netflix that made and streamed The Bear, but FX/Hulu/Disney! ↩
3 Yes, they managed to do five seasons in four years. That's basically unheard of in our era of streaming, though, see below... ↩
4 Perhaps in part because they broke up season 3 into season 3 and 4 rather than just trimming the fat to make one season. Interestingly, almost the opposite problem that House of the Dragon ran into in season two (as the scores confirm!). ↩
5 One thing I found curious and notably absent versus the first couple of seasons: there was far less (popular) music used. Maybe I just didn't notice it as much because there was no Pearl Jam. And I love Pearl Jam. But obviously season 1 ends with that great use of "Let Down" by Radiohead, and I was surprised they didn't do something similar with the finale given how the structure mimicks the end of that first season. Were the rights too expensive given the success of the show?! ↩
2026-07-30 20:31:54
It's that time of year again: quarterly earnings for Big Tech. And you know what that means... time for Wall Street to freak out over CapEx spend related to AI build-out once again. Sure enough, Google went first and upped their forecasted spend pushing the range past $200B for the first time. The market puked. Next up, Meta. They simply raised the low-end of their previous guidance (to $130B up from $125B). The market puked.1 Then there's Microsoft...
2026-07-29 20:28:40
When Apple jacked up their prices across several products last month, there was a curious absence – a big one, the biggest one: the iPhone. As I noted at the time, it seemed like a strategy so as not to shock the system – read: Wall Street – all at once. The iPhone remains the most vital aspect of Apple's business, so while Tim Cook had already signaled – step one – the price increases were coming, pushing them first across nearly the entire product lineup aside from the iPhone clearly seemed like step two in this easement strategy.
Step three would likely be to announce the new iPhone pricing alongside unveiling the new premium iPhone models – including, for the first time, the 'iPhone Ultra', the first foldable, and undoubtedly most expensive, iPhone. And even that was clever/lucky since Apple has long been believed to be breaking up the iPhone launches starting this year, with the "regular" iPhones 18 coming in the Spring of 2027. And that would have been a step four of the strategy, since the buyers of the non-Pro devices are more likely to be price conscious. So Apple would have guided towards that outcome and postponed that pain as long as possible.
Well, as it turns out, this is a five step strategy!
Before that all-important step three of unveiling the new iPhones in September, Apple had a trick up their sleeve: a new way to pay! Say hello to Apple Upgrade:
Apple Upgrade offers 12- and 24-month leasing options for iPhone and Apple Watch, and 24- and 36-month leasing options for Mac and iPad. Leasing prices start as low as $17.99 per month for iPhone, $11.99 for Apple Watch, $24.99 for Mac, and $11.99 for iPad. When customers first enroll in Apple Upgrade, they can further lower their monthly lease payments by trading in their currently owned device through Apple Trade In. Customers can also earn 3 percent Daily Cash back when making their lease payments with Apple Card.
While Apple still didn't raise iPhone prices alongside this move, it's clearly another lever to pull getting ahead of that inevitable increase in a few weeks. Now a $100 or $200 price increase on the iPhone 18 Pro – perhaps soon to start at $1,299? – will look far less daunting when Apple can also tout the option to pay, say, $33.99/month.1
And even better will be for those aforementioned "regular" iPhone 18 models coming in the Spring, which could start at just say, $19.99/month (again, assuming some increase in the monthly price alongside an actual iPhone price increase).
Apple, of course, has long had a way for some customers to pay for an iPhone monthly with the 'iPhone Upgrade Program', but as the name indicates, it was mostly geared around those who upgraded every year and allowed them to save a lot in terms of up-front costs and a bit in terms overall costs for a single iPhone – but with the rub being that they would have to pay in perpetuity!
Given that I upgrade my iPhone each year, I was an early member of this program, but found it a bit of a mess by Apple's standards, at least in those early days. A big part of that is because Apple partnered with a third-party bank on the financing element. For a while, it seemed like Apple would try to bring this all in-house as they slowly but surely grew their payments prowess with first Apple Card, and then their own 'Pay Later' service. But, well, both have been sort of a nightmare. Apple partnered with Goldman Sachs to launch the Card and the two quickly had a falling out and it took well over a year to find a new home with JPMorgan (which is still in process). Meanwhile, Apple Pay Later only made it a year before they pulled the plug entirely, seemingly not enjoying holding the debt on their balance sheet. So much for the Apple Bank!
Apple went back to partnering. And they're doing so here as well, with Klarna. And yes, the iPhone Upgrade Program is going away.2 This is a far more robust offering for more Apple products. Yes, you can still do the monthly installment option with Apple Card, but that's only that card and that's only to fully buy the device over time.
Anyway, as someone who has long been on the lookout for an 'Apple Prime' or 'iPhone Prime' offering – that is, a way to "subscribe" to pay for your iPhone just as you subscribe to Amazon Prime – this is the closest thing yet. Yes, Apple has the 'Apple One' subscription but it only bundles their software offerings, not the iPhone (or any other hardware). Still, it seemed inevitable given the ever-rising costs of the iPhone, as Apple pushed more and more premium models. And now it's here, a true 'Apple-as-a-Service'.
Yes, it would be a bit nicer to rope this into Apple One itself. Or for it to be fully run through Apple without any partners needing to do third-party credit checks and whatnot. But Apple will presumably make this as seamless as they possibly can. Because again, I think it's a big part of their strategy to alleviate (and in a way, obfuscate) the price rises that have been forced upon Apple by the current market dynamics.
One imagines we'll see that familiar iPhone pricing slide during Apple's next keynote – the first undoubtedly to be fully MC'd by John Ternus – but with a new element: "the iPhone 18 Pro starts at just $1,299 or you can sign up for 'Apple Upgrade' and pay just $33.99/month for 24 months (or more if you want a 12 month term). And at the end of that term, you can opt to pay a bit more to buy the device outright, or simply choose a new model! This will be offered in the US to start, but we're working to bring it to other parts of the world soon."3
And just like that, Apple will have kicked 'AaaS' out the door. Curious to see how they account for this – literally. Do they still book the full device price at time of sale, or just the portion covered by the lease? It then perhaps technically becomes Klarna's iPhone for which to collect the monthly installments? Or is it some sort of hybrid?
But that's too in the weeds. For consumers, this will just look like you can buy an iPhone (or Mac, or iPad, or Apple Watch) from Apple for a relatively low monthly fee. And given where Apple's prices are heading, that's going to look awfully enticing to many.
1 Unless Apple already baked-in the upcoming iPhone price increases into these monthly rates? It's possible but probably unlikely? That would be a nice "surprise" though if they don't have to raise these just-announced monthly prices! ↩
2 And with it, sadly, the inclusion of AppleCare in such programs, it seems. That will be extra. Services, FTW (for Apple's bottom line). ↩
3 Which may be a part of why they picked Klarna here, a company headquartered in Stockholm but that operates in the US as well... ↩
