Connect with us

Business

Apple has made splashy bets in Hollywood. Are they paying off?

Published

on

Apple has made splashy bets in Hollywood. Are they paying off?

In the first episode of the Apple TV+ show “The Studio,” Oscar-winning director Martin Scorsese sells his script to the fictional Continental Studios, only to be told later by a studio chief played by Seth Rogen that the project, about Jonestown, has been killed.

Instead, the company is fast-tracking a soulless brand-based cash grab: a Kool-Aid movie.

“Just give me back my movie and let me go sell it to f— Apple, the way I should have done it in the first place,” a despairing Scorsese says.

The line could practically be an ad for how Apple TV+, the Cupertino tech giant’s streaming service, has positioned itself as a creative haven for filmmakers trying to sell bold, original ideas.

The service, which was introduced in 2019 with a splashy event featuring Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg, found success with comedy shows like “Ted Lasso” and 2022 best picture Academy Award winner “CODA.”

Advertisement

But the question hanging over the company was, just how serious was it about its Hollywood ambitions? Would it be the next big power player? Or would it become just another deep-pocketed short-timer? For years after they joined the company, Apple TV+ leaders Jamie Erlicht and Zack Van Amburg were dogged by rumors that their jobs were in jeopardy.

Lately though, its efforts have come more into focus. It’s been on a run of critical success with shows such as “Severance,” “The Studio” and “Your Friends & Neighbors.” Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook said in a call with investors on Thursday that Apple TV+ “has become a must-see destination” and posted record viewership in the quarter.

Some have compared it to HBO — before Warner Bros. Discovery began making cuts — developing a reputation for being willing to pay big for A-list stars and creatives.

“It’s been brilliant at defining its niche … and the quality of what it does is simply superb,” said Stephen Galloway, dean of Chapman University’s Dodge College of Film and Media Arts. “The question is, is the niche big enough to justify the expense?”

Apple TV+’s subscriber base remains small compared to competitors, including Netflix. It lacks the deep, established libraries of Walt Disney Co. or Warner Bros. Discovery’s Max, which helps keep customers paying every month and not switching to another service. While it has good shows and movies, critics say, it lacks the volume and breadth of its competitors.

Advertisement

And the quality over quantity approach has its doubters. Wedbush Securities managing director Daniel Ives estimates Apple TV+ has 57 million subscribers, which he called “disappointing.” Wall Street had hoped to see 100 million or more subscribers by now, he said.

Apple has “built a mansion [and] they don’t have enough furniture, and that’s a problem from a content perspective with Apple TV+,” Ives said.

Further, tech and business news site the Information reported that Apple TV+ is losing $1 billion a year. The company’s strategy has left some rivals scratching their heads.

“I don’t understand it beyond a marketing play, but they’re really smart people,” said Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos in a March interview with Variety. “Maybe they see something we don’t.”

Apple declined to comment.

Advertisement

Observers noted that it can take a long time for streaming services to become profitable. NBCUniversal’s Peacock is still losing money, for example.

In recent years, subscription streaming services have been under pressure by investors to produce more profit. In an industry where there’s a lot of competition and Netflix has been declared the winner, there’s anxiety about how many platforms can survive on their own.

But Apple thinks differently about entertainment compared to its more traditional studio rivals, people familiar with the company say.

Apple TV+ is just one part of the company’s larger strategy to grow its subscription services business under Eddy Cue, which includes Apple Music, iCloud storage and Apple News, among other options.

The services category represented 25% of Apple’s overall sales of $391 billion in its last fiscal year. The company’s largest money maker remains the iPhone, which represented 51% of Apple’s total revenues in its last fiscal year.

Advertisement

In its most recent quarter, services reached a revenue record of $26.6 billion, up 12% from a year ago, the company said.

Apple TV+ is “a small piece of all the services that you provide,” said Alejandro Rojas, vice president of applied analytics with Parrot Analytics. “You want this to add to the overall brand experience, but without also crossing a massive gap in resources and investments.”

Apple TV+’s programming strategy has taken a talent-friendly approach, tending to favor projects with big-name stars.

One of its early major bets was “The Morning Show” with Jennifer Aniston, Reese Witherspoon and Steve Carell. Drama “Your Friends & Neighbors” stars Jon Hamm from “Mad Men.” Its February survival drama film “The Gorge” stars Miles Teller and Anya Taylor-Joy.

One of Apple’s biggest movie releases will happen this summer with Formula 1 film “F1” (featuring Brad Pitt), which hits theaters in June, including on Imax screens. Warner Bros. is handling the theatrical release for the big-budget movie, directed by Joseph Kosinski (“Top Gun: Maverick”).

Advertisement

Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore, hopes “F1” will play like “Top Gun: Maverick” on a racetrack. Some of Apple’s previous filmmaker-driven, star-studded movies struggled at theaters, including “Fly Me to the Moon” and “Argylle.”

“This is a huge movie for Apple,” Dergarabedian said. “I think they picked a perfect project to really amplify their filmmaking acumen and their filmmaker relationships.”

The way Apple treats talent has a personalized touch, said creatives who have worked with the company.

Tomorrow Studios president Becky Clements said she was “forever grateful” that Apple took a shot on “Physical,” an original series starring Rose Byrne about a 1980s housewife who struggles with an eating disorder and finds strength through aerobics.

“It’s an original piece, which is often a difficult thing to pull off in the marketplace,” Clements said.

Advertisement

Clements credited Apple with supporting the filmmakers and not micromanaging the show, which delved into difficult material.

Ben Silverman, an executive producer on upcoming Apple TV+ series “Stick” (starring Owen Wilson), said the show’s budget allowed for traveling to North Carolina for filming, where prominent golf commentators Trevor Immelman and Jim Nantz were located during the PGA Tour.

“I think a lot of platforms are supportive of their creators right now, but they may not have the bandwidth to go as deep as Apple can on individual projects because they’re just not doing as many,” said Silverman, chairman and co-CEO of L.A.-based Propagate Content.

Advertisement

Not all creatives have been happy with Apple.

It threw observers for a loop when it did a short and limited theatrical release for last year’s Brad Pitt and George Clooney action-comedy movie “Wolfs,” instead of a more traditional wide release.

Director Jon Watts told Deadline he backed out of a sequel because he was surprised by Apple’s “last minute” shift and that Apple ignored his request to not reveal that he was working on a follow-up. Apple has not addressed the controversy publicly.

Like other streamers, over time, Apple TV+ has made changes to help generate more revenue, cut costs and increase customers. Last month, Apple cut the price of its streaming service temporarily to $2.99 a month. Its base monthly fee is $9.99. Last year, Apple TV+ reached a deal to sell subscriptions through Amazon.

In February, Apple TV+ captured 30% of its sign-ups via Amazon Channels, said Brendan Brady, director of strategy at research firm Antenna. High-profile releases including the new “Severance” season and “The Gorge” drove sign-ups, he added.

Advertisement

“It’s a combination of content driving their acquisition, and also that opening up of their distribution attracting a new audience,” Brady said.

Apple’s overall business faces macroeconomic challenges, such as the Trump administration’s trade war with China.

Government officials have warned that tariffs on smartphones made in China are coming — which would harm Apple’s iPhone because many are made in the country. Increased costs to Apple’s overall business could eventually squeeze other areas of the company including Apple TV+, analysts said.

Some people who work with Apple said it’s too early to judge Apple’s success based on its estimated subscriber counts so far, and they’re placing chips on the venture succeeding in the long run.

“It’s about investing early and long-term,” Silverman said. “I’m always an entrepreneurial spirit who wants to lean in early to these platforms and partnerships, hoping that I can build a beachfront relationship.”

Advertisement

Business

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

Published

on

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.

In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.

The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.

Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.

Advertisement

The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.

“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.

Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”

Advertisement

The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.

On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.

The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.

Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.

“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”

Advertisement

Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.

Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.

“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.

Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.

Advertisement

“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”

Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.

The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”

Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.

The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending