Do you have a device or an angle for

Apple to go after if they were truly

ambitious? Or maybe they are and it's

just in stealth. What do you think? You

think it's the goggles, the glasses? You

think it's a pendant? You think it's

Optimus? What do you think? I don't

think they have any chance of anything.

Great. Love it. I would take the exact

opposite of what Freebrook says. Look at

this chart and I'll tell you why. Okay,

here we go. This chart is not This chart

is not a strategy. So, this is a chart

of Apple's revenue and what you see is

iPhone has completely stalled out. And

so to Thomas's point, where do you make

money? You make money in other hardware.

This is not a strategy of success. This

is a strategy of inefficiency.

I lost my AirPods. I need to buy a new

pair. Oh, the cables changed. I need to

buy a bunch of those. This and that. And

a this and that strategy is not a

strategy. It's a tactical play for

revenue optimization in the short term.

A company that focuses on this kind of

revenue growth is not capable of

creating something that's exceptionally

unexpected. That will come from a new

company who has no ties to the past, has

nostalgia

on the fact that we're going to swap out

the connector type and, you know, book

another billion dollars. The what Thomas

said is an indictment actually about

their ability to do it. When your

AirPods business is two or three times

bigger than Open AI, what there is

internally when you try to have a

strategy meeting about what to do is

derision about Open AI because you're

like that's small and even our AirPods

business is three times big. That's what

some smartass MBA will say in that

meeting and it'll shut the meeting down.

So, how do you expect that culture to

then all of a sudden get their act

together? I think it's exceptionally

hard. And here's the clip on Q. Play the

clip, Nick. It's a great point. Here's

the clip. I'm Apple nostalgic. Me, too.

Bring Steve Jobs back. Watch this.

Lunacy, you probably saw that Johnny IV

has linked up with Open AI to create

some sort of future AI device.

Yeah, I don't know what that is. I don't

either. Yeah. Is this a space that

Apple's looking at? Is this a space that

goes beyond what you have in the current

lineup of devices? Something that is

more personal? Maybe you wear it?

Glasses.

I I think I mean I think we have some

extremely personal wearable devices. If

you want something that's uh aware of

your environment with with audio, I

think you're you're wearing one right

now on on your wrist. Um if you want

something that you can capture the

environment with and see and also

receive visual content, you might just

have one in your pocket right now. Um

are there other form factors that can

make sense to AI? Uh sure. But uh pretty

hard to beat something that's uh with

you all the time and glancable or you

know provides a nice screen that you can

interact with. Um so uh yeah I I don't

know what they're working on. What do

you think Jimoth? Again I think I want

to be very clear about what I'm saying.

That is a very competent Craig Federi

very very competent executive

and whoever the person beside him is

that guy's I'm going to assume competent

as well. They're competent at making

money

the way that they've made money for the

last 17 years with no meaningful

disturbance.

And I think it's just something to

appreciate that after 17 years of

unmitigated linear success, it's very

difficult to retool yourself. It's like

asking Michael Jordan to go and all of a

sudden become an all-star baseball. It

doesn't work. And so I think I I think

it's okay though, this is my point. It's

okay, guys, to have creative destruction

of companies. Like there was probably a

version of us blathering on about HP and

being nostalgic about the transistor

radio that they made and the, you know,

HP12B calculator that they made and oh

my god, why can't they figure their

out and where are we today? HP doesn't

even exist. It's okay. I mean, just

Thomas, the fact that they launched

Siri, they bought that company, and Siri

can't do anything other than like an

alarm, can barely play a song, it barely

can do directions. I I I mean,

literally, we're in year like 27 of

Siri, and it can't do anything. And then

I have the the Google and Gro voice, and

when I turn that on, it does whatever I

want. It will load on my Pixel. It loads

other applications, fires it off, does

specific tasks in it. It's absolutely

discretzia. On your on your Pixel, I

have a Pixel. When I when I flip open my

Pixel, I have

to I have the Pixel 9, Chimath. It's the

Anaconda of smartphones. Pixel 9

foldable. Got it. It's the greatest

assistant ever. It's what Siri It's what

Steve Jobs showed Siri. I had you at

nine. You had me at Anaconda. Yeah, I

had you at 9 in. And we can all aspire.

Maybe get Roman extra get that extra

inch. Thomas, go ahead. Chimath, I would

argue to you that I think this

management team has done it once and

it's in the transition of their gross

profit base, which doesn't show in the

chart that you just highlighted, but was

something that I kind of lived as an

analyst covering the stock for a long

time where if you remember over a decade

ago, 90 plus% of their gross profit was

a onetime hardware sale on the iPhone.

And no one thought that they would ever

be able to get away from the drug of

selling that one iPhone unit, right? And

cut to, you know, over a decade later,

it's 40%. Right? And I don't think they

get enough credit for actually

transitioning from hardware to a

recurring gross profit base. But look,

you might argue that that was an easier

pivot and challenge than what they're

going to face. And so, let's see whether

they can do it.

The other thing guys I wonder about um

let's I know we want to talk about IPOs

but I do wonder whether Zuck buying

scale for 15 billion gives air cover for

other companies to really start being

aggressive right and and to me as we

think about circle and coreweave two

companies that have gone IPO recently

it's it's kind of amazing kind of

numerically that the charts are almost

identical even you know on a dollar

basis on a share price, right? Because

to me, what it says, we were talking

about the dispersion of the Mac 7

before, right? Which are going to do

well, which are not. I expect we're

going to have a lot of opinions on this

over the next few years. And frankly,

they may change. We, you know, we may

think Apple one way today, it may change

in a month, right? But I do think the

market is starting to realize that there

is dispersion that AI might create some

all winners or some winners and then

some losers, right? and is starting to

think about, okay, how do I want to be

positioned for the next five years? What

are big open-ended growth opportunities?

And here comes two companies, one lever

to crypto, right, and the other lever to

AI. So, I don't think it's a surprise.

To me, these things are intertwined.

You're 100% on because here's the thing,

the average profit margin of the S&P 493

is, drum roll please, 12%. The average

growth of the S&P 493 is, drum roll

please, single digits. So to your point,

why would you belong any of these 493

companies that may turn around and one

day just get decapitated by something

you don't even know that's getting

cooked up by a couple kids in a garage

using OpenAI or Grock or what have you.

It just makes a lot more sense when you

find investable companies in the big

themes of the future to at a minimum

hedge, right? Be less long the past and

frankly make some bets about the future.

And I think that that's where you're

seeing these IPOs just absolutely rip.

What is a better comparison in my

opinion are the companies that are truly

levered to the future themes of AI and

crypto versus any of these IPOs that

have happened of companies that are not.

And I think what you see is there's a

dispersion there as well. And they are

being treated almost as similarly,

Jason, as the

S&P 493. It's like, yeah, it's good.

Yeah, it's fine. they get some

reasonable gains. But if you're lever to

any of those two two trends, you're off

to the races because it's just so

disruptive. People don't want to be bag

holding these old legacy companies.