Apple's Reckoning: 2025 Review and The High-Wire Act of 2026

Justin S

Hey everyone, welcome to The Cupertino Chronicles. I'm Justin, and if this is your first time listening—welcome. And if you've been with me all year, thank you. We've covered a lot of ground together in 2025. Today, we're doing something a little different. It's the end of December, we're days away from 2026, and I want to take a step back and look at where Apple has been, where they are now, and most importantly—where they're heading. Because 2025 wasn't just another year for Apple. It was a year of transition, of pressure, of cracks showing in the foundation. And 2026? 2026 is going to be the year that defines the next decade for this company. I recently published an analysis piece titled "2026: The Year Apple's Strategy Faces Its Reckoning," and the response has been incredible. So today, I want to walk through that analysis in depth, but first, we need to talk about how we got here. What happened in 2025 that set the stage for what I genuinely believe will be one of the most consequential years in Apple's history. So grab your coffee, settle in, and let's talk about Apple's past, present, and future.

Justin S

Let's start with products, because that's what Apple does, right? They make products. And 2025 was interesting. We got the iPhone 17 lineup in September. Solid phones. The Pro models with A18 Pro chips were genuinely impressive—those performance gains were real. The Dynamic Island continued to mature. We saw incremental camera improvements. But here's what struck me: for the first time in years, the conversation around iPhone launches wasn't about revolutionary features. It was about iterative improvements and, notably, about what Apple didn't include. No foldable. No under-display Face ID. The competition was moving faster in certain areas, and Apple seemed patient. Or behind. Depending on your perspective. The Mac lineup saw significant updates with the M4 chip rolling out across the MacBook Pro and iMac lines. The M4 is a beast—no question. Apple's silicon advantage is real and measurable. But even here, we started seeing something interesting: memory configurations became a bigger conversation than usual. 8GB base RAM on Macs in 2025 felt increasingly insufficient, especially as Apple pushed Apple Intelligence features that required more memory headroom.

Justin S

Speaking of Apple Intelligence—this was supposed to be the year it truly arrived. And it did, sort of. The iOS 26 launch in September brought enhanced Siri capabilities, writing tools, and notification summaries. But if we're being honest, it felt like a 1.0 release. Functional, sure. Revolutionary? Not quite. When you compared it to what ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and Microsoft's Copilot were doing, Apple felt like it was playing catch-up. Then there was Vision Pro. Apple's big bet on spatial computing launched in early 2025 with significant fanfare. The hardware was stunning—absolutely gorgeous. The thirty-four hundred ninety-nine dollar price tag was stunning for different reasons. Here's what happened: early adopters bought in. Tech enthusiasts, developers, professionals—they loved it. But mainstream adoption? It didn't happen. Content remained sparse. The killer app never materialized. And by mid-year, we started hearing rumors about production cuts and a more affordable Vision Air in development. Vision Pro didn't fail—but it didn't succeed the way Apple needed it to. It was a reality check that even Apple can't will a new product category into existence just by launching beautiful hardware.

Justin S

But products aren't the biggest story of 2025. The biggest story is people. Specifically, the people leaving. In February, we learned that Jeff Williams, Apple's Chief Operating Officer—the person who basically ran Apple's operations for over a decade—announced he'd be transitioning out. That alone was seismic. Then came the others: Kate Adams, the General Counsel. Lisa Jackson, who led environmental initiatives. And in what might be the most significant departure, John Giannandrea, the SVP of Machine Learning and AI Strategy, announced he was leaving. Think about that. Apple's AI chief leaving as Apple desperately tries to prove it can compete in AI. The timing was uncomfortable. Now, Apple framed all of this as planned succession. Orderly transition. Nothing to see here. But when you have this much C-level turnover happening simultaneously, it creates risk. These aren't junior managers. These are the people who built the operational excellence that made Apple, Apple. They understood the culture, the processes, the unwritten rules that keep a company this large running smoothly. When they all leave within months of each other, institutional knowledge walks out the door.

Justin S

And while all this internal transition was happening, external pressure intensified. The DOJ antitrust lawsuit that started in early 2024 gained momentum throughout 2025. Twenty-one states joined. Discovery began. This wasn't going away. In Europe, Apple's implementation of Digital Markets Act requirements—allowing third-party app stores, alternative payment systems—drew continued scrutiny. The EU wasn't satisfied with Apple's compliance approach, particularly the Core Technology Fee structure that essentially let Apple continue capturing revenue even from alternative app stores. Japan passed its own mobile platform competition law. India challenged Apple on antitrust penalties. South Korea, Australia, Brazil—everywhere you looked, regulators were circling. Apple found itself defending its business model on multiple continents simultaneously, each with different requirements and potentially conflicting demands. Then, toward the end of 2025, something shifted in the memory market. DRAM and NAND prices, which had been relatively stable, started moving. Upward. Fast. The cause? AI data centers. Companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon—they were buying absolutely massive quantities of high-bandwidth memory for AI infrastructure. Memory manufacturers reallocated production capacity away from consumer electronics toward these highly profitable data center contracts.

Justin S

For most of 2025, the memory price increases didn't impact Apple much because they had long-term supply agreements locked in at favorable prices. But those contracts? They were set to expire in January 2026. By November and December 2025, the tech industry was watching memory prices spike month over month. Dell's COO said publicly he'd never seen prices rise this fast. PC manufacturers started announcing price increases for 2026. And Apple? Apple was heading straight into contract renewal negotiations at possibly the worst time in memory market history. So that was 2025. A year of solid products that didn't wow anyone. A year of leadership departures that created uncertainty. A year of intensifying regulatory pressure. And a year that ended with economic storm clouds forming on the horizon. On paper, Apple had a fine year. Revenue was strong. The ecosystem grew. Services continued climbing. The stock price held up. But underneath? Underneath, the foundation was shifting. Cracks were showing. And that brings us to 2026, where all of these converging pressures come to a head.

Justin S

Here's why I believe 2026 is genuinely pivotal for Apple: it's not one thing. It's everything, simultaneously. Apple is attempting to execute the most ambitious product roadmap in company history while managing unprecedented leadership transition during an economic shock they can't control, all while fighting regulatory battles on multiple continents. Any one of these would be challenging. All of them together? This is a genuine stress test of whether Apple's operational culture can maintain excellence through disruption. Let me break down what's coming, starting with products. The biggest product story of 2026 will be the foldable iPhone. After watching competitors iterate on foldables for years—Samsung, Google, and others learning expensive lessons about hinge durability, display creasing, and software optimization—Apple is finally entering the category with a book-style device reportedly featuring a 7.7-inch unfolded display. This is classic Apple: wait, watch competitors absorb the R&D costs and early adopter pain, then enter with a refined product. Except there's a problem—leaked reports indicate Apple's foldable display production is experiencing high failure rates. They're launching a product category where the core technology isn't fully mature yet.

Justin S

And here's the kicker: they're doing this while simultaneously launching iPhone 18 Pro models with under-display Face ID, completely eliminating the Dynamic Island. That's two advanced display technologies launching in the same product cycle. Two technologies that have never shipped in an Apple product before. Two technologies where production yields and quality control are critical. If either has issues, it cascades into the other's availability because they're competing for the same manufacturing resources and expertise. This is Apple betting big on display innovation at precisely the moment when supply chains are stressed and component costs are surging. It's a calculated risk, but it's absolutely a risk. The iPhone 17e, arriving early in the year with Apple's C1X modem, serves as both a market test of Apple's custom silicon ambitions and a critical entry point for price-sensitive markets. Its success or failure will signal whether Apple can maintain margins while moving away from Qualcomm dependency. This is about more than just one phone model—it's about whether Apple's vertical integration strategy can extend to cellular modems, one of the last major components they don't control.

Justin S

The Mac roadmap for 2026 is almost ridiculous in scope. Apple plans to ship seven distinct Mac configurations: M5 MacBook Air, M5 Pro and Max MacBook Pro, an A18 Pro-powered budget MacBook, M5 Max and Ultra Mac Studio, and late-year M6 MacBook Pro models with OLED displays. Seven distinct Mac configurations in one year. That's unprecedented. Apple has never updated their Mac lineup this aggressively. The strategic calculus here is transparent: Apple is leveraging its silicon advantage before the competition catches up. Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite chips are getting better. AMD and Intel aren't standing still. Apple has a window where their performance-per-watt advantage is maximum, and they're exploiting it. But the economics are challenging. With DRAM prices exploding—reportedly doubling in contract pricing in recent months—even Apple's legendary supply chain management faces constraints. The company's long-term memory agreements are reportedly expiring in January 2026, exposing Apple to the same cost pressures crushing PC manufacturers like Dell and Lenovo, who've announced fifteen to twenty percent price increases.

Justin S

The A18 Pro MacBook is particularly intriguing. It signals Apple testing whether its phone chips can viably power entry-level computing, potentially opening a new low-cost segment while protecting margins through vertical integration. Think about what this means: if Apple can make a competent laptop using their iPhone chip, they've fundamentally changed the economics of budget computing. They can sell a sub-thousand-dollar MacBook at margins that would be impossible with Intel or AMD chips. If successful, it opens a market segment Apple hasn't really competed in effectively. If it fails, well, it's a relatively contained experiment. Either way, it's fascinating. After years of half-measures in the smart home market, Apple appears ready to commit. The rumored smart home hub with wall-mount and speaker-base options, arriving March-April 2026, represents Apple's attempt to own the home automation category that Amazon and Google have dominated. More intriguingly, the tabletop robot with a robotic arm—codenamed J595—for 2027 suggests Apple sees the home as a critical AI deployment platform. This timing is strategic—arriving alongside the significantly improved Siri powered by what's reportedly Google's Gemini AI framework. Apple is acknowledging that voice assistants need genuine intelligence to be useful, even if it means partnering with a competitor.

Justin S

The lightweight, more affordable Vision Air expected later in 2026, combined with reports of AI smart glasses potentially unveiled before year-end, reveals Apple's bet on spatial computing as a long-term platform. But the economics are daunting. Vision Pro's high price limited it to early adopters; Vision Air needs to hit a dramatically lower price point while memory costs are spiking. The company is threading a needle between accessibility and profitability. They need Vision Air cheap enough to reach mainstream consumers but expensive enough to maintain Apple-level margins. With component costs rising across the board, that's increasingly difficult. Now let's talk about the people managing all of this. The replacement of John Giannandrea with Amar Subramanya from Microsoft is the most consequential leadership change. Giannandrea's cautious, privacy-first approach reportedly frustrated leadership as competitors raced ahead. Subramanya brings experience in large-scale AI model development from Google and Microsoft—companies that moved faster but with different privacy paradigms. This signals Apple's strategic pivot: maintaining privacy principles while dramatically accelerating AI deployment.

Justin S

But Subramanya is stepping into a role that's been restructured—Siri development now reports to Craig Federighi's software group, not AI leadership. This redistribution of responsibilities could either enable faster execution or create coordination challenges. It depends entirely on how well these organizations communicate and whether reporting structure matches actual workflow. The critical question: Can Subramanya accelerate Apple Intelligence development fast enough to close the gap with ChatGPT, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot while respecting Apple's on-device processing constraints? The spring 2026 Siri relaunch tied to iOS 26.4 is his first major test. If that launch is transformative, it validates the leadership change. If it's incremental, it confirms Apple has organizational issues beyond just who's in charge. Alan Dye's recent departure to Meta and replacement by Stephen Lemay has reportedly generated internal excitement. Lemay worked on every major Apple interface since the original iPhone, and his appointment signals a potential return to the detail-obsessed design culture that defined early iOS. But he's inheriting a design organization that's been criticized for losing its edge—the iOS interface has stagnated, and visionOS needs dramatic refinement.

Justin S

The timing is significant: Lemay takes charge as Apple prepares to launch its most design-ambitious products in years—foldable iPhone, OLED MacBook Pro, Vision Air. His success or failure will determine whether Apple recaptures its design leadership or continues the pattern of safe, iterative interface updates. Jennifer Newstead's appointment from Meta as General Counsel, with expanded responsibilities covering government affairs, represents Apple's acknowledgment that legal and regulatory challenges are now inseparable. You can't separate antitrust defense from regulatory compliance from government relations anymore—they're all facets of the same strategic challenge. Her experience navigating Meta's regulatory battles positions her for the intensifying antitrust scrutiny Apple faces globally. The consolidation of legal and government affairs under one executive streamlines decision-making but also creates a single point of failure. If regulatory challenges accelerate beyond Apple's ability to adapt—particularly around the App Store's economics—Newstead's ability to manage simultaneous battles in the EU, U.S., India, and other markets becomes critical. One person coordinating all of this is either brilliant efficiency or concentrated risk.

Justin S

Sabih Khan's elevation to COO from his role leading operations comes at a moment when supply chain management is more critical than ever. With memory costs exploding and component availability constrained, Khan must manage Apple's legendary supply chain through unprecedented turbulence. His success will be measured not in innovation but in whether Apple can maintain product availability and margins while competitors struggle. Can he negotiate better deals with memory suppliers? Can he find alternative sources? Can he optimize product designs to use less expensive components without compromising quality? These are the unsexy operational questions that will determine whether Apple's 2026 product launches succeed or struggle. And then there's the elephant in the room: Tim Cook's potential transition to Executive Chairman in 2026. Reports suggest John Ternus, SVP of Hardware Engineering, is the leading CEO candidate. If this happens during all these other transitions, it creates either brilliant orchestrated succession or potential leadership vacuum. The coordination of these executive transitions alongside a potential CEO change suggests deliberate succession planning—or creates the possibility that too much changes too fast and organizational coherence suffers.

Justin S

Let me explain what's happening in the memory market because this is absolutely critical to understanding Apple's challenges in 2026. DRAM and NAND prices have exploded. Some DRAM categories increased eighty to one hundred percent month-over-month in December 2025. Memory now represents approximately eighteen percent of a PC's bill of materials—double the 2024 share. Apple's long-term memory agreements expire in January 2026, meaning they'll face spot market pricing precisely as they launch their most memory-intensive product lineup ever. iPhone 18 Pro, M5 MacBooks, iPad Air with M4, base iPad with A19—all require substantial memory allocations, particularly to support Apple Intelligence features requiring minimum 8GB RAM. This creates several challenges. First, margin pressure. Even with Apple's scale, memory cost increases compress margins unless they raise prices. But Apple's brand positioning makes dramatic price hikes risky. If they raise iPhone prices significantly, they risk losing market share in price-sensitive markets. If they don't, margins compress and investors get nervous.

Justin S

Second, product differentiation. Apple traditionally uses memory tiers to differentiate products and maximize profit. You want more RAM? Pay more. Simple. But with base memory costs spiking, they may need to reduce base configurations—possibly reverting low-end products to 6GB RAM—or accept lower margins to maintain competitiveness. Third, AI feature accessibility. Apple Intelligence requires 8GB minimum RAM. If memory costs force Apple to ship 6GB base configurations in some markets to hit price targets, it creates a product lineup where flagship AI features are unavailable to significant customer segments. That's a messaging nightmare. How do you market Apple Intelligence when a chunk of your products can't run it? Beyond pricing, allocation itself becomes strategic. Memory manufacturers prioritize large customers, but even Apple must compete for capacity against cloud providers like AWS, Microsoft, and Google who're buying massive quantities of HBM for AI infrastructure. Some reports suggest these hyperscalers have secured multi-year allocations, leaving less capacity for consumer electronics. This means Apple's 2026 product launches face potential supply constraints even at higher prices.

Justin S

Apple enters 2026 defending itself against antitrust actions across multiple jurisdictions, each with different demands and potentially conflicting requirements. In the United States, the DOJ lawsuit filed in March 2024, now joined by twenty-one states, challenges Apple's App Store policies, integration strategies, and ecosystem lock-in. The core allegation is that Apple leverages its platform control to stifle competition and maintain excessive fees. Unlike previous antitrust cases focused on consumer harm through higher prices, the DOJ's case emphasizes harm to developers and the suppression of competitive alternatives. This makes it particularly challenging—Apple must argue that its fifteen to thirty percent App Store commissions are reasonable while competitors offer lower rates, and that its ecosystem integration creates value rather than lock-in. The timing is problematic. As Apple attempts to monetize Apple Intelligence through potential subscription tiers, antitrust scrutiny of its platform economics intensifies. Any move toward required Apple Intelligence subscriptions faces questions about whether Apple is leveraging its platform dominance to force adoption of its services.

Justin S

The Digital Markets Act forced Apple to allow third-party app stores and alternative payment systems in the EU. Apple's response—implementing these changes while maintaining complex fee structures that still capture significant revenue—has drawn continued criticism. Apple's Core Technology Fee structure in the EU, charging developers for installations above certain thresholds even if they use alternative app stores, is being challenged as DMA circumvention. The European Commission can impose fines up to ten percent of global annual revenue for non-compliance. For a four trillion dollar company, potential penalties are measured in tens of billions. More significantly, the EU is now a testing ground for "open" platform policies that other jurisdictions may adopt. Japan recently implemented similar changes under the Mobile Software Competition Act, forcing Apple to reduce its effective take rate to five to twenty-six percent depending on distribution method. This regulatory arbitrage creates a patchwork of different platform economics by region, making product and pricing strategies incredibly complex. Apple is challenging an Indian antitrust law allowing the Competition Commission of India to calculate penalties using global turnover rather than local revenue. The stakes are existential—a ten percent penalty would equal approximately thirty-eight billion dollars.

Justin S

Apple's AI position in early 2026 is uncomfortable. Competitors have established user habits with ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini integrated into daily workflows. People are using these tools for work, for research, for creative projects. They've built habits. They've integrated these AI assistants into their processes. Apple Intelligence, despite significant marketing, remains limited compared to competitors' offerings. The spring 2026 Siri relaunch, likely with iOS 26.4, represents Apple's attempt to close the AI gap. Reports suggest integration with Google's Gemini framework, though Apple maintains that on-device processing remains primary for privacy. This is Apple's calculated gamble: partnering with Google for cloud-based AI while maintaining privacy-focused, on-device processing for core functions. It acknowledges Apple can't match competitors in pure AI capability alone, but it can differentiate on privacy. The risk is execution. If the spring Siri update is incremental rather than transformative, it confirms Apple has fallen decisively behind. Users have already developed habits with competing assistants—switching requires dramatic superiority, not feature parity. Apple needs to give people a reason to change their behavior, and that requires Siri being genuinely better at something meaningful.

Justin S

Apple needs to demonstrate how AI drives revenue. Services growth has been Apple's margins story; AI monetization is critical for maintaining growth rates. The likely path: Apple Intelligence Pro subscriptions for advanced features. But here's the regulatory complication: requiring subscriptions for AI features on a platform Apple controls invites antitrust scrutiny. Apple must prove it's offering value, not leveraging platform dominance. They need to show that Apple Intelligence Pro provides capabilities worth paying for, not that they're forcing users into subscriptions because they control the platform. Apple's privacy-first approach, while differentiating, creates technical constraints. Competitors can leverage massive cloud infrastructure and data collection to improve AI models continuously. Every ChatGPT query improves the model. Every Gemini search makes it smarter. Apple's on-device processing requirement means slower iteration and less personalization capability. They're choosing privacy over raw capability, which is admirable, but it has real consequences for competitiveness. The partnership with Google for certain Siri functions is Apple acknowledging this limitation. But it creates strategic dependency on a competitor. If Google's relationship with Apple is disrupted by the DOJ's antitrust case against Google—which includes scrutiny of Apple's search deal—Apple loses critical AI infrastructure right when they need it most.

Justin S

What does success look like in 2026? Apple's success requires executing on multiple simultaneous fronts. Product execution means launching foldable iPhone, multiple Mac refreshes, Vision Air, and smart home products without major delays or quality issues despite supply chain pressures. Leadership transition means new executives in AI, design, legal, and operations delivering results equivalent to or better than their predecessors while coordinating strategy across a transition period. Cost management means absorbing or passing through memory cost increases without sacrificing market share or margins significantly. Regulatory navigation means satisfying diverse regulatory requirements across jurisdictions without undermining business model fundamentals or creating precedents that expose the company to escalating penalties. AI delivery means launching Siri capabilities that genuinely close the gap with competitors while maintaining privacy differentiation and demonstrating clear monetization paths. Ecosystem defense means maintaining developer and consumer loyalty to the Apple ecosystem despite platform openness pressures and increasing competition. This is a demanding list. Apple has resources—one hundred twelve billion in net income, one hundred sixty-two billion in cash and marketable securities, and the world's most sophisticated supply chain. But resources don't guarantee execution during transitions.

Justin S

The concerning scenario isn't catastrophic collapse—Apple is too large and well-positioned for that. It's a gradual erosion of advantages. Product delays and quality issues undermine Apple's reliability reputation. New leadership struggles to coordinate, creating execution gaps. Memory costs force either margin compression, disappointing investors, or price increases that lose market share to competitors who somehow manage costs better. Regulatory battles result in business model concessions that reduce services growth, the engine of Apple's margin expansion for the past decade. AI capabilities remain behind competitors, causing users to rely more on third-party services like ChatGPT instead of Apple Intelligence. The ecosystem becomes less differentiated as regulatory requirements create platform openness, reducing lock-in. The result isn't failure—it's Apple becoming a very profitable but more ordinary technology company, losing the premium valuation that reflects its unique market position. They'd still make enormous amounts of money, still sell hundreds of millions of devices, but they'd lose the magic that justifies a four trillion dollar valuation. They'd become Microsoft or Google—successful, profitable, but not special.

Justin S

The realistic case is probably somewhere between the success and failure scenarios. Apple successfully navigates some challenges while struggling with others, emerging changed but still dominant. What makes 2026 defining is that the challenges are simultaneous and interconnected. Success in one area doesn't guarantee overall success; failure in any area cascades into others. If the foldable iPhone has production issues, it impacts memory allocation for Macs. If Siri improvements disappoint, it undermines Apple Intelligence monetization. If regulatory battles force App Store changes, it affects services revenue growth. Everything connects. For those watching Apple closely, here's what I'll be monitoring most carefully. First, the spring Siri relaunch with iOS 26.4. This tells us whether Apple can actually compete in AI or if they've fallen too far behind. If this is transformative, it changes the narrative. If it's incremental, the AI story becomes much harder for Apple. Second, memory pricing impact and how Apple responds. Do they raise prices? Accept lower margins? Find creative supply chain solutions? Their approach here reveals their strategic priorities—market share versus margins versus product capability.

Justin S

Third, the foldable iPhone launch itself. Quality, availability, consumer reception—this sets the tone for Apple's next hardware era. If they nail it, it demonstrates they can still execute ambitious new product categories. If it struggles, it raises questions about execution capability during leadership transition. Fourth, regulatory outcomes, particularly in the EU and with the DOJ case. These could fundamentally reshape Apple's business model in ways that reverberate for years. And fifth, how the new leadership performs. Do they maintain operational excellence or does transition create gaps? Do they coordinate effectively or do organizational seams start showing? 2026 will test whether Apple's culture of operational excellence, strengthened by decades of success, can adapt to a new generation of leadership, products, and challenges. The outcome will shape the technology industry for years to come. This isn't just about Apple—it's about whether any company can maintain dominance through this kind of comprehensive transition. If Apple succeeds, it proves institutional excellence can survive leadership changes. If they struggle, it validates concerns about key person risk even in the largest organizations.

Justin S

So where does this leave us as we close out 2025 and look toward 2026? Apple enters next year with enormous advantages. They have one hundred sixty-two billion in cash. They have the world's most sophisticated supply chain. They have the most valuable brand in technology. They have an ecosystem that creates genuine lock-in and customer loyalty. But resources and advantages don't guarantee execution during transitions. I'm genuinely fascinated to watch what happens. Apple is attempting something incredibly ambitious: executing a complex strategic transition while external forces beyond their control apply unprecedented pressure. The memory crisis isn't something they can engineer around—it's a market force affecting everyone. Regulatory requirements aren't negotiable—they're mandated by governments. Competitor AI capabilities aren't standing still—they're accelerating. Apple must navigate all of this while replacing much of their senior leadership team. The optimist in me sees Apple's scale and ecosystem advantages allowing them to absorb shocks that would cripple competitors. They can negotiate better memory deals than anyone else. They can afford to take margin hits temporarily. They have brand loyalty that lets them charge premium prices even in tough markets. The realist sees execution risk that's very, very real.

Justin S

What I know for certain is that 2026 won't be boring. We're going to see whether Apple can maintain its position as the world's most valuable company while simultaneously reinventing its product line, rebuilding its leadership team, and defending its business model across multiple continents. The stakes are enormous. The challenges are real. And the outcome is genuinely uncertain. That's what makes this year so compelling to watch. For everyone who's been following along with The Cupertino Chronicles this year, thank you. We're going to cover all of this as it unfolds throughout 2026. The spring Siri launch, the foldable iPhone reveal, the regulatory battles, the leadership transitions—we're going to go deep on all of it. Make sure you're subscribed to the podcast and signed up for the newsletter at techbetweenthelines.com. I'll be providing analysis and context as these stories develop. Thanks for listening, thanks for an incredible 2025, and I'll see you in the new year. Happy holidays, everyone. This is Justin, and this has been The Cupertino Chronicles.