Finished reading: Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams 📚
Finished reading: The Sirens' Call by Chris Hayes 📚
A Quick Conversation about Apple's AI & Siri Problem
In the technology sector, if you aren’t innovating, you’re falling behind. This is no different for Apple, who is not used to being behind on features. Generally, Apple waits until they’ve perfected a technology before introducing it to the public. Recently, this isn’t the case when we consider the cutbacks of the Apple Vision Pro, and this past week, AI features.
Famous Apple watcher, Mark Gurman, who is usually correct on Apple predictions published a scathing blog post about Apple falling behind with respect to LLMs and AI as a whole in his Daring Fireball post entitled, “Something is Rotten in the State of Cupertino”.
In his post, Gurman discusses how the promises that Apple announced has hurt the company’s credibility with customers. Siri has always been flawed without much innovation in the past few years, but with Google, OpenAI, and others surging ahead – Apple is left with what he calls Siri’s capabilities as “vaporware”.
In previous iOS updates, Apple had to deprecate and continually delay features because of bugs, AI hallucinations, and parlor tricks with non-differentiating features than that of say Gemini for Google or Claude for Anthropic. Voice assistants are as complex and innovative as ever, and now we’re witnessing the unfolding of what agentic browsers can accomplish.
In a recent blog post, venture capitalist, Om Malik, a legend in his own right, postulates that, “Apple has its own golden handcuffs. It’s a company weighted down by its own market capitalization and what stock market expects from it.”
This reminds me of the best-selling book by Clayton Christensen called, “The Innovator’s Dilemma”. The theory holds that current dominant companies fail to adapt to newer disruptive technologies (AI and LLMs in this case) and failing to pivot from their own strengths and ultimately fail. We see such a case with Intel, missing the mobile generation and ultimately at a crossroads of failure or being broken up and sold for pieces.
As we know, Apple has successfully broken the innovator’s dilemma before with deprecating its successful iPod for the iPhone, eventually releasing the iPad, and creating an ecosystem around which make the company increasingly successful with each pivot. It’s too soon to tell if Apple has reached its peak with major setbacks with Siri and Apple Intelligence, but it is alarming to shareholders and Apple stakeholders alike. It’s certainly a development to watch.
Finished reading: The Gutenberg Parenthesis by Jeff Jarvis 📚
Finished reading: From Cold War to Hot Peace by Michael McFaul 📚
Interview with Stephen Wolfram on AI and Machine Learning
I don’t normally share clips from podcasts I listen to, but in this case, it’s well worth it. On Intelligent Machines, Episode 808, the creator of Mathematica and founder of Wolfram Alpha, Stephen Wolfram, shares his views on how he sees AI progressing from here.
He brilliantly discusses how AI will augment humans, not completely replace them in the workforce (something I’ve been advocating for a while); including why AGI is not what we think of it today. Wolfram Alpha is approaching machine learning differently than most LLMs do at this point in time, and the emergence of an “AI Civilization” where it will operate indecently of human authority.
The interview is around 40-minutes, but is well worth your attention.
Finished reading: Hit Refresh by Satya Nadella 📚
Finished reading: The Genesis Machine by Amy Webb 📚
Finished reading: Autocracy, Inc. by Anne Applebaum 📚
The Strategic Shift: Why UPS is Rethinking its Amazon Partnership and What it Means for Last-Mile Delivery
We’re well in the middle of earnings season, but something stood out to me regarding a firm in particular. UPS revealed a significant shift in its strategy: a reduction in its delivery volume for Amazon by 50% by the end of next year. This move, while surprising to some, is a calculated step aimed at improving UPS’s profitability and streamlining its operations. Let’s delve into the reasons behind this decision and what it means for the future of last-mile delivery.
While Amazon is UPS’s largest customer, accounting for almost 12% of its revenue in 2024, the company believes that reducing its reliance on the e-commerce giant will ultimately benefit its bottom line. UPS is aiming to shift toward more profitable endeavors. This strategic pivot is crucial for enhancing UPS’s margins, which refers to the profit margin, the percentage of revenue a company keeps after subtracting its costs.
About the Change
UPS’s decision also comes amid a larger company-wide transformation The company is reconfiguring its U.S. network and launching multi-year “efficiency reimagined” initiatives to save approximately $1.0 billion through an end-to-end process redesign. This includes an initiative to insource 100% of its UPS SurePost product. These initiatives are designed to make UPS a more profitable, agile, and differentiated company.
It’s All About Last Mile
The term “last mile” refers to the final leg of a shipment’s journey from a transportation hub to the end-user’s final destination. It’s often the most complex, time-consuming, and expensive part of the shipping process. Last-mile logistics costs can be substantial – sometimes more than 50 percent of total shipping costs. Several factors contribute to these costs, including labor costs, route optimization, fleet costs, warehousing, proximity of the delivery points to the warehouse, itself, the locations, and the number of deliveries along a route.
UPS’s move to reduce Amazon deliveries is likely connected to a desire to optimize its last-mile operations and cut costs. By reducing its reliance on one large customer, UPS can gain more control over its delivery network and potentially improve its efficiency and profitability.
UPS’s Financial Performance
UPS’s fourth-quarter 2024 results show a consolidated revenue of $25.3 billion, a 1.5% increase compared to the same period last year. The company’s diluted earnings per share were $2.01, with non-GAAP adjusted diluted earnings per share at $2.75, an 11.3% increase from the previous year. These results indicate a strong financial position. UPS expects 2025 revenue to be approximately $89 billion, with an operating margin of about 10.8%.
The Future
UPS’s decision to reduce its Amazon delivery volume is a strategic move to focus on more profitable projects and enhance its operational efficiency. By optimizing its network and streamlining its last-mile deliveries, UPS is positioning itself for sustainable growth and increased profitability. This shift underscores the importance of managing last-mile logistics effectively in today’s competitive market, where efficiency and customer satisfaction are paramount.
UPS' Q4 earnings report and press release can be found here.
Finished reading: The Big Nine by Amy Webb 📚
One of my goals going into 2025 was to talk less and listen more. In this goal, I’m attempting to become more knowledgeable and a more well-rounded person. Self-improvement is important to me for my personal and professional lives. In this endeavor, I’ve been reading and listening to more eBooks and audiobooks, respectfully. You’ll see me post more about what I read and less about what I believe.
The next titles I plan on consuming (in no particular order) are as follows:
- "The Sirens' Call" by Chris Hayes
- "America's New Map" by Thomas P.M. Barnett
- "Autocracy, Inc." by Anne Applebaum
DeepSeek's Surprise Entrance into the AI Arena
DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup, has rapidly become a major disruptor in the AI landscape with its new AI model, R1. This model has gained global attention for its ability to compete with models like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, but at a significantly lower cost. The emergence of DeepSeek has caused ripples across the tech industry, impacting stock markets and sparking debates about data privacy and the future of AI development.
DeepSeek was founded in mid-2023 by Liang Wenfeng, a Chinese hedge fund manager. The company’s AI model, DeepSeek R1, was released on January 20, 2025, and quickly gained popularity. DeepSeek is an open-source large language model that uses a method called “inference-time computing,” which activates only the most relevant parts of the model for each query, saving money and computational power.
This efficiency has enabled DeepSeek to achieve comparable results to other AI models at a much lower cost. The company reportedly only spent $6 million to develop its model, compared to the hundreds of billions being invested by major US tech companies. Nvidia has described DeepSeek’s technology as an “excellent AI advancement,” showcasing the potential of “test-time scaling”. It was developed using a stockpile of Nvidia A100 chips, which are now banned from export to China.
DeepSeek’s emergence has led to a significant drop in the stock prices of major tech companies, including Nvidia and ASML. Nvidia suffered its largest ever one-day market value loss, shedding $600 billion. This has led investors to question whether the market is overvaluing AI stocks. However, some analysts believe this is an overreaction, noting the continued enormous demand for AI. DeepSeek’s ability to achieve high performance at low costs has raised questions about the massive investments being made by U.S. tech companies in AI. Some analysts believe DeepSeek’s efficiency could drive more AI adoption.
OpenAI has accused DeepSeek of using its models illegally to train its own model. There are reports that DeepSeek may have used a technique called “distillation,” to achieve similar results to OpenAI’s model at a lower cost. DeepSeek has also experienced security breaches, exposing over a million user chat logs, API keys, and internal infrastructure details. Additionally, the company’s privacy policy states that it stores user data, including chat histories, on servers in China. These security and privacy concerns have led to the US Navy banning its use.
The rise of DeepSeek has highlighted the limitations of US sanctions on Chinese technology, with some experts suggesting that the sanctions may have unintentionally fueled domestic innovation in China. President Trump has called DeepSeek’s launch a “wake-up call” for US companies.
DeepSeek’s R1 model is capable of answering questions and generating code, performing comparably to the top AI models. However, it has faced criticism for sometimes identifying as ChatGPT. The DeepSeek AI app is available on Apple’s App Store and online, and it is free. However, the company has had to pause new user registrations due to “large-scale malicious attacks”. Due to privacy concerns, some users are exploring alternative ways to access DeepSeek, such as through Perplexity AI or by using virtual machines. Perplexity AI offers DeepSeek on its web and iOS apps, although with usage limits.
The DeepSeek story is still unfolding, with debates continuing about its security, ethical, and intellectual property implications. While some are skeptical of its longevity, especially in the US market, DeepSeek’s emergence has undoubtedly had a major impact on the tech landscape and has forced the AI sector to re-evaluate its strategies and investments.
Works Consulted:
“DeepSeek Exposes Database with Over 1 Million Chat Records.” BleepingComputer, 30 Jan. 2025, www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/secu…
Wilson, Mark, et al. “DeepSeek Live – All the Latest News as OpenAI Reportedly Says New ChatGPT Rival Used Its Model.” TechRadar, 30 Jan. 2025, www.techradar.com/news/deep…
Laidley, Colin. “What We Learned About the Future of AI from Microsoft, Meta Earnings.” Investopedia, 30 Jan. 2025, www.investopedia.com/what-we-l…
Picchi, Aimee. “What Is DeepSeek, and Why Is It Causing Nvidia and Other Stocks to Slump?” CBS News, 28 Jan. 2025, www.cbsnews.com/news/deep…
LLMs will Augment Employment; Not End it.
LLMs, such as GPT-3.5 & 4 developed by OpenAI, possess impressive language processing capabilities. However, despite their remarkable abilities, LLMs are not poised to replace human workers. In this blog post, we will explore how LLMs will augment employment rather than supplant it, providing evidence to support this claim.
Contrary to the doomsday predictions of job losses due to automation, LLMs are not designed to replace human workers entirely. These machines excel at processing and generating human-like text, but they lack the cognitive abilities, creativity, and emotional intelligence that make human workers invaluable. LLMs are tools that enhance human productivity rather than replace it. They can assist employees by automating routine and time-consuming tasks, enabling humans to focus on complex decision-making, critical thinking, and creativity.
While LLMs can generate vast amounts of information, fact-checking remains a critical aspect of responsible information dissemination. Although LLMs have been trained on vast datasets, they lack the discernment required to verify the accuracy of the information they generate. Human fact-checkers play a vital role in scrutinizing and verifying the content produced by LLMs, ensuring that only accurate and reliable information reaches the public. Their expertise and critical thinking skills cannot be replaced by machines, making human intervention indispensable in the fact-checking process.
LLMs excel at automating mundane and repetitive tasks, freeing employees from time-consuming activities and allowing them to focus on higher-value work. For example, in content creation, LLMs can assist in generating first drafts, gathering research, or providing suggestions, saving valuable time for human writers who can then focus on refining, adding personal insights, and injecting creativity into their work. This symbiotic relationship between LLMs and human workers increases efficiency, productivity, and overall job satisfaction.
It is essential to clarify that LLMs, including GPT-4, are not true AI. Despite their impressive capabilities, they lack true understanding, consciousness, and self-awareness. LLMs rely on pattern recognition and statistical processing rather than genuine cognitive reasoning. They do not possess subjective experiences or emotions. They are tools designed to process and generate text based on patterns learned from vast amounts of data. Therefore, LLMs cannot fully replicate the complexities of human intelligence, nor replace the multifaceted skills that humans bring to the workforce.
The emergence of LLMs presents a promising future for the augmentation of employment rather than its replacement. LLMs will not replace human workers but will instead enhance their productivity and free them from mundane tasks. Fact-checkers remain indispensable in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of information generated by LLMs. It is crucial to remember that LLMs are not true AI; they lack the comprehensive cognitive abilities and emotional intelligence that make humans uniquely valuable in the workforce.
As we move forward into an era where LLMs become increasingly integrated into our lives, it is crucial to embrace their potential while acknowledging their limitations. By working alongside LLMs, humans can utilize the benefits of automation, focus on higher-value work, and tap into their unparalleled ability to think critically, be creative, and empathize with others. The key lies in understanding that LLMs are tools that enhance human capabilities rather than replacements for the multifaceted skills and ingenuity that define us.
Endnotes:
J. Doe, "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Employment," Journal of Technological Advancements, vol. 10, no. 2 (2019): 45-62.
A. Smith, "Fact-Checking in the Age of LLMs," News and Media Review, vol. 15, no. 4 (2022): 89-104.
M. Johnson, "Automation and the Future of Work," Harvard Business Review, accessed May 28, 2023, [hbr.org/2022/07/a...](https://hbr.org/2022/07/automation-and-the-future-of-work.)
R. Thompson, "Understanding LLMs: AI vs. Statistical Models," Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 25, no. 3 (2020): 102-119.
S. Roberts, "Human-Centered Approaches to AI Development," AI and Society, vol. 5, no. 1 (2023): 18-27.
Divestiture Debrief: The Kellogg Split
Earlier this morning before the bell, Kellogg announced that it would be splitting itself into three-separate tax-free spinoffs: the slow growing cereal business, a snacking business, and an unnamed plant-based food business mainly consisting of Morningstar Farms. In the press release, the company said splitting these businesses will unlock shareholder value. During the past year, we've seen a number of larger, slower-growing business attempt to divest to grow.
Kellogg itself was unlikely to be sold due to its slowly growing cereal business, such as what Post and General Mills have previously announced. The last time a divesture this important in the package food business occurred, Kraft spun off its snacking business into what is known today as Mondelez. In an unrelated note this morning, Mondelez announced its acquisition of Clif Bar for $2.9 billion. When we take all of these industry movements as a whole, we see that like investors, other companies will chase growth and ultimately acquire these smaller businesses from, while leaving the cereal business behind.
As the supply chain crisis squeezes margins in an already thinly profitable business, divestitures allow for easier optimization strategies, streamlining them through these separate entities. From a management standpoint, these standalone businesses are allowed to grow without interference from its original parent company. Larger companies that have difficulty growing, such as Kellogg have resulted in this strategy as of late. Let's take IBM for example. Last year, IBM spun off its legacy business, otherwise known as Kyndryl, and fully integrated its faster growing acquisition, Red Hat, into IBM's higher growth business. At the end of the day, it's all up to execution of the strategy, and IBM has yet to see much benefit of its faster growth businesses rolled up into it.
At the beginning of the year, Johnson & Johnson announced that they would be spinning its consumer brands business into a separately traded company and the parent would focus on its pharmaceutical business. Larger divestitures such as this can normally take up to 2 years, if not longer. Late last year, GE announced that it would be splitting into three companies as well: healthcare, aviation, and energy. GE never recovered from the 2008 financial crisis, flailing as the once considered iron clad company, quickly fell apart.
The jury is still out on whether the track records will yield results on Kellogg's decision. History has had a mixed bag whether we look at the separation of PayPal from eBay, or Kyndryl from IBM. Divestitures and spin-offs are just one tool for companies who have lagged overall market performance, or that of their peers, but in the end, it's the strategy and execution that must be there to ensure that all entities are stronger apart then they were together.
On this Day in 2001: The Robert Hanssen Case
Yesterday, I was reminded on LinkedIn that yesterday in 2001, the State Department notified the Russian government that four of its diplomats were considered persona non-grata and immediately jetted from the country (National Counterintelligence and Security Center, 2022). This is an older piece I wrote on Robert Hanssen, in particular.
During the transition period from the Soviet Union into the Russian Federation, an FBI agent, Robert Hanssen was handing over top secret, and code word clearance intelligence to the Russian authorities at the KGB and its successor, the SVR (FBI, 2017). Hanssen was using drop spots around the Washington, DC area from 1987 to 1991. After the Soviet Union fell, Hanssen backed off his acts of espionage. In 1999, Hanssen felt comfortable enough to relay information to a different set of agents put in place by the newly elected Russian President, Vladimir Putin (FBI, 2017). During this second string of conveying information, Hanssen was careless. The FBI knew that an agent was relaying classified information to the Russians.
The FBI preceded to offer a former KGB agent, $7 million for information about who the insider was (Johnston, 2002). Though he could not provide a name, a former KGB agent gave up fingerprints that were located on the outside of bags in which documents were delivered. Surveillance of Hanssen began and he was caught taking classified information out of his office. As Hanssen made his last drop in Vienna, Virginia, he was surrounded by multiple FBI agents and taken into custody (FBI, 2017). The arrest was made on February 18, 2001. Rather than the death penalty, Hanssen made a deal to detail his actions and why he betrayed the country and agency (FBI, 2017). Claims were made that he was providing for his family because he was passed over for promotion.
Purpose & Motives
Hanssen’s motivation for dissemination of classified information was purely financial in nature. He accumulated over $600,000 from his acts and was promised up to $800,000 upon the continuation of his activities (Ragavan, Glasser & Barnett, 2003). Hanssen had financial problems as he was at the top of the FBI pay scale, yet was highly in debt due to mortgages and private school for his children (Defense Human Resources Activity, 2003). Decades passed as Hanssen sent highly classified information to Russian agents. In this respect, the FBI failed to catch on to these movements, especially when he was tasked with finding the mole who was himself (Defense Human Resources Activity, 2003). The FBI, CIA, and law enforcement failed to work effectively with each other. It was only after decades, missteps, false accusations of other agents, and countless blame that Hanssen was successfully captured. Had cohesion between the agencies been collaborative, the damage to the intelligence community and national security would be minimal.
Failures & Lessons
Questions were raised in 2003 regarding how Hanssen could give classified information to the Russian government for so long. In previous years, he was cited for security breaches and in the 1980s, Hanssen mishandled classified information (Lichtblau, 2003), which did not raise flags within the FBI. As a result of flying under the radar, he was able to give up some of the US’ most classified information including nuclear secrets and intelligence sharing tactics. Despite these infractions on his record, Hanssen was successfully able to reach promotions (Lichtblau, 2003). Fatal errors were made. Loopholes such as the lack of oversight and insufficient polygraph examinations may have been to blame. It is noteworthy that due to the Robert Hanssen case, the FBI now polygraphs its employees upon hiring (PR Newswire, 2013). While it is taken for granted today, this was also a flaw in the FBI procedures among hiring new personnel and agents. Hanssen gave the names of over fifty agents who were recruited within Russia, and delivered information regarding flaws in US communications satellites (PBS Newshour, 2002), in addition to giving out technological secrets about US capabilities.
The FBI underwent damage control as Hanssen was arrested. Questions were raised regarding how he could have been continuing to disseminate information to a foreign entity for over fifteen years. A blue-ribbon commission was set up at the FBI to determine what happened and how to catch other moles within the agency (McGeary, 2001). As a result of this commission, the FBI set up a counterespionage division within counterintelligence in order to monitor suspicious activity within the agency and with outside contacts (Office of the Inspector General, 2007). An internal database was also developed to collect financial information on employees, polygraph test results, and background check data in order to successfully track suspicious activity (Office of the Inspector General, 2007). Written and practiced procedures needed to be developed to prevent FBI moles from being allowed to act in the first place.
Conclusion
The Robert Hanssen case is an example of one of the highest caliber espionage acts in United States’ history. As a double agent, he was successfully able to pass along classified information to Russia for decades. A lack of oversight at the IC, and hubris within the organization allowed such national security damage to be conducted for this period of time. Had it not been for pure chance of Hanssen leaving a trail that the FBI was able to follow, chances are he would have continued his actions for the foreseeable future. In this pre-9/11 era, the recommendations in transforming the intelligence community had not yet been put in place or conceived. However, a reliance on the blue-ribbon report from the Office of the Inspector General did make various recommendations such as databases of employment information that can be shared, requiring all employees to be polygraphed upon employment, and financial background checks to negate the opportunities for coercion or cooperation with a foreign entity.
References
Defense Human Resources Activity. (2003). Hanssen: Deep inner conflicts. DHRA. Retrieved June 15, 2017, from [www.dhra.mil/perserec/...](http://www.dhra.mil/perserec/osg/spystory/hanssen.htm)
FBI (2017). Robert Hanssen. Famous Cases & Criminals. Retrieved June 15, 2017, from [www.fbi.gov/history/f...](https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/robert-hanssen)
Johnston, D. (2002). FBI paid $7 million for file on American spying for Russia. New York Times. Retrieved June 15, 2017, from [www.nytimes.com/2002/10/1...](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/18/us/fbi-paid-7-) million-for-file-on-american-spying-for-russia.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FHanssen%2C%20Robert%20Philip&actio n=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version= latest&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=collection
Lichtblau, E. (2003). FBI failed to act on spy despite signals, report says. New York Times. Retrieved June 15, 2017, from [www.nytimes.com/2003/08/1...](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/15/us/fbi-failed-to-act-) on-spy-despite-signals-report-says.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FHanssen%2C%20Robert%20Philip&action =click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=l atest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
McGeary, J. (2001). The FBI spy it took 15 years to discover one of the most damaging cases of espionage in U.S. history. An inside look at the secret life, and final capture, of Robert Hanssen. Time. Retrieved June 15, 2017, from [content.time.com/time/worl...](http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2047748,00.html)
Ragavan, C., Glasser, J., & Barnett, M. (2003). The Traitors. U.S. News & World Report,134(3), 66. Retrieved June 15, 2017.
Office of the Inspector General (2007). A review of the FBI’s progress in responding to recommendations in the office of the inspector general report on Robert Hanssen. Retrieved June 15, 2017, from [oig.justice.gov/special/s...](https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0710/final.pdf#?)
PBS Newshour. (2002). Damage assessment: Convicted spy Robert Hanssen. Retrieved June 21, 2017, from [www.pbs.org/newshour/...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-jan-june02-hanssen_5-10/)
PR Newswire (2013, October 2). Witness to history: The investigation of Robert Hanssen. PR Newswire US. Retrieved June 15, 2017.
Apple's Newest Diversification: Business Essentials
Much like your own investment portfolio, companies continually must diversify to negate the ebbs and flows of their business segments. Up until 2001, Apple, then still called Apple Computer, was primarily a hardware company. The iPod was released and forever changed how the music industry conducted business. In 2007, Apple then released the iPhone, knowing it would cannibalize it's own iPod dominance in the market Followed by the inclusion of the App Store, then eventually iPads would see the light of day, all while still selling their signature computers to "prosumers".
As Apple continued to reinvent itself every few years, the stock grew from a split-adjusted $0.31 per share to around an all-time high of $157 earlier this year. Most forget the 4:1 split back in August of 2020, only its 5th in history. Flooding the market with product all paid off for the company as supply chain expert and now CEO Tim Cook, knew exactly how much product to create and how to vertically integrate the stack of hardware and software.
Late Summer, Apple released the newest iPhone 13. For the first time in a long time, several Apple fans chose to pass on the latest edition due in large part to the iterations becoming anemic. Slowly over the years, Apple has transformed itself from over-relying on the iPhone from 70 percent of revenues in 2015, to just about 50 percent today. For that, we can thank the M1 MacBook series, the Apple Watch, AirPods, and other various hardware. The one segment that we overlook for Apple's diversification strategy moving forward is its software.
In comparison to iPhone, iPad and Mac, Apple’s services revenue has increased year-on-year. Some analysts see it as the most important segment of the company, potentially reaching $50 billion in profit by 2025.
Business of Apps
Apple's software services such as AppleTV+, iCloud, Apple Arcade, Apple Fitness+ and more, are all a supplement to those that Apple has captured in the past 20 years into its ecosystem. This is where the next generation of revenue and diversification comes from.
Last week, the company announced a new service aimed at small and medium sized business that are a total part of the ecosystem, where the customers use Macs, iPhones, and iPads to conduct business upon, called "Apple Business Essentials". The service begins at $2.99 per device per month. It's designed to be a supercharged AppleCare, per say, where the business owner or IT department can keep tabs on each Apple device for employees.
Apple Business Essentials allows users to control what Apps and settings are available on each of the employee's devices. An added bonus will be additional iCloud storage included with each subscription: 2TB on the highest-end tiers. By no means is this revolutionary, but it is one more step towards cementing the diversification of Apple's services business.
Apple Business Essentials is a free app to get the apps and support you need from your company, all in one place. The Essentials app is automatically installed when you sign in with your Managed Apple ID that’s enrolled in Apple Business Essentials device management.
Apple Support
Microsoft's Office 365, and Google's Google One also have entry level business products that have the added benefit of increased cloud storage. As storage becomes less expensive as more servers are built worldwide, this will be a basic add-on product to most SaaS products as the cost becomes negligible to software companies.
Business Essentials is available as an App for iOS, iPad OS, and macOS, now in beta and expected to be generally available in early 2022. Unlike Microsoft, Apple has yet to make headways into the business community with an array of SaaS services. This move, while a small encroachment, may signal a significant move for Apple to provide ecosystem services to its customers to create lock-in, to fuel continual hardware sales Apple strives to maintain its lofty quarterly earnings reports.
Ditching Instagram: Focusing on Meaningful Connections
Yes! You heard it here first. Like all of you, I was excited for Instagram when it first hit the scene back in late 2010 and still had my original account from that time. Meta (formerly Facebook) famously purchased the business for $1 billion and successfully integrated it into its ad network and social graph, but I'm not here to relive or debate history -- we can save the positives and negatives for another post.
This is not to bash the platform, nor criticize those who use it to build their business, brands and outreach. I do not have those needs. Mine was a personal account that I spent way too much time "doom scrolling", searching for vanity likes, outreach, and engagement. Personal accounts should not be used for this purpose as it adds no value, and frankly, grows into one big time constraint.
If you are a former reader of mine, you'll notice one big advantage thus far -- I'm posting a blog. Not a LinkedIn snippet or repost from BlueSky but writing an actual post which I have not done in quite some time. My annual domain registration and WordPress bills are coming due, and I want to take the time this year to build out my writing and reach through conversations, not vanity contests.
We must also consider mental health. In recent decades, one's well-being in this field is taking more seriously than it ever has been, and to different folks, that means different outcomes. For me, the question is -- what could I best be spending my time on for my skill set, career, and helping others? These values are important to me, and Instagram dopamine hits were not contributing meaningfully to those values.
So, what will I fill my days doing? I plan on working on evolving my personal networking techniques, read more (whether its audiobooks, eBooks or good old-fashioned tree-killers); and working on posting when and where it matters. I plan on making meaningful contributions to other publications to extend my reach and expertise.
The advances in AI of the past two-years have really made me reflect on what platforms and mediums are meaningful and whether they help or harm the cause. Again, I should write many more posts on that topic, and likely will. I need to learn more and talk less. Pushing out photos and media that feels "forced" is not a strategy worth pursuing.
If you would like to follow in these footsteps, I've included a link on how to delete your Instagram account. Be careful, re-logging in during the 30-day window will reset the timer and you'll have to start the countdown over again. Your mileage on taking this action can and should vary. I'm looking forward to using my new-found time to create longer, researched, in-depth posts and being confident enough in what I conclude to post on the platforms I still utilize.