Motley Fool Money - Apple’s Elon Problem & AI Future

Episode Date: August 27, 2025

Elon Musk has sued Apple over its App Store practices, but the bigger news may be Apple considering acquiring some major AI startups. We also cover the government’s interest in taking equity stakes in defense companies and Fox’s weak hand as it looks for higher cable fees. Travis Hoium, Lou Whiteman, and Rachel Warren discuss: Elon Musk suing Apple Apple’s AI future with Siri and potential acquisitions The government’s Intel stake and (potential) defense deals Fox vs YouTube TV Companies discussed: Alphabet (GOOG), Apple (AAPL), Intel (INTC), Fox (FOX) Host: Travis Hoium Guests: Lou Whiteman, Rachel Warren Engineer: Bart Shannon Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. The Motley Fool and its affiliates (collectively, “TMF”) do not endorse, recommend, or verify the accuracy or completeness of the statements made within advertisements. TMF is not involved in the offer, sale, or solicitation of any securities advertised herein and makes no representations regarding the suitability or risks associated with any investment opportunity presented. Investors should conduct their own due diligence and consult with legal, tax, and financial advisors before making any investment decisions. TMF assumes no responsibility for any losses or damages arising from this advertisement. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is the government going to take a stake in Intel? Molly Fool Money starts now. Welcome to Molly Fool Money. I'm Travis Hoym, joined by Lou Whiteman and Rachel Warren. Today we are going to talk about the government potentially taking a stake in Intel, Fox fighting with YouTube. But we're going to start with Elon Musk and Apple. Elon Musk can't seem to stay out of the news for long. And this time because he's suing Apple, claiming they're preferencing Open AI over grubes.

Rachel, is this a big deal here? It seems like Elon Musk has to sue everybody in the AI world. Is he just trying to promote GROC? Is there a there with Apple preferencing open AI in chat GPT? Honestly, and I think I want to start with this. For Apple investors like myself, I think this is a nothing burger. I mean, we know that Apple has not been the AI growth play that maybe some investors had hoped. I do not think that AI is the reason you invest in Apple at this juncture, in my opinion.

And I do think its partnership with Open AI makes sense. I mean, we know that Apple has been falling behind in the generative AI race. And we've been hearing for a long time now, them talking about using third-party models to bring series capabilities forward closer to competitors and really update it for the next generation of users. But I want to talk a little bit about the details of what's happening here with this lawsuit. So Musk's XAI is suing Apple and Open AI in Texas. Musk is alleging that the partnership to integrate chat GPT into Siri.

as well as Apple's writing tools that it stifles competition. He's alleging that it harms the public interest, that it gives OpenEI an unfair advantage by providing access to billions of user prompts from iPhones. The lawsuit also targets OpenEI for allegedly betraying their non-profit mission. You know, remember, Musk co-founded OpenEI with Sam Altman back in 2015. And OpenEI has actually said in the past that Musk wanted OpenEI to be a for-profit entity and that he was actually pushing for, you know, control over the country,

company and a majority equity stake for that for-profit structure and then later changed his mind. You know, for its part, Grok continues to be embroiled in its fair share of controversies. I do think that there is a point to be made that OpenAI retains major control of the LLM space, but Grok has some systemic engineering failures from what we can tell that have made it a far less attractive option for tech companies than Open AI. So this is a nothing burger for now. So to be fair here, Elon isn't the first to say that Apple is putting its fingers on the scale. for the App Store, right?

I mean, this is something we've heard before. But that, to me, is the not interesting part of this complaint. The complaint goes far beyond the App Store. And quite frankly, it just sounds, I don't know, it sounds like a rant about a lawsuit. Elon's complaining that Apple and AI are basically so afraid of this GROC super app. That's the reason he bought Twitter and the reason he did all this, that that's the super app is going to just destroy our need for a smartphone, that they are conceivable. that they are conspiring to keep GROC down.

And, you know. And couldn't it just be the case, Lou, that people prefer ChatGBTGPT to GROC? Yeah. And wouldn't that come out in Discovery? That's kind of the weird thing here is he's opening a can of worms that the answer may not be good for GROC and for X. Right. Well, I mean, there's good reason.

I mean, A, OpenAI was the first out there. If there is a verb in the space, it's chat GDP, right? You know, so they have just that incumcern. incumbent advantage with better name recognition. Also, Rachel Henned, this, GROC has had some, should we say, very well publicized, less than ideal outcomes, which I do think, me as a consumer, makes me a little weary of using GROC. So I think there are legitimate reasons why it may not be top of the charts right here. Bigger issue for me here, and I think that it's what's going underneath there is,

what is the difference between Open AI and GROC and Gemini and all that? It might be a matter of having that placement in the AppStars important because I think, I worry kind of with these companies that we are getting to a point where if this AI works the way it should and it seems to be moving in that direction, what's going to be the difference between them? What's going to be something that compels you to buy one other than the other? How do they differentiate themselves? And in that world, where you are in the App Store rankings really matter.

And I think that that is, if Elon is showing his cards, maybe that's what he's admitting, that we're heading towards maybe commoditization. Yeah. And then it becomes a distribution game. And then I think you do start to, yes, your App Store ranking matters, but it also matters what you're integrated with. You mentioned Gemini. Gemini has announcements seemingly every day with all kinds of new companies.

So they do have good models. Obviously, Google has a huge cloud service. But if Gemini is going to be integrated into Google Docs and YouTube and Mail and Android, these are going to be huge advantages for a company like that. You know, GROC is trying to ride X, but X is still a pretty small social media service. This is not meta with billions of users. This is a couple hundred million users. You know, I think you and I are very active.

But there's not a lot of us out there. It is a pretty limited business. if that's your distribution model, there are going to be bigger players out there. Yeah. And there is, of course, the Tesla question, too, is like right now, and we'll see how long it takes, but there's just a lot going on behind the scenes with GROC. Like you said, Elon likes to sue people. I'll be curious what becomes of this, but it does feel like, to me, again, just kind of

frustration with market share in a world where, as you say, distribution, market share eyeballs might be the differentiator, not the tech. The other big news item for the week in this space with these companies in particular is Apple potentially looking at buying mistral and perplexity that has been the rumor recently. Reports of Surface that Gemini could eventually power Siri. That's coming from Google. Apple has not gotten their AI strategy right so far. I mean, Siri is something that's been out for what a decade now. Rachel, is Apple coming at this from a desperate position?

Or are they playing 40 chess and letting the market play out before they make a big, move, which is kind of what they did with the iPhone. Yeah, I do think that their strategy as an AI play has not been fully coherent so far. I do think that this is still a company that at its core, this is a smartphone, hardware-focused business. You know, you're not investing in Apple because of its AI prowess at this point. And I do think that's been a disappointment for some investors. I think there are a lot of people who have sort of watched the different AI-related announcements Apple's made in the last three years and had hoped for more right now. You know, for me as a shareholder, the thesis still holds for me about this business.

This is a tech leader with a very powerful, sticky ecosystem that drives user loyalty. We continue to see really strong growth in other services like its asset light services business. But the acquisition of a company like Perplexity, for example, you know, Perplexity has an advanced AI-powered search engine and natural language capabilities. That could really boost Apple properties like Siri. And that could really improve as well their AI platform and user experience. Apple also receives billions annually for Google to be the default search engine on its devices. and acquiring perplexity could provide something of a homegrown alternative and a strategic fallback

if they were to have their current deal disrupted by, say, the antitrust lawsuits facing Alphabet's Google now. I don't think there's any secret that Apple has been perceived as trailing rivals like Alphabet, meta, and Microsoft in the AI space. I think that's a reality that they are contending with. And so acquisitions would certainly be a bold strategy to try to catch up and provide a more significant AI platform. They could attract more developers and users and really keep them within the Apple ecosystem. One other thing that I think is important to note, I mean, CEO Tim Cook has really positioned Apple's commitment to consumer privacy as a core value for the business under his tenure.

And that really creates a need for near-perfect accuracy in consumer-facing applications. And I think that's also underscored some hesitancy to release what could be potentially imperfect AI features. So they have a long road to go where this is concerned. and perhaps a series of acquisitions could be the best route for them. Lou, is acquiring your way into this business going to be even feasible? I mean, these are huge companies, but it may kind of be the only way for Apple to go. Yeah. So, first of all, I don't want to rewrite history here.

I'm had it with this four-dimensional trust thing. Okay. Yes, they did it with the iPhone, but Apple, we can't give them a pass. They tried, they spent a lot of money, and they failed in developing their own AI to date. And by the way, a lot of the people that have been hired by META in particular over the past couple of months used to work at Apple. Yeah, we'll see if that's good or bad. But look, let's not rewrite history. They try.

That said, I don't know if they need to have spent all that money. I don't even know if they need to buy something big. Back to my commoditization talk from before. I believe in AI. And I believe it is going to change things. But I believe that there are a number of companies that are spending a really, really, really, big sum of money to get it right. And I don't know if Apple needs to be one of them. Just as with search, Apple owns the customer. I talked about before, distribution might be what matters. I think

what Apple has the customer, that will end up being more important than owning the AI. I mean, we know for years, Google spent billions to have its search attached to the iPhone. I think we could have a similar world here. I think Apple's definition of winning here is different than the others. Apple's definition of winning is AI boosts iPhone sales and causes a generation of upgrades. They are well positioned to do that right now, despite their failures, despite not having bought anyone. I think both, yes, they failed and they'll be just fine. The big risk is going to be if there is some sort of a new hardware paradigm, which we don't yet see in artificial intelligence. So we'll see how that plays out. Next up, we're going to talk

about the government potentially taking a stake in not only Intel but defense companies you're listening to. Motley Fool Money. The old adage goes, it isn't what you say, it's how you say it, because to truly make an impact, you need to set an example and take the lead. You have to adapt to whatever comes your way. When you're that driven, you drive an equally determined vehicle, the Range Rover Sport. The Range Rover Sport blends power, poise, and performance. Its design is distinctly British and free from unnecessary details, allowing its raw agility to shine through. It combines a dynamic sporting personality with elegance to deliver a truly instinctive drive. Inside, you'll find true modern luxury with the latest innovations in comfort.

Use the cabin air purification system alongside active noise cancellation for all new levels of quality and quiet. Whether you prefer a choice of powerful engines or the plug-in hybrid with an estimated range of 53 miles, there's an option for you. With seven terrain modes to choose from, Terrain Response 2, fine-tuned your vehicle for the roads ahead. The Range Rover event is on now. Explore enhance offers at rangerover.com. Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. One of the big news items on the market over the past week has been the U.S.

government agreeing to take a stake in Intel. Intel actually announced this, but the Trump administration sort of floated the idea a couple of weeks ago. It seems like there's at least an agreement in place. Lou, what do we know? And why is this kind of a groundbreaking agreement between the government and a private company. I love you saying that. They agreed to. Yeah, so there's a lot going on here. And, you know, it's groundbreaking. We've seen this kind of before, like in the great financial

crisis. The thing that's weird here is that it's kind of, you know, going back and rewriting its history, because this is all tied to the Chips Act. And the Chips Act is already law. And under the Chips Act, Intel got grants and loans. And we're basically now just after the fact saying, actually we want equity instead. It's problematic in a way. So for Intel, they're not getting any more money than they previously were. No, no. So what's the advantage for Intel?

Well, I mean, the advantage of the Intel is it gets the government off their back, I think, if we're honest. And that's sort of why it's problematic to me. Because, look, if Intel was on its way to hitting the milestones needed to earn these grants, then it's the government going back on its word. If they weren't, it feels like new legislation would be needed. to change the terms. We didn't see any of this. I will say that I'd be more worried if they did this without the cover of the Chips Act, because I think with the Chips Act is actually, you know, at least we can say this is normal. This isn't just randomly going out and taking a stick in a company,

but it does add another layer of uncertainty. Intel holders were just diluted by 10% overnight. As a stock investor, I don't want to see this become common practice. I don't think we're there yet, But I'm at least kind of weirded out by it. Rachel, what was your takeaway? Yeah, there's a lot to unpack here. I mean, as Lou alluded to, this deal with Intel essentially converted about $9 billion in federal grants into an equity stake. And we also had comments the other day from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik, which confirmed that the administration is considering taking equity stakes and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin. You know, there's some major concerns I have on these fronts, but we're here to unpack really the investment angle.

So I will focus on that. I mean, the government's significant stake in Intel or other companies, if that happens in the coming weeks and months, it does minimize the influence of existing shareholders. And, you know, speaking to Intel specifically, government involvement could shift Intel's focus from, say, pure profit-driven goals to more national security-driven objectives. You could also see an environment where government stake subjects until to newer additional regulations and restrictions in other countries. I mean, Intel's own filing notes that the government state could third parties from engaging with the company in some cases. And that could obviously potentially affect future financing and strategic partnerships. And of course, probably one of the most obvious concerns here is that the government's interests, whether it pertains to national security or economic policy, might not always align, right, with the financial interests of private shareholders. So it could mark a move towards a more state-engaged economy. It is a significant change from a purely capitalist model. And one has to wonder, could this set a precedent for future government intervention in private industries?

And that would alter corporate governance models. That remains to be seen. The other big takeaway here, there's some Intel-specific parts about this deal. Lou, you mentioned that with the Chips Act. But the idea of taking a stake in defense companies that don't have the same funding and grants behind them, that could be really a game changer for these companies, the way that we think about them as investment. So what sort of can of worms are we opening up here, Lou? Yeah, this scares me.

And I should say that part and parcel for the defense contractors is, you know, please the customer. That's kind of how this industry works. I've long argued that the defense contractor, their core competency is understanding how the government works better than most companies. And so there is an instinct to, if asked, to do it. And you could easily see almost a pay-for-play world. Like we just had the Boeing Lockheed Bakeoff for a new fighter. Jet. What if there's a world where one of those companies said, not only will we offer you this price, but we'll give you a 10% stake? And as an investor, that is not a path I want to go down.

I am hoping cooler heads will prevail. I don't think there's much of a case for them coming in and kind of after the fact saying we're going to take stakes. I think that that would get into litigation. You wouldn't have the cover of the chips act. But we really need to think through where we're going here, because it would, honestly, for me, change the dynamics of potentially investing in these companies if that is part of the bid process. No doubt the courts are going to weigh in here. So a lot to come, but this is sort of a new piece of the investing world that we'll have to deal with. When we come back, we're going to talk about the latest battle in TV and the future of streaming.

You're listening to Motley Fool Money. These days, I'm all about quality over quantity, especially in my closet. If it's not well made and versatile, it's just. not worth it. That's honestly what I love Quince. The fabrics feel elevated, the cuts are thoughtful, and the pricing actually makes sense. Quince makes high-quality wardrobe staples using premium fabrics like 100% European linen, silk and organic cotton poplin. They work directly with safe ethical factories and cut off the middlemen so you aren't paying for brand markups or fancy stores, just quality clothing. Everything they make is built to hold up season after season and is consistently rated 4.5 to

five stars by thousands of real people like me who wear their clothes. every day. The Quince, Mongolian cashmere crewneck sweater may be the most comfortable one that I own. It's light, soft, and it was a lot more affordable than you think quality cashmere would be. Stop waiting to build a wardrobe you actually want. Right now, go to quince.com slash Motley for free shipping and 365-day returns. That's a full year to wear it and love it, and you will. Now available in Canada, too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to QINCE.com slash motley for free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince.com. slash Motley. Welcome back to Motley Full Money. Now, every media company is trying to build their own

streaming app and Fox is no different, but they're a little later than most. The company recently launched Fox One, which is a standalone property. But they have also picked a fight with YouTube TV, one of the biggest virtual cable companies ahead of the football season. Fox may not be on YouTube TV. So Lou, is this a big deal? And is Fox playing a hand that is even worth playing at this point? So yeah, yeah, they are playing the football hand. It's the oldest card in the book. and yeah, America loves its football, so this is when they have leverage. I'll say, as a YouTube subscriber who's not really into it, YouTube's offered 10 bucks back if it doesn't come through. I'm kind of rooting for that, Travis, but I know I'm in the minority here.

I think YouTube will cave for that reason, that we do, you know, we want our football and so they have to have it. But I'll tell you, I do think I'm ready to move past these dramas. I'm afraid that what comes next is worse. You have the ESPN standalone with ABC. Fox has a stand-alone. Peacock, Paramount, gets the NBC and CBS. All the networks are covered as a consumer. We're heading towards just the most terrible future. We're paying separately for everything, having to leave an app and go into an app just to change the channel.

I'm going to hate this. We need to, Roku, everybody needs to rethink things. But yeah, I do think that this is just the old try and true playbook, and it'll probably work as it always does. And I'll just end up paying more. This is one of those situations where we've now started to do the math on, is it worth canceling YouTube TV and just subscribing to every single one of these apps? Let me know, because I want to do that, but I'm too lazy. So, yeah, let me know.

Rachel, what's the future here for Fox in particular? Because they do have football. They do have their own streaming service. But Fox News and football is sort of a strange combo in a world where the alternatives seem more compelling. I mean, I think in the short term, both looking at it from a consumer perspective and investment perspective, YouTube probably is going to cave. I do agree with Lou on that front. But I think as you look over the long term and you look at these different platforms, I think YouTube and YouTube TV remains supreme. I mean, you think about how YouTube, including its live TV service, captures the largest share of total TV viewing in the U.S. It consistently holds the top spot and has for the last six consecutive months as of August 2025. That's based on reports from Nielsen ratings. It's the largest contributor to overall streaming growth. a formidable player in the market. Obviously, Fox has some major cards to play if its channels are removed from YouTube.

That could happen by end of day to day if the deal is not reached from this carriage dispute. But looking at it as an investor, you know, in a company like Alphabet as I am, it's also the case that platforms like YouTube are fundamentally changing the business model of entertainment and content creation. And that is a reality that is not going anywhere. Yeah, I don't know if Fox versus YouTube is going to be really a fair fight. but we'll see how much power football has here. As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about

and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy yourself stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows the Monty Fool's editorial standards. It is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only to see our full advertising disclosure. Please check out our show notes. For Lou Whiteman, Rachel Warren, and our production magician Bart Shannon

and the entire Motley Fool team, I'm Travis Hoyam. Thanks for listening to Motley Cool Money. We'll see you here tomorrow.