Thoughts on Tech News of Note 12-12-2025

• Apple losing its appeal
• Executive order on AI legislation
• Disney's deal with OpenAI
• Paramount's hostile takeover attempt

Apple Losing its Appeal
[note: Yeah, I see the ironic pun there. I am resisting.] Last week, I pondered the departure of Apple's Alan Dye and this week, Apple's troubles seem to continue to mount with the conclusion(?) of its saga with Epic Games. Apple lost its appeal on the contempt charge relating to its 2021 loss on alternative payment systems for iOS/iPadOS apps. The appeals court upheld the sanctions but is allowing for Apple to charge a "reasonable" fee for platform expenses. That portion will go back to the district judge where the fee structure will be finalized.

I generally try not to do many in-app purchases as a matter of course. When possible, I prefer to buy my subscriptions or software online direct from the company that makes it. This is not always possible, especially with mobile-first apps. I completely understand from a developer's perspective that it's often just less stress and mess to let someone else who has already developed the means to accept payments to go ahead and accept the payments. I have an Etsy store and haven't been at all motivated to sell items directly on my website even though tools like Shopify make it much easier to do than it was in the past. For a small seller or developer, not having to set up anything other than hooking into the already existing Apple store system is probably pretty enticing. You generally trust that Apple is going to pay you the money you're owed, and everything is going to work. You don't have as much troubleshooting and therefore you have less drama. Eventually, as you grow, the dynamics and economics can shift, and larger players will find it more profitable to collect all the money themselves and put their own systems into place to do so. And if going that route can save some money for the consumer, even better, right? Well, not if you're Apple and you rather enjoy taking a cut of revenue from every developer that sells items on your platform. I'm reminded of the old argument from the early days of the App Store that the splits were even more unfair in the old days. I'm certainly old enough to remember those particular old days; the days of buying apps for your Palm or Windows Mobile PDA on various software stores. Buying software for your PDA wasn't nearly as common then as buying software for your laptop, but stores existed to buy applications of all kinds. We bought navigation software, planners, spreadsheet and document editors, book readers, and even games. I remember those days fondly because I was a consumer and not a developer. We're often reminded that the splits on those stores weren't as favorable as the generous split Apple and eventually Google were offering. Things were much less transparent back then. If I paid $50 for the privilege of running something like TomTom Maps on my HP iPaq or Sony Clie, I had no idea how much was going to TomTom vs. the store I used to procure the software. It probably never even crossed my mind. But in today's world, with companies constantly communicating cacophonies of [potentially] conflicting messaging, we have so much more information to sort and arrange into neat mental piles. I vaguely remember Steve Jobs talking about how they'd take only 15% and how much better that was than the old stores. That wasn't lost on me. It wasn't intended to be lost on me. Apple wanted everyone to know that they were doing everyone a favor here: developers get a great platform on which to sell their fabulous apps, and consumers get a great platform on which to buy... fart apps, it seemed. The early days were rough.

What stays with me here is that I don't think any of this has meant anything to Apple at all. That original ethos of we're offering everyone a fair deal here and we have the best thing going is really the heart of Apple in a tiny nugget. It is inconceivable that anyone should want to circumvent the beautiful thing they are offering you. It is perhaps even theft. In a way, it reminds me of Trump's recent claim that democrats decrying illegal military orders were traitors worthy of execution. I am offering you everything. There is nothing but darkness beside me. I do not think there was a single lesson learned here by Apple except perhaps to try - and I mean try with the least enthusiasm possible - to keep the hubris to itself as much as possible when it comes to court cases. Acting classes, maybe, to learn to fake humility.

Executive Order on AI Legislation
I am not equipped to wax even unpoetically on the idea of federalism from a US constitutional perspective. I think even whatever I learned about this in civics class didn't prepare me for how fraught a topic this would become. Nevertheless, what does seem clear to me is that ultimately this is about money and power and that the money has gone out from the big tech companies who gain the most from AI so that they can have more power to ensure they can continue to therefore rake in the money to reap the rewards that are surely inherent in selling AI services to the masses... The money and power parts are boring, though. It's the story of humanity. What is more interesting to me is what would be the result of completely unfettered AI development? We have already seen positive and negative impacts. And because the seemingly positive impacts are so significant, many prefer to try to push aside concerns about the negative pieces. We could cure cancer! How could you not want to cure cancer! No one will have to work anymore! Don't you want to spend your whole days doing whatever it is you love to do! Why do you hate fun?

If there were truly no guardrails and the companies did whatever they believed would make them the most money, one has to wonder if doing anything good would even pay off. Curing cancer is something probably most normal people would consider an exceptionally positive outcome that might justify letting AI run rampant a bit. But curing cancer would eliminate revenue streams for a lot of companies with deep pockets. Only sick people need medicine. Only bodies with damage need surgery. I'm not naive enough to believe that anything AI could do to help humanity wouldn't be met by a swift reverberation from the company profiting off whatever misery AI could help resolve. It is so much more profitable for the powerful if humanity is kept more or less where it is now and profits continue to go more or less exactly where they are going now. Do not expect AI to save humanity. But at the same time, do not expect that the government, whose pockets are stuffed with money from those powerful profiteers, to save humanity either.

Disney's Deal with OpenAI
I admit I wasn't paying enough attention to this aspect of the AI drama. As a musician, I see a clear path to where art of all kinds is threatened in some way by AI. My husband, who is also a musician, recently sent me a number of AI-generated renditions of songs that impressed him. And most of us have heard of the countless AI-generated country songs that have both delighted and horrified people. I do think that in some spaces, AI-generated music could take over. I have had it in my heart for many months to sit down and write some decent music to use in my own YouTube videos. I have a couple of snippets I've used but I've never really taken the time to really compose stuff I feel good about. It's a multi-step process. I have to pull out my MIDI controller keyboard (because I'm a pianist and that's where I'll always start), connect it to some kind of computer, fire up some kind of digital audio workstation (DAW) software, and lay down some tracks. Along the way there are likely to be some bumps. I'll have to update the software. I'll have to download a plugin. Oh, I was on a free trial and that's ended so I have to pay for the software. I'll have to update the computer. I'll have to find the right patches. I'll have to do some editing. And yes, there are AI tools to make some of this less of a hassle, but for the most part, I want my music to be all me even if that means it isn't mathematically perfect. But how many people can't even execute those steps? The same people who use license music or get music from companies that specialize in offering music for content creators are a superset that contains a subset of people that will prefer to skip all that and just have an AI tool spit out a banger in the style of whatever they want. And why not pay for a subscription and have the AI create as much stuff as you like. That's where my mind has been when it comes to AI in the recent months. I haven't been thinking about copyright at all other than getting my own stuff filed as/when appropriate. So, of course Disney, the master of all things copyright, should be the first to step out in this space and try to define the terms under which its IP can be used. I am greatly interested in seeing what curated videos Disney will deem acceptable for its streaming platforms. What will it really mean to be able to use Disney characters in Sora videos? I am sure that there are some thick guardrails currently in development to ensure this does not become an embarrassment for Disney. I don't know that this will result in any new iconic representations of those characters. And there are details that I'm not sure we know. Will there be limits on the volume/output using Disney characters? Does the extra cost to OpenAI insinuate extra cost to Sora users that may want to use these characters in their videos? I have a hard time believing this will be a willy-nilly approach. Disney does not like chaos.

I should have strong feelings about this, but it's Disney and they have been such a force for copyright domination that I don't. Over time, more and more of their portfolio will fall into the public domain and while I understand that is concerning from a revenue perspective, I do nevertheless wish they would spend more time creating rather than litigating. They have had so many characters and franchises over the years and if they'd put a little more effort into finding and pushing the successor to Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and all that stuff, they'd be in a better place. And I'm not saying that they should throw away Mickey Mouse and all that. What I am saying is that for the most part, artists create and keep creating. You may initially or eventually create that masterpiece, that #1 hit, that best-selling book, that award-winning photo, that whatever. But you're likely to keep creating stuff because in your heart you want to create something better than that thing that defined you. Walt Disney died in 1966 and while Disney has continued to create characters ever since then, I'm not sure they've ever really felt they needed a plan for what their halo character or emblem should be once the image of Mickey Mouse goes into the public domain. Of course, it's true that they have trademark protection and versions of the mouse that were created after the Steamboat Willie days are still protected, yet there is this sense that Disney doesn't want to create the thing that is better than what currently defines them. Maybe that's because when Walt died, the artist died and the company we're left with views itself as a steward (landlord?) of past art rather than an innovator for new art. I guess that's why it's a small world for acquisitions and deals after all.

Paramount's Hostile Takeover Bid
Last week, it had not occurred to me that Paramount would strike back (yeah, I'm on theme this week). I think because I am a person who tends to learn the rules and more or less follows them, this seemed like a done deal assuming it could get approved by the FTC and DOJ. Of course, I knew that hostile takeovers happen. Some of them have been market-redefining case studies and reminders for why the word "hostile" is baked in. All the same, I was somewhat surprised to read the news on Monday and see that here was another company saying I am offering you everything and there is nothing but darkness besides me. OK, OK, that's not really all that's going on here. What Paramount is really saying is that I kinda need you so I can be everything and I'm not letting you get away without a fight. Look, I'm not the best person to speak on whether Paramount would truly be better if they win this war. I do understand that on paper they have a lot to gain. But if my thoughts on previous stories haven't made it plain, I do think that companies should try to compete and do better and acquisitions and deals aren't always the best path forward. There is still room in the industry for new ideas. Doesn't anyone have any ideas anymore? Do they just want to continue to throw money at old characters and old stories? Sure, it's true that Warner, like Disney, does create new stuff from time to time. But so much of the industry seems more motivated to squeeze as much money out of past hits than to invest time and money into making new hits. Maybe I'm seeing this all from the wrong angle. I know that ultimately these are businesses and businesses are in it for the money and for them it doesn't really matter from which angle that money comes as long as it pours in. I saw a headline saying Paramount says money is no object when it comes to buying WBD. So, they're saying they can make it rain. But making it rain could also mean watering the soil and allowing fresh new plants to sprout. Maybe try making it rain that way, Ellison.