Today on the Joseph Carlson Show, it's not often that we talk about Amazon as being bullied. After all, Amazon is one of the biggest companies in the world. It has a dominant market share in online retail, cloud hosting, advertising, video streaming, and so many other businesses. But in this case, we find ourselves in a situation where Amazon is not doing the bullying. They're not pushing around another company. That company's pushing around Amazon.
There's a company now that is so big and has so much power that they're actually bullying Amazon. From a report, from the Information, we see that NVIDIA, led by Jensen Huang in his leather jacket, is Boeing, Amazon. And the way that they're doing this is incredible. NVIDIA knows that Amazon needs their chips, and they're exploiting that need to the point that Amazon is allowing NVIDIA to compete directly with
them in cloud hosting. And NVIDIA, importantly, is transitioning from a hardware maker into a software maker. They're trying to follow along the path of Apple.
In this report, it details out this scheme or this way that NVIDIA is doing this, how they're getting into Amazon, how they're taking control, and this has gotten to the point where NVIDIA is bullying Amazon so much that the Department of Justice is looking at it. This is a fascinating story observing the dominance of NVIDIA and the grip hold they have on the chip market and how they're leveraging that into other markets. We're going to be discussing in
this episode. Now, of course, we also have some other news. We have a story here of other influencers like Fortnite streamers having a rough go this year. They're not making a lot of money. They're they're struggling. And the Wall Street Journal and CNBC has been reporting on the decline in influencers incomes. So we're going to take a look at the poor struggling influencers, the Fortnite streamers and how
bad things are for them. We have news here that Netflix may be taking on Disneyland. The streaming wars expand to real world experiences with the Netflix house. This is like an in person Netflix experience. And the question is, is this going to be competing with
Disneyland? And then finally, we know that Apple has benefited greatly from their push and artificial intelligence after their developer conference where they showed off many of their AI features, their Apple intelligence, the stock is up around 20% since then, but there's a missing piece. And that piece is China. What is Apple's plans with China knowing that they can't implement the same things like ChatGPT?
We're going to be looking at what Apple plans to do to compete with Chinese phone companies. So as always, we have a lot to get to in this episode. If you like this type of content and want to support this show, you can check out the Patreon in the comments below. The Patreon includes access to qualtrum.com, which is the website I use for stock analysis. I've built the whole thing from the ground up, and I think it's pretty great. It comes with a free trial.
You can try it out now. Now let's go ahead and jump into our main story. We know historically that Amazon is a dominant company. It's a big company that's not to be messed with or bullied. Amazon, after all, is a company that aggressively expands into different industries. They've done this starting off with online bookselling, and they put a lot of pressure on Barnes and Noble, forcing the company to downsize and almost go out of business. They've put out of business lots of smaller
retailerslikediapers.com. They do so aggressively, with some of the most aggressive tactics the financial world has seen. Amazon is a company that has the motto, your margin is our opportunity. They aggressively seek to grow into different industries, putting out of business different companies and offering
better value to customers. They've done this so much so that they become one of the biggest companies in the world, consolidating their market share in online retail to 40% in the US, fending off competitors like Timu and Sheen. In the process, they put out a business, Toys-R-Us. They've also expanded into advertising, now the third place advertiser in the world. This company is massive in
advertising. They've also grown to be one of the biggest streaming companies in the world, surpassing many companies aside from Netflix with Amazon Prime Video and now offering ads on that as well. Their company that also has the dominant market share and online hosting with Amazon Web Services bringing IT from the local environment into the cloud.
This company is one that's dominated so many different industries and put out of business so many different companies that it's seemingly untouchable. Amazon is like an untouchable company until you get to one that has become quickly bigger than Amazon, and that is NVIDIA. Jensen Huang, the CEO of NVIDIA, has LED this company, NVIDIA, to now the largest market cap in the world, even surpassing Apple
and Microsoft for a time. If we look at it right now, NVIDIA has a $3.34 trillion market cap. If we look at Microsoft, this one has a $3.32 trillion market cap. So NVIDIA is currently the biggest company in the world, bouncing between 1st and 2nd place. NVIDIA is bigger than Microsoft and Apple, Google, Meta, and of course Amazon. In fact, right now NVIDIA is significantly bigger than Amazon, over $1.3 trillion bigger. So NVIDIA is of course doing something right.
They're on the bleeding edge of GPU and chip development. They're on the cutting edge of it. NVIDIA builds such big chips that they're not really chips, they're more like entire server racks. It's like a huge device so complex that other companies can't create it, and NVIDIA has a stranglehold on these powerful devices. And this comes at a time when companies have an incredible amount of AI demand.
Artificial intelligence takes an incredible amount of computing power, which NVIDIA provides with their chips. You can see the growth in demand over just the past couple of quarters. If we look at this on a quarterly basis of revenue, you see that the revenue from Q1 of 2023 was $6 billion in the quarter. Now that's good, but if you look at the explosive growth over time, you'll see that the revenue quickly 4X within one year, growing an incredible amount every single quarter
sequentially. If we take a closer look and examine what has caused NVIDIA to grow so quickly, it's not gamers buying more and more powerful GPUs for their rigs. That mark is actually fizzled out over the past couple of quarters. It's not professional visualization. This is things like people that make movies and and studios that type of thing. This has gone up a bit, but again, it's fizzled out over the past couple of quarters. It's not even the automotive.
This segment of Nvidia's revenue is too small to be a meaningful difference. No, the place where all of Nvidia's demands coming from is the data centers. The data centre demand has grown sequentially every single quarter. In fact, it's rocketed upwards. If you look at Q1 of 2023, again, just the data centers was 4.28 billion and now it's 22.5 billion. This is the lion's share of Nvidia's revenue, and it's growing quickly. What Jensen Huang has accomplished with NVIDIA is incredible.
He's amassed a wealth of over $100 billion for himself while making thousands and thousands of other people filthy rich in the process. He's created one of the best companies, if not the greatest company of the 21st century in the process. But Jensen Huang is very smart, and he's smart enough to know that hardware companies and hardware company demand is typically not sustainable. In fact, history has taught this lesson before.
We've seen companies rise with insatiable demand in their hardware, only to fall 50% or 70% or 90% afterwards. It's a boom and bust cycle. It's similar to oil exploration. You find something that's worth a lot of money, you extract it, but then the time passes and the demand falls. We can see different examples of the same type of thing with legacy hardware companies. Cisco is one example. If we zoom way back to Cisco and look at the stock price, you can
see something here. Cisco stock price in 2000 reached prices of $80.00 per share, $80.00 per share over 20 years ago in the year 2000. Now of course this was a.com bubble, but you can see what happened during this time period. This was the stock to be in. This is the hardware maker that everyone needed their products. The demand was insatiable. Does that story ring familiar?
Now we have a situation where Cisco's at $46 per share. 25 years later and Cisco's still half the stock price it was in 2000. As demand quickly collapsed, so did the stock price. Cisco is an example of a company that had a one time influx of demand in their hardware and they did not properly make the transition to software.
So as the hardware demand inevitably fell, they had no supporting software to support the revenues or profits of the company, causing the stock price to go down over 80%. We have another example here with Intel. Intel was once at the top of the world. This is the biggest chip maker in the world. Every computer had an Intel inside. If we look over the past 10 years, Intel stock price once reached $65 per share, racing up to 75.
But you'll notice that the stock price has taken a dip recently. Apple moved away from Intel. Intel has lost clients left and right. They've had struggling sales, and AMD has been eating away at their margin. Intel deals with a lot of contracts of different customers. They lose customers with their hardware contracts. They lose a lot of money in the process, and Intel stock price has reflected that. Intel's another example of a company that relied on hardware.
Hardware alone and relying on hardware alone is a recipe for a volatile stock that cannot support its stock price. Intel did not properly make the transition to software. They don't have any type of SAS business, they don't have any type of corporate software services, and the software they sell is not enough to support the revenues of the company. So Intel stock price has met the fate of every other large
hardware company. It's volatile for a time, it has an epic rise with demand, and then it inevitably falls. This story of a hardware company having an incredible influx of demand for a time and then that demand falling afterwards is a story that's repeated over and over again with so many different companies. History is replete with examples of hardware companies not being able to sustain their demand. This is why investors started to favor a different type of
company. They favored software companies. Software companies like Microsoft have charts that look like this, ones that have dips just like any other company, but overall, they don't have an influx of demand and then a collapse in demand. Software companies sustain demand for year after year after year. They're in an investor term, less cyclical. Their demand doesn't happen in cycles of booms and busts. Their demand is ongoing. Microsoft understood this.
Bill Gates understood this when he started Microsoft. Even Steve Ballmer, who we make fun of from time to time, was very smart, and he also understood that software had sustained demand and sustained revenues. This has caused Microsoft to continue to grow to one of the top companies in the world, the sustained software demand, and Microsoft always aims to have this software income and to always sustain a 70% gross margin. Some companies understood that software is where you have
sustained demand. The companies like Microsoft that built out a software business to sustain long term demand are the ones that have long term success. And there's other companies that have successfully made this transition, one of the biggest ones being Apple. Apple started off as a hardware company. When Steve Jobs was running Apple, they made the large majority of their money selling their devices. But over time, Apple understood history.
Tim Cook understood history. He knew that having a company where you only made money selling hardware was a recipe for disaster. He knew about all the different history of different hardware companies that had major booms and busts. And Tim Cook pushed Apple into a service based company. If we look at the revenues of Apple over the past 10 years and we break it down by segment, you'll see that there's only one part of Apple that's consistently growing at this point.
It's not the iPhones. The iPhones are growing, but not consistently. The iPad, again, is also growing kind of overtime, but again, not consistently. We have the wearables like the watch. We have the Air pods. This is basically flat, no growth hair. And overall, if you were just to look at this portion of Apple, it's not that impressive. There's not a lot of growth here. The major part of Apple that's been growing steadily over the past decade is the service business.
You can see steady, reliable growth in services. The service business includes Apple's App Store. It includes insurance, it includes Apple TV Plus, Apple Music, Apple Fitness, and so on and so forth. Tim Cook built out a robust service business in Apple. That service business is now massive. It does $24 billion in revenue per quarter. That's as much revenue as NVIDIA does right now. The service business of Apple is by far the most profitable.
It by far has the highest margin, and it's by far growing the most consistent. Apple would not be worth anywhere close to what it is today without the service business. That service business, in a form of revenue, is the most valuable part of Apple's business. Apple leadership understood correctly. To have sustained demand in a hardware company, you need to grow a robust service business alongside it, and Apple has done
that successfully. Now, if we look back to Jensen, Huang and NVIDIA, he's certainly built a successful hardware company, one that sells chips with an incredible demand right now. But the big question for Jensen, and one that they're actively trying to solve, is the service portion of this. Jensen knows, just like Apple knows, that if they do not build out the service business, this demand will eventually fall and so will NVIDIA stock price.
So what we see here is NVIDIA using its stranglehold on these GP US is an opportunity to exploit other big companies like Amazon into allowing NVIDIA to build a service business. Let's go ahead and take a look at how they're doing this. The report states that though demand of NVIDIA GP US the all powerful chips fueling artificial intelligence is still high, the greatest existential threat to the company is if demand slows down. And I would say that this is
inevitable. Again, demand will slow down for NVIDIA. This is the fate that every single hardware company has faced. So to keep itself at the top of the game, NVIDIA has diversified its business into the world of cloud service, software and
rentals. Last year, NVIDIA started its cloud service, DGX Cloud, a competitor to some of Nvidia's own customers, including Microsoft and Amazon Web Services. Now, if you look at Nvidia's revenue and that data segment, that huge segment that's growing fastest, the most important segment, their main customers for that segment are big tech companies. It's Meta, it's Microsoft, it's Amazon as the three primary ones. Also Google, they need these powerful chips to serve their customers.
So the bulk of Nvidia's revenue right now only comes from a handful of companies. DGX, this new cloud service that NVIDIA created, now rents NVIDIA, powers servers from within AWS data centers, and then, promising greater computing capability, leases them back to Nvidia's customers. At first, AWS was hesitant to allow NVIDIA to set up a competing shop right under its nose. But once other rival companies agreed to the terms of DGX Cloud, AWS had no choice but to relent.
Amazon just couldn't risk souring its relationship with the supplier of its crucial chips. So Nvidia's basically saying to Amazon, either you allow us to set up this DGX cloud, right in your own server space, we can set up this cloud business. Otherwise, we might not have enough chips for you, we might not be doing business with you. We might just start selling our chips to Microsoft instead, who
has agreed to do this. So they've kind of twisted the wrist of Amazon, forcing Amazon to allow them to set up this DGX cloud. When contacted by Business Insider, the spokesperson said that Amazon worked closely with NVIDIA to develop features in the DGX cloud that offered customers the best of both worlds. So when Amazon's being contacted and questioned about this, they're saying this is no big deal. We agreed to this. We weren't.
We weren't concerned about this. We just want to serve our customers. And in fact, we even helped NVIDIA do this. So Amazon seems to be very friendly with NVIDIA, and they're saying that they're not being compelled to work with them. Rather, they're just willingly doing it. Now, of course, I don't believe that. I think that Amazon is being compelled to work with them because they are exclusively the provider of the most important
chips in the world right now. They say, quote, we have a deep collaboration with NVIDIA that goes back more than 13 years when together we launched the world's first GPU cloud instance on AWS. And today we offer the widest range of NVIDIA GPU solutions for our customers. Through DGX Cloud. NVIDIA has creatively maneuvered itself into a position where its own customers are helping it compete with them. But CEO Jensen Huang's aggressive strategy to maintain dominance doesn't stop there.
They also reported that NVIDIA is also requiring customers to build out more space to house the GPU they buy and telling them how to do it. So NVIDIA is, is like a, a wolf in the hens house. They've come into Amazon's AWS servers and now they're calling the shots. They're saying, here's the new chips, Here's how you're going to build your warehouse space for them. Here's the requirements. They're they're like the the supervisor telling how things should run within Amazon's
warehouses. Now Amazon, again, is trying to paint this as a nice collaboration between the two companies. But from the outside, a lot of this looks like it's done by compulsion, by the fact that NVIDIA right now has a monopoly over these chips and Amazon has no choice but to either work with NVIDIA or disappoint their customers. NVIDIA is giving Amazon an ultimatum. NVIDIA will not ship GPUs unless the customer can certify that they have data center capacity
in which to place those GPUs. The outlet reported that the Titan chip maker, in addition to demanding that the clients provide proof of their expanded data center capacity, was also telling customers how to design the racks that hold the servers and GPUs within those data centres. And because the racks are specifically designed to fit NVIDIA chips, it could make it difficult for customers to switch to chips from competing companies. One of the reasons that companies have a Moat is called
switching costs. The more difficult it is to switch from one company's products to another, that's called switching costs. NVIDIA is artificially creating switching costs by designing specific server racks that only work with their chips, and they make it so that these companies using their chips have to build these specific server racks. So they're forcing these customers like AWS and Meta and Google to actually expense and build out these switching costs.
Now, for now, NVIDIA and its clients such as Amazon have agreed to this somewhat symbiotic relationship. But that hasn't stopped competition from brewing on both
sides. While NVIDIA has expanded into cloud services, AWS is also developing its own AI chips named Tranium and Inferentia, which aim to compete with Nvidia's. So they're trying to paint this as this friendly partnership, this symbiotic relationship, while Amazon is being taken advantage of by NVIDIA, and Amazon and other companies like them are trying to do what they can to become less reliant on NVIDIA. But the task of replacing what NVIDIA has accomplished so far
is proving very difficult. Though its current strategy is clever enough to propel NVIDIA to become the world's most valuable company, the company's quest for industrial dominance could come back to buy it. Political reported earlier that this month the Department of Justice was looking to launch an investigation into potential antitrust violations. The experts now say that the Department of Justice probe into NVIDIA is further evidence of Nvidia's dominance overall.
With a dominant hardware company like NVIDIA, one that's in as powerful of a place it is, the question for investors is whether or not they can successfully make the leap from hardware to software. Nvidia's success has been stunning. It's been dramatic. It's really been incredible to see, but it is inevitable. Hardware demand will fall after a time. NVIDIA will not be able to sustain the incredible demand and growth they've had over the past year with hardware alone.
We've seen the story before many times of hardware companies that haven't transitioned to software. The companies like Cisco, the companies like Intel, the ones that are successful are the ones that start as hardware companies and bridge the gap to software becoming a hybrid model. Companies like Apple have successfully done this. Right now, I can't answer that question for you, but it's one to consider. Now moving on, let's get to some
other news stories. Here we have this this in depth look at the life of social media companies and it's kind of a tragic story. It's a tragic story because it shows that social media influencers aren't getting rich. If I know what's on people's minds, what what people are really concerned about right now, what all of you are really worrying about when you get up in the morning is whether or not social media influencers are getting rich.
And I know, I know it makes you all very sad to hear that, that Fortnite influencers and Youtubers aren't getting rich right now. I know that's disheartening to a lot of you. I know that's your primary concern right now. Now let's go ahead and jump into this and just take a look at the struggles of these social media
influencers. Many people dream of becoming a social media star like a Youtubers Mr. Beast or Tik Tok's Charlie de Emilio. I don't know who that is, but for most who pursue careers as content creators, just making ends meet is a lofty goal. Clint Brantley has been a full time creator for three years, posting videos on TikTok, YouTube, and Twitch where he comments on news and trends related to the online game Fortnite. So he is a Fortnite content creator.
Despite having over 400,000 followers and post the average 100,000 views, his income last year was less than the median annual pay full time US workers of $58,084. So he's not making a lot of money working full time as a
Fortnite influencer. Now. Clint was profiled on the Wall Street Journal as we saw his struggles of making a decent amount of money as a Fortnite influencer and he was also brought on to CNBC to further to further share the struggles, the struggles that everyone is concerned about of influencers not making a lot of money. Let's go ahead and take a look at his perspective here.
Flashy lifestyles online. The cold reality is that it's being a full time social media influencer is hard and maybe not all is cracked up. That's right folks, this, this is hard giving your opinions online like like you, you try to give your opinions and give a a takes on things or you try to play video games on online and have people watch you playing video games. It's easier said than done. This is a this is a struggling life. You can't even make a lot. You can't even get rich anymore
playing video games. What is the world coming to? Up to be last year, only 13% of no doubt millions of content creators made more than $100,000 from their work. Nearly half made less than $15,000. Not exactly what you're online, is it? For more, let's talk about it with some. We need to have like a a union of some kind. We need to complain to Twitch and Google to pay us more. Only 13% are making over 100,000 a year. It's just tragic to see. But he actually does this at his
full time. Creator Clint Brantley, he is one of the leading Fortnite streamers on TikTok and other platforms was featured in the Wall Street Journal. Clint, thanks for taking some time for us. How hard is it to make a living as an influencer? This has been, Brian, probably one of the most challenging things I've ever done with my life, but it's also one of the most rewarding. There are a lot of things that you don't. I just wanna to stop it there.
Clint lives a life where the most challenging thing he's done is making money streaming video games and and putting out content. That's one of the most challenging things that that's probably evidence of a pretty good life. If your biggest challenge is is streaming video games and making money, I think you have it. You think you have it pretty good. Don't understand until you actually get into the space, there are a lot of things that you have to learn and adapt to.
You have to be a social media manager, You have to be able to adapt the trends regularly and you have to be entertaining to people. And you also have to answer the question, why should anybody watch me? So there's a lot of things you kind of just have to learn as you go, but it's it's a very difficult thing to do. And I saw your setup actually, I think they call it a rig in I'm old, so don't at me in the Wall Street Journal. You also got to be kind of like ATV professional way too.
So it's how do you primarily make money partnerships. There is a lot of different ways in which you can make money. Brand deals, partnerships are are one way, ad revenue, of course, through different social media platforms. The biggest thing about being a content creator is the more ways you diversify yourself, right? Just like if you're investing in different assets, right, stocks or whatever, you want to do the same thing with content creation.
You, you have to divert you're your biggest assets. You have to diversify yourself. YouTube is an income stream, TikTok could be an income stream. Twitch can be an income stream. It just kind of depends on the kind of content that you make and what your goals are. So there you have it from Clint. It's a struggling year for many people that are playing video games online and being paid for it. It's been a real challenge for them. And I know, again, I know all of
you are very concerned. It's the top of your mind of, of what's going on with social media Fortnite influencers. That is a segment of America that I think everybody just feels a little bit of concern about. We're all, we're all wondering what's going to happen to them. So I don't want to downplay these concerns. I don't want to sound insensitive. And I know that this is a bit of a, a, a contradiction.
I, I know the, the relationship pairs me being a, a social media influencer myself, but I think normal jobs are OK too. I think maybe if the social media influencer thing isn't working out, consider just getting a job, a job where you go in to work, you work and then you come home and you get a paycheck. That's what most people do. I I think there's always that option if the social media thing isn't working out. After all, there's nothing wrong
with working a normal job. Now Next up, we have a story here with a provocative headline. Is Netflix taking on Disneyland? Not just Disney and their streaming and their content, but Disneyland parks. Rather than planning a family trip to Disneyland next year, your family might be planning an adventure to Netflix House instead. Interesting name for it. I guess they really couldn't go with Netflix Land. I think that'd be a bit too on the nose, but Netflix House
sounds all right. I think it's I think it's a decent name. Netflix has announced plans to launch two gigantic in person venues in 2025. The two spaces will take over former department store locations at two malls. Unlike Disneyland, there won't be any rides in the Netflix House, but there will be an immersive show, themed experiences and shopping opportunities. So right there, we know they're doing things differently. You go to Disneyland to ride rides. That's what Disneyland is.
It's all just rides. There's some food places, of course, there's shops and merchandise, but the majority of Disneyland is rides. So is this taking over Disneyland? No, this isn't like a direct competitor to Disneyland, but I do think there's some overlap here. An analytics firm notes that malls are increasingly looking to bring entertainment zones and pop up shops to increase the number of people who visit.
Malls need more anchor tenants. Anchor tenants are tenants that bring people as a destination to the mall because of course, less
people are visiting malls. Similar to how the Disney parks focus on the studio's iconic titles, both locations will extend to over 100,000 square feet and will include restaurants as well as stores and activities tied to some of Netflix's biggest properties, such as Stranger Things and Bridgerton. Outside each location will be eye popping sculptures and mural mashups of characters from
popular Netflix titles. This seems to me a bit like it's going to be, you know, if you went to like a Comic Con convention. There's just tons of different things related to the characters, to the stories. Netflix will likely create Netflix House as an attempt to bolster their IP to integrate things like Stranger Things and Bridgerton, increasing the value of their IP. I imagine they'll do this with other titles like Squid Game and
any other popular series. At Netflix House, you can enjoy regularly updated immersive experiences, indulge in retail therapy, and get a taste, literally, of your favorite Netflix series and films through unique food and drink offerings. The house will build off of the successful pop up events Netflix has held across the country over the past few years. We've launched more than 50 experiences in 25 cities and Netflix House represents the next generation of our
distinctive offerings. Now as a customer, I think this is a welcomed addition. Disney for far too long has been the only real media company that has successfully tied the parks experience to their content. You can say that Universal has done that as well with their major parks. Those are basically your only two options. There's not many other companies that have successfully done
this. And if Netflix is able to pull this off and create Netflix House, this fun immersive experience you can go to, and it's a bit cheaper than travelling to Disneyland, I think that's a welcome experience. If HBO does this as well and it's more of an HBO themed immersive experience, I think that's better as well. So I like that Netflix is pushing the boundaries, trying new things, and I also believe that this has relatively low downside.
I can't imagine this being too heavy of a CapEx investment. So I think this has a lot of upside by bolstering their IP and content and minimal downside. I don't believe that Disney investors have any reason to be concerned about this. It's certainly not going to replace Disneyland parks, but as a Netflix investor, I feel good about this. Now, finally, we get to the news that Apple's AI push so far has been well received. The stock is up around 20%. It's reached all new highs.
Apple's demonstration of their integration of Apple Intelligence in their hand off to Chachi BT was something that investors really liked, especially when they could think about it for a couple of days. The stock continued to rise as people became more convinced that Apple's AI strategy was
going to work. Now, all of that's great for Western countries, but with China, they have different rules there and Apple cannot connect to Chachi BT like they can in the West. And that is prompting Apple to look for a Chinese partner to help offer its Apple Intelligence services, said people in the industry. So far, no deal has been announced. With the next iPhone model released just months away in China, Apple is falling behind local rivals.
They've already incorporated AI functions into their phones. The iPhone dropped to 3rd place by handset market share among smartphone brands in China in the first quarter and this year behind two local brands, according to Counterpoint Research. So Apple's losing market share in China as other phones have already integrated AI into their phones. And Apple, like they usually are, is a little bit behind. In China, things run
differently. Companies must seek Beijing's approval before introducing AI chat bots and large language models. So Apple's in a situation where in the West, it seems like their AI strategy is full steam ahead, but in China it's being held back. It's being held back because they can't partner with the same partners. They have to go with a Chinese firm for AI and they have to get specific approvals before
releasing an LLM. Now ultimately, I can't see this being a big deal for Apple or holding them back in China. They eventually will be able to find Chinese partners that will partner with their artificial intelligence. They can integrate the handoff default position to those companies instead of open AI, and Apple will be able to function the same way mirroring in the West that they do in China, just with different partners. But overall, I don't see this as a major concern.
Now, that's going to be it for this episode. If you want to see additional content, you can check out the Patreon. Other than that, I'll see you in the next one.