Rajrishi Singhal: What markets demand needn't be what society wants
Apple's highly anticipated developer conference this year has not only disappointed reviewers and equity markets, but also raised many disturbing questions. One, it has raised anxieties over the future viability of the iPhone manufacturer. More importantly, it highlights the divergence between what is good for society versus what is good for the stock market, belying the benign and popular perception of the role that equity markets play in society.
Apple's developer conferences, called WWDC25 this year, are usually a marquee event in the tech world, providing independent developers and tech analysts an inkling of the company's progress with hardware and software. At WWDC25 on 9 June, Apple executives were able to share only a limited future path for the company, especially on its progress with artificial intelligence (AI).
Apple's senior executives told the gathering that the promise made last year about upgrading Apple Intelligence, with voice assistant Siri as its centrepiece, would take some more time to accomplish.
Also Read: China plus one: Apple and India might need to woo not just Trump but Xi too
This left many analysts and developers cold. Even the stock market expressed its displeasure: Apple's common stock has tanked almost 25% from its 52-week high.
The market's disapproval, interestingly, is not limited to Apple's slow progress in integrating AI, but also centres around the company's data privacy policies. The market's unhappiness seems to stem from the company's reluctance to use a customer's individual usage data or information as an input for training personalized AI models. Apple instead prefers to use insights based on aggregate consumer preferences, unlike competitors like Microsoft and Google.
It would then appear that the market is rewarding companies that will profit from scraping individual data, rather than businesses which have red lines on using personal data.
Also Read: Apple's Hotel California trap: It can check out but not leave China
The market's simple logic is that companies using personal data for their AI engines can unlock new revenue sources by offering consumers hyper-personalized offerings.
Plus, there is the subscription angle. For example, individual subscription rates for Microsoft's Copilot Pro are expected to be around $20 every month, its key selling point being its ability to unlock AI features in all Microsoft 365 products, such as Word or PowerPoint, allowing customers to generate drafts, summarize content or analyse data at a faster rate. Google AI Pro will also be available to customers at the same rate, but a turbo-charged version called Google AI Ultra will be available for $250 per month.
When this columnist asked Google's Gemini how Apple's future AI plans can make money for the company, one part of the AI engine's reply stood out: 'Apple's strong stance on privacy ('intelligence without surveillance') is a powerful differentiator in an era of increasing data concerns. This can foster greater trust and loyalty among its user base, leading to continued purchases of Apple products and services over competitors. While not a direct revenue stream, it's a critical factor in sustaining its high-margin business model."
Also Read: Dave Lee: Apple must make peace with developers for AI success
Yet, the stock market did not seem impressed. Clearly, for market operators, short-term corporate profits have greater primacy over privacy concerns. Even if we were to disregard the normative issues of morality or ethics for a moment, the stock market's responses are visibly out of sync with society's needs or concerns.
There is a reason for this: the stock market is focused on the limited constituency it serves. Its behaviour aligns almost perfectly with the objectives set out by institutional investors or companies looking to raise money.
In the not-too-distant past, the market was bestowing the Apple stock with a premium too because the company had plugs and ports that differed from other manufacturers, guaranteeing the company exclusive, high-margin revenues, even if that meant consumer discomfort or the exercise of near-monopolistic power.
Also Read: Big Tech in the dock: The EU could force Meta and Apple to change their coercive ways
The statement that the market's singular focus on corporate bottom-lines and their impact on share prices does not necessarily align with what could be good for broader society might seem like belabouring a truism; but the need to reiterate this has arisen in the face of a growing tendency to conflate a stock market's signals with the desires or ambitions of society on the whole.
One good example of the market-versus-society divergence is the premium that US equity markets placed on companies setting up manufacturing bases in China.
This was happening at a time when the US political class and civil society were bemoaning the absence of democracy and human rights in the North Asian country, even while hoping that closer integration with the global economy would discipline its regime. Reality has turned out otherwise, but stock markets continued to glorify companies that moved production to China.
Also Read: Apple's UK run-in: Privacy may matter less to its customers than it thinks
The linking of stock market performance with broader social well-being in India found fresh oxygen during the covid pandemic when benchmark indices, after initially dipping sharply, spiked with help from technology and pharma stocks. This was used by many politicians as well as Indian fund managers aligned with the ruling party's political ideology to indicate the economy's recovery and society's triumph over the virus.
Planners and policymakers must realize that a healthy society's needs, desires and ambitions extend far beyond quarterly earnings and the oscillation of benchmark indices.
The author is a senior journalist and author of 'Slip, Stitch and Stumble: The Untold Story of India's Financial Sector Reforms' @rajrishisinghal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Apple must face DOJ monopoly lawsuit, judge rules
A federal judge rejected 's bid to dismiss the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit on Monday, dealing a significant blow to the maker's legal strategy. U.S. District Judge Julien Neals ruled that government allegations are "sufficient to demonstrate Apple's specific intent to monopolize the smartphone and performance smartphone market." Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The decision clears the path for a potentially years-long legal battle that could reshape how Apple operates its ecosystem of devices and services. DOJ Claims Apple built "walled garden" to stifle competition The March 2024 lawsuit targets Apple's restrictions on third-party app developers and technical barriers for competing devices like smartwatches and digital wallets. Government prosecutors argue these practices destroy competition while inflating prices for consumers and developers. Apple's iPhone sales generated $201 billion in revenue last year, cementing its position as the world's most popular smartphone. The tech giant had argued its limitations on developer access were reasonable business practices, claiming forced technology sharing would harm innovation. Apple spokesperson Marni Goldberg maintained the company believes "this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law." Apple's case joins growing big tech antitrust crackdown Judge Neals identified "several allegations of technological barricades that constitute anticompetitive conduct" and noted the "dangerous possibility" that Apple has transformed the iPhone into an illegal monopoly. The case could reach trial by 2027 under the current timeline. This lawsuit represents part of a broader government offensive against Big Tech monopolies. Meta, Amazon, and Google parent Alphabet all face similar antitrust challenges from federal enforcers. Apple confronts additional legal pressures beyond the monopoly case. The company could lose its $20 billion annual payment from Google for default search placement, while a separate federal order already restricts its App Store fee collection practices. The outcome could fundamentally alter Apple's business model and its tightly controlled "walled garden" approach to hardware and software integration.
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
'You'll Hear From Trump Soon' US India Trade Deal Almost Ready, Trump Modi Ties Key To Breakthrough
Big news from Washington! The United States and India are on the verge of finalising a major trade agreement, according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Speaking just hours after President Trump reiterated optimism about a deal, Leavitt confirmed that talks are in the final stages and an official announcement is expected soon. Trump is pushing for a 'full trade barrier dropping' and improved market access, something he calls 'unthinkable'. Leavitt also praised India as a strategic ally and highlighted Trump's strong personal rapport with Prime Minister Modi. Meanwhile, India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar is in the US, attending the QUAD Foreign Ministers' Meeting and launching a UN exhibition on terrorism. With both diplomacy and trade firing on all cylinders, India-US relations are heating up fast.#trump #usindiatradedeal #modi #karolineleavitt #quad #jaishankar #indo-pacific #unitednations #moditrump #usindiarelations #toi #toibharat #bharat #breakingnews #indianews
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Threat of more tariffs hangs over countries negotiating trade deals
WASHINGTON: Governments around the world are racing to negotiate trade deals with the United States in order to forestall President Donald Trump 's punishing tariffs, which could kick in July 9. But the discussions have been slowed because Trump has threatened to impose more tariffs even if those deals are in place. Trump announced what he refers to as "reciprocal tariffs" on April 8, which he said were in response to other countries' unfair trading practices. But he agreed to pause those levies for 90 days to give countries time to reach trade deals with the United States. Some administration officials recently suggested that the deadline could be extended but Trump has signalled that he is ready to slap tariffs on countries he views as uncooperative. "We have countries that are negotiating in good faith, but they should be aware that if we can't get across the line because they are being recalcitrant, then we could spring back to the April 2 levels," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Monday. India, Vietnam, Japan, the European Union, Malaysia and other governments have been working toward deals that could smooth relations with the United States and avoid double-digit tariffs. But the Trump administration has been moving forward with plans to impose another set of tariffs on certain industries that it views as essential to national security, a threat that has foreign leaders worried there could be more pain ahead. These tariffs are dependent on the outcomes of trade investigations into lumber and timber, copper and critical minerals by the Commerce Department, which are expected to be finalised soon and submitted to the White House, according to people familiar with the matter. A determination that imports pose a national security threat would allow the president to issue tariffs on those products in the coming weeks. Investigations on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and electronic devices are also proceeding and could be finalised in time for tariffs as early as next month, the people said. Live Events Bessent added that tariffs on imports of items such as lumber were being implemented on a different track than the reciprocal tariffs that were announced in April and are not part of the current round of trade negotiations. Those tariffs on certain critical sectors, which would be issued under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, aim to build up domestic capacity for important products and ensure that the country isn't reliant on foreign factories in times of war or shortages. But these sectors -- along with automobiles and steel, on which the Trump administration has already applied national security tariffs -- are also vital industries for America's largest trading partners, like Japan, the European Union and India. These governments have been hesitant to strike a deal with the Trump administration, worried that they only will be hit by more levies down the road. For some foreign governments, these national security tariffs are potentially more concerning than the reciprocal tariffs Trump is threatening to apply to all their U.S. exports. For the EU, tariffs on medicines, the bloc's No. 1 export to America, could be enormously painful. It is unclear whether a trade deal that the United States and the European Union have been drafting will address that issue. Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, has suggested that negotiations should focus on a few key sectors including medical drugs. "We now need rapid joint decisions for four of the five major industries: automotive, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and mechanical engineering," Merz said last week, adding that "we don't want the best of the best; we want the most important of the necessary." Pharmaceutical tariffs are also a major threat for India, which the Trump team has consistently been optimistic about striking a deal with. Last year, India exported almost $13 billion worth of drugs, and the United States is its biggest market. For Japan and South Korea, as well as Europe, exports of cars and steel to the United States have been a particular concern. Along with disputes over opening Japan's market to U.S. agriculture, U.S. tariffs on Japanese cars appear to be a thorny obstacle in what U.S. officials presumed would be a relatively smooth negotiation. Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Korea and Indonesia could be hit by tariffs on semiconductors and other electronics, including phones and computers. Vietnam and Malaysia could also be hurt by tariffs on lumber and timber, which could cover products like kitchen cabinets. Several foreign governments have tried to negotiate provisions exempting them from other future tariff increases, but it's not clear how lenient the Trump administration will be on national security tariffs. NYT News Service A steel plant in Zelzate, Belgium, in March 2021. The Trump administration has sent some mixed messages about how much it might be willing to lower them; some officials insist they are not up for negotiation. Trump officials have criticised exemptions from global steel tariffs granted to various countries by the Biden administration, saying that they undermined their effectiveness. Trade experts said that giving tariff exemptions would also risk angering labor unions that support them, and undercut the Trump administration's argument that the tariffs must be in place to protect national security. Nick Iacovella, the executive vice president of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a trade group that supports tariffs, said that if the administration was "giving away" exemptions on tariffs on critical industries, it was "signalling to everyone that these really aren't national security issues." Privately, Trump officials have said there may be some wiggle room. Notably, the framework agreement that the United States announced with Britain in May included some concessions on national security tariffs on cars and steel. Britain secured an exemption from car tariffs for a volume of exports set at historical levels. That deal, as well as lower levies on aerospace exports such as Rolls-Royce jet engines, came into effect Monday, more than seven weeks after the framework agreement was announced. For most of that time, companies were unsure when lower tariffs would be implemented. However, the agreement to eliminate steel tariffs hasn't been implemented as the two sides negotiate requirements for British steel companies. This arrangement has encouraged Japan, the European Union and others to seek a "U.K.-style deal" to also exempt them from national security tariffs. But some Trump officials say that because the volume of their exports is so large, exemptions would be a major threat to U.S. industry. British exports of cars and steel to the United States were viewed as too limited to be much of a threat. But such exports from Japan, Korea and Europe are substantial. Jamieson Greer, the United States Trade Representative, has said privately that the British provisions were not a precedent or framework for other countries, according a person familiar with the remarks. Peter Harrell, a former Biden administration official who is a nonresident fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that the United Kingdom exports about 100,000 cars to the United States each year. But Japan, the European Union and South Korea together exported approximately 3.5 million cars in 2024, a much larger share of the U.S. market. If the president exempted large quantities of these cars, "then it doesn't look like you have a 25% auto tariff anymore," Harrell said. "He'd face political blowback." The Commerce Department and the Office of the United States Trade Representative declined to comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. For now, foreign governments appear wary of making substantial commitments on trade, only to see U.S. tariffs rise or potentially fall. The Trump administration is awaiting the outcome of a significant court case on whether the reciprocal tariffs are lawful. That decision could come this fall. Jake Colvin, the president of the National Foreign Trade Council, a trade organisation that advocates open trade, said other countries were "looking for certainty" in deals with the Trump administration. But uncertainty continues because investigations under the 232 national security provision are still underway. "Countries do want to make deals with us, but they are not going to agree to anything final until they know the status of the 232 investigations," he said. Part of the confusion is because trade negotiations are being handled by various departments. Greer and his office focus on negotiating tariffs and other trade irritants. But the 232 tariffs fall under the authority of the Commerce Department, which is juggling multiple investigations and other priorities. Some foreign officials have said they have little clarity from the Commerce Department about the likelihood of exceptions. Philip Luck, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said foreign governments were experiencing "a lot of frustration and confusion," in part because countries have been negotiating with multiple officials. They have been hearing different things from different principles, and also been told that all their agreements were contingent on Trump. "There doesn't seem to be anybody in charge," Luck said.
