Apple is ready for AI

I have been critical of Apple, and more specifically its designs with the M-series processors. My complaint is that the processors are too powerful, that even the simplest M1 processor is more than capable of handling tasks of an average user. (That is, someone who browses the web, reads and sends e-mail, and pays bills.)

The arrival of "AI" has changed my opinion. The engines that we call "artificial intelligence" require a great deal of processing, memory, and storage, which is just what the M-series processors have. Apple is ready to deploy AI on its next round of computers, powered by M4 processors. Those processors, merely speculative today, will most likely arrive in 2025 with companion hardware and software that includes AI-driven features.

Apple is well positioned for this. Their philosophy is to run everything locally. Applications run on the Mac, not in the cloud. Apps run on iPhones and iPads, not in the cloud. Apple can sell the benefits of AI combined with the benefits of privacy, as nothing travels across the internet.

This is different from the Windows world, which has seen applications and apps rely on resources in the cloud. Microsoft Office has been morphing, slowly into cloud-based applications. (There is a version one can install on a local PC, but I suspect that parts of that use cloud-based resources.)

I'm not sure how Microsoft and other application vendors will respond. Will they shift back to local processing? (Such a move would require a significant increase in processing power on the PC.) Will they continue to move to the cloud? (That will probably require additional security, and marketing, to convince users that their data is safe.)

Microsoft's response may be driven by the marketing offered by Apple. If Apple stresses privacy, Microsoft will (probably) counter with security for cloud-based applications. If Apple stresses performance, Microsoft may counter with cloud-based data centers and distributed processing.

In any case, it will be interesting to see the strategies that both companies use.

WFH and the real estate crisis

Over the past decades, companies (that is, employers) have shifted responsibilities (and risk) to their employees.

Employer companies replaced company-funded (and company-managed) pension plans with employee-funded (and employee-managed) 401-k retirement plans.

Employer companies have shifted the cost of medical insurance to employees. The company-run (and company-funded) benefit plan is a thing of the past. Today, the hiring process includes a form for the employee to select insurance options and authorize payment via payroll deduction.

Some companies have shifted other forms of risk to employees. Restaurants and fast-food companies, subject to large swings in demand during the day, have shifted staffing risk to employees. Instead of a steady forty-hour workweek with eight-hour shifts, employers now schedule employees with "just in time" methods, informing employees of their schedule one day in advance. Employees cannot plan for many activities, as they may (or may not) be scheduled to work in any future day.

In all of these changes, the employer shifted the risk to the employees.

Now we come to another form of risk: real estate. It may seem strange that real estate could be a risk. And it isn't; the risk is the loans companies have to buy real estate.

Many companies cannot afford the loans for their buildings. Here's why: A sizable number of companies have allowed employees to work from home (or locations of their own choosing), and away from the office. As a result, those companies need less office space than they needed in the past. So they rent less space.

It's not the tenant companies that have the risk of real estate loans -- it's the landlord companies. They made the loans and purchased the buildings.

But risk is risk, and it won't take long for landlord companies to shift this risk away from themselves. But this shift won't be easy, and it won't be like the previous shifts.

A building has two (or perhaps more) companies. One that owns the building (the landlord company), and a second (the tenant company) that leases space within. (The owner could be a group of companies in a joint effort. And a large building could have more than one tenant.)

But notice that this risk has two levels of corporations: the landlord company and the tenant company. The landlord company has employees, but they are not the employees who work in the building. Shifting the risk to them makes no sense.

The employees who work in the building are employees of the tenant company, and they have no direct connection to the landlord company. The landlord company cannot shift the risk to them, either.

Thus, the shift of risk (if a shift does occur) must move between the two companies. For the risk of real estate, the landlord company must shift the risk to its tenant companies.

That shift is difficult. It occurs not between an employer and employee, but between two companies. Shifting risk from employer to employee is relatively easy, due to the imbalance of power between the two. Shifting risk between companies is difficult: the tenant company can hire lawyers and fight the change.

If the owning company is successful, and does manage to shift the risk to its tenant company, then one might assume that the tenant company would want to shift the risk to its employees. That shift is also difficult, because there is little to change in the employment arrangement. Medical benefits and pension plans were easy to change, because employees were receiving something. With the risk of building ownership (or more specifically the risk of a lower value for the building) the employee is currently receiving... nothing. The have no share in the building, no part of the revenue, no interest in the transaction.

Savvy readers will have already thought of other ways of hedging the risk of real estate loans (or the risk of reduced demand for real estate). There are other ways; most involve some form of insurance. With them, the landlord company purchases a policy or some other instrument. The risk is shifted to a third company (the insurer) with payments.

I expect that the insurance option will be the one adopted by most companies. It works, it follows existing patterns of business, and it offers predictable payments to mitigate risk.

Sometimes you can shift risk to employees. Sometimes you can't.