Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:05]
B
Is the government going to take a stake in Intel? Molly Fool Money starts now. Welcome to Molly Fool Money. I'm Travis Hoyam, 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 and 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 OpenAI over Grok. 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 Grok? Is there a there there with Apple preferencing OpenAI and ChatGPT?
- [00:55]
A
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, 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 OpenAI 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 X AI is suing Apple and OpenAI in Texas. Musk is alleging that the partnership to integrate ChatGPT 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 OpenAI an unfair advantage by providing access to billions of user prompts from iPhones. The lawsuit also targets OpenAI for allegedly betraying their nonprofit mission. You know, remember Musk Co founded OpenAI with Sam Altman back in 2015 and OpenAI has actually said in the past that Musk wanted OpenAI to be a for profit entity and that he was actually pushing for, you know, control over the 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 OpenAI. So this is a nothing burger for now.
- [02:36]
C
So to be fair here, Elon isn't the first to say that Apple's putting its fingers on the scales 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, it sounds. I don't know, it sounds like a rant, not a lawsuit. Elon's complaining that Apple is that Apple and AI are basically so afraid of this Grok super app. That's the reason he bought Twitter and the reason he did all this, that that super app is going to just destroy our need for a smartphone, that they are conspiring to keep Grok down and, you know, and couldn't it just.
- [03:17]
B
Be the case, Lou, that people prefer ChatGPT to Grok?
- [03:20]
A
Yeah.
- [03:21]
B
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 Grok and for X.
- [03:30]
C
Right. Well, I mean, there's good reason. I mean, a OpenAI was the first out there. If there is a verb in this space, it's chatgpt, you know, so. So they have just that incumbent advantage with better name recognition. Also, Rachel hinted at this. Grok has had some, shall we say, very well publicized, less than ideal outcomes, which I do think me as a consumer makes me a little weary of using Grok. 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, think that it's what's going underneath there is what is the difference between OpenAI and Grok and Gemini and all that. It might be a matter of having that placement in the app. Star is 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, I think that that is if, if Elon is showing his cards, maybe that's what he's admitting, that we're heading towards, maybe commoditization.
- [04:48]
B
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 is have. It has announcements seemingly every day with all kinds of new companies. So they do have good models. They 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, Grok is trying to ride X, but X is still Lou, 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 there.
- [05:38]
C
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 Grok. 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.
- [06:04]
B
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 have surfaced 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 4D chess and letting the market play out before they make a big move, which is kind of what they did with the iPhone.
- [06:36]
A
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 few years and had hoped for more right now. You know, for me as a shareholder, the thesis still holds for me about this business. You know, 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 you know, 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 system. 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. Perhaps a series of acquisitions could be the best route for them.
- [08:35]
B
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.
- [08:43]
C
Yeah, so first of all, I don't want to rewrite history here. I'm had it with this four dimensional chess 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.
- [09:00]
B
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.
- [09:07]
C
Yeah, we'll see if that. Yeah, we'll see if that's good or bad. But look, let's not rewrite history. They tried. 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 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. 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.
- [10:21]
B
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.
- [10:36]
C
Hey, guys, it's CD Lamb, wide receiver for the Dallas Cowboys. I'm partnering with Abercrombie this season to tell you all about their viral denim. All you need to know is denim should fit like this. My jeans need to check a lot of boxes Fit first, trend second. They need to go with whatever I feeling. And Abercrombie Denim has it down whether I'm throwing on a tee or putting a whole fit together. Shop Abercrombie Denim in the app, online and in store.
- [11:06]
B
Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. One of the big news items on the market over the past week has been the US 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?
- [11:29]
C
I love you saying that they agreed to. Yeah, so there's a lot going on here. And, you know, is it 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.
- [12:00]
B
So. So for intel, they're not getting any more money than they previously were.
- [12:04]
C
So no, because that's.
- [12:06]
B
No. So what's the advantage for Intel?
- [12:07]
C
Well, I mean, the advantage of the intel is it gets 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 COVID 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 stake 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.
- [12:57]
B
Rachel, what was your takeaway?
- [12:59]
A
Yeah, there's a lot to unpack here. 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 Lutnick which confirmed that the administration is considering taking equity stakes in defense contractors like Lockheed Martin. There's some 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 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 a government stake subjects intel to newer additional regulations and restrictions in other countries. I mean, Intel's own filing notes, notes that the government state could deter 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.
- [14:31]
B
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 investments. So what sort of can of worms are we opening up here, Luke?
- [14:52]
C
Yeah, this scares me. And I should say that kind of 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 bake off 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 up, coming in 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 COVID of the CHIPS Act. But we really need to think through where we're going here. It would honestly for me, change the dynamics of potentially investing in these companies if that is part of the bid process.
- [16:00]
B
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.
- [16:15]
C
This episode is brought to you by Indeed. When your computer breaks, you don't wait for it to magically start working again. You fix the problem. So why wait to hire the people your company desperately needs? Use Indeed's sponsored jobs to hire top talent fast. And even better, you only pay for results. There's no need to wait. Speed up your hiring with a $75 sponsored job credit@ Indeed.com podcast. Terms and conditions apply.
- [16:46]
B
Welcome back to Motley Fool 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?
- [17:09]
C
So, yeah, they are playing the football hand. It's the oldest card in the book. And yet 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 as a standalone peacock. Paramount gets you NBC and cbs. All the networks are covered. As a consumer, we're heading towards just the most terrible future where 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 tried and true playbook, and it'll probably work as it always does, and I'll just end up paying more.
- [18:11]
B
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? Rachel, let me know.
- [18:20]
C
I want to do that, but I'm too lazy. So, yeah, let me know.
- [18:23]
B
Rachel, what's the future here for Fox in particular? Because they do have football and 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.
- [18:34]
A
I mean, I think in the short term, both looking at it from a consumer perspective and investment perspective, you know, 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. It's a formidable player in the market. Obviously, Fox has some cards to play if its channels are removed, you know, from YouTube. That could happen by end of day today if a 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.
- [19:32]
B
Yeah, I don't know if Fox versus YouTube is going to be really a fair fight, but we'll see how 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 or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows the Motley 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 Fool Money. We'll see you here tomorrow.