Apple Podcasts runs within CarPlay, Apple’s in-car software platform for accessing compatible iPhone apps through a vehicle’s display and controls. CarPlay provides the driving environment, while Podcasts supplies the programs, episodes, library and playback features available inside it.
That combination suits a part of the day that often feels wasted. A commute may be too fragmented for reading or watching something, but it can provide enough uninterrupted time for a news briefing, interview, documentary series or comedy show.
Podcasts also give each journey a different character. The morning drive can offer information before work, while the return trip can provide lighter entertainment or continue a longer story. Drivers are free to choose whether the time should be useful, relaxing or simply less repetitive.
Apple Podcasts appears alongside other compatible audio apps when an iPhone connects to CarPlay. The vehicle display offers access to available episodes and essential controls without reproducing the complete iPhone interface on the dashboard.
The distinction is simple: Apple Podcasts does not create or power CarPlay. It is an audio app designed to operate within the wider CarPlay experience, which also handles navigation, calls, messages and other supported services.
CarPlay reduces podcast playback to the functions most appropriate in a vehicle. Drivers can use the Now Playing screen, CarPlay Dashboard, steering-wheel controls or buttons provided by the vehicle. Available commands can include playing, pausing, jumping back 15 seconds, moving forward 30 seconds and changing playback speed.
Siri provides another way to manage audio while keeping attention on the road. A driver can request a followed show, pause the current episode or continue listening without searching through the display. Support varies according to the vehicle and its controls, but the app remains connected to the iPhone rather than operating as a separate system installed by the automaker.
The interface is especially suitable for spoken audio. Songs can often continue without intervention, while a podcast listener may want to replay an explanation, skip part of an episode or resume a program interrupted earlier. CarPlay keeps those common controls accessible without placing the full Podcasts app in front of the driver.
A regular route creates a predictable amount of listening time. Someone with a 15-minute drive may prefer concise news, business updates or language lessons. A 40-minute journey provides room for detailed interviews, investigative reporting or serialized fiction.
Apple Podcasts includes programs covering education, technology, culture, history, sports, health and entertainment. The variety allows listeners to build different routines around the same drive rather than depending on one radio schedule or repeatedly hearing familiar music.
A morning episode can provide context for events likely to shape the working day. On the way home, comedy and conversational programs can create distance from work before the listener reaches the front door. Neither choice requires treating every available minute as a productivity exercise.
The format can also make traffic less frustrating. A delayed journey remains inconvenient, but an episode gives the driver something continuous to follow as the arrival time changes. Spoken stories can hold attention without asking the driver to look away from navigation or the road.
Apple Podcasts keeps longer programs useful even when they do not fit into one trip. Listening progress can synchronize across compatible devices using the same Apple Account, allowing an episode started at home to continue in the car or resume later on another device.
The safest podcast decision is usually the one made before the car starts moving. Apple Podcasts allows listeners to follow shows, download episodes and arrange a queue on the iPhone in advance. CarPlay can then concentrate on playback instead of discovery.
A prepared queue is useful when several episodes are planned for one journey. The next selection can begin automatically after the current program ends, removing the temptation to search through categories while driving. Listeners can combine a short briefing with a longer interview or place lighter material after a demanding program.
Downloads make the experience more reliable. Saved episodes can continue playing through areas with weak cellular coverage, including rural roads, tunnels and underground parking structures. Downloading through Wi-Fi can also prevent a long daily routine from consuming unnecessary mobile data.
Automatic downloads can keep recent episodes from followed shows ready for the next drive. Storage still requires attention, especially when subscriptions publish frequently, but played downloads can be removed automatically according to the selected Podcasts settings.
Playback speed provides another form of control. Faster playback can help a listener finish a familiar news format within a shorter trip, while normal or slower speeds may suit technical discussions, unfamiliar accents or narrative programs where delivery forms part of the experience.
CarPlay does not create a separate podcast library inside the vehicle. It extends the listening activity already connected to the iPhone, preserving followed shows, saved programs and playback position when the drive ends.
That continuity prevents commute listening from becoming isolated. A listener can discover and prepare episodes on an iPhone, hear part of one through CarPlay and continue later on a Mac or another compatible device. Downloads remain stored on the device that received them, while supported library information and progress can synchronize through the Apple Account.
Commute length can eventually shape a personal programming schedule. A 12-minute daily news show may fit the morning route almost exactly, while a 45-minute interview can cover both directions with the remaining section ready for the following day. The queue can change with the calendar, leaving shorter episodes for busy mornings and deeper programs for the roads that provide enough time to hear them properly.
The post Apple Podcasts Is a Perfect Match for CarPlay appeared first on AppleMagazine.
Alzheimer’s disease may be leaving a more precise anatomical signature in the brain than scientists once realized. A new study published in Translational Psychiatry investigates regional changes in the fine structure of brain tissue immediately beneath the cerebral cortex, known as the juxtacortical region, and links those changes to patterns of gene expression associated with neurodegeneration. The work, led by J. Zhang, L. Sun, X. Yang and colleagues, offers a combined view of Alzheimer’s biology that connects what can be detected through brain imaging with the molecular programs active inside vulnerable neural tissue.
The juxtacortical zone is a narrow but biologically important interface. It lies directly beneath the cortex, the outer layer responsible for functions including memory, language, perception and decision-making. Although much Alzheimer’s research has focused on cortical thinning, large-scale tissue loss and abnormalities in deeper brain structures, the tissue bordering the cortex may reveal earlier or more regionally specific changes. Its organization includes densely packed axons, dendrites, neurons, glial cells and blood vessels, all of which can be affected as the disease progresses. Subtle disruption in this area could therefore provide clues before dramatic anatomical damage becomes visible.
The study’s central idea is that Alzheimer’s disease does not alter every brain region in the same way. Instead, neurodegeneration follows a complex geography shaped by cellular composition, connectivity, metabolism and genetic vulnerability. By examining regional juxtacortical microstructural changes, the researchers seek to move beyond a simple question of whether tissue has shrunk. Microstructure refers to the organization of brain components at scales smaller than conventional anatomical imaging can directly resolve. Variations in water diffusion, tissue organization and local architecture can serve as indirect markers of changes to axons, membranes, extracellular space and other microscopic features.
This regional perspective matters because the same imaging signal can arise from different biological processes. A change in tissue organization may reflect loss of neuronal connections, damage to myelinated fibers, altered glial activity, inflammation or shifts in the balance of cellular compartments. Imaging alone can reveal where abnormalities are concentrated, but it cannot always explain why they occur. The researchers therefore paired their investigation of juxtacortical structure with gene-expression information, creating a bridge between regional anatomy and molecular biology. That combination can help identify which biological pathways may underlie the imaging patterns seen in Alzheimer’s disease.
Gene expression describes the activity of genes within cells and tissues: which genetic instructions are being read, and at what levels. In the Alzheimer’s brain, these molecular signatures can point toward processes such as synaptic dysfunction, immune activation, impaired energy production, protein handling and cellular stress. Mapping gene-expression patterns onto regions showing microstructural alterations may reveal whether vulnerable areas share particular molecular characteristics. It may also help distinguish tissue changes related directly to neurodegeneration from those associated with aging or general brain atrophy. The result is a more layered portrait of disease, linking microscopic organization to the biological machinery that maintains it.
The findings described by the paper’s title suggest that these two forms of evidence—regional microstructure and gene activity—provide complementary insights into Alzheimer’s pathology. Rather than treating the brain as a uniform organ undergoing gradual damage, the research emphasizes a mosaic of vulnerability. Some areas may show distinctive structural disruption alongside gene-expression profiles associated with neuronal injury or altered support-cell function, while other regions may be relatively resilient. Such differences could help explain why symptoms vary between individuals and why memory, language, attention and other abilities can deteriorate along different trajectories.
The work could also influence how scientists think about biomarkers. A biomarker is a measurable biological feature that helps indicate disease presence, progression or response to treatment. Traditional markers of Alzheimer’s include abnormal amyloid and tau proteins, brain volume loss and changes in metabolism. Juxtacortical microstructural measures, especially when interpreted alongside molecular data, could eventually add regional detail to this toolkit. They might help researchers identify tissue at risk, track the spread of degeneration or evaluate whether an experimental therapy is protecting neural architecture even before clinical improvement becomes obvious.
However, the study should not be interpreted as proof that a single imaging signature can diagnose Alzheimer’s disease or predict an individual’s future with certainty. Microstructural measurements are indirect, and gene-expression data often come from specialized datasets that may not capture every cell type or every stage of disease. Differences in age, disease severity, medication, vascular health and individual brain organization can also influence results. The strength of the approach lies not in one isolated measurement, but in the convergence of regional imaging and molecular evidence. Together, these methods can generate testable hypotheses about how and where neurodegeneration unfolds.
The broader message is that Alzheimer’s research is moving toward increasingly integrated maps of the human brain. The study by Zhang, Sun, Yang and colleagues presents the juxtacortical region as a potentially informative frontier, where microscopic tissue organization and gene regulation intersect. If future research confirms these relationships in larger and more diverse groups, the approach could sharpen disease staging and improve the design of targeted therapies. For now, the findings add weight to a crucial principle in neuroscience: understanding Alzheimer’s requires knowing not only which brain regions are damaged, but also how their cellular architecture and molecular identity make them vulnerable.
Subject of Research: Regional juxtacortical microstructural changes and gene expression in Alzheimer’s disease
Article Title: Regional juxtacortical microstructural changes and gene expression provide insights into neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease
Article References: Zhang, J., Sun, L., Yang, X. et al. “Regional juxtacortical microstructural changes and gene expression provide insights into neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease.” Translational Psychiatry (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-026-04292-z
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-026-04292-z
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease, neurodegeneration, juxtacortical microstructure, gene expression, brain imaging, neuroscience, biomarkers, translational psychiatry
App Store regulatory changes are beginning to affect Apple Services growth as developers gain more ways to avoid Apple’s payment system or pay lower commissions in major markets.
Apple finance chief Kevan Parekh told investors that changes to the App Store business model in some countries had affected its performance during the June quarter. Softer spending on mobile games created additional pressure.
The acknowledgement is significant because regulatory risk has appeared in Apple filings for years without producing a clearly identified effect on Services performance. Apple is now confirming that rule changes have advanced far enough to influence reported results.
The impact does not mean the App Store has stopped growing. Apple described the store as reaching another June-quarter revenue record, while Services expanded by approximately 12% from the previous year.
The emerging issue is the rate of growth. A purchase can still occur inside an iPhone app while generating less revenue for Apple when the customer pays through a developer’s website or uses terms carrying a reduced fee.
Apple did not identify one country or policy as solely responsible for the effect.
The company is adapting to a collection of court orders, competition laws and regulatory agreements that differ substantially among the United States, European Union, China, Brazil, Japan, South Korea and other markets.
Some rules concentrate on payment choice. They allow developers to place links or buttons inside apps leading customers to external checkout pages.
Other changes permit alternative app marketplaces or direct distribution outside the App Store. Several regulators are also examining whether Apple can charge developers for transactions completed through another payment provider.
The financial result depends on the model adopted in each country. Apple may receive no commission, a reduced commission or another fee connected with platform technology and distribution.
This creates a more fragmented App Store business. A subscription sold through the same application can produce different revenue for Apple according to the customer’s country, payment route and the developer terms governing that version of the app.
The most direct change in the United States came from the long-running legal dispute between Apple and Epic Games.
A federal court previously ordered Apple to stop preventing developers from directing customers toward outside purchasing options. Apple responded by allowing certain external links while seeking commissions of between 12% and 27% on purchases completed through them.
The company also introduced design restrictions, an approval process and a warning screen displayed when customers left the App Store environment.
In April 2025, the district court found Apple in civil contempt for failing to comply fully with the anti-steering injunction. The ruling prohibited the company from collecting a commission on purchases made through external links and removed several restrictions governing their appearance.
Apple updated its App Review Guidelines in May 2025. Apps distributed through the United States storefront can include buttons, external links and other calls to action leading customers toward another payment method.
The rules no longer require a special external-link entitlement for the U.S. storefront.
That change gives developers a straightforward financial reason to move some transactions to the web. A company can process a payment through another provider instead of giving Apple a percentage of the digital sale.
The customer can return to the iPhone app and use the purchased subscription or content. The app remains distributed through Apple, but the associated transaction no longer produces the same App Store commission.
Enough developers adopting that route can slow Apple Services growth even if total spending on iPhone applications continues increasing.
The European Union’s Digital Markets Act requires Apple to permit alternative app marketplaces, outside payment systems and other changes intended to reduce its control over iOS distribution.
Developers can remain under Apple’s conventional App Store terms or adopt business terms designed for the European market.
The alternative structure separates several services that were previously combined inside one commission. Developers can choose different levels of App Store support, use Apple’s payment system, provide another payment option or distribute software through a competing marketplace.
Apple introduced reduced commissions and technology-related fees to preserve compensation for the tools, security systems, distribution infrastructure and platform access it provides.
Those terms have changed several times following regulatory objections. Beginning in 2026, Apple started moving from its earlier Core Technology Fee toward a Core Technology Commission applied to eligible digital transactions under particular conditions.
The structure means outside payments do not always eliminate Apple fees in Europe. They can still reduce the amount Apple collects or shift revenue among different fee categories.
Regulators continue examining whether the terms provide meaningful choice or discourage developers from leaving the standard model.
Apple argues that alternative stores and payment systems create additional privacy, security and fraud risks. The European Commission has focused on whether Apple’s warnings, technical requirements and fees make those options unnecessarily difficult to use.
European developers must calculate more than one commission. They need to consider payment-processing costs, marketplace charges, customer acquisition, reporting obligations and the Apple terms attached to each distribution method.
The result may be lower App Store revenue without an equally large shift toward independent marketplaces. External website payments can change Apple’s economics more quickly because they do not require customers to install another store.
App Store regulatory changes are not limited to alternative stores and external payments.
Apple lowered several commission rates in the China mainland storefront beginning March 15, 2026.
Qualifying transactions under the App Store Small Business Program and Mini Apps Partner Program now carry a 12% commission. The same rate applies to eligible auto-renewing subscriptions after the subscriber’s first year.
These transactions previously qualified for a higher 15% rate.
A three-percentage-point reduction may appear small beside demands for completely independent payments. At the scale of China’s app economy, it can remove a meaningful amount of revenue while improving the share retained by developers.
The Mini Apps Partner Program is particularly important in China because large platforms can contain many smaller services inside one host application.
Reducing the commission can encourage those ecosystems to continue using Apple In-App Purchase. It also demonstrates how Apple may respond to pressure by offering more favorable terms before regulators require a more disruptive change.
Lower commissions can support transaction growth over time, but the immediate calculation is straightforward: Apple receives less from each qualifying purchase.
Apple introduced alternative app distribution and payment options in Brazil through an agreement with the country’s competition regulator, CADE.
Beginning with iOS 26.5, developers can distribute apps through alternative marketplaces, operate those marketplaces and process digital payments outside Apple In-App Purchase.
Apps can also present links leading users to an external website where the transaction is completed.
Apple continues applying notarization and other technical requirements to software distributed outside the App Store.
The company maintains that these protections reduce risks but cannot provide the complete safeguards associated with App Review.
Brazil is a major smartphone and digital-services market. Its effect on Apple Services will depend on whether large developers adopt the new options and whether customers are willing to leave the familiar App Store purchasing flow.
An external option existing in software does not guarantee that people will use it. The developer must usually offer a meaningful advantage, such as a lower price, a different subscription package or payment methods better suited to local customers.
Adoption can increase gradually as existing apps release updates. The financial impact may therefore become more visible over several quarters rather than appearing immediately after the regulatory agreement takes effect.
Apple receives a commission when an eligible digital purchase uses its in-app payment system.
The fee compensates Apple for distribution, payment processing, fraud management, developer tools, customer support and access to the iOS platform, according to the company.
The standard percentage varies. Small developers and long-running subscriptions can qualify for reduced rates, while other eligible digital transactions may carry higher commissions.
When payment moves to a developer’s website, an independent processor handles the financial transaction. The developer pays that provider, manages more of the customer relationship and retains the amount that would otherwise become an App Store fee.
Apple may still provide the operating system, APIs, development tools and App Store distribution without receiving the conventional payment commission.
This separation explains why App Store activity and App Store revenue can move differently. People may download more applications and spend more on digital services while Apple captures a smaller percentage of the commerce.
The same customer could maintain several subscriptions used exclusively on an iPhone without any of their monthly payments passing through Apple.
Apple can collect other revenue from that user through hardware, advertising, iCloud or its own subscriptions. The external transaction nevertheless removes one part of the Services model.
The size of the App Store economy should not be confused with Apple’s commissionable revenue.
Apple says the global App Store ecosystem facilitated more than $1.4 trillion in developer billings and sales during 2025. More than 90% of that commerce did not produce a commission for the company.
The largest categories involve physical goods and services such as retail purchases, travel, grocery delivery, restaurant orders and transportation.
Apple does not collect a percentage when someone uses an Amazon app to order furniture, books a hotel or pays for a meal delivered through an iPhone.
App Store commissions generally concentrate on digital goods, application features, virtual items and subscriptions sold through Apple In-App Purchase.
Regulatory changes target this smaller but financially important part of the ecosystem.
Digital transactions require no physical inventory or delivery network, allowing payment commissions to carry attractive margins. Losing part of that revenue can therefore affect profitability more than the dollar amount alone suggests.
Apple does not disclose App Store revenue or profit separately. The category remains combined with cloud services, advertising, media subscriptions, AppleCare, payments and other operations inside Services.
Regulation was not the only factor Apple identified.
Parekh said softer mobile gaming activity also affected the App Store. Games represent an important source of digital transactions because players purchase virtual currency, characters, cosmetic items, subscriptions and access to additional content.
A decline in game spending directly affects the commission Apple receives through In-App Purchase.
Gaming is also one category where developers have pushed aggressively for alternative stores and payments. Epic Games began its legal confrontation with Apple after introducing another payment method inside Fortnite and attempting to bypass App Store commissions.
The simultaneous effects are difficult to separate. A game can generate lower revenue because players are spending less, because payments moved outside Apple’s system or because both changes occurred together.
Apple does not provide enough category detail to calculate the contribution from each factor.
The distinction matters for the outlook. Gaming demand can recover with successful releases and stronger consumer spending. A permanent regulatory change does not reverse when one popular game reaches the top of the charts.
Outside payments can improve the amount a developer retains from each purchase.
A company moving from a conventional App Store commission to a lower-cost web payment processor may use the difference to reduce prices, fund development or improve profitability.
The developer also assumes responsibilities previously handled through Apple.
Independent billing requires payment processing, tax management, fraud protection, refunds, account recovery and customer support. Subscription status must synchronize correctly between the website and the iPhone app.
Customers changing devices or reinstalling an app expect their purchases to remain available. The developer needs its own account system capable of verifying ownership without relying entirely on Apple’s purchase history.
Small developers may decide that Apple In-App Purchase remains worth its fee because it removes operational complexity and gives customers a familiar checkout experience.
Large subscription businesses have stronger incentives to build their own systems. They already maintain accounts and payments across websites, televisions, Android devices and other platforms.
The regulatory effect will therefore vary by developer size and business model. One company may remove Apple billing completely, while another continues using it because external infrastructure would cost more than the commission saved.
External payments create the possibility of lower subscription prices because developers no longer need to incorporate the complete App Store fee into the amount charged.
Some services already cost more when purchased through an iPhone app than through their websites. The higher price allows the developer to preserve similar revenue after Apple receives its share.
A visible external link makes comparing those prices easier. Customers can leave the app, complete the transaction on the web and return with an active account.
Savings are not guaranteed. A developer can retain the entire difference rather than passing it to subscribers.
Independent billing can also make subscription management less consistent.
Settings > Apple Account > Subscriptions
A subscription purchased directly must be canceled through the developer’s website or account system. Customers using many external services may need to remember several billing portals and renewal policies.
Refunds and purchase disputes also move away from Apple. The developer or its payment processor becomes responsible for resolving the transaction.
Choice can reduce prices while increasing complexity. The practical outcome depends on whether developers make external checkout clearly cheaper and easy to manage.
Apple is responding to the changing environment by adding business models and marketing systems that can keep developers using its commerce platform.
Monthly subscriptions with a 12-month commitment allow participating apps to offer lower recurring payments while securing a complete year of revenue.
The Advanced Commerce API supports more complex content catalogs, optional add-ons and subscription structures that were previously difficult to manage through standard In-App Purchase products.
Apple has also expanded tools for custom product pages, promotional offers, application analytics and international distribution.
These additions increase the value attached to App Store billing. A developer may tolerate a commission when Apple provides conversion tools, subscription management and access to promotional placement that would be expensive to reproduce independently.
The company can also adjust rates for particular categories. The Small Business Program, Mini Apps Partner Program and reduced commission for longer-running subscriptions already demonstrate differentiated pricing.
A more competitive payment market may push Apple toward additional service tiers rather than one universal commission.
The United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority is consulting on rules that would allow developers to direct customers outside Apple and Google’s payment systems.
The regulator expects any fee charged for steering to be fair, reasonable and lower than current app-store commissions. It wants the resulting savings passed to customers or reinvested in developer businesses.
The UK proposal is not yet a final requirement. Its eventual structure could determine whether developers receive the broad freedom available in the United States or a fee-based model closer to some European arrangements.
Regulators are also considering app-review fairness, interoperability and access to mobile-platform capabilities.
The outcome will matter beyond British customers. Each major jurisdiction creates another model that regulators elsewhere can examine when designing their own rules.
Apple must decide whether to continue maintaining different commercial systems by country or move toward broader global terms that reduce operational complexity.
Developers face the same choice. Supporting a separate payment route, marketplace package and reporting process for every region can become expensive enough to cancel some of the benefits regulation intended to create.
The next evidence will come from behavior rather than another policy announcement: how many major apps add external payment links, whether they offer lower prices and how quickly customers move away from Apple’s checkout.
The post App Store Regulatory Changes Begin Slowing Services Growth appeared first on AppleMagazine.
Apple shares dropped nearly 10% on Friday following a disappointing outlook that highlighted the company’s struggles to secure enough components amid an AI-driven data center boom straining global supply chains.
The decline represents the stock’s worst single-day performance since the pandemic-driven selloff in March 2020. It erases some $400 billion from Apple’s market capitalization and hand the title of the world’s most valuable company back to AI chip leader Nvidia, just days after Apple had reclaimed it.
Outgoing CEO Tim Cook, long regarded as an “Operations Genius,” described the shortages as “very significant” during his final earnings call before transitioning to executive chairman in September, with John Ternus set to succeed him. Cook said Apple had limited options to address the constraints.
“If even at Apple’s scale they are saying they are out of all supply chain flexibility, it’s really bad for everyone,” Ben Bajarin, CEO of tech consultant Creative Strategies, told Reuters.
Big Tech firms have been aggressively securing advanced chip-making capacity and memory chips to fuel AI data centers, driving shortages and higher prices that are expected to shrink both the personal computer and smartphone markets this year.
Apple had previously mitigated some of the impact from rising memory costs by relying on stockpiled inventory. However, Cook noted that this buffer is diminishing, while processor shortages are preventing the company from fully meeting strong demand for iPhones and Macs.
The company’s forecast for the current quarter called for revenue growth of 9% to 11%, falling short of Wall Street’s roughly 12% estimate. Softer growth in the services business also tempered otherwise solid June-quarter results.
Services weakness concerns investors
The slowdown in services raised particular concerns because it occurred alongside a period of robust iPhone sales. Services typically benefit from App Store commissions and include offerings such as Apple Music and the Apple TV streaming service.
Analysts warned that any further pressure on iPhone sales — potentially from expected price increases with the new lineup typically launched in September — could deepen the services softness.
Morgan Stanley analysts noted that Apple’s leverage over the supply chain appears diminished and that AI has not yet provided a clear measurable boost to products or services, with future monetization still uncertain. They added that App Store softness might even stem from AI shifting how customers spend their time.
Some analysts remained more optimistic, pointing out that the iPhone has previously absorbed price hikes without major demand damage. A recent U.S. leasing arrangement with Klarna, offering monthly payment plans for Apple devices, could also help offset higher prices.
At least four brokerages lowered their price targets for Apple shares, while three raised them. The median target moved to $330—$3 below the previous closing price according to LSEG data. The stock had gained 22.7% year-to-date through Thursday’s close.
MacDailyNews Take: For perspective, Chevron is worth $392 billion, Caterpillar: $378 billion, and Oracle: $373 billion. Apple today lost more than Chevron, Caterpillar, or Oracle is worth in their entirety. Overreact much, Mr. Market?
Wild overreactions like this are things of beauty! Embrace and profit from them!
Beloved interns, please Tap That Keg! Three cheers for today’s AAPL deep, deep discount! Prost, Everyone!
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!
Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.
The post Apple loses some $400 billion in a single trading day appeared first on MacDailyNews.
Login