Alphabet avoids going into details even with its investors

At the beginning of this year an agreement between Apple and Google became visible that points straight to the heart of Apple Intelligence and to the future evolution of Siri towards a more personalized experience. Now, most of the details of the pact remain in the shadows, from its specific conditions to its economic impact for both companies. This imbalance between what is announced and what is explained may be insufficient for some actors, such as investors of both companies. Where the agreement appears says as much as it counts. Public formalization, let us remember, materializes in a statement presented as a wholealthough its visible trace is found only in Google’s information channels. In Apple equivalent spaces There is no parallel piece that replicates that advertisement. This asymmetry does not alter the existence of the agreement, but it makes it clear that the public access point is concentrated in a single showcase. The question that puts the agreement in the foreground. In the last conference with Alphabet investorsWells Fargo analyst Ken Gawrelski asked directly about the relationship with Apple. His intervention did not focus only on the monetization of search with AI, but on a very specific point: how these types of agreements with partners are aligned when the value can increasingly depend on the utility within the platform itself and not so much on the traditional business of clicks. In that logic he included “Apple’s new partnership with Siri.” A carefully constructed escape. The person who responded on behalf of Alphabet was Philipp SchindlerSVP and chief commercial officer at Google, and did so by shifting the conversation toward the search engine’s overall performance and the growing role of AI in its monetization. The speech addressed topics such as AI Overviews either AI Modewith references to Gemini’s impact on that ecosystem. But, curiously, he did not stop at the specific collaboration with Apple nor did he answer a specific part related to how to align incentives in that direction. The question received a formal answer, but no clarification on the agreement itself. Cook’s ‘tactical’ response. At the conference with Apple investorsTim Cook offered a more direct answer when asked about the collaboration with Google and defended its technological logic by stating that the company’s AI provides “the most capable basis for Apple Foundation Models”, which will allow “unlocking many experiences and innovating in key ways thanks to collaboration.” The CEO further insisted that Apple will keep on-device processing and in its private computing environment as pillars of its privacy approach. But this greater clarity did not extend to the terms of the pact, about which he was blunt: “we will not reveal details of the agreement.” When those who put money in want answers. As we can see, presentations of financial results offer another type of window, very different from traditional corporate communication. In these calls with investors and analysts, it is common for nuances to emerge that do not appear in the statements, especially when agreements with potential impact on product, strategy or income are at stake. Therefore, beyond what is officially published, this type of meeting becomes a key area to verify how far companies are willing to go in their public explanations. Images | Google | Apple In Xataka | Apple Lets Google Spend Billions on AI While It Becomes the Distributor: The Fancy Wrapping Strategy

It is the back door through which China avoids US tariffs

The Bac Luan 2 Bridge is the border that connects China to Vietnam. According to one Nikkei Asia researchit is also the back door through which China is sneaking its goods to continue selling in the US without being affected by tariffs. what’s happening. Chinese trucks form huge queues at the border town of Mong Cai every morning; They bring merchandise that will end up arriving in the United States, but first all traces of ‘Made in China’ are erased and the certificates of origin are changed so that it continues its journey as Vietnamese merchandise. The trick allows them to continue selling products while avoiding the high tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, always according to Nikkei. Why is it important. It highlights that the trade war is full of cracks. We have seen other similar “tricks” such as dropshipping of chips and also Chinese companies that have gained access to banned NVIDIA chips via Indonesia. What on paper seem like insurmountable walls are not so insurmountable in practice; Chinese companies respond by redesigning new supply chains to keep prices low and continue selling in the US. Re-export. It is the strategy that many Chinese companies are adopting, some even offer it as a service to their clients. Nikkei has had access to a document from a Chinese company in which they literally say “re-exporting through a third country is effective in avoiding high tariffs.” Another company urges its customers not to include Chinese characters on the packaging nor of course any reference to ‘Made in China’. Volume. Of course the process of changing the country of origin is done clandestinely and China evidently does not recognize this practice, but the volume of containers that have passed through the border in Mong Cai continues to increase. As of July 2025, this volume was 840,000 tons, 43% more than the same period last year. At the same time, exports between Vietnam and the US are also increasing. In addition, Nikkei has analyzed satellite images and found that the Mong Cai border has changed a lot recently; It is filling up with logistics centers and urbanizations with a strong presence of Chinese businesses. White and in bottle. Washington raises his eyebrow. Trump reached an agreement with Vietnam, but warned that would raise tariffs to 40% if it is proven that they are acting as a platform to divert exports. Vietnam is trying to calm the waters by pursuing these fraudulent export practices and in July of this year alone they uncovered 900 cases. The question is how many more are still sneaking in and not just in Vietnam, routes are also being diverted through Malaysia, Indonesia and others. Image | Daniel Fikri in Unsplash In Xataka | China already has an army of 5.8 million engineers. His new plan involves accelerating doctorates

There is a non -proliferation pact of nuclear weapons. In 2025 what we need is one that avoids murderous robots

In 1139 Pope Innocent II prohibited The use of the crossbow. He then described it as “a detestable weapon for God and unworthy for Christians,” although he considered it valid to fight the infidels. The measure was not taken into account, and the crossbow continued to be used in later centuries. The history of weapons has always been linked to these prohibitions, and now there is a especially delicate: the one that affects the so -called “murderous robots.” Prohibited weapons. That example of the crossbows ended up being just one of the many that have surrounded the evolution of the military weapons and its application to war conflicts. In 1970 the Nuclear Non -Proliferation Treaty To avoid the use of nuclear weapons, but international law also prohibits the use of chemical, biological or antipersonnel mines. These agreements are not usually ratified by all countries of the world, but by the vast majority. Beware of autonomous weapons. As indicated In ReutersThe United Nations Organization has called a meeting to regulate the segment of autonomous weapons controlled by artificial intelligence. This type of armament is increasingly used in modern war conflicts, and experts warn: it is time to put limits to the use of this lethal technology. The Ukraine War as an example. What is being lived in the Ukraine war is a sign of how this type of autonomous weapons are being used. The drones and robots They are being used Notable form against Russian troops, and there is already drones throwing drones to attack other drones. The relevance From this type of weapons it has been even affected by the commercial war between the US and China, which makes DANGER PRODUCTION AND EXPORT of these autonomous vehicles. In The New York Times They already warned of the rise of the fearsome “kamikaze drones” and their use in this conflict. Ten years talking about prohibiting murderous robots. In Xataka we have been talking about the danger of weapons with AI and drifting towards the famous “murderous robots”. He debate On the potential prohibition of murderous robots It comes from afarand organizations like Human Rights Watch has been trying to ban them since 2015 before it’s late. The researchers themselves already They warned of that danger In 2017 and Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, claimed that these murderous robots They are “unstoppable”. However, there are many countries that They have continued developing them, and there is no consensus when putting limits in this dangerous area. Deadline. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, has established that 2026 is the deadline for all countries to establish clear rules in the use of weapons with artificial intelligence. His words are clear: these autonomous armament systems are “politically unacceptable, morally disgusting” and should be prohibited. “ There is no consensus. What is missing is the aforementioned consensus: Alexander Kmentt, head of armament control in the Austrian Foreign Ministry, explained it: “Time is pressing to stop the nightmares that some of the most prestigious experts warn,” he said. Some great personalities of the technological world such as Elon Musk or Demis Hassabis They already warned of the problem in 2018 and asked the UN to ban autonomous weapons. The military resists. Diplomatic efforts face military controls, which according to Reuters resist regulation because that could blur the advantages posed by these technologies on the battlefield. This last meeting of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCWfor its acronym in English) is the last edition of some meetings that have been held since 2014. Participants have been necessary “a legally binding treaty” for UN countries. But some countries prefer to go to their rhythm. Many countries support that general agreement, but USA, Russia, China and India prefer to have national regulations or that existing international laws are applied, according to Amnesty International. A US Pentagon spokesman said in Reuters that “we are not convinced that existing laws are insufficient” and stressed that autonomous weapons could raise a lower risk for civilians than conventional weapons. And since there is no regulation, there is proliferation. The lack of these limits is causing a clear development of this type of autonomous weapons. The experts of Future of Life Institute They have monitored the deployment of about 200 autonomous weapons systems in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa. Russian forces have deployed some 3,000 kamikaze drones Veter in Ukraine, according to that data, and as we have indicated in several occasions In Xataka, that country has in these drones one of its Critical elements To attack Russian goals. Duality. As my partner Javier Jiménez said In a fantastic theme That he prepared in 2018, another of the problems with this debate is that “it is very difficult to determine what to prohibit and what not in a world as strongly computerized as the war.” The key is not so much in technological and ethical, and here we are facing a dual technology capable of being used for civil and military purposes. Here the reflection was clear: “No one is going to give a strategic military asset for an ethical issue,” he said. He added as a conclusion that “beyond alarmism, we need tools” to identify, monitor and control the development of these weapons because “neither good intentions nor self -control have worked well in the past.” A lot of money at stake. But as always, one of the factors of this industry is that there is a lot of money at stake, and more when there is a renewed fever for Increase defense budgets. Laura Nolan, of the Stop Killer Robots activist organization, made it clear that there is no guarantee that technology companies will be responsible when developing these systems: “In general, we do not trust that industries are self -regulated … there is no reason why defense or technology companies must be more worthy of trust.” In Xataka | Ukraine has found a solution to China’s veto in drones: it’s called Hell, it’s a “home” missile and … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.