Meta’s fourth-quarter results jumped past Wall Street’s expectations thanks to solid advertising revenue, sending shares sharply higher in after-hours trading Wednesday.
The company earned $22.77 billion, or $8.88 per share, in the October-December quarter. That’s up 9% from $20.84 billion, or $8.02 per share, in the same period a year earlier.
Revenue grew 24% to $59.89 billion from $48.39 billion.
Analysts, on average, were expecting earnings of $8.21 per share on revenue of $58.5 billion, according to a poll by FactSet.
Once again, Meta surpassed analysts earnings expectations for the quarter, cementing its position as one of the worlds most dominant media companies,” said Debra Aho Williamson, chief analyst at Sonata Insights. “Its strong performance provides a solid foundation to continue its massive investments into AI. If there were any signs of revenue shortfall, investors would look at the capital expenditures more negatively.
Meta’s expenses, which the company already warned will be significantly higher this year, grew 40% to $35.15 billion.
For the current quarter, Meta is forecasting revenue in the range of $53.5 billion to $56.5 billion. That’s above analysts’ forecast of $51.4 billion. For 2026, Meta is forecasting expenses in the range of $162 billion to $169 billion, driven by infrastructure costs and employee compensation, particularly for the artificial intelligence (AI) experts it’s been hiring at eye-popping pay levels.
Meta had 78,865 employees at the end of the year, an increase of 6% from a year earlier.
Shares of the Menlo Park, California-based company (Nasdaq: META) rose $73.15, or 10.9%, to $741.88 in after-hours trading.
By BARBARA ORTUTAY, AP Technology Writer
For years, the customer experience playbook has been treated like a technology problem. Add another tool. Deploy another bot. Automate another workflow. And yet here we are, heading into 2026 with customer satisfaction in freefall. Forresters 2025 CX Index shows scores hitting a new low for the fourth consecutive year.
This isnt a failure of ambition or innovation. Its a failure of how we define success.
Leaders have been optimizing for activity instead of outcomes. In the rush to scale digital engagement, many organizations fell into a bit of a containment trap, measuring success by how many customer interactions never reach a human. On paper, it looks efficient. In reality, its often a false economy.
If a customer gets stuck in a bot loop or a bot that cant answer a straightforward question predictably, you havent saved money. Youve lost trust. And very often, youve lost the customer.
Its clear that customer experience (CX) needs a reset. Not more experimentation or hype, but more precision. Based on what were seeing across industries, four trends will define whether companies finally break out of the CX recession, or get left behind.
1. CX isnt delivering (because were measuring the wrong things)
Despite massive investment, CX outcomes are stalling. The reason is simple: Most organizations are optimizing for the wrong metrics.
Containment, deflection, and average handle time tell you how efficiently you move customers away. They tell you very little about whether you actually solved a problem, built loyalty, or created value.
The companies that rise to the top are shifting to a hybrid model that treats AI and humans as complementary assets. AI agents handle what theyre best at: instant answers, routine transactions, and scale. Humans step in where judgment, empathy, and nuance matter.
The metric shift is critical. High-performing teams measure value creation, not just cost avoidance. Personalization, resolution quality, and revenue impact matter far more than whether a conversation stayed contained, because they create value on both sides of the exchange: Customers get answers that actually move them forward, and brands earn trust, loyalty, and measurable growth. In fact, Gartners data shows that buyers have a 1.8 times greater likelihood of paying a premium, and they are 3.7 times more likely to buy more than they planned, if they feel that experience has been personalized.
The future of CX isnt about replacing people. Its about freeing them to do their best work.
2. 2026 is the year of predictable AI
Over the past two years, generative AI moved from novelty to necessity. In 2026, the conversation changes again, from capability to control.
Unpredictable AI is expensive. Hallucinations, broken flows, and inefficient token usage quietly drain budgets and introduce brand and compliance risk. Thats why predictability has become the most important word in the boardroom.
The next phase of AI adoption requires an assurance layera system that continuously tests, validates, and verifies AI behavior before it ever reaches a customer. This de-risks innovation, but just as importantly, it creates the engine for continuous improvement. It provides the framework to constantly learn from interactions, refine accuracy, and reduce the cost of every conversation, turning AI from a “science experiment” into an operational efficiency engine that gets smarter over time.
The most advanced organizations are using adversarial simulation to stress-test AI against edge cases, confusion, and hostile inputs. They break their systems before customers can. The result is confidence that allows leaders to deploy AI in high-value, high-risk use cases like payments, healthcare, and financial services.
Predictable AI doesnt just reduce risk. It unlocks ROI and drives value creation.
3. The CX budget crunch is an opportunity
CX leaders arent struggling because budgets disappeared. Theyre struggling because scrutiny increased.
In 2026, no one is funding nice-to-have initiatives. Every dollar must tie directly to financial outcomes. CX leaders need to stop selling soft metrics and start telling a before-and-after story showcasing what changed, by how much, and why it matters to the business.
The most effective teams reposition CX not as a cost center, but as an efficiency engine. They run focused pilots, prove results quickly, and use hard data to unlock broader deployment.
When you can demonstrate measurable improvements in resolution rates, conversion, or operational efficiency in 90 days, the budget conversation changes. CX stops being discretionary. It becomes essential.
4. Marketers must catch up with consumers expectations
The biggest growth shift of 2026 isnt happening in the contact center. Its happening at the top of the funnel.
Traditional lead generation is breaking down. Buyers dont want forms. They want answers, on their terms, in the moment of intent. Conversational AI enables a concierge model that replaces gated funnels with real-time, personalized dialogue.
The economics are compelling. A self-service interaction costs pennies. A live agent interaction can cost dollars. But when done right, conversational AI delivers a low-cost interaction that feels premium and high touch.
More importantly, it respects the customers time. And in 2026, that can be the ultimate differentiator.
PRECISION IS THE NEW SCALE
The lesson early in 2026 is simple: Scaling without precision is noise. Precision without scale is irrelevant. The best companies will master both.
That means measurable CX, predictable AI, disciplined investment, and conversations that meet people exactly where they are.
We dont need more technology. We need better outcomes.
And if we get that right, 2026 wont just be the year CX recovers, but the year it finally delivers.
John Sabino is CEO of LivePerson.
Trump is facing a rare bipartisan backlash after a group of federal agents shot and killed protester Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday, but tech industry leaders once some of Trumps fiercest critics are sitting this one out.
Prettis killing, depicted clearly in multiple angles of bystander video, has galvanized even apolitical corners of the internet and united voices from opposite sides of the political spectrum. The fatal shooting took place less than three weeks after an ICE agent shot and killed Minneapolis resident Renee Good as she attempted to drive away from an encounter with federal agents in the city.
In an internal letter posted to Apple employees and reported by Bloomberg, CEO Tim Cook addressed the situation unfolding in Minneapolis, but stopped far short of criticizing the president or his aggressive immigration policies, which have left two people at protests in the city dead within the span of three weeks.
Cook described himself as heartbroken by the events in Minneapolis, adding that he had a good conversation with the president on the issue and appreciated Trumps openness to talking about it.
This is a time for deescalation, Cook said. I believe America is strongest when we live up to our highest ideals, when we treat everyone with dignity and respect no matter who they are or where theyre from, and when we embrace our shared humanity. This is something Apple has always advocated for.
Cooks statement echoes Trumps own language. The president told Fox News on Tuesday that he planned to de-escalate a little bit in Minnesota.
The letter is not likely to please Apple workers who are furious that Cook attended a glitzy screening of the new Amazon-sponsored documentary about First Lady Melania Trump at the White House hours after Prettis death. Attendees were treated to popcorn in Melania-branded buckets, white cake pops, black-and-white macarons, a cereal box featuring the films poster and white sugar cookies with Melania written in black frosting, according to Yahoo News.
Cook and techs other big players are all-in on the second Trump administration. Silicon Valley CEOs attended the presidents inauguration and even donated to build Trumps deeply controversial $300 million ballroom a project that misled the public and resulted in the total demolition of the White Houses historic East Wing.
By standing behind the president, Cook and others likely hope to cultivate a comfortable regulatory environment for their businesses while staving off other Trump-issued punishments, like targeted tariffs. Some of the richest, most powerful men in the world once checked Trumps power, but theyve enthusiastically abandoned that role during his second term.
Trumps misinformation machine distorts the facts
Silicon Valley leaders may be firmly behind Trump, but Americans are increasingly unsettled by the administrations immigration policies. More than half of those polled earlier this month believe that ICEs enforcement actions are making cities less safe and fresh polling over the weekend revealed that nearly 60% of Americans believe that ICE has gone too far.
In spite growing public anger and video evidence to the contrary, Trump officials scrambled to distort the facts of Prettis death over the weekend.
Homeland Security Kristi Noem misleadingly claimed that Pretti attacked officers while brandishing his gun a falsehood plainly contradicted by video evidence. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller went even further, describing Pretti as an assassin who tried to murder federal agents, a claim that Vice President JD Vance and Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino doubled down on.
Other Trump officials asserted that Pretti broke the law by carrying a concealed weapon to a protest, but the Minneapolis police verified that he held a gun license and was behaving lawfully.
You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want, FBI Director Kash Patel told Fox News over the weekend. President Trump himself also said that Pretti he shouldn’t have been carrying a gun, rankling Second Amendment advocates and many of his own supporters.
Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy called Prettis killing incredibly disturbing, adding that DHSs credibility is in question. There must be a full joint federal and state investigation, Cassidy said on X. We can trust the American people with the truth. The NRA echoed calls for an investigation, criticizing public officials who demonized Americans for lawfully carrying weapons.
Allbirds shoe brand announced on Wednesday that it will close all of its U.S. stores by the end of February (with the exception of two outlets) and go online, turning to e-commerce instead. It will, however, continue to operate two London-based brick-and-mortar locations.
Fast Company has reached out to Allbirds for more details about the locations that will be closing.
This is an important step for Allbirds, as we drive toward profitable growth under our turnaround strategy, Allbirds CEO Joe Vernachio said in a statement. We have been opportunistically reducing our brick-and-mortar portfolio over the past two years. By exiting these remaining unprofitable doors, we are taking actions to reduce costs and support the long-term health of the business.
Famously dubbed the “world’s most comfortable shoes,” Allbirds were all the rage in the late 2010s (yes, I had a pair). They can be described as a combination of sneaker and business casual shoe, made of wool and tree fiber. They felt softin my opinion, almost like walking on airdue to the sugar cane foam sole.
The once trendy eco-friendly footwear, which had been a favorite of tech bros in San Francisco and hip New Yorkers, have become less popular in recent years, resulting in less traffic to their store locations. Like many U.S. retailers, they’ve also struggled as consumers cut spending amid growing inflation and higher cost of living, and have flocked online to shop.
Allbirds financials
Shares of Allbirds Inc. (NASDAQ: BIRD) were trading up 0.08% in midday trading on Wednesday after an early morning spike.
The company reported third quarter 2025 earnings in November, including net revenue of $33 million, down 23.3% from $43 million in the same period last year; and negative earnings per share (EPS) of -$2.49, which beat expectations of -$2.64.
The national taxpayer advocate is cautioning that the 2026 tax filing season is likely to present challenges for taxpayers who encounter problems with filing their taxes given the exodus of IRS workers since the start of the Trump administration.
National Taxpayer Advocate Erin M. Collins released her annual report to Congress on Wednesday, two days after the start of the 2026 season. She finds that while the IRS was able to process returns in 2025 without major disruptions, entering 2026, the landscape is markedly different.
The IRS is simultaneously confronting a reduction of 27% of its workforce, leadership turnover, and the implementation of extensive and complex tax law changes mandated by Republicans’ tax and spending measure that President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, Collins said in her report.
Collins says most taxpayers should be able to file their returns and receive their refunds without delay, but she notes the success of the filing season will be defined by how well the IRS is able to assist the millions of taxpayers who experience problems.
The tax filing season began on Monday, and agency leaders, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, have said they expect a smooth season.
Bisignano last week announced new priorities and a reorganization of IRS executive leadership in a letter addressed to the agencys 74,000 employees, saying that he is confident that with this new team in place, the IRS is well-prepared to deliver a successful tax filing season for the American public.
Bessent as well as others in Trump’s second administration have also promised American taxpayers substantial tax refunds, as part of the Republican administration’s solution to an ongoing affordability crisis.
Still, other IRS watchdogs have outlined major concerns at the start of the 2026 tax season.
Diana M. Tengesdal, deputy inspector general for audit at the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, wrote a letter to IRS leadership on Monday and pointed to IRS staffing at October 2021 levels, combined with thousands of unprocessed tax returns and taxpayer correspondence.
The IRS started 2025 with about 102,000 employees and finished with about 74,000 after a series of firings and layoffs brought on by the Department of Government Efficiency. While last year IRS employees involved in the 2025 tax season were not allowed to accept a buyout offer from the Trump administration until after the taxpayer filing deadline, this year many of those customer service workers have left.
Tengesdal’s office says despite new efforts to modernize tax administration, initiatives to offset staffing losses may not yield expected benefits during the 2026 Filing Season.
More than 165 million individual income tax returns were processed in 2025, with 94% submitted electronically. The average refund was $3,167.
___
Follow the AP’s coverage of the IRS at https://apnews.com/hub/internal-revenue-service.
Fatima Hussein, Associated Press
As a continuation of President Donald Trump‘s pitch to Americans on affordability and the economy under his administration, the U.S. Treasury and White House are celebrating the upcoming launch of a program they view as a key milestone: Trump Accounts.
A provision of Trump’s tax legislation, Trump Accounts are meant to give $1,000 to every newborn, so long as their parents open an account. That money is then invested in the stock market by private firms, and the child can access the money when they turn 18.
A U.S. Treasury event Wednesday brings together an assortment of politicians and celebrities from Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz to rapper Nicki Minaj to discuss the program and its potential impact on the economy. Backers of Trump Accounts have said they’re a way to help children from low-income households build wealth.
Heres what you need to know about Trump Accounts and how to claim them.
What is a Trump Account?
Its a new savings tool where money is invested in the stock market on behalf of a child. The child cant access the money until they turn 18 and can only use it for specific purposes, such as paying tuition, starting a business or making a down payment on a home.
After a parent opens an account, the U.S. Treasury will contribute $1,000 for newborns. Private banks and brokerages will manage the money, which must be invested in U.S. equity index funds that track the stock market and charge the accounts no more than 0.10% in annual fees.
Parents can contribute up to $2,500 annually in pretax income, much like they do for retirement accounts. Parents employers, relatives, friends, local governments and philanthropic groups can also pitch in. Yearly contributions are capped at $5,000, but contributions from governments and charities dont count toward that total.
Who gets $1,000?
As part of the initiatives launch, parents of older children are also encouraged to open accounts, but they wont get the $1,000 bonus. That money is only reserved for babies born during the calendar years of the Trump administration.
To qualify for the $1,000 seed money, a baby must be a U.S. citizen, have a Social Security number and be born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. Any parent can open an account for a qualifying child, regardless of the parents immigration status.
Its important to note that the child wont be able to access the money until they turn 18, except in rare circumstances, so it cant help with immediate expenses. And disbursements from the accounts will be subject to taxes.
What about older children?
Children born before 2025 wont qualify for the $1,000 incentive, but parents can still open accounts for them as long as theyre under 18. Parents can still invest up to $2,500 pretax for those kids.
In December, billionaires Michael and Susan Dell announced a $6.25 billion donation that will allow some children who are 10 and under to receive $250 in seed money if their parents open an account. That money is reserved for kids who live in ZIP codes with a median family income of $150,000 or less and who wont get the $1,000 seed money from the Treasury.
A few weeks later, hedge fund founder Ray Dalio and his wife Barbara pledged $75 million for kids under 10 in Connecticut, where Dalio lives. That would amount to $250 for 300,000 children in qualifying ZIP codes. Those large contributions are part of an effort by the U.S. Treasury dubbed the 50 State Challenge by Secretary Scott Bessent to encourage wealthy philanthropic donors to pitch in.
Other corporations participating in the program include Uber, MasterCard, BlackRock, Visa and Charles Schwab, according to the Trump Accounts website.
How do I open a Trump Account for my kids?
The accounts wont be open for contributions until July 2026, but parents of eligible kids can sign up using Form 4547 from the Internal Revenue Service. Parents can fill out the form when filing taxes this year or when the administration opens an online portal this summer, according to the Trump Accounts website.
Registering for a Trump Account is required for a child to receive the money. In May, parents who sign up will get information about how to finish opening the accounts.
Whats the idea behind the accounts?
Backers of the accounts say they want to introduce more people to the stock market and give even children born into poverty a chance to benefit from it. Supporters also say the accounts bolster capitalism at a time when openly socialist candidates are growing more popular.
About 58% of U.S. households held stocks or bonds in 2022, according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, though the wealthiest 1% owned almost half the value of stocks in that same year.
Before Trump created the accounts, California, Connecticut and the District of Columbia were piloting baby bonds programs that are similar to Trump Accounts in some ways. Several other states, including Maryland, are weighing programs.
But those programs are targeted for youth growing up in poverty or foster care, plus children who lost a parent to COVID-19. Wealthier children dont benefit. Theyre also managed by the state, not private investment firms.
What do critics say?
Critics point out the accounts do little to help children in their early years, when theyre most vulnerable and most likely to be in poverty. The accounts, they say, also fail to offset cuts the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have made to other programs that benefit young people and their families, including food assistance and Medicaid. Republicans created the accounts in the same Trump tax bill that reduced spending for some of those programs.
And even with the contribution from the government, critics say the Trump Accounts will widen the wealth gap. Affluent families that can afford to make the maximum pretax contribution to the accounts will realize the greatest benefits. Poor families who cant afford to set aside money for the accounts will benefit the least. Assuming a 7% return, the $1,000 in seed money would grow to roughly $3,570 over 18 years.
___
The Associated Press education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find APs standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Makiya Seminera and Moriah Balingit, AP education writer
Virtues such as compassion, patience, and self-control may be beneficial not only for others but also for oneself, according to new research my team and I published in the Journal of Personality in December 2025.
Philosophers from Aristotle to al-Frb, a 10th-century scholar in what is now Iraq, have argued that virtue is vital for well-being. Yet others, such as Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche, have argued the opposite: Virtue offers no benefit to oneself and is good only for others. This second theory has inspired a lot of research in contemporary psychology, which often sees morality and self-interest as fundamentally opposed.
Many studies have found that generosity is associated with happiness, and that encouraging people to practice kindness increases their well-being. But other virtues seem less enjoyable.
For example, a compassionate person wants to alleviate suffering or misfortune, but that requires there be suffering or misfortune. Patience is possible only when something irritating or difficult is happening. And self-control involves forgoing ones desires or persisting with something difficult.
Could these kinds of virtues really be good for you?
My colleagues and I investigated this question in two studies, using two different methods to zoom in on specific moments in peoples daily lives. Our goal was to assess the degree to which, in those moments, they were compassionate, patient, and self-controlled. We also assessed their level of well-being: how pleasant or unpleasant they felt, and whether they found their activities meaningful.
One study, with adolescents, used the experience sampling method, in which people answer questions at random intervals throughout the day. The other, studying adults, used the day reconstruction method, in which people answer questions about the previous day. All told, we examined 43,164 moments from 1,218 people.
During situations that offer opportunities to act with compassion, patience, and self-controlencountering someone in need, for example, or dealing with a difficult personpeople tend to experience more unpleasant feelings and fewer pleasant ones than in other situations. However, we found that exercising these three virtues seems to help people cope. People who are habitually more compassionate, patient, and self-controlled tend to experience better well-being. And when people display more compassion, patience, and self-control than usual, they tend to feel better than they usually do.
In short, our results contradicted the theory that virtue is good for others and bad for the self. They were consistent with the theory that virtue promotes well-being.
Why it matters
These studies tested the predictions of two venerable, highly influential theories about the relationship between morality and well-being. In doing so, they offered new insights into one of the most fundamental questions debated in philosophy, psychology, and everyday life.
Moreover, in the scientific study of morality, lots of research has examined how people form moral judgments and how outside forces shape a persons moral behavior. Yet some researchers have argued that this should be complemented by research on moral traits and how these are integrated into the whole person. By focusing on traits such as patience, compassion, and self-control and their roles in peoples daily lives, our studies contribute to the emerging science of virtue.
What still isnt known
One open question for future research is whether virtues such as compassion, patience, and self-control are associated with better well-being only under certain conditions. For example, perhaps things look different depending on ones stage of life or in different parts of the world.
Our studies were not randomized experiments. It is possible that the associations we observed are explained by another factorsomething that increases well-being while simultaneously increasing compassion, patience, and self-control. Or maybe well-being affects virtue, instead of the other way around. Future research could help clarify the causal relationships.
One particularly interesting possibility is that there might be a virtuous cycle: Perhaps virtue tends to promote well-being, and well-being, in turn, tends to promote virtue. If so, it would be extremely valuable to learn how to help people kick-start that cycle.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
Michael Prinzing is a research and assessment scholar at Wake Forest University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
A federal judge said Tuesday that a nearly completed Massachusetts offshore wind project can continue, as the industry successfully challenges the Trump administration in court.
At U.S. District Court in Boston, Judge Brian Murphy halted the administration’s stop work order for Vineyard Wind, citing the potential economic losses from the delays and the developers’ likelihood of success on their claims. Vineyard Wind is one of five big offshore wind projects on the East Coast that the Trump administration froze days before Christmas, citing national security concerns and the fourth that has since been allowed to go forward.
A spokesperson for the company, Craig Gilvarg, said in a statement that it would work with the Administration to understand the matters raised in the Order.
Vineyard Wind will focus on working in coordination with its contractors, the federal government, and other relevant stakeholders and authorities to safely restart activities, as it continues to deliver a critical source of new power to the New England region, Gilvarg added.
Developers and states sued seeking to block the administration’s order. Prior to Vineyard Wind’s hearing, federal judges had allowed three of the five to restart construction: the Revolution Wind project for Rhode Island and Connecticut by Danish company Orsted, the Empire Wind project for New York by Norwegian company Equinor, and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind for Virginia by Dominion Energy Virginia. Those three judges essentially concluded that the government did not show that the national security risk is so imminent that construction must halt, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond Law School professor who has been following the lawsuits.
Orsted is also suing over the administration halting its Sunrise Wind project for New York the fifth paused project but has not had a hearing yet.
Vineyard Wind is a joint venture between Avangrid and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, located 15 miles (24 kilometers) south of Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket, Massachusetts. It is 95% complete and partially operational, able to produce nearly 600 megawatts of power for the New England electric grid, according to the complaint. Before the pause, it was on track to be complete by the end of March, with 62 turbines generating a total of 800 megawatts. That is enough clean electricity to power about 400,000 homes.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the completion of this project is essential to ensuring the state can lower costs, meet rising energy demand, advance its climate goals and sustain thousands of good-paying jobs.
U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, welcomed the judge’s ruling.
This stay is an important step in the process to fight back against the Trump administrations lawless attacks against our union jobs, grid security, and energy affordability, Markey said in a statement. Vineyard Wind 1 is currently delivering affordable and reliable power into our grid and has the permits, financing, and approval to deliver even more. Shutting off Vineyard Wind 1 would kill thousands of local union jobs, prevent power from reaching 400,000 homes, and cause us to lose out on $3 billion of energy savings.”
The administration’s announcement that paused construction did not reveal specifics about its national security concerns. But in a court filing, Matthew Giacona, acting director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said he reviewed classified documents in November that discussed direct impacts to national security that arise from operating offshore wind projects near early warning monitoring and radar systems. Giacona said he determined the ongoing activities for the Vineyard Wind project did not adequately provide for the protection of national security interests, absent potential mitigation measures.
Given its nearly complete status, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management decided to allow Vineyard Wind to continue partially operating during the suspension period while it consulted with defense officials and the owners, Giacona said. But he said he is not aware of any measures that would mitigate the national security risks.
Trump has targeted offshore wind power
President Donald Trump has targeted offshore wind from his first days back in the White House, recently calling wind farms losers that lose money, destroy the landscape and kill birds. Research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory shows that states with the most utility-scale wind and solar often have low electricity prices, supported by federal tax incentives. However, states with aggressive, binding programs to mandate more renewable energy have seen prices increase as a result of those policies, according to the study.
Turbines, like all infrastructure, can pose a risk to birds. The National Audubon Society, which is dedicated to the conservation of birds, thinks developers can manage these risks and climate change is a greater threat.
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers has said the construction pause is meant to protect the national security of the American people and Trump has been clear that wind energy is the scam of the century.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has criticized the Vineyard Wind project, specifically, because of a blade failure. Fiberglass fragments of a blade broke apart and began washing onto Nantucket beaches in July 2024 during the peak of tourist season. Manufacturer GE Vernova agreed to pay $10.5 million in a settlement to compensate island businesses that suffered losses.
Kennedys family famously opposed an earlier failed wind project not far from the familys Cape Cod estate.
___
The Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find APs standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Jennifer McDermott and Michael Casey, Associated Press
When the Supreme Court granted an unusually quick hearing over President Donald Trump’s tariffs, a similarly rapid resolution seemed possible.After all, Trump’s lawyers told the court that speed was of the essence on an issue central to the Republican president’s economic agenda. They pointed to a statement from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warning that the “longer a final ruling is delayed, the greater the risk of economic disruption.”But nearly three months have elapsed since arguments in the closely watched case, and the court isn’t scheduled to meet in public for more than three weeks.No one knows for sure what’s going on among the nine justices, several of whom expressed skepticism about the tariffs’ legality at arguments in November. But the timeline for deciding the case now looks more or less typical and could reflect the normal back-and-forth that occurs not just in the biggest cases but in almost all the disputes the justices hear.Several Supreme Court practitioners and law professors scoffed at the idea the justices are dragging their feet on tariffs, putting off a potentially uncomfortable ruling against Trump.“People suspect this kind of thing from time to time, but I am not aware of instances in which we have more than speculation,” said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.The timeframe alone also doesn’t point to one outcome or the other.One possible explanation, said Carter Phillips, a lawyer with 91 arguments before the high court, “is that the court is more evenly divided than appeared to be the case at oral argument and the fifth vote is wavering.”Even if the majority opinion has been drafted and more or less agreed to by five or more members of the court, a separate opinion, probably in dissent, could slow things down, Phillips said.Just last week, the court issued two opinions in cases that were argued in October. All nine justices agreed with the outcome, a situation that typically allows decisions to be issued relatively quickly. But a separate opinion in each case probably delayed the decision.The court is generally moving more slowly in argued cases, perhaps because of the flood of emergency appeals the Trump administration has brought to the justices. The first argued case wasn’t decided until January this year. Typically, that happens in December, if not November.Over the last 20 years, the average turnaround time for a Supreme Court opinion was just over three months, according to data gathered by Adam Feldman, creator of Empirical SCOTUS. The timeline has increased in recent years, with the court releasing half or more of its cases in June.Decision times can vary widely. The court can move quickly, especially in cases with hard external deadlines: The landmark Bush v. Gore case that effectively decided the 2000 presidential election took just over a day. The recent case over TikTok took seven days.On the higher end, when the justices are on their own timelines, cases can take much longer to resolve. Gundy v. U.S., a case argued in 2018 about how the sex offender registry is administered, took more than eight months to be decided.Major decisions on expanding gun rights, overturning Roe v. Wade and ending affirmative action in college admissions were handed down six to eight months after the cases were argued.Also undecided so far is a second major case in which the court sped up its pace over redistricting in Louisiana and the future of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.The tariffs case took on added urgency because the consequences of the Trump administration’s policy were playing out in real time, in ways that have been both positive and negative.“Like many, I had hoped that the Supreme would rush the decision out,” said Marc Busch, an expert on international trade policy and law at Georgetown University. “But it’s not a surprise in the sense that they have until June and lots of issues to work through.”The separation of powers questions central to the case are complicated. Whatever the majority decides, there will likely be a dissent and both sides will be carefully calibrating their writing.“It is the language at the end of the day that’s going to make this more or less meaningful,” he said.Meanwhile, as the justices weigh the case, Trump continues to invoke the threat of tariffs, extol their virtues and refer to the case as the court’s most important.“I would hope, like a lot of people, the justices have been watching the tariff threats over Greenland and realize the gravity of this moment,” Busch said.
Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press
Remember the Flip video recorder? In 2009, it was a sensationa dead-simple, pocket-size recorder that let ordinary people capture and share moments without lugging around a camcorder or figuring out complicated settings. Cisco acquired Flip’s maker, Pure Digital Technologies, for $590 million in stock. Two years later, Cisco shut Flip down entirely.
The Flip wasn’t a failure. It solved a real problem elegantly. But it was what I call a “gateway product”an innovation that reveals what customers want but that gets supplanted by something that delivers the same outcome more simply, cheaply, or conveniently. In this case, the rise of smartphones made a dedicated device obsolete.
The history of innovation suggests that most game changers proceed through a series of gateways. We had fax machines before email, PalmPilots before BlackBerrys before iPhones, TiVo before streaming, MapQuest and GPS units before Google Maps. Each one mattered. Each one made money. And each one was eventually swept aside.
The strategic challenge is to figure out what the shelf life of your gateway offering is.
Gateways solve real jobswith inherited constraints
Gateway products genuinely solve customer problems. That’s what makes them successful, and that’s what makes them dangerous. Their success validates the desire of customers to achieve given outcomes while obscuring the fact that the method of doing so may be temporary.
The fax machine eliminated the delay of postal mail. But it still required paper, a dedicated phone line, and a compatible machine on the receiving end. It imported friction from the old system even as it improved upon it. Email didn’t just do the fax’s job fasterit eliminated the infrastructure entirely.
When your product requires customers to maintain scaffolding from a previous era, you’re building on borrowed time.
The dedicated device trap
One of the clearest gateway signals is a stand-alone device built for a job that could eventually migrate to a general-purpose platform. GPS units, point-and-shoot cameras, MP3 players, handheld translators, portable DVD playersall were gateways. The job each one performed was real and enduring. The form factor was not.
This doesn’t mean dedicated devices always lose. Sometimes they win on performance or experienceprofessional cameras, high-end gaming consoles, studio monitors. But the burden of proof is on the dedicated device to justify its separate existence. If a product’s primary advantage is that nothing else can do the job yet, leadership needs to plan for “yet” becoming “now.”
When your moat is mastery, you’re vulnerable
Gateway products often develop loyal followings among people who’ve invested time in learning them. PalmPilot users mastered Graffiti. BlackBerry devotees became virtuosos of the physical keyboard. TiVo owners learned the interface and programming logic.
The learning curve feels like a moatcustomers have sunk costs, and they’re reluctant to switch. But mastery-based loyalty evaporates the moment a competitor makes it unnecessary. Smartphones didn’t require users to learn a new input language; they just worked. Streaming didn’t demand programming skills; it just played.
If your customer retention depends on what people have learned rather than what they love, you’re more vulnerable than your churn numbers suggest.
5 questions to ask about your product
What frictions or complexities does our product require that customers would prefer to eliminate entirely? Every negative is an opening for a competitor who does away with it.
Are we competing on getting to an outcome or on the current method of doing it? If your differentiation is about how rather than what, you’re racing against obsolescence.
If someone started fresh today with current technology, would they build this the same way? This is the greenfield test. If the answer is noif they’d build something that makes your product unnecessaryyou have a gateway.
What temporary technological gap are we exploiting? Flip cameras existed because smartphone cameras weren’t good enough yet. GPS units existed because phones lacked sensors and software. Identify your gap, and monitor it relentlessly.
What’s our plan for when the gap closes? This is the question most leaders avoid. Acknowledging that your hit product has an expiration date feels like disloyalty. But the alternative is being caught flat-footed.
The right strategic stance
None of this means gateway products are bad businesses. Nokia and Blackberry built hugely profitable business empires on technology that would eventually be supplanted.
The strategic error is being lured into believing that it will be a permanent franchise. That can lead, in turn, to overinvesting in extending the product’s life, building organizations optimized for a form factor that’s becoming obsolete, and missing the chance to be the company that makes its own product unnecessary. Apple famously undermined its own hugely profitable iPod to launch the modern smartphone revolution, leading to enormous value creation.
The smart play is to harvest margins while they last, watch for substitution signals, avoid the trap of defending your method, and position your firm to ride the next wave rather than getting swamped by it.
Gateway products can be supremely valuable. They are like paying tuition to learn about the future.
