SpaceX Chief Engineer Elon Musk takes part in a joint news conference with T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert (not pictured) at the SpaceX Starbase, in Brownsville, Texas, U.S., August 25, 2022.
Adrees Latif | Reuters
Elon Musk has announced big, albeit confusing, plans for Twitter since he took over the social network last month.
Musk wants to vastly increase the revenue the company makes through subscriptions while opening up the site to more “free speech,” which in some cases seems to mean restoring previously banned accounts like the one owned by former president Donald Trump.
But Musk’s plans for Twitter could put it in conflict with two of the biggest tech companies: Apple and Google.
Tensions are brewing
One of the biggest risks to Musk’s vision for “Twitter 2.0” is the possibility that his changes violate Apple or Google’s app rules in a way that slows down the company or even gets its software booted from app stores.
Tensions are already brewing. Musk complained in a tweet just last week about app store fees that Google and Apple charge companies like Twitter.
“App store fees are obviously too high due to the iOS/Android duopoly,” Musk tweeted. “It is a hidden 30% tax on the Internet.” In a follow-up post, he tagged the Department of Justice’s antitrust division, which is reportedly investigating app store rules.
His complaint is over the 15% to 30% cut Apple and Google take from purchases made inside apps, which could eat into the desperately-needed revenue from Musk’s plans for $8 per month from Twitter Blue subscriptions.
Over the weekend, Phil Schiller, the former head Apple marketing executive who still oversees the App Store, apparently deleted his widely-followed Twitter account with hundreds of thousands of followers.
Phil Schiller, senior vice president of worldwide marketing at Apple Inc., speaks at an Apple event at the Steve Jobs Theater at Apple Park on September 12, 2018 in Cupertino, California.
Justin Sullivan | Getty Images
There are signs Twitter has already seen an increase in harmful content since Musk has taken over, putting the company’s apps at risk. In October, shortly after Musk became “chief Twit,” a wave of online trolls and bigots flooded the site with hate speech and racist epithets.
The trolls organized on 4chan, then barreled into Twitter with anti-Black and Jewish epithets. Twitter suspended many of the accounts, according to the nonprofit Network Contagion Research Institute.
Musk’s plan to offer paid blue verification badges have also led to chaos and accounts impersonating major corporations and figures, which have caused some advertisers to shy away from the social network, in particular, Eli Lilly after a fake verified tweet erroneously said insulin would be provided for free.
The app stores noticed.
“And as I departed the company, the calls from the app review teams had already begun,” former Twitter head of trust and safety Yoel Roth wrote this month in the New York Times.
Fees and subscription revenue
Twitter and Apple have been partners for years. In 2011, Apple deeply integrated tweets into its iOS operating system. Tweets that function as official company communications are regularly posted under Apple CEO Tim Cook’s account. Apple has advertised new iPhones and its big launch events on Twitter.
But the relationship appears poised to change as Musk moves to generate a larger bulk of income from subscriptions.
Twitter reported $5.08 billion in revenue in 2021. If half of that comes from subscriptions in the future, as Musk has said is the goal, hundreds of millions of dollars would end up going to Apple and Google — a small amount for them, but a potentially massive hit for Twitter.
One of Apple’s main rules is that digital content — game coins, or an avatar’s outfit, or a premium subscription— that’s purchased inside an iPhone app, has to use Apple’s in-app purchasing mechanism, in which Apple bills the user directly. Apple takes 30% of sales, decreasing to 15% after a year for subscriptions, and pays the remainder to the developer.
One option for Musk is to take an approach similar to what Spotify has done: Offer a lower $9.99 price on the web, where it doesn’t pay Apple a cut, and then users simply log in to their existing account inside the app. Users subscribing to a Premium subscription inside the iPhone app pay $12.99, effectively covering Apple’s fees.
Or Twitter could go further, like Netflix, which stopped offering subscriptions through Apple entirely in 2018.
Musk could sell Twitter Blue on the company’s website at a cheaper price and tweet to his over 118 million followers that Blue is only available on Twitter.com. It might work and could help cut Apple out of any fees.
But that also means Twitter would have to remove many options for informing users about the subscription inside the app, where they’re most likely to make a purchasing decision. And Apple has detailed rules about what apps can link to when telling users about alternative ways to pay.
As Netflix’s app says: “You can’t sign up for Netflix in the app. We know it’s a hassle.”
A power struggle over content moderation
Tim Cook, chief executive officer of Apple Inc., speaks during the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) in San Jose, California, U.S., on Monday, June 4, 2018.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Musk faces the power of Apple and Google and their ability to decline to approve or even pull apps that violate their rules over content moderation and harmful content.
It’s happened before. Apple said in a letter to Congress last year that it had removed over 30,000 apps from its store over objectionable content in 2020.
If app store-related problems strike Twitter, it could be “catastrophic,” according to the former Twitter head of trust and safety Roth. Twitter lists app review as a risk factor in filings with the SEC, he noted.
Apple and Google can remove apps for various reasons, like issues with an app’s security and whether it complies with the platform billing rules. And app reviews can delay release schedules and cause havoc whenever Musk wants to launch new features.
In the past few years, the app stores have started more closely scrutinizing user-generated content that starts shading into violent speech or social networks that lack content moderation.
There’s precedent for a complete ban. Apple and Google banned Parler, a much smaller and conservative-leaning site, in 2020 after posts on the site promoted the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6 and included calls for violence. In Apple’s case, the decision to ban high-profile apps is made by a group called the Executive Review Board, which is led by Schiller — the Apple executive who deleted his Twitter account over the weekend.
Although Apple approved Truth Social, Trump’s social networking app, in February, it took longer for Google Play to approve it. The company told CNBC in August that the social network lacked “effective systems for moderating user-generated content” and therefore violated Google’s Play Store terms of service. Google eventually approved the app in October, saying that apps need to “remove objectionable posts such as those that incite violence.”
Musk reportedly fired many of Twitter’s contact content moderators this month.
Apple and Google have been careful while banning apps like Parler, pointing to specific guideline violations like screenshots of the offending posts, instead of citing broad political reasons or pressure from lawmakers. On a social network as large as Twitter, it’s often possible to find content that hasn’t been flagged yet.
Still, Apple and Google are unlikely to want to wade into a difficult battle over what constitutes harmful information and what doesn’t. That could end up inviting public scrutiny and political debate. It’s possible that app stores simply delay approving new versions instead of threatening to remove apps entirely.
Future features could also irk Apple and Google and prompt a closer look at the platform’s current operations.
Musk has reportedly talked about allowing users to paywall user-generated videos — something that former employees think would lead to the feature being used for adult content, according to the Washington Post.
Apple’s App Store has never allowed pornography, a policy that dates back to the company’s founder, Steve Jobs, and Google also bans apps centered around sexual content.
Anything that isn’t safe for work needs to be hidden by default. Twitter currently allows adult content, which could put it even more directly into reviewer sights.
“Apps with user-generated content or services that end up being used primarily for pornographic content … do not belong on the App Store and may be removed without notice,” Apple’s guidelines say.
But Musk often runs towards battles, not away from them. Now he has to decide whether it’s worth taking on two of the most valuable and powerful companies in Silicon Valley over 30% fees and Twitter’s ability to host edgy tweets.
An Apple representative didn’t respond to a request for comment. A Google representative declined to comment. Twitter didn’t respond to an email and the company no longer has a communications department. Musk didn’t respond to a tweet.
Spotify, Reddit and X have all implemented age assurance systems to prevent children from being exposed to inappropriate content.
STR | Nurphoto via Getty Images
The global online safety movement has paved the way for a number of artificial intelligence-powered products designed to keep kids away from potentially harmful things on the internet.
In the U.K., a new piece of legislation called the Online Safety Act imposes a duty of care on tech companies to protect children from age-inappropriate material, hate speech, bullying, fraud, and child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Companies can face fines as high as 10% of their global annual revenue for breaches.
Further afield, landmark regulations aimed at keeping kids safer online are swiftly making their way through the U.S. Congress. One bill, known as the Kids Online Safety Act, would make social media platforms liable for preventing their products from harming children — similar to the Online Safety Act in the U.K.
This push from regulators is increasingly causing something of a rethink at several major tech players. Pornhub and other online pornography giants are blocking all users from accessing their sites unless they go through an age verification system.
Porn sites haven’t been alone in taking action to verify users ages, though. Spotify, Reddit and X have all implemented age assurance systems to prevent children from being exposed to sexually explicit or inappropriate materials.
Such regulatory measures have been met with criticisms from the tech industry — not least due to concerns that they may infringe internet users’ privacy.
Digital ID tech flourishing
At the heart of all these age verification measures is one company: Yoti.
Yoti produces technology that captures selfies and uses artificial intelligence to verify someone’s age based on their facial features. The firm says its AI algorithm, which has been trained on millions of faces, can estimate the age of 13 to 24-year-olds within two years of accuracy.
The firm has previously partnered with the U.K.’s Post Office and is hoping to capitalize on the broader push for government-issued digital ID cards in the U.K. Yoti is not alone in the identity verification software space — other players include Entrust, Persona and iProov. However, the company has been the most prominent provider of age assurance services under the new U.K. regime.
“There is a race on for child safety technology and service providers to earn trust and confidence,” Pete Kenyon, a partner at law firm Cripps, told CNBC. “The new requirements have undoubtedly created a new marketplace and providers are scrambling to make their mark.”
Yet the rise of digital identification methods has also led to concerns over privacy infringements and possible data breaches.
“Substantial privacy issues arise with this technology being used,” said Kenyon. “Trust is key and will only be earned by the use of stringent and effective technical and governance procedures adopted in order to keep personal data safe.”
Read more CNBC tech news
Rani Govender, policy manager for child safety online at British child protection charity NSPCC, said that the technology “already exists” to authenticate users without compromising their privacy.
“Tech companies must make deliberate, ethical choices by choosing solutions that protect children from harm without compromising the privacy of users,” she told CNBC. “The best technology doesn’t just tick boxes; it builds trust.”
Child-safe smartphones
The wave of new tech emerging to prevent children from being exposed to online harms isn’t just limited to software.
Earlier this month, Finnish phone maker HMD Global launched a new smartphone called the Fusion X1, which uses AI to stop kids from filming or sharing nude content or viewing sexually explicit images from the camera, screen and across all apps.
The phone uses technology developed by SafeToNet, a British cybersecurity firm focused on child safety.
Finnish phone maker HMD Global’s new smartphone uses AI to prevent children from being exposed nude or sexually explicit images.
HMD Global
“We believe more needs to be done in this space,” James Robinson, vice president of family vertical at HMD, told CNBC. He stressed that HMD came up with the concept for children’s devices prior to the Online Safety Act entering into force, but noted it was “great to see the government taking greater steps.”
The release of HMD’s child-friendly phone follows heightened momentum in the “smartphone-free” movement, which encourages parents to avoid letting their children own a smartphone.
Going forward, the NSPCC’s Govender says that child safety will become a significant priority for digital behemoths such as Google and Meta.
The tech giants have for years been accused of worsening mental health in children and teens due to the rise of online bullying and social media addiction. They in return argue they’ve taken steps to address these issues through increased parental controls and privacy features.
“For years, tech giants have stood by while harmful and illegal content spread across their platforms, leaving young people exposed and vulnerable,” she told CNBC. “That era of neglect must end.”
A banner for Snowflake Inc. is displayed at the New York Stock Exchange to celebrate the company’s initial public offering on Sept. 16, 2020.
Brendan McDermid | Reuters
MongoDB’s stock just closed out its best week on record, leading a rally in enterprise technology companies that are seeing tailwinds from the artificial intelligence boom.
In addition to MongoDB’s 44% rally, Pure Storage soared 33%, its second-sharpest gain ever, while Snowflake jumped 21%. Autodesk rose 8.4%.
Since generative AI started taking off in late 2022 following the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, the big winners have been Nvidia, for its graphics processing units, as well as the cloud vendors like Microsoft, Google and Oracle, and companies packaging and selling GPUs, such as Dell and Super Micro Computer.
For many cloud software vendors and other enterprise tech companies, Wall Street has been waiting to see if AI will be a boon to their business, or if it might displace it.
Quarterly results this week and commentary from company executives may have eased some of those concerns, showing that the financial benefits of AI are making their way downstream.
MongoDB CEO Dev Ittycheria told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Wednesday that enterprise rollouts of AI services are happening, but slowly.
“You start to see deployments of agents to automate back office, maybe automate sales and marketing, but it’s still not yet kind of full force in the enterprise,” Ittycheria said. “People want to see some wins before they deploy more investment.”
Revenue at MongoDB, which sells cloud database services, rose 24% from a year earlier to $591 million, sailing past the $556 million average analyst estimate, according to LSEG. Earnings also exceeded expectations, as did the company’s full-year forecast for profit and revenue.
MongoDB said in its earnings report that it’s added more than 5,000 customers year-to-date, “the highest ever in the first half of the year.”
“We think that’s a good sign of future growth because a lot of these companies are AI native companies who are coming to MongoDB to run their business,” Ittycheria said.
Pure Storage enjoyed a record pop on Thursday, when the stock jumped 32% to an all-time high.
The data storage management vendor reported quarterly results that topped estimates and lifted its guidance for the year. But what’s exciting investors the most is early returns from Pure’s recent contract with Meta. Pure will help the social media company manage its massive storage needs efficiently with the demands of AI.
Pure said it started recognizing revenue from its Meta deployments in the second quarter, and finance chief Tarek Robbiati said on the earnings call that the company is seeing “increased interest from other hyperscalers” looking to replace their traditional storage with Pure’s technology.
‘Banger of a report’
Reports from MongoDB and Pure landed the same week that Nvidia announced quarterly earnings, and said revenue soared 56% from a year earlier, marking a ninth-straight quarter of growth in excess of 50%.
Nvidia has emerged as the world’s most-valuable company by selling advanced AI processors to all of the infrastructure providers and model developers.
While growth at Nvidia has slowed from its triple-digit rate in 2023 and 2024, it’s still expanding at a much faster pace than its megacap peers, indicating that there’s no end in sight when it comes to the expansive AI buildouts.
“It was a banger of a report,” said Brad Gerstner CEO of Altimeter Capital, in an interview with CNBC’s “Halftime Report” on Thursday. “This company is accelerating at scale.”
Read more CNBC tech news
Data analytics vendor Snowflake talked up its Snowflake AI data cloud in its quarterly earnings report on Wednesday.
Snowflake shares popped 20% following better-than-expected earnings and revenue. The company also boosted its guidance for the year for product revenue, and said it has more than 6,100 customers using Snowflake AI, up from 5,200 during the prior quarter.
“Our progress with AI has been remarkable,” Snowflake CEO Sridhar Ramaswamy said on the earnings call. “Today, AI is a core reason why customers are choosing Snowflake, influencing nearly 50% of new logos won in Q2.”
Autodesk, founded in 1982, has been around much longer than MongoDB, Pure Storage or Snowflake. The company is known for its AutoCAD software used in architecture and construction.
The company has underperformed the broader tech sector of late, and last year activist investor Starboard Value jumped into the stock to push for improvements in operations and financial performance, including cost cuts. In February, Autodesk slashed 9% of its workforce, and two months later the company settled with Starboard, adding two newcomers to its board.
The stock is still trailing the Nasdaq for the year, but climbed 9.1% on Friday after Autodesk reported results that exceeded Wall Street estimates and increased its full-year revenue guidance.
Last year, Autodesk introduced Project Bernini to develop new AI models and create what it calls “AI‑driven CAD engines.”
On Thursday’s earnings call, CEO Andrew Anagnost was asked what he’s most excited about across his company’s product portfolio when it comes to AI.
Anagnost touted the ability of Autodesk to help customers simplify workflow across products and promoted the Autodesk Assistant as a way to enhance productivity through simple prompts.
He also addressed the elephant in the room: The existential threat that AI presents.
“AI may eat software,” he said, “but it’s not gonna eat Autodesk.”
Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg departs after attending a Federal Trade Commission trial that could force the company to unwind its acquisitions of messaging platform WhatsApp and image-sharing app Instagram, at U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 15, 2025.
Nathan Howard | Reuters
Meta on Friday said it is making temporary changes to its artificial intelligence chatbot policies related to teenagers as lawmakers voice concerns about safety and inappropriate conversations.
The social media giant is now training its AI chatbots so that they do not generate responses to teenagers about subjects like self-harm, suicide, disordered eating and avoid potentially inappropriate romantic conversations, a Meta spokesperson confirmed.
The company said AI chatbots will instead point teenagers to expert resources when appropriate.
“As our community grows and technology evolves, we’re continually learning about how young people may interact with these tools and strengthening our protections accordingly,” the company said in a statement.
Additionally, teenage users of Meta apps like Facebook and Instagram will only be able to access certain AI chatbots intended for educational and skill-development purposes.
The company said it’s unclear how long these temporary modifications will last, but they will begin rolling out over the next few weeks across the company’s apps in English-speaking countries. The “interim changes” are part of the company’s longer-term measures over teen safety.
Last week, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said that he was launching an investigation into Meta following a Reuters report about the company permitting its AI chatbots to engage in “romantic” and “sensual” conversations with teens and children.
Read more CNBC tech news
The Reuters report described an internal Meta document that detailed permissible AI chatbot behaviors that staff and contract workers should take into account when developing and training the software.
In one example, the document cited by Reuters said that a chatbot would be allowed to have a romantic conversation with an eight-year-old and could tell the minor that “every inch of you is a masterpiece – a treasure I cherish deeply.”
A Meta spokesperson told Reuters at the time that “The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed.”
Most recently, the nonprofit advocacy group Common Sense Media released a risk assessment of Meta AI on Thursday and said that it should not be used by anyone under the age of 18, because the “system actively participates in planning dangerous activities, while dismissing legitimate requests for support,” the nonprofit said in a statement.
“This is not a system that needs improvement. It’s a system that needs to be completely rebuilt with safety as the number-one priority, not an afterthought,” said Common Sense Media CEO James Steyer in a statement. “No teen should use Meta AI until its fundamental safety failures are addressed.”
A separate Reuters report published on Friday found “dozens” of flirty AI chatbots based on celebrities like Taylor Swift, Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway and Selena Gomez on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
The report said that when prompted, the AI chatbots would generate “photorealistic images of their namesakes posing in bathtubs or dressed in lingerie with their legs spread.”
A Meta spokesperson told CNBC in a statement that “the AI-generated imagery of public figures in compromising poses violates our rules.”
“Like others, we permit the generation of images containing public figures, but our policies are intended to prohibit nude, intimate or sexually suggestive imagery,” the Meta spokesperson said. “Meta’s AI Studio rules prohibit the direct impersonation of public figures.”