Musk is wrong and has only influence on his side in a childish App Store spat
Analyst Daniel Ives says Elon Musk suing over the App Store is a huge problem for Apple, but Musk simply no longer has the right influence to matter.
Elon Musk -- image credit: Tesla
Maybe Tim Cook needs to have a quiet word with Musk. Again. Back in 2021, the Tesla owner wanted to start a "war" against Apple over Twitter being threatened with removal from the App Store, at least according to Musk.
Now he's back with an armful of toys to be thrown out of the stroller. He's arguing entirely baselessly that his Grok AI not being promoted on the App Store means there's some secret conspiracy.
As you'd expect, Apple has denied it, and thrown some subtle shade about Grok's Hitler fetish.
And also, predictably, X users have pointed out that Musk's case is nonsense. Musk says no one but OpenAI gets promoted on the App Store, so users rattled off a list of when Perplexity has been, and when DeepSeek has been too.
Then there was a demonstration of how even Grok can get things right, after a X user consulted it. This happened after OpenAI's Sam Altman called out Musk's hypocrisy of manipulating X to give the results he wants, then saying that Apple might be doing the same thing is in need of a legal response.
roobzey Yes, credible allegations and evidence from sources like CNN, Guardian, and NYT suggest Elon Musk has manipulated X's algorithms and moderation to favor his interests, companies like xAI (which acquired X in 2025), and political allies while harming critics and
-- Grok (@grok)
Twitter's Grok AI gets the most attention for its tendency to add pro-Hitler comments to responses, but it's the social media platform that has had algorithm changes. Because of them, the X feed itself sees Musk rising to the fore, and his rivals somehow not getting the exposure they used to.
Musk's lawsuit, should he ever actually file one, has no more than a single snowflake's chance in hell of winning. As so often these days, though, the threatened lawsuits are not about results, they are about being seen to sue.
And analyst Dan Ives claims that Musk actually suing might be a problem for Apple, and for some reason, Apple is nervous about it.
Shouting doesn't make you right
The argument is a little like the way when a child is bellowing away in a supermarket, at least some other customers -- generally wrongly -- blame the poor parent. In this case, Ive thinks that Musk crying like a baby will get regulators to blame Apple.
"The last thing you want right now is Musk putting his force behind this legally, especially given all the regulatory scrutiny that Apple is seeing right now," Ives said on CNBC. "Look, this is something that can really sort of spiral and take on a life of its own."
"The issue here is with Musk going full force after Apple, this could really change the dynamic, not just between Musk and Apple, but if others get involved," he continued. "I think that's the nervousness... that's why you can see Apple pull back because of Musk, and obviously the power he brings."
We're not even sure where to begin with this. Apple and Musk have a storied history, and Apple will do, what Apple will do.
None of it has ever been "nervousness."
There was that 2021 dispute that Tim Cook soothed over with a slice of cake from the Apple Cafe in Apple Park. There was Apple pausing advertising on then-Twitter, then backing down under government pressure.
And there was Apple giving Musk preferential treatment on the App Store by allowing Twitter to be renamed X -- the only single-letter app name ever.
But Apple has entirely resisted how when Musk was part of it, the Trump administration ordered companies to drop their DEI programs.
Apple has the luxury of not having to be afraid of Musk's money. As far as Ives comment about Musk's influence, he seems to ignore that Tim Cook has as much sway if not more with President.
Musk's diminishing relevance
Musk no longer has Trump's ear, he chiefly only has X, Tesla, and SpaceX. Tesla is seeing sales continue to tank, predominantly because of Musk's politics, but also because the Cybertruck looks like a tank. SpaceX subsidies by the feds are under fire by the President, after the pair dramatically split up.
Then X is arguably riddled with bots -- and it's Musk who has argued it. Even he has said at times that 33% of X users were actually bots. That's worse now, than it was when he took over.
It even looks as if bots are not paying Musk as much attention -- and he's noticed. He's complained about it on X, specifically when calling out OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's criticism of his allegations against Apple.
You got 3M views on your bullshit post, you liar, far more than I've received on many of mine, despite me having 50 times your follower count!
-- Elon Musk (@elonmusk)
Musk's math might make you question his engineering skills. Musk actually has 57.5 times Altman's followers, not the 50 times he says. But only 15.1 times as many as Apple's Tim Cook.
Then X, the company, initially saw its valuation drop from $44 billion to $9.4 billion after Musk bought it. More recently, sketchy figures from Statistica show it actually regained that original valuation, before dropping back to between $32 billion and $33 billion. For the sake of argument, though, let's assume that they are true.
Apple's valuation has also varied over the years, but at time of writing, it's $3.05 trillion. So much for that leverage.
Musk has only the influence he's given
So if Ives is right, regulators will listen to a man who is factually incorrect but shouting, rather than to absolutely anyone else. Regulators will listen to the loud businessman whose main businesses are struggling, rather than to the quietly effective Tim Cook whose business is not and is instead a foundation of American business.
Ives could be right, but we very much don't think so. He's giving Musk credit for influence solely by saying that he has this influence. There's no evidence for that now, and there is evidence that his previous influence with the administration is long gone.
What Ives is doing, is exactly what Musk wants him to. Taking a page out of the Trump playbook, Musk is only threatening to sue specifically and probably solely to get PR out of it.
Which is surely also why Musk, back in 2024, caused headlines by saying he'd ban iPhones if Apple's then-proposed deal with ChatGPT went through. Musk didn't know what he was talking about then, and he doesn't know what he's talking about now.
Just because you're a doctor or engineer doesn't mean what you're talking about. All that being a billionaire entails is that you have money. It doesn't mean that you know everything about everything, and Musk has been historically incredibly wrong about matters around Apple.
On the face of it, the reason for that iPhone ban was a gross, and perhaps willful, misunderstanding of the deal and what it meant. It was again a case of Musk's position being simply loud and factually wrong -- and of him knowing that he would nonetheless get PR out of it.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Tesla looks less like a tank than it does a trashcan.