In this week’s newsletter, we talk about how Siri might be holding Apple back in the AI race, why the Strait of Hormuz won’t shut down, brand logos and more.

If you'd like to receive our 3-min daily newsletter that breaks down the world of business & finance in plain English - click here. 

Quote of the day 📜:

You can’t always visualize the reward, but you can believe in the sacrifice if the vision is strong enough.” – Don Connelly

Should Apple kill Siri?

Exactly a year ago, Apple promised the world a ChatGPT-like Siri. But when the big reveal finally happened a few days ago, that futuristic Siri was nowhere to be seen. Instead, Apple announced a deeper integration with ChatGPT itself, the very tool it partnered with last year.

So… what happened to the smarter, sassier Siri?

Well, it looks like Apple may have lost it along the way. Because when people say, “Hey Siri, can you send a message please?” there’s often nothing but radio silence. And when it does respond, it’s rarely on the same page. For instance, Wall Street Journal journalist Joanna Stern even asked, “Hey Siri, are you still alive in there?” To which Siri blandly replied, “I’m Siri, your virtual assistant.”

That sure answers everything right? But hey, Siri was groundbreaking when it launched in 2011. So, what went wrong?

To understand that let’s go back to where it all began.

See, before Siri became Apple’s iconic voice assistant, it had a very different origin story. Back in 2003, a nonprofit research group called SRI International began working on a US government-backed AI project known as CALO (Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes). Their goal was to build an assistant smart enough to learn from and adapt to its user.

That research eventually gave rise to Siri. In 2007, a few engineers branched out to launch Siri Inc., a startup focused on bringing this technology to consumers. By 2010, they released the Siri app for the iPhone. It let people do things like book cabs or make dinner reservations just by speaking to their phone. It was way ahead of its time.

But Siri Inc.’s independence didn’t last long. Within a couple of months, Apple stepped in and acquired it. The original team had plans to take Siri to Android and BlackBerry too, but Apple did something even smarter. It removed the app from the store and started building Siri directly into iOS.

Then in 2011, Siri made its official debut on the iPhone 4S. You could talk to your phone like you were talking to a person. Siri answered questions, sent texts, set reminders and even cracked a joke or two. And that blew people away.

But now Siri seems to have failed to catch up.

And the reason might be that Apple has always been more of a hardware giant than a software powerhouse. Sure, it built its own operating systems, but that was mostly by standing on the shoulders of Mac OS X, a stable, well-built foundation that let Apple offer a seamless experience to users and developers alike. But as the tech world shifted towards AI and rapid-fire software updates, Apple found itself facing three big hurdles.

First, Apple is a perfectionist. Really. It only ships products that meet its famously high standards. Clean design, minimalist interfaces, intuitive functionality — that’s the Apple way.

But in a world where new AI tools launch every other week, perfection can be a problem. The pace is too fast. The competition’s too bold. And waiting around for the perfect product could just mean getting left behind.

So when Apple started teasing the iPhone 16 with snazzy new features — like a smarter Siri that could use personal data (understanding things like “When is my next meeting with investors?”) and app context (for example, “Make this photo pop, and add it to the Goa 2025 vacation album”), or Apple Intelligence tools that summarise text, prioritise notifications, and edit photos — expectations ran high. But behind the scenes, engineers testing these beta features found something troubling… they didn’t always work.

Some even had to be rolled back after going rogue. Remember that summarisation feature that was supposed to help by condensing messages, news and notifications? It misfired pretty badly. There was this one case where someone got a text from their mum saying, “That hike almost killed me!” The AI’s summary? “Attempted suicide but recovered and hiked in Redlands and Palm Springs.” That doesn’t sound great at all.

Then there’s the fact that Apple hasn’t exactly been best friends with AI. You could say it’s been more cautious than curious. For years Apple largely refused to even use the word “AI”, until it did in a stubborn way by calling it “Apple Intelligence”. That might come from the fact that folks like Craig Federighi, Apple’s software chief, have reportedly been reluctant to throw big money at AI. For context, Apple has spent just $11 billion on capital expenditure over the past year. That’s barely about 15% of what its peers like Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet and Meta spent on average. Because from Apple’s point of view, it’s a high-risk game. Unlike hardware or traditional software updates where the outcome is more predictable, AI feels like a gamble. You pour in time and resources without knowing exactly what you’ll get in return.

Federighi didn’t exactly see AI as a “must-have” for personal computers or smartphones either. He didn’t want to pull resources away from what Apple’s already great at — rolling out those polished, annual upgrades for iPhones, Macs and iPads. In AI, it’s common to dive in without a clear picture of the final product, figuring things out as you go. But that’s not Apple’s style. Apple tends to work with a destination in mind, building with purpose rather than experimenting aimlessly.

That mindset, along with its deep-rooted focus on user privacy, is probably what’s kept Apple from jumping in headfirst like Microsoft, Meta or Amazon, all of whom have either built or acquired large language models (LLMs) or AI chatbots.

And that brings us to the biggest conflict — Apple’s famous commitment to privacy. Yup, it’s true that Apple’s privacy controls are far stricter than most of its competitors. But that strength also becomes a weakness when it comes to AI. Limiting the amount of user data it collects means Apple doesn’t have the same massive datasets that others rely on to train and improve their AI.

Even with its new ChatGPT integration, Apple insists on user consent before sending off queries. And OpenAI doesn’t get to keep the data either. That’s great for protecting privacy, but it also makes it harder for Apple to catch up.

Which leaves us wondering — should Apple just kill Siri?

Let’s face it, Siri’s reputation has taken quite a beating over the years. It’s been clunky, slow, and frustrating for users. And now, with Apple Intelligence in the mix, things have only gotten messier. Some basic features that used to work just fine, like sending a simple text, are suddenly glitchy. So maybe it’s time to stop clinging to the nostalgia of Siri and admit that the old assistant might be more of a burden than a badge of honour.

Maybe what Apple really needs is a clean break and a total rebrand.

After all, it wouldn’t be the first to do it. Google swapped out Assistant for Gemini. Microsoft shelved Cortana and bet big on Copilot. So why not Apple?

Of course, Apple being Apple might want to hold on, stick to its identity, do things its own way and be the perfectionist.

But if that’s the path it wants to take, it needs to move faster. Because in the world of AI, the clock doesn’t wait. And the competition sure won’t either.

Why Iran can’t shut down the Strait of Hormuz

We wouldn’t blame you if you thought that the global oil market was on the verge of collapse.

After all, Iran’s parliament just voted to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow stretch of water through which nearly 20% of the world’s oil and a third of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) flows every single day.

And with tensions in the Middle East flaring up again, this could be a critical moment that upends a global energy artery and eventually hits your wallet too.

But here’s the thing. While the headlines scream closure, the reality is a bit more complicated. Actually, a lot more complicated.

And to understand how it could impact you, let’s take it from the top.

The Strait of Hormuz is a 39-kilometre-wide waterway between Iran and Oman.

At its tightest point, the shipping lanes are just three kilometres wide in each direction, separated by a buffer zone. Every day, over 21 million barrels of crude oil and refined products pass through it. And about 84% of that oil and LNG heads to Asia, with China, India, Japan and South Korea being the top buyers.

So yeah, if the Strait ever truly shut down, the global economy would feel it almost immediately.

But you see, while the Iranian legislators may have said to block this channel, the final decision vests with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. And unless that goes ahead, there can’t be a closure.

And here’s where things get a little ironic because what’s often left out of the narrative is that Iran itself relies on this route more than most.

Despite years of sanctions, Iran still manages to export about 1.7 million barrels of oil per day (bpd). And nearly 90% of that heads to China, its most important customer and arguably its last major economic lifeline.

All of this oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

Now, sure, Iran has built a new terminal at Jask, just outside the Strait. But it’s not yet equipped to handle full volumes. In 2024, for instance, it processed less than 70,000 bpd — just a fraction of Iran’s total exports. Which means, if Iran were to actually close the Strait, it wouldn’t just be blocking Saudi or Emirati oil. It would also be choking off its own revenue stream.

And that’s not all. A large chunk of Iran’s own imports — everything from food to fuel additives, also sails through Hormuz.

Then there’s the question of who else gets affected. The US, for one, doesn’t buy much Iranian oil or gas. Neither does Europe — at least not officially. While the US does import about half a million bpd from Persian Gulf countries via Hormuz, that makes up just 7% of its total petroleum liquids consumption, thanks to domestic shale production and steady imports from Canada.

But let’s say for argument’s sake that the worst does happen. Hormuz is closed.

Even then, history tells us that the panic may be short-lived.

Back in 2003, just before the Iraq War, oil prices surged by over 40%, only to tumble, once things escalated. In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, oil touched $130 per barrel. Within three months, it was back down below $100. Why? Because demand adjusts, inventories get tapped and importantly, backup options kick in.

For instance, Saudi Arabia can redirect about 5 million bpd through its East-West pipeline to the Red Sea. The UAE has a 1.8 million bpd pipeline that bypasses Hormuz entirely via the port of Fujairah. China holds over 1 billion barrels in strategic reserves. And in 2024, the US brought its crude imports from the Gulf down to the lowest level in nearly four decades.

The only way to shut down the Strait is if Iran lays marine mines. But there are a bunch of Western mine sweeping ships nearby, ready to deal with that if it happens. And even that kind of move will invite retaliatory action.

Now that might make you wonder — fine, maybe Iran won’t go all in. But what if it disrupts traffic just enough to scare the markets?

Well, that’s already playing out. Shipping rates for Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) have doubled in recent days, and war risk premiums for oil tankers operating in the Persian Gulf have shot up. These premiums are extra charges shipowners demand when entering dangerous zones. Basically, higher pay for higher risk. And with nearly 1,000 vessels experiencing GPS jamming every day in and around Hormuz, the danger feels real enough.

And this is the part that most headlines miss. The real threat isn’t a hard closure of the Strait. It’s the soft disruption that this kind of shadow warfare brings. It raises friction, uncertainty and costs.

As someone told me the other day, ‘The travesty of our times is – conflict isn’t failure, but a business model.’

That cost trickles silently through the global economy. It hits refiners who now pay more to secure their cargo. It hits logistics firms whose expenses rise across shipping lanes. And it hits governments, which either dip into reserves or shell out more to subsidise fuel.

Take India for example. Refiners like Indian Oil, BPCL and HPCL source a large chuck of their crude from the Gulf nations, often under long-term contracts routed via the Strait of Hormuz. While we’ve diversified with imports from other nations, nearly two-thirds of our crude and half of LNG imports still pass through that narrow waterway.

You may not see petrol or diesel prices spike immediately, thanks to state administered pricing. But behind the scenes, higher freight and insurance costs slowly bleed into the economy.

Paint manufacturers like Asian Paints and Berger feel it in input costs, as oil derived solvents get pricier. Pharma companies like Dr Reddy’s, Lupin and even Sun Pharma — which has a huge presence in the Middle East with its majority stake in Taro Pharmaceuticals — could take a hit. Airlines, where fuel makes up 30–40% of costs, see their margins wobble. Cement and steel companies, reliant on diesel for last-mile freight, get squeezed. Fertiliser firms feel the pinch. Even FMCG giants like HUL and Dabur take a hit as distribution becomes costlier.

It all shows up, quietly, in earnings calls. In falling EPS. In trimmed forecasts.

And if you’re watching from the sidelines, the impact doesn’t always show up where you’d expect. Oil prices may take time to react. The bigger signals often surface first — in rising insurance premiums, surging tanker rates, port congestion and delayed delivery cycles.

In India, this sensitivity often plays out in the stock market. Logistics stocks tend to price in disruption risk faster than oil linked ones.

Because at the end of the day, markets don’t just react to headlines. They react to how events ripple through trade flows.

In a world this tightly wound, a 39-kilometre stretch of water can quietly move prices on Dalal Street. And that’s why the Strait of Hormuz matters. Not just for the oil it ferries, but for what it symbolises: a fragile hinge upon which global trade, inflation and portfolios turn.

And perhaps that’s why, despite the threats, it never really stops running.

Infographic: Hidden Meanings Behind Brand Logos

And that's all for today folks! 

Have a question/comment/feedback for us at Finshots & Ditto? Drop us an email at colleges@joinditto.in. We'd love to hear from you! 

And if you learned something new, make sure to subscribe to Finshots for more such insights :)