Apple's new Mac security measures are driven by the need to defend its high-margin App Store business model against AI agents that circumvent its transaction fees.

which in this case, I must highlight as Apple. Apple is now tightening its controls on Mac devices , claiming it will protect users from artificial intelligence software. This is the plan that Apple has followed time and time again.

They say it's in the name of security, safety, and protection, while in reality there are other considerations.

Now, let's move on to this week's flop, which is Apple. A company I love; I'm an Apple fan, and I own a lot of their products. I spent a fortune on its stock and made a substantial profit from investing in it.

Apple says it will tighten data controls on Macs to protect them from artificial intelligence programs. Apple announced it plans to introduce new privacy controls for Mac users, warning of the growing risks associated with granting broad access to data to third-party software, including AI programs .

The iPhone maker added that it will introduce additional controls to ensure users who want to grant an application full disk access can do so through an explicit user action, according to its statement.

I think Apple is right to be concerned about this, or to warn against it, in terms of privacy . But there's also something else going on here that Apple knows about.

Apple has a business model based on being the point of sale; it owns the App Store, the most profitable platform in the world. Did you know that Apple is the most profitable gaming company in the world?

More profitable than Rockstar, more profitable than any other gaming company , because Apple is the point of sale in the App Store. Everyone who makes even small purchases through the App Store pays Apple a fee.

For example, one of the early points of my investment in Apple was that it intends to make enormous profits from its App Store, with its services, especially the App Store, generating significantly more profit margins than its other businesses.

When you look at its business as a whole, you see hardware , like iPhones, Macs, wearables, and home accessories. And the iPad. This makes up the bulk of its business. The services division represents a smaller percentage of Apple's total revenue, but it's disproportionately large because, when analyzing the actual profit margins across different business segments, the overall profit margin for products—the rest of the business— is 39%.

That's an excellent margin. So, Apple makes a lot of money from its iPhones and other devices, but its services profit margin is astounding, reaching 76%.

Apple prefers this digital margin; it likes to be the payment gateway and likes to collect fees on every purchase made through its App Store. Apple also encourages all developers to use its in-app payment system .

So, when you look at what's happening here, you see people installing Agentic systems on their Macs and iPhones along with their apps. Currently, we have Muse as the latest app in this space.

It's the most downloaded app in the world on the App Store, having dethroned ChatGPT. Muse is now announcing the addition of connectors, allowing you to connect other things, organizations, and apps within it, providing experiences.

It's different. Muse is installed on Macs , has full disk access, and can perform proxy functions. Of course, there are security and privacy concerns, and these are real, but this also presents a unique risk for Apple.

When someone downloads Muse and makes a purchase through Muse's Agentic system, Apple doesn't get its cut. If I ask Muse to buy something online, it does so as an agent, and Apple doesn't get paid.

The same applies if I develop a game. Apple doesn't profit from the Muse app itself. Or even if I have a link to another game, Apple doesn't make any money from that. In effect, Muse creates a microeconomy within Apple's App Store , from which Apple can't monetize.

The same is true for Macs, another opportunity Apple is missing out on. It doesn't get its share of the profits, even when you use its machines. Apple prefers to take a cut of the profits generated by its own machines.

Analysts have noticed this too. Bank of America has warned Apple investors are worried because of Meta's Muse. The concern centers on who controls the decisions once AI systems start making them instead of the users who open the app.

One analyst wrote that the system owner is the one who captures the routing revenue that was previously allocated to the operating system, search engine, and App Store. He points out that Meta's Muse assistant and its growing list of commercial partners, including Shopify, Expedia, and PayPal, are early indicators of how this model is evolving.

This poses a much greater risk to Apple in the long run. Whoever owns the agent's capabilities controls all logins, credentials, payments made with each account, all economic aspects, and all transactions.

This becomes the central hub where all data flows, not through the application layer that Apple invested in. Their revenue collection system is being disrupted right before our eyes.

And of course, Apple is well aware of this. Think about this kind of thing deeply. Apple has always used security and privacy to its advantage. Two things can be true at the same time.

Apple genuinely cares about privacy and security; Apple also likes to use privacy and security as a feature and a means to restrict other forms of economic activity to its advantage.

It's clear how this could happen again. Apple began by saying that these programs are insecure and that people shouldn't trust them. It claimed that they are not Her method, and that it violates privacy, and accesses all your data, isn't that right ?

Apple has confirmed that it is not safe until it releases its own solution. Once Apple develops its integrated solution, it will announce it as the secure method that respects your privacy.

Everything is integrated internally, and Apple protects it in a way that competitors do not. Apple has consistently restricted what other companies do and labeled it as unsafe when it has no way to profit from it.

Then, when she is able to develop a method, she adds some differences, and then calls her method "safe " and "privacy-focused"