On Friday, July 17, 2026, something happened that had not happened since April 2025: Apple briefly overtook Nvidia and became, for a few minutes, the company with the highest market value in the world. At the peak, Apple touched a value of more than $4.91 trillion. By the market close Nvidia had reclaimed the crown (about $4.92 trillion versus about $4.89 trillion for Apple), but the message had already been sent.
What makes this interesting is the context: it happened precisely in the week the market began to doubt the enormous scale of AI investment - the same week IBM crashed 25% and the chip index lost almost 9%. In other words, while the market punished companies burning capital on AI, it rewarded the one that did not.
The Angle That Flipped: The "Lag" That Became an Advantage
For a year Apple was considered a laggard in the AI race. While Microsoft, Google, Meta and Amazon poured in tens of billions to build models and data centers, Apple kept a low profile. The criticism was sharp: "Apple missed the revolution."
This week the sentiment flipped. Per reports, the investment bank HSBC upgraded the stock to a "buy" rating, and analysts began to describe Apple's "wait and see" approach as a calculated move rather than a lag: let the competitors fund the expensive research and development, then enter with the mature technology
- when it is cheaper and more proven.
The logic behind "wait and see"
Apple has an asset the competitors lack: over a billion active users and a closed ecosystem. It does not have to invent the most powerful AI model - it only needs to integrate good-enough AI into the devices and services already in the pockets of a billion people. Its monetization runs through services, ecosystem lock-in and hardware upgrades - not through burning cash on data centers. This is exactly the opposite of the capital-heavy model of the competitors.
This does not mean Apple is "right" and Nvidia is "wrong" - Nvidia sells the picks in the gold rush, and Apple sells the consumer dream. It means there is more than one way to win, and that the market is beginning to reprice who pays now and who will collect later.
The Professional Process: How an Apple Chip Is Born (and Why Apple Does Not Manufacture It)
Here it is important to correct a common misconception: Apple does not manufacture its chips. Apple is a "fabless" company - it designs the chips, but the physical manufacturing it hands to others. This is a pillar of its success, and it is worth understanding the whole process:
- Design (Apple). Apple designs the Apple Silicon chips in-house - the A series that powers the iPhone, and the M series that powers the Mac. The control over design is what allows it to tailor hardware and software together in a way no competitor achieves.
- Manufacturing (TSMC). The actual manufacturing is performed by the Taiwanese chip giant TSMC. Per reports, Apple's next chips - the A20 (for the iPhone 18) and the M6 (for the Mac) - will be manufactured in TSMC's 2-nanometer (N2) process, and Apple has already reserved for itself more than half of TSMC's 2-nanometer manufacturing capacity for 2026.
- Advanced packaging. After manufacturing, the chip undergoes advanced packaging (Apple is adopting WMCM technology) - the stage where different components are connected into one compact, efficient unit.
- Inspection and testing. At every stage precise inspection is required to verify the connections are sound. This is a whole layer of equipment companies - and here, incidentally, sits a point of Israeli interest: Camtek, an Israeli company, is among the global leaders in inspection and metrology equipment for advanced packaging, and about 70% of its revenue is tied to demand fed by AI. (An important precision: there is no public source linking Camtek directly to Apple - it is a key player in the global chip chain, and that is the connection.)
This model - design in-house and manufacture outside - is what allows Apple to invest all its energy in design and the user experience, without bearing the enormous costs of building chip factories. And this connects directly to its AI strategy: to be smart in design, not the biggest spender in expenditure.
The Second Drama: Apple Sues OpenAI
While the stock climbed, Apple opened a dramatic legal front. On July 10, 2026, it filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in federal court in Northern California, alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of contract.
Per the complaint:
- Apple alleges a systematic pattern of information theft by its former employees who moved to OpenAI, at the direction of senior management - including OpenAI's chief hardware officer, Tang Tan.
- Among the accusations: use of secret code names of Apple projects in the recruitment process, asking candidates in job interviews to bring Apple hardware components with them, and a former employee who did not return a company laptop - with secret technical documents on it.
- Per the lawsuit, more than 400 former Apple employees are currently employed at OpenAI.
The backdrop is spicy: Tang Tan left Apple in 2024 and founded a hardware startup called io Products (together with Apple's legendary designer, Jony Ive), which OpenAI acquired last year for about $6.5 billion. Apple claims OpenAI's new hardware business "rests on the shakiest of foundations." In other words: the battle here is over the future of AI devices - the next arena in which the two companies are set to collide.
This is also not Apple's only legal front: at the same time it was reported that the company is in early talks with the U.S. Department of Justice on a settlement in the 2024 antitrust case.
What It Means for the Investor
Sometimes it is precisely not playing that is the move. Apple proved that one can lead the market without being first in every race - with discipline, patience and a focus on the comparative advantage. The market may get excited about the noise of the big spend, but in the long run it prices profitability.
And yet, a reminder for balance: Apple trades at an astronomical value, faces legal fronts, and even Warren Buffett - for whom Apple was his largest holding - trimmed the position. No story, even the most convincing, exempts one from independent analysis and risk management.
Sources: the data in the article is based on ongoing coverage and public court filings, accurate as of the time of writing (July 18, 2026).