MW Apple's new CEO is a hardware legend. That didn't save Intel investors - and it won't guarantee an AI win.
By Geoffrey Cain
Microsoft score or Intel fumble? Apple's $4 trillion CEO bet rests on one massive pivot.
New CEO John Ternus will need to turn Apple into an AI leader.
The big question is whether new CEO John Ternus can make the kind of AI investment Tim Cook never did.
When Apple announced on April 20 that Tim Cook would hand the chief executive role to John Ternus on Sept. 1, the stock market read it as continuity. Nearly every major sell-side analyst kept their buy rating on the stock. Yale University's Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian published a commentary calling Ternus exactly the right CEO for the AI era. Stock analyst Dan Ives at Wedbush reiterated his "outperform" rating and $350 price target, branding Ternus "The New Sheriff."
That is a lot of confidence in Ternus, a 25-year Apple veteran taking over a $4 trillion company right when its largest strategic question is still open.
Ternus is a serious executive, and the confidence is earned. But investors should hold two scenarios in mind. Wall Street is pricing Apple shares $(AAPL)$ for the Satya Nadella scenario - a page from the savvy Microsoft $(MSFT)$ leader's playbook. But the far less-successful scenario of former Intel $(INTC)$ CEO Pat Gelsinger is also on the table.
To see what Ternus is walking into, start with Cook, who earned the farewell. Under him, Apple's market capitalization rose to $4 trillion from roughly $350 billion. He built Services into a $100 billion annually recurring business. But he leaves Ternus with Apple's biggest unresolved question.
Apple is not leading in AI, but renting it.
The upgraded Siri promised in 2024 has not shipped. In January, Apple and Google announced a multi-year arrangement under which Apple's next foundation models will run on Google's $(GOOG)$ $(GOOGL)$Gemini. Apple is not leading in AI, but renting it.
Wall Street's optimism rests on a specific analogy. In February 2014, Microsoft promoted Nadella from within after Steve Ballmer's long run. Nadella had spent 22 years at the company and the market treated his appointment as a steady hand.
What came next was not steady at all. Nadella committed $13 billion to OpenAI. He paid $26 billion for LinkedIn and $69 billion for Activision. He forced a cultural rewrite that Microsoft veterans still talk about. The stock went from around $300 billion in market cap to more than $3 trillion.
This is the story the bulls are projecting onto Ternus and Apple. It is worth asking how often events actually play out that way.
Gelsinger arrived at Intel in February 2021 with credentials richer than Ternus'. He had been the architect of the game-changing 486 chip and was Intel's first chief technology officer. He came back to restore an engineering culture that had drifted, and committed more than a $100 billion to new fabs.
Gelsinger pushed Intel's old playbook harder. But Intel still missed the AI accelerator wave and rival Nvidia (NVDA) ran past them. Intel posted a nearly $19 billion loss in 2024, cut 15,000 jobs, and suspended its dividend. Gelsinger was pushed out that December, not quite four years into the job. The stock's valuation had tumbled to about $100 billion from $230 billion.
The lesson is that a beloved technical insider running a hardware company through a platform shift is not always a safe bet. It is a bet that an executive trained to ship products on time can learn to write 10-figure checks on unproven technology.
Even Steve Jobs had to learn, painfully, that hardware excellence is not always where the next era is won.
This is where Apple's own history is worth pulling in, and where it is less flattering than the standard telling. When Steve Jobs came back to Apple through the NeXT acquisition in December 1996, he did not come back as the visionary of popular memory. He came back after more than a decade of trying to sell an over-engineered computer whose buyers clustered in universities, research labs, Wall Street and intelligence agencies.
NeXT was moving a few hundred machines a month. His customers kept telling him that what they actually wanted was the software, and what saved Apple in the end was not the machine but the operating system inside it. I spent four years reporting on the NeXT era for my book on those years, and the clearest thing to come out of the reporting is that even Jobs had to learn, painfully, that hardware excellence is not always where the next era is won.
Ternus is a serious engineer. He led the Mac hardware side of the Apple Silicon transition and has spent his career executing Apple's biggest commitments. The big question is whether he can make the kind of AI bet Cook never did.
Three things will tell shareholders which story is playing out:
The first test is whether Apple's AI capital spending meaningfully steps up on one of the next few earnings calls.
The second is the Gemini deal. If the Google dependency on Siri shrinks or gets replaced by Apple's own foundation models, the company is building. If it hardens, Apple is renting its future.
The third is acquisitions. Apple under Cook never pursued the scale of deal Nadella did. Whether Ternus authorizes a big transaction or sticks with the program will tell investors whether the Nadella way or the Gelsinger way is the model.
At $4 trillion in market cap, Apple is priced for the Nadella outcome. The Gelsinger outcome is not in the stock. Investors now have to decide whether the market has this right.
Geoffrey Cain is the author of Steve Jobs in Exile: The Untold Story of NeXT and the Remaking of an American Visionary (Portfolio, May 2026).
More: What Apple investors need to know about the next steps for the company and its new CEO
Also read: This is what critics of Apple and Tim Cook get dead wrong
-Geoffrey Cain
This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
April 22, 2026 07:50 ET (11:50 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Comments