All of this has given Pichai just enough latitude to make his pitch, which is: We’re seeing results and now it’s really time to go gung-ho. At the rate things are going, this time next year $185 billion might look quaint.

It’s easy to get carried away: When the bots start to talk as if they’re planning to take over the world, it can be tempting to take their word for it. But the world’s best Elvis impersonator will never be Elvis. What’s really happening is a kind of performance art in which the bots are acting out scenarios present in their training data. The more practical concern to have is that the powers of autonomy the bots already have is enough to do significant damage if left untethered. For that reason, Moltbook and OpenClaw are best avoided for all but the most risk-tolerant early adopters.

It’s hard to see how Apple comes out unscathed from 12 more months of President Donald Trump’s tariff machinations, China’s unpredictability, the tricky introduction of its long-delayed AI features and a risky revamp of the iPhone offerings to include a foldable model. Most concerning of all to Apple investors, based on their questions to the company on Thursday, is the impact of the global memory and supply chain crunch, to which Cupertino is not immune by any means.

All this AI polyamory has put Microsoft’s eggs in a few more baskets, but it has also highlighted that Microsoft’s early mover advantage has run its course. The AI sparkle that illuminated a market value that more than doubled has diminished. Since their peak last October, Microsoft shares have fallen by about 11% and, until Wednesday’s close, had been flat since the start of 2026.

One frustrating characteristic of the AI boom seems to be that everyone must pay for it, regardless of any interest in using it. For some, it will be through rising utility bills as data centers strain the grid. For even more of us, it will be increasing costs of just about every electronic product you can think of: laptops, smartphones, televisions — perhaps even cars.

There’s a big question of whether the joint venture, which now loses direct access to the extraordinarily talented engineering team at ByteDance Ltd., can maintain its competitive edge as homegrown rivals circle the wagons and as users look for any sign that their favorite digital space is being MAGA-fied by the app’s Trump-aligned new owners and operators. Already, on Friday, a prompt alerting users to new policies — by all accounts a standard set of terms for a social media company — set off a flurry of coverage and concern.

Somewhere at the company is a dreary little spreadsheet that justifies this move. It likely says it wasn’t driving quite enough sales for the Quest headset, which is now less of a priority anyway. That the decision makes sense to Meta doesn’t make it any less of a shame. I can’t think of any other part of Meta’s business that is measurably good for its users’ health. It’s a low-cost home workout option that was compatible with the lives of busy parents and families who are pressed for time and square footage in their homes. It appealed to people who may have been intimidated by going to the gym but could instead start their fitness journey in more comfortable confines. It was tremendous fun. But it wasn’t AI, so I guess it had to go.

One factor is the knock-on effects of a Biden administration that put the tech industry in its crosshairs and made Trump a lesser evil to some. Mergers that would have given workers a windfall were snarled by regulators. The administration’s hard-line stance on cryptocurrency stirred resentment and frustration. “The only reason Silicon Valley was split in the past election was the spectacular own goal the Biden administration scored by alienating so many people in it,” Graham wrote to me in an email. “Now that the Democrats have (mostly) stopped trying to attack tech, SV should revert to its historical mostly-Democratic norm.” He added: “I think the tech left will tend naturally to reassemble.”

The low-budget aesthetic is the point, part of a playbook fast on its way to becoming a cliché. One part of it is the mantra — codified (though not invented) by leading tech PR consultant Lulu Cheng Meservey — of “going direct.” This is the idea that the internet has freed company founders and executives from needing to deal with “third parties with misaligned interests,” such as pests like me in the mainstream media.

In 2026, AI hectacorns might go public. That process, historians would tell you, was a harbinger for the dot-com bust as hopeless balance sheets were ignored in favor of overhyped promises that eventually collapsed. Will the A-IPOs prove to be a similar come-to-Jesus moment? It’s one theme I’ll be watching closely in 2026, but it’s certainly not the only one.

Trillions of dollars hang in the balance of two questions that dominated this year and loom perilously large over the next. “Will the artificial intelligence bubble burst?” and “Will China beat the US?” Searching for answers is the theme of this year’s book recommendations from Bloomberg Opinion’s technology columnists. We’ve chosen a list that sets the intellectual table for the tech year ahead: new books with the latest insights, established ones with renewed relevance and even instructive fiction.

The deal has been described as bringing to an end a long-running saga over the app’s future. In reality, it’s merely sweeping it under the rug, conveniently taking it off the agenda now that the political will to tackle the issue has subsided.

"Is the White House’s artificial intelligence policy America First or simply Silicon Valley First? After this week, I’m leaning sharply towards the latter. It’s surely the only way to reconcile Washington’s conflicting policy choices, where China is made a useful bogeyman until Big Tech is interested in selling Beijing its wares."

"This isn’t a pivot from the metaverse. It’s a rebrand. Not for the first time, Meta’s chief executive officer has reframed his ambitions to make his spending more palatable to Wall Street — and it’s worked."

"In tech, the most effective time to depart is when one innovation cycle winds down in preparation of the next. Thanks to his failure to see the coming AI freight train, Cook has missed that window. If 2026 is indeed the year he steps aside, he will likely be doing so when Apple is weakened."