In 2025, CEO turnover in the United States is shattering prior records and shifting the very nature of executive leadership. According to fresh data from executive placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, the number of CEO departures at U.S. companies increased to 207 in June—a 23% jump from May’s 168. While this represents a 12% decrease from the 234 departures logged in June 2024, the first half of 2025 tells a story of acceleration: A whopping 1,235 CEOs left their posts. That’s a 12% increase from last year and the highest year-to-date total since Challenger began tracking this data in 2002.

This wave of exits isn’t simply a statistical outlier, the firm says. More than ever, companies are relying on interim chiefs, and the short-term revolving door has become so common that the highest-paid corner office is increasingly looking like a “gig economy” job, Challenger says, adding: “2025 marks the rise of the CEO gig economy.”

CEOs as gig workers

Through June 2025, a staggering 33% of newly named CEOs had stepped into their roles on an interim basis, compared to just 9% during the same period last year. Many of these leaders, including veterans who navigated companies through the Covid-19 pandemic, are returning to guide firms on their own terms, choosing flexible, project-based tenures over the once-standard multi-year engagement.

“With growing uncertainty across the economy, shifting corporate values like DEI, the impact of tariffs, potential deregulation, evolving consumer behavior, and the rapid implementation of new technologies such as AI, identifying the right leader for long-term success has become increasingly difficult,” said Andy Challenger, labor and workplace expert at Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

Interim roles offer both organizations and executives a strategic edge: companies gain agility and fresh perspectives swiftly; executives gain exposure and maintain flexibility.

The perils of the C-suite gig economy

There are real risks to a gig-like approach to the corner office. Teams led by an interim or short-term CEO may struggle with trust, long-term cohesion, and cultural stability. “When teams know their leader could leave at any moment,” Andy Challenger notes, “it’s harder to build lasting cohesion or trust.” Frequent leadership turnover can disrupt culture, diminish morale, and spark higher employee attrition—particularly if staff feel their voices aren’t heard or priorities are in constant flux.

Another sharp trend is the even split between internal and external interim CEOs: 53% were selected from within the organization, while 47% came from outside. When interim roles become permanent, internal and external candidates fare equally: 20% of each ultimately landed the role long-term.

The surge in CEO gig work contrasts with another shift: the lagging rate of new women CEOs. Only 25% of new CEOs appointed in 2025 are women, down from 28% last year.

Industries with surging turnover

Some sectors have been especially hard hit. The government/non-profit space leads (or trails), with 256 CEO exits through June—1.6% higher than last year’s 252 exits through the first half. The space has seen the highest turnover in both years.

Then there’s a big drop to technology, with 138 CEO departures through June, one of the highest monthly totals of the year; the turnover represented a 16% increase from 2024 as well. Health care/products saw 121 exits, a 20% increase from 2024. Hospitals, a subset, saw 68 departures, up 3%. Financial firms had 76 CEO exits year-to-date, a 29% increase year-over-year.

This upheaval reflects broad changes—uncertainty, rapid tech shifts, pressure on traditional leadership models—that are turning the CEO role into something more fluid, flexible, and, increasingly, temporary. In this era of “gig economy” leadership, both organizations and executives face new rules—and new risks—in navigating the future of the C-suite.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© urbancow—Getty Images

Dan Sheridan has worked at Brooks Running for over 25 years, and he’s been CEO for over a year now, but he says he’s still learning things every day from his own boss: Warren Buffett. The 95-year-old investing legend is famous as the “Oracle of Omaha” for his deep business acumen. You won’t see Sheridan disagree with that sentiment.

“We’re so fortunate,” Sheridan recently told Fortune‘s Leadership Next podcast, reflecting on Brooks’ status as a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. “Our ownership structure may be the greatest in the world, right? We’re owned by—who I would call the GOAT of capitalism—Warren Buffett,” Sheridan remarked. “GOAT,” of course, stands for “greatest of all time,” an acronym from the sports world increasingly spreading to other walks of life.

The remark is more than a casual compliment. For Brooks Running, being part of the Berkshire Hathaway family has meant a rare degree of stability and confidence, especially in a retail world known for its fickleness and fast pivots.

Sheridan, a 25-year Brooks employee who took the reins as CEO in April 2024, fondly recalls his encounters with Buffett over the years, including the annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meetings. These gatherings, often a pilgrimage for investors and business enthusiasts, also became a time for Brooks to celebrate milestones with its famously hands-on owner.

Back in 2014, as Brooks marked its 100th anniversary, Buffett made a special trip to Seattle to commemorate the occasion. Speaking before Brooks employees, Buffett distilled his investing philosophy into a single, memorable challenge. “Berkshire focuses on the long term, and your jobs are simply this: to make sure the brand is stronger at the end of the year than it was at the beginning,” Sheridan recounted. The advice resonated deeply—and has continued to shape his outlook as a leader.

‘You have to do a thousand things to keep your brand strong’

At first glance, the maxim sounds simple. But as Sheridan points out, “The truth is, that’s a huge thing for us to do. You have to do a thousand things to keep your brand strong. You have to create great product. You have to keep your morale and your culture going. You have to keep your customers happy. For me in my leadership role, that’s how I think about it: Is our brand strengthening every season, in every market?”

This focus on gradual and consistent improvement echoes the Warren Buffett playbook, eschewing quick fixes and risky gambles for what Sheridan calls “investment, really hard decisions, and capability.” For Brooks, that has meant steady investment in innovation and technology, careful brand cultivation, and an unwavering connection to its core community of runners. But Sheridan is alert from something he learned from another Berkshire GOAT, Buffett’s long-time right-hand-man, Charlie Munger.

Mind your ABCs

Sheridan has adopted a leadership mantra learned at Munger’s heel: Avoid the “ABCs” of corporate decay. “He talks a lot about organizations avoiding the ABCs: arrogance, bureaucracy, and complacency.” For Sheridan, this is more than a cautionary tale; it’s a daily discipline.

“I approach things with low arrogance because I don’t know everything. So I’m super curious in how I approach people,” Sheridan said. He stresses the importance of humility and listening, aiming to foster an organization where questions are invited and learning is constant—echoing a central tenet of Munger and Buffett’s shared philosophy of lifelong learning.

Sheridan’s intolerance for bureaucracy is equally strong. “I often say I’m allergic to bureaucracy … even in nonprofits or school committees that I’m asked to be on, my first question is, ‘Is there a lot of bureaucracy in this organization?’ I can’t function in that. I don’t know how to function in it. And so, Brooks is a place where there’s low bureaucracy,” Sheridan remarked.

This approach has helped keep Brooks nimble—despite its size and growing global reach. Complacency, the third danger, is ever-present at market leaders like Brooks. “I think every organization can rest on your history, and we’re not immune to that at Brooks,” Sheridan acknowledged.

Brooks breaks forward

Brooks Running currently holds the No. 1 position in performance-running shoes in both the U.S. and Germany, and has seen record-breaking growth in international markets—posting a 15% jump in global revenue in the first quarter of 2025, with surges as high as 221% in Asia Pacific and Latin America. But Sheridan is adamant: “In every other market, we’ve got a lot of room to grow.”

Brooks has been on a growth tear in recent years, posting $1.2 billion in revenue for 2023, with North America accounting for the lion’s share. Sheridan played a key role in navigating the company through everything from global supply-chain disruptions to the changing dynamics of consumer taste in the sporting-goods arena. Now, with a fresh mandate from both Buffett and the board, Brooks is looking to expand further overseas, especially in China and Europe.

That growth, according to Sheridan, depends on ruthlessly avoiding complacency and focusing on daily execution. Brooks’ recent expansion—from Olympic athlete partnerships to surging popularity in China and Europe—has been fueled by this mindset.

“We're owned by who I would call the G.O.A.T. of capitalism: Warren Buffett.”

On the latest episode of #LeadershipNext, @brooksrunning CEO Dan Sheridan shared the best piece of advice he’s received from investing legend and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett.

🎧 Listen to… pic.twitter.com/DFmBmO0MRn

— FORTUNE (@FortuneMagazine) July 29, 2025

The CEO’s leadership style, shaped by nearly three decades at Brooks, has also been marked by a willingness to “keep your head above the clouds, but your feet in the mud,” Sheridan said earlier this year. For Sheridan, balancing a high-level vision with hands-on operational focus is crucial in leading a brand through rapid industry changes, fierce competition, and expanding global complexity.

For Brooks Running, the “GOATs of capitalism” at Berkshire Hathaway aren’t just distant boardroom figures—they are active mentors whose business philosophy shapes every major decision. By embracing humility, slashing through red tape, and refusing to coast on past wins, Sheridan aims to write the next chapter in Brooks’ century-plus story—one defined by resilience, adaptability, and above all, staying hungry.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Daniel Zuchnik/WireImage

As recent college graduates face one of the toughest job markets in years, Berkeley economist and voluble Substacker Brad DeLong has a message for those struggling to land their first full-time gig: Artificial intelligence (AI) and automation are not to blame. Larger forces are at work.

DeLong, a professor at UC Berkeley and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, argued in a recent essay that the challenges confronting young job-seekers today are primarily driven by widespread policy uncertainty and a sluggish economy—not by the rapid rise of AI tools like ChatGPT or data-crunching robots. DeLong offered his analysis on July 23, roughly 10 days before the July jobs report stunned markets, revealing that the economy has been much weaker than previously thought for several months.

Prominent business leaders had also flagged troubling signs in the economy before the July jobs report dropped. IBM Vice Chair and former Trump advisor Gary Cohn went on CNBC a day before the jobs data, noting “warning signs below the surface.” Cohn said he pays close attention to the quits rate in the monthly JOLTS data, arguing that 150,000 fewer quits was an ominous sign of poor economic health.

DeLong sounded a prophetic note, writing that “policy uncertainty” over trade, immigration, inflation, and technology has “paralyzed business planning,” leading to a self-reinforcing cycle of hiring freezes. New entrants to the job market are bearing the brunt of the retreat to risk aversion. In other words, the college graduate class of 2025 is really unlucky.

The economist argued that the uncertainty causes companies to delay major decisions—including hiring—in the face of an unpredictable policy environment.

“This risk aversion is particularly damaging for those at the start of their careers, who rely on a steady flow of entry-level openings to get a foot in the door,” he wrote.

DeLong has sounded similar warnings of a slowdown for years. He talked to Fortune in 2022 about his theory of the economy starting to sputter from his book Slouching Towards Utopia. In 2025, he wrote, the big story in the jobs market is not actually AI, but something different.

Policy paralysis

So, what’s really keeping freshly minted graduates from clinching that all-important first job? DeLong cited Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s Amanda Mull and her theory about “stochastic uncertainty”—a cocktail of unpredictability around government policies, trade, immigration, and inflation. Companies aren’t firing; instead, they’re just waiting. And many are delaying new hires in anticipation of possible sudden shifts in tariffs, inflation rates, and regulatory environments. The result is a wait-and-see climate where employers, worried about future economic shocks, have selected caution over expansion. The holding pattern hits new entrants to the workforce especially hard.

While overall unemployment in the U.S. remains low, the situation is uniquely difficult for new graduates relative to the rest of the workforce. Citing economists including Paul Krugman, DeLong noted that while the absolute unemployment rate for college graduates isn’t alarming, the gap between graduate unemployment and general unemployment rates is at record highs. In the past, higher education reliably led to lower unemployment, but now recent grads are struggling “by a large margin” compared to previous generations.

As previously reported by Fortune Intelligence, Goldman Sachs has argued that the college degree “safety premium” is mostly gone. The team, led by Goldman’s chief economist Jan Hatzius, wrote: “Recent data suggests that the labor market for recent college graduates has weakened at a time when the broader labor market has appeared healthy.”

It also found that since 1997, young workers without a college degree have become much less likely to even look for work, with their participation rate dropping by seven percentage points.

Goldman Sachs

Mull cited an analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which found that tech and design fields, including computer science, computer engineering, and graphic design, are seeing unemployment rates above 7% for new graduates.

Why the AI hype misses the mark

Although the tech sector is buzzing about AI’s potential to replace junior analysts or automate entry-level tasks, DeLong urged caution in assigning blame. In his typical style, he noted, “there is still [no] hard and not even a semi-convincing soft narrative that ‘AI is to blame’ for entry-level job scarcity.” Hiring slowdowns, he pointed out, are driven by broader economic forces: uncertainty, risk aversion, and changes in how companies invest.

Here again, DeLong’s analysis rhymes and aligns with recent research from Goldman’s Hatzius. The bank’s quarterly “AI Adoption Tracker,” issued in July, found that the unemployment rate for AI-exposed occupations had reconciled with the wider economy, which contradicts fears of mass displacement. They also noted there have been no recent layoff announcements explicitly citing AI as the cause, underscoring that it’s contained to disruption of specific functions, not entire industries.

Goldman Sachs

Crucially, he argued, rather than hiring people, companies in the tech sector are splurging on “the hardware that powers artificial intelligence”—notably Nvidia’s high-performance chips—fueling a boom in capital investment while sidelining junior hires.

“For firms, the calculus is straightforward: Investing in AI infrastructure is seen as a ticket to future competitiveness, while hiring junior staff is a cost that can be postponed.”

Underpinning these trends is a shift away from any and all risk. Employers prefer to hire for specific short-term needs and are less willing to invest in developing new talent—leaving young applicants caught in a cycle where “just getting your foot in the door” is more difficult than ever. Incumbent workers, worried about job market uncertainty, are less likely to change jobs, leading to fewer openings and greater stagnation.

DeLong’s analysis harmonized with Goldman Sachs’ findings about the declining premium attached with a college degree:

“For the longer-run, the rise in the college wage premium is over, and a decline has (probably) begun.”

For decades, he continued, a college degree was a ticket to higher earnings, and the labor market rewarded those with advanced skills and credentials. In recent years, though, “this has plateaued and may even be falling.” The causes are complex, he added, but the takeaway: While degrees remain valuable, they are no longer the ever-ascending ticket to prosperity they once were.

These comments confirm the gloomy remarks of University of Connecticut professor emeritus Peter Turchin, who recently talked with Fortune about the declining status of the upper middle class in 21st century America. When asked where else he sees this manifesting in modern life, Turchin said, “It’s actually everywhere you look.

“Look at the overproduction of university degrees,” he said, arguing that the decreasing premium that Goldman and DeLong write about shows up in declining rates of college enrollment and high rates of recent graduate unemployment. “There is overproduction of university degrees and the value of a university degree actually declines.”

DeLong’s bottom line for recent grads: Blame a risk-averse business climate, not technology, for today’s job woes. And now that we know the economy may have been much more risk-averse in 2025 than previously, DeLong’s warnings are worth revisiting.

DeLong did not respond to a request for comment.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Richard Baker / In Pictures via Getty Images

A surprisingly weak July employment report has intensified expectations that the Federal Reserve will resume cutting interest rates as soon as September, with mounting evidence of a slowing U.S. economy and faltering labor market offsetting persistent inflation worries driven by new tariff hikes.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had previously left rates unchanged at a range of 4.25% to 4.50% at its July meeting, despite internal disagreements, growing signs that economic conditions warranted a more dovish approach, and mounting pressure from President Donald Trump on Fed Chair Jerome Powell to cut. The July jobs report, of course, is changing the picture rapidly.

The Labor Department reported a gain of just 73,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in July, well below consensus forecasts. More troubling were the significant downward revisions for May and June, which cut a combined 258,000 jobs from the previous estimates and reduced those months’ average gains to less than 20,000 jobs per month. While July’s number alone would not spell crisis, the back-to-back weakness and hefty revisions roused investor concerns about potential cracks forming in the U.S. labor market. Powell has repeatedly emphasized the balance between labor supply and demand, and said the unemployment rate is the “key indicator to watch.” July’s unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2%, just shy of a 12-month high, providing further evidence of softening conditions.

Market reaction was swift. Stephen Brown, Deputy Chief North America Economist for research firm Capital Economics, called it a “payrolls shocker.” He noted an immediate change in markets, which repriced the likelihood of a September rate cut at 85%, a jump from below 50% prior to the jobs data, as futures traders bet that the Federal Open Market Committee will need to respond to mounting evidence of economic softening.

“The July jobs report goes a long way toward providing the evidence of a weaker labor market that the Fed needs to justify cutting interest rates in the face of above-target inflation,” said Brian Rose, senior U.S. Economist at UBS Global Wealth Management, in a statement to Fortune Intelligence. Rose noted that GDP data had shown the economy’s growth slowing to an annualized 1.2% pace in the first half of 2025, well below the longer-term trend rate of 2.0%. “We expect soft data in the second half of 2025 as well. This should help to offset some of the inflationary pressure driven by tariff hikes,” he added.

Other recent data reinforce the picture of an economy under strain. Survey indicators such as the ISM manufacturing employment index fell further in July, while measures of business capital spending have only recovered modestly after disruptions following April’s “Liberation Day.” Meanwhile, President Trump’s new tariff measures have pushed up import costs, adding to the inflation outlook.

Fiendishly mixed signals

The July payroll dip, coming on the heels of the disruptive “Liberation Day” in April, may not yet herald a deeper jobs slide, other data suggests. Brown noted that initial jobless claims ticked down to 218,000 last week, and continuing claims have declined steadily since peaking in early June.

Analysts expect Powell to use the upcoming Jackson Hole Economic Symposium, to be held August 21–23, as an opportunity to signal the central bank’s readiness to act if labor market weakness persists and larger inflation effects from tariffs do not materialize.

Rose’s baseline scenario now sees the Fed resuming rate cuts at its September meeting and continuing to cut by 25 basis points each meeting through January, trimming the federal funds rate by a full percentage point to bring borrowing costs back to a “roughly neutral” level.

“Given this morning’s data, Powell may be willing to drop a hint that the Fed is leaning toward a September cut,” Rose said.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

President Donald Trump on Friday ordered the firing of Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), igniting a political and economic firestorm as the administration grappled with unexpectedly weak jobs numbers that included a large downward revision of the last two months of jobs data. “I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY,” Trump said on social media Friday.

The decision followed the release of July’s employment report, which showed that only 73,000 nonfarm payroll jobs were added to the U.S. economy—far below economist forecasts. The report also included sharp downward revisions to the previous two months, with 258,000 jobs stripped from earlier estimates and unemployment ticking up to 4.2%.

On social media, Trump also claimed without evidence that McEntarfer “faked the Jobs Numbers before the Election to try and boost Kamala’s chances of Victory,” referencing to his defeated opponent in the 2024 election, Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump declared: “Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can’t be manipulated for political purposes.”

Appointed in January 2024, McEntarfer had previously served in senior roles within federal statistical agencies. The move marks a rare and dramatic intervention in federal economic reporting. Since its founding in 1884, the BLS has operated independently from political pressure, with its data releases pre-scheduled to reduce the risk of manipulation. The BLS commissioner typically serves a four-year term, confirmed by the Senate, with past presidents largely respecting the office’s autonomy regardless of economic headwinds.

Remarking on the jobs report, including the large downward revisions which he called a “major mistake,” Trump added: “Similar things happened in the first part of the year, always to the negative.”

Markets responded swiftly to the jobs report and the abrupt leadership shakeup. Stocks fell sharply on Friday as investors digested the weak employment numbers alongside the uncertainty created by turmoil within the government’s statistical agencies. U.S. bond yields dropped as traders increased bets on imminent Federal Reserve interest rate cuts, which Trump and some Republican allies have also accused the Fed of timing to help Democrats—allegations the central bank strongly denies.

McEntarfer, who has yet to issue a public statement, was widely regarded as a data-focused technocrat. White House officials have not yet named a replacement.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Monday’s mass shooting in Midtown Manhattan claimed the life of Wesley LePatner, a 43-year-old executive at Blackstone, the company confirmed Tuesday morning. LePatner was among four victims killed at 345 Park Avenue when a lone gunman stormed the office building, which also serves as the headquarters of the National Football League and features other business clients such as KPMG. The shooter has been identified by police as 27-year-old Shane Tamura of Las Vegas.

LePatner served as Blackstone’s global head of core+ real estate and chief executive officer of Blackstone Real Estate Income Trust (BREIT), a property fund with a $53 billion net asset value and a $275 billion market capitalization. 

The LePatner family provided a statement to Fortune, saying, “We cannot properly express the grief we feel upon the sudden and tragic loss of Wesley. She was the most loving wife, mother, daughter, sister and relative, who enriched our lives in every way imaginable.” The family noted that she was a beloved, loyal, and caring friend to many others and a “driven and extraordinarily talented professional and colleague.”

The family offered its condolences to those who have also lost loved ones, and asked for privacy in the coming days and weeks. “At this unbearably painful time, we are experiencing an enormous, gaping hole in our hearts that will never be filled, yet we will carry on the remarkable legacy Wesley created.”

A decorated background

LePatner joined Blackstone in 2014 after more than a decade with Goldman Sachs and was credited with driving the firm’s real estate ventures to new heights. A Yale graduate, LePatner served on the boards of organizations including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Abraham Joshua Heschel School, the UJA-Federation of New York, and Yale University Library Council, according to her Blackstone biography page. She is survived by a husband whom she met on the first day of freshman year at Yale, according to their New York Times wedding announcement. She had two children, the New York Post was first to report.

New York Rep. Ritchie Torres posted on social media that LePatner “represented the very best of New York.” Calling her a “distinguished professional,” he honored her sense of civics, as a “devoted congregant” at the Altneu synagogue and a dedicated board member at the Heschel School.

Authorities say Tamura acted alone and had a history of mental-health issues. Investigators recovered a note where Tamura raged against the NFL, claiming to suffer from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)—a neurodegenerative disease associated with head injuries in contact sports. While Tamura played football in high school, there is no evidence he played professionally or was ever diagnosed with CTE.

“Words cannot express the devastation we feel. Wesley was a beloved member of the Blackstone family and will be sorely missed,” Blackstone said in an emailed statement. “She was brilliant, passionate, warm, generous and deeply respected within our firm and beyond.”

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© The Wesley LePatner family

A sweeping July 2025 report from UBS Evidence Lab highlights that artificial intelligence, and generative AI in particular, is rapidly becoming a strategic imperative for consumer-sector companies around the globe, but its not really “visible” yet.

“It’s becoming an essential strategic focus and a competitive differentiator across the entire value chain, not just a tool for efficiency,” the authors write. They see wide-reaching use cases, from demand forecasting to supply-chain automation to product recommendations, and believe it should provide a “more pleasant customer experience” on top of improving operations. The use of AI will be a critical factor going forward that separates winners and losers in the consumer space, they add. It’s just so early.

Despite prominent case studies and a surge in executive attention, UBS finds the direct, quantifiable financial impact of AI remains limited, stating simply about profits and loss statements, or P&L: “AI’s impact on P&L is not material, but we expect it to be visible in the next 3 years.” Meanwhile, despite many headlines about AI-related layoffs, UBS finds little evidence of reductions in headcount: “We have heard some anecdotal evidence but not within our coverage.” Such reductions in force are likely to come, though, UBS added.

Drawing on in-depth interviews with analysts and company disclosures across more than 20 global sectors, the report details how AI is reshaping everything from supply chains and marketing to customer experience, while underscoring the most significant changes—and competitive divides—are yet to fully appear. “Most consumer companies expect the impact of generative AI to be more visible in 3 to 5 years,” the note adds.

AI moves from back office to boardroom

A central theme: AI has moved beyond being a back-office efficiency tool to a core part of business strategy. Large retail and consumer-oriented firms, notably Walmart, are appointing executives dedicated to AI transformation, underscoring its rising importance. The number of AI mentions on consumer-sector conference calls has doubled since 2022, and major investments are being made not only to streamline operations, but also to power growth through personalized recommendations, smarter inventory management, and targeted marketing.

Leading companies are finding a wide range of AI applications, the UBS Evidence Lab found.

• Walmart uses AI-driven recommendations and assistants to personalize the shopping experience and optimize fulfillment. Automation in its supply chain is credited with up to 30% reductions in unit costs at fulfillment centers.
• L’Oréal leans on AI for marketing optimization and product innovation, reporting 10%-15% productivity gains in advertising tasks due to its bespoke BETiq tool, which it expects to cover 60% of its marketing spend by 2024.
• P&G utilizes AI for logistics, and it has quantified a potential $200 million-$300 million in savings from smarter truck scheduling.

Globally, consumer-facing companies are also deploying AI for tasks ranging from product design (e.g., Robam’s proprietary LLM called “AI Gourmet” in China), to dynamic pricing, to smarter labor scheduling. In Australia, travel firms and retailers have cited cost savings and improved margins from AI-enabled automation.

Bigness will matter

A recurring takeaway is that large, well-capitalized incumbents are set to benefit most in the near to medium term. These players, such as Walmart, Home Depot, Coca-Cola, L’Oréal, and China’s Midea and Haier, can better afford the investments and have the customer data troves needed to maximize AI’s benefits. In contrast, smaller and less technologically advanced companies may struggle to compete, potentially accelerating industry consolidation or leaving followers at a disadvantage.

While patterns of AI adoption are broadly similar worldwide, impacts vary by region and sector. U.S. retailers and restaurant chains have focused on operational efficiency and customer engagement. The European luxury sector, more dependent on craftsmanship and brand, should see less near-term impact from AI. In Asian markets, market leaders are leveraging AI to drive product differentiation and cost advantages, but there is little evidence of broad profit impact yet.

Only a handful of companies, usually industry giants with deep pockets and rich data sets, are reporting clear improvements in margins or revenue directly attributable to AI adoption. Most firms, especially smaller ones, have yet to see material P&L enhancements. In many cases, AI’s efficiency gains are being reinvested to spur growth, rather than dropping to the bottom line.

Outlook: gains to materialize over 3–5 years

Most analysts expect the true financial benefits—higher margins, revenue growth, and labor productivity—to become “visible” within three to five years, as AI applications mature and become more deeply integrated into core business processes. In the meantime, a wave of experimentation—particularly in marketing, logistics, and customer experience—is laying the foundation for a potentially transformative decade for consumer industries.

For now, UBS concludes that for all the excitement, the AI revolution’s effects on consumer-sector profits and workforce structure are only just beginning to be felt.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images

A new Federal Reserve Board staff paper concludes that generative artificial intelligence (gen AI) holds significant promise for boosting U.S. productivity, but cautions that its widespread economic impact will depend on how quickly and thoroughly firms integrate the technology.

Titled “Generative AI at the Crossroads: Light Bulb, Dynamo, or Microscope?” the paper, authored by Martin Neil Baily, David M. Byrne, Aidan T. Kane, and Paul E. Soto, explores whether gen AI represents a fleeting innovation or a groundbreaking force akin to past general-purpose technologies (GPTs) such as electricity and the internet.

The Fed economists ultimately conclude their “modal forecast is for a noteworthy contribution of gen AI to the level of labor productivity,” but caution they see a wide range of plausible outcomes, both in terms of its total contribution to making workers more productive and how quickly that could happen. To return to the light-bulb metaphor, they write that “some inventions, such as the light bulb, temporarily raise productivity growth as adoption spreads, but the effect fades when the market is saturated; that is, the level of output per hour is permanently higher, but the growth rate is not.”

Here’s why they regard it as an open question whether gen AI may end up being a fancy tech version of the light bulb.

Gen AI: A tool and a catalyst

According to the authors, gen AI combines traits of GPTs—those that trigger cascades of innovation across sectors and continue improving over time—with features of “inventions of methods of invention” (IMIs), which make research and development more efficient. The authors do see potential for gen AI to be a GPT like the electric dynamo, which continually sparked new business models and efficiencies, or an IMI like the compound microscope, which revolutionized scientific discovery.

The Fed economists did caution that it is early in the technology’s development, writing: “The case that generative AI is a general-purpose technology is compelling, supported by the impressive record of knock-on innovation and ongoing core innovation.”

Since OpenAI launched ChatGPT in late 2022, the authors said gen AI has demonstrated remarkable capabilities, from matching human performance on complex tasks to transforming frontline work in writing, coding, and customer service. That said, the authors noted they are finding scant evidence that many companies are actually using the technology.

Limited but growing adoption

Despite such promise, the paper stresses that most gains are so far concentrated in large corporations and digital-native industries. Surveys indicate high gen AI adoption among big firms and technology-centric sectors, while its use in small businesses and other functions lag behind. Data from job postings show only modest growth in demand for AI skills since 2017.

“The main hurdle is diffusion,” the authors write, referring to the process by which a new technology is integrated into widespread use. They note that typical productivity booms from GPTs like computers and electricity took decades to unfold as businesses restructured, invested, and developed complementary innovations.

“The share of jobs requiring AI skills is low and has moved up only modestly, suggesting that firms are taking a cautious approach,” they write. “The ultimate test of whether gen AI is a GPT will be the profitability of gen AI use at scale in a business environment, and such stories are hard to come by at present.” They know that many individuals are using the technology, “perhaps unbeknownst to their employers,” and they speculate that future use of the technology may become so routine and “unremarkable” that companies and workers no longer know how much it’s being used.

Knock-on and complementary technologies

The report details how gen AI is already driving a wave of product and process innovation. In health care, AI-powered tools draft medical notes and assist with radiology. Finance firms use gen AI for compliance, underwriting, and portfolio management. The energy sector uses it to optimize grid operations, and information technology is seeing multiple uses, with programmers using GitHub Copilot to complete tasks 56% faster. Call center operators using conversational AI saw a 14% productivity boost as well.

Meanwhile, ongoing advances in hardware, notably rapid improvements in the chips known as graphics processing units, or GPUs, suggest gen AI’s underlying engine is still accelerating. Patent filings related to AI technologies have surged since 2018, coinciding with the rise of transformer architecture—a backbone of today’s large language models.

‘Green shoots’ in research and development

The paper also finds gen AI increasingly acting as an IMI, enhancing observation, analysis, communication, and organization in scientific research. Scientists now use gen AI to analyze data, draft research papers, and even automate parts of the discovery process, though questions remain about the quality and originality of AI-generated output.

The authors highlight growing references to AI in R&D initiatives, both in patent data and corporate earnings calls, as further evidence that gen AI is gaining a foothold in the innovation ecosystem.

Cautious optimism—and open questions

While the prospects for a gen-AI-driven productivity surge are promising, the authors warn against expecting overnight transformation. The process will require significant complementary investments, organizational change, and reliable access to computational and electric power infrastructure. They also emphasize the risks of investing blindly in speculative trends—a lesson from past tech booms.

“Gen AI’s contribution to productivity growth will depend on the speed with which that level is attained, and historically, the process for integrating revolutionary technologies into the economy is a protracted one,” the report concludes. Despite these uncertainties, the authors believe gen AI’s dual role—as a transformative platform and as a method for accelerating invention—bodes well for long-term economic growth if barriers to widespread adoption can be overcome.

Still, what if it’s just another light bulb?

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Al Drago—Bloomberg/Getty Images

The doomers versus the optimists. The techno-optimists and the accelerationists. The Nvidia camp and the Anthropic camp. And then, of course, there’s OpenAI, which opened the Pandora’s Box of artificial intelligence in the first place.

The AI space is driven by debates about whether it’s a doomsday technology or the gateway to a world of future abundance, or even whether it’s a throwback to the dotcom bubble of the early 2000s. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has been outspoken about AI’s risks, even famously predicting it would wipe out half of all white-collar jobs, a much gloomier outlook than the optimism offered by OpenAI’s Sam Altman or Nvidia’s Jensen Huang in the past. But Amodei has rarely laid it all out in the way he just did on tech journalist Alex Kantrowitz’s Big Technology podcast on July 30.

In a candid and emotionally charged interview, Amodei escalated his war of words with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, vehemently denying accusations that he is seeking to control the AI industry and expressing profound anger at being labeled a “doomer.” Amodei’s impassioned defense was rooted in a deeply personal revelation about his father’s death, which he says fuels his urgent pursuit of beneficial AI while simultaneously driving his warnings about its risks, including his belief in strong regulation.

Amodei directly confronted the criticism, stating, “I get very angry when people call me a doomer … When someone’s like, ‘This guy’s a doomer. He wants to slow things down.'” He dismissed the notion, attributed to figures like Jensen Huang, that “Dario thinks he’s the only one who can build this safely and therefore wants to control the entire industry” as an “outrageous lie. That’s the most outrageous lie I’ve ever heard.” He insisted that he’s never said anything like that.

His strong reaction, Amodei explained, stems from a profound personal experience: his father’s death in 2006 from an illness that saw its cure rate jump from 50% to roughly 95% just three or four years later. This tragic event instilled in him a deep understanding of “the urgency of solving the relevant problems” and a powerful “humanistic sense of the benefit of this technology.” He views AI as the only means to tackle complex issues like those in biology, which he felt were “beyond human scale.” As he continued, he explained how he’s actually the one who’s really optimistic about AI, despite his own doomsday warnings about its future impact.

Who’s the real optimist?

Amodei insisted that he appreciates AI’s benefits more than those who call themselves optimists. “I feel in fact that I and Anthropic have often been able to do a better job of articulating the benefits of AI than some of the people who call themselves optimists or accelerationists,” he asserted.

In bringing up “optimist” and “accelerationist,” Amodei was referring to two camps, even movements, in Silicon Valley, with venture-capital billionaire Marc Andreessen close to the center of each. The Andreessen Horowitz co-founder has embraced both, issuing a “techno-optimist manifesto” in 2023 and often tweeting “e/acc,” short for effective accelerationism.

Both terms stretch back to roughly the mid-20th century, with techno-optimism appearing shortly after World War II and accelerationism appearing in the science-fiction of Roger Zelazny in his classic 1967 novel “Lord of Light.” As Andreessen helped popularize and mainstream these beliefs, they roughly add up to an overarching belief that technology can solve all of humanity’s problems. Amodei’s remarks to Kantrowitz revealed much in common with these beliefs, with Amodei declaring that he feels obligated to warn about the risks inherent with AI, “because we can have such a good world if we get everything right.”

Amodei claimed he’s “one of the most bullish about AI capabilities improving very fast,” saying he’s repeatedly stressed how AI progress is exponential in nature, where models rapidly improve with more compute, data, and training. This rapid advancement means issues such as national security and economic impacts are drawing very close, in his opinion. His urgency has increased because he is “concerned that the risks of AI are getting closer and closer” and he doesn’t see that the ability to handle risk isn’t keeping up with the speed of technological advance.

To mitigate these risks, Amodei champions regulations and “responsible scaling policies” and advocates for a “race to the top,” where companies compete to build safer systems, rather than a “race to the bottom,” with people and companies competing to release products as quickly as possible, without minding the risks. Anthropic was the first to publish such a responsible scaling policy, he noted, aiming to set an example and encourage others to follow suit. He openly shares Anthropic’s safety research, including interpretability work and constitutional AI, seeing them as a public good.

Amodei addressed the debate about “open source,” as championed by Nvidia and Jensen Huang. It’s a “red herring,” Amodei insisted, because large language models are fundamentally opaque, so there can be no such thing as open-source development of AI technology as currently constructed.

An Nvidia spokesperson, who provided a similar statement to Kantrowitz, told Fortune that the company supports “safe, responsible, and transparent AI.” Nvidia said thousands of startups and developers in its ecosystem and the open-source community are enhancing safety. The company then criticized Amodei’s stance calling for increased AI regulation: “Lobbying for regulatory capture against open source will only stifle innovation, make AI less safe and secure, and less democratic. That’s not a ‘race to the top’ or the way for America to win.” 

Anthropic reiterated its statement that it “stands by its recently filed public submission in support of strong and balanced export controls that help secure America’s lead in infrastructure development and ensure that the values of freedom and democracy shape the future of AI.” The company previously told Fortune in a statement that “Dario has never claimed that ‘only Anthropic’ can build safe and powerful AI. As the public record will show, Dario has advocated for a national transparency standard for AI developers (including Anthropic) so the public and policymakers are aware of the models’ capabilities and risks and can prepare accordingly.”

Kantrowitz also brought up Amodei’s departure from OpenAI to found Anthropic, years before the drama that saw Sam Altman fired by his board over ethical concerns, with several chaotic days unfolding before Altman’s return.

Amodei did not mention Altman directly, but said his decision to co-found Anthropic was spurred by a perceived lack of sincerity and trustworthiness at rival companies regarding their stated missions. He stressed that for safety efforts to succeed, “the leaders of the company … have to be trustworthy people, they have to be people whose motivations are sincere.” He continued, “if you’re working for someone whose motivations are not sincere who’s not an honest person who does not truly want to make the world better, it’s not going to work you’re just contributing to something bad.”

Amodei also expressed frustration with both extremes in the AI debate. He labeled arguments from certain “doomers” that AI cannot be built safely as “nonsense,” calling such positions “intellectually and morally unserious.” He called for more thoughtfulness, honesty, and “more people willing to go against their interest.”

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Andy Jassy, who sent shockwaves through the jobs market as one of the first major chief executives to say that “AI will mean fewer jobs,” sounded a different tone on the earnings call accompanying Amazon’s earnings on July 31. He reiterated his view that artificial intelligence (AI) will be a transformative force, saying it “is going to change very substantially the way we work” and emphasizing sweeping impacts already under way. It’s changing the way Amazon does coding, finance, all sorts of things, he said: “really the way we do business process automation, the way we do customer service.”

But then he pivoted.

Jassy said AI “will make all our teammates’ jobs more enjoyable,” freeing them up from having to do the “rote” functions that could not previously be automated. Companies have a choice in the AI revolution, he added: they can embrace the change that’s happening and help shape the new era, “or you can wish it away and have it shape you.” He said he has worked to make clear, internally and externally, that Amazon will embrace this moment.

‘Much more advanced’

While AI’s promise and pitfalls have dominated tech headlines for the past two years, Jassy’s comments detailed concrete examples of how Amazon is rapidly embedding advanced AI into both its internal workflows and customer-facing services. He highlighted the company’s investments in generative AI agents that can assist with—or even independently perform—complex coding tasks.

“Coding agents, having AI do a lot of the coding for us … allows our teammates to start from a much more advanced starting spot,” Jassy explained.

This philosophy of combining human creativity with AI-powered efficiency is reshaping other vital departments as well. In research and finance, Jassy described AI tools that can quickly synthesize vast quantities of information or flag anomalies in financial data, freeing up skilled employees for strategic work.

Jassy also spotlighted AI’s growing influence in Amazon’s expansive call center and customer service operations. He pointed to services like AWS Connect—the company’s cloud-based call center solution—which now has deep AI integrations for more natural customer interactions and automated issue resolution.

Jassy’s transformative outlook

Jassy has been emphasizing the increasing impact of AI for several months now, for instance suggesting that employees attend AI trainings while promising investors that AI will make them “very happy” down the road.

Amazon had delivered strong earnings earlier on July 31, yet investors sent the stock down roughly 7% in post-market trading with investors concerned about trade headwinds and Amazon’s long-term spending plans. Jassy told analysts on the call that, with regard to the impact of tariffs through the first half of the year, “we haven’t yet seen diminishing demand, nor prices meaningfully appreciating.”

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Apple blew past Wall Street expectations with its third-quarter earnings report released Thursday, revealing robust growth driven by persistent iPhone demand, surging services revenue, and resilience in key international markets—even as tariff anxieties and questions over its artificial intelligence (AI) roadmap loomed over the industry.

For the quarter ended June 28, 2025, Apple posted revenue of $94 billion, representing a 10% increase compared to the same period last year. Net income soared to $1.57 per share—up 12% from a year ago and significantly ahead of analyst forecasts, which had pegged earnings per share at $1.43 on expected revenue of $89.22 billion. Gross margin nudged up to 46.5%.

CEO Tim Cook celebrated the results, noting “Apple is proud to report a June quarter revenue record with double-digit growth in iPhone, Mac and Services and growth around the world, in every geographic segment.” Apple’s board declared a quarterly dividend of $0.26 per share, payable August 14 to shareholders of record as of August 11. 

The installed base of active devices hit a “new all-time high,” according to CFO Kevan Parekh, underscoring Apple’s customer loyalty amid intensifying market competition. Apple shares climbed more than 2.5% post-market on the results.

Segment highlights

Apple’s signature iPhone business was the principal engine of growth, generating $44.6 billion in sales—up from $39.2 billion the previous year. This far exceeded most forecasts and reinforced the iPhone’s dominance, even as competitors ramp up their global push.

The Services segment, encompassing the App Store, Apple Pay, Apple TV+, Apple Music, and iCloud, also set a new record: revenue there hit $27.4 billion, a 13% increase over last year. The success of Apple TV+ was underscored by the summer box office triumph of “F1: The Movie,” which has grossed nearly $513 million worldwide. Mac sales also posted double-digit growth, rising to $8 billion.

In contrast, iPad and Wearables revenue both saw modest declines, but these were more than offset by the core and services businesses.

International & trade dynamics

Growth was broad-based—notably including China, where Apple outperformed expectations with $15.4 billion in sales. This comes amid a tense geopolitical environment: President Donald Trump, seeking to enact tariffs of at least 25% on non-U.S.-made iPhones, had warned Apple to “manufacture in the U.S., not India, or anyplace else.” The company had projected a $900 million headwind from tariffs this quarter but successfully navigated the challenge, in part by accelerating its shift in device manufacturing from China to India.

Looking ahead

Despite these achievements, investor scrutiny remained focused on Apple’s comparative lag in artificial intelligence rollouts—especially as competitors like Meta and Microsoft grab headlines for major AI advances.

Apple’s stock, while buoyed after the earnings beat, has fallen 16% year-to-date, underperforming the broader S&P 500. Still, many analysts remain bullish, citing Apple’s ecosystem strength, user retention, and ability to deftly manage global headwinds. Some analysts have expressed impatience with Tim Cook, even arguing for him to be replaced. Longtime Apple bull Dan Ives has thrown his support behind Cook but argued for a transformative M&A deal for Apple to get a leg up in the AI race, slamming a recent presentation as something that “felt like an episode out of ‘Back to the Future,'” although though that was a film, not an episodic TV series.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Amazon reported robust second-quarter 2025 financial results on July 31, surpassing Wall Street expectations with sharp revenue growth and notable gains in key business segments. Yet, investor enthusiasm was tempered as the company’s shares dropped as much as 3% in after-hours trading, reflecting lingering concerns about retail headwinds and long-term spending plans.

For the April-June period, Amazon posted revenue of $167.7 billion, climbing 13% year-over-year and outpacing analyst predictions of $162.1 billion. Earnings per share came in at $1.68, also topping the expected $1.33. Net income for the quarter reached an impressive $18.2 billion, more than a 10% increase from last year.

Amazon’s financial outperformance stems from strong execution across several areas. Though its sprawling retail operations remain the largest part of its business, the real engine of profit growth continues to be Amazon Web Services (AWS), the company’s cloud-computing arm.

AWS and AI power profitability

AWS generated $30.9 billion in revenue, marking a 17.5% increase year-over-year and landing squarely in line with industry forecasts. The unit contributed $10.2 billion in operating profit—more than half of Amazon’s total $19.2 billion operating income for the quarter. This confirms AWS’s role as Amazon’s financial powerhouse, driven by surging demand for AI and cloud infrastructure as businesses accelerate technology investments.

Chief executive Andy Jassy has spotlighted AI as a transformative force for Amazon, with the majority of 2025’s planned $100 billion in capital expenditures dedicated to expanding AWS’ capacity for generative AI and machine learning. As major clients move more workloads to the cloud and adopt AI-driven services, AWS remains positioned for long-term leadership, despite short-term margin pressures from its heavy investments.

Retail and advertising show resilience

Despite ongoing concerns about tariffs and consumer spending, Amazon’s core online store sales grew 11% to $61.5 billion. The company’s third-party seller services also expanded, with revenue rising 11% to $40.3 billion. Physical stores, including Whole Foods, delivered a 7% increase to $5.6 billion, while subscription revenue—such as Prime memberships—rose 12% to $12.2 billion.

Amazon’s advertising segment was a standout performer, raking in $15.6 billion in revenue, up 23% from the prior year. This ad business is becoming an increasingly critical pillar within Amazon’s profit structure, as brands compete for consumer eyeballs on the platform’s massive shopping interface.

Challenges and outlook

The company is navigating a complex macroeconomic climate that includes inflation, changing trade policies, and labor market constraints. Shipping expenses climbed 6% to $23.4 billion, reflecting both global cost pressures and heightened demand for fast delivery.

Although Amazon’s Q2 earnings don’t reflect the impact of July’s Prime Day—held after quarter’s end—the company remains optimistic, projecting third-quarter revenue in the range of $174 billion to $179.5 billion, above analyst expectations. Operating income is forecast between $15.5 billion and $20.5 billion.

Meanwhile, Amazon’s headcount inched up 1% year-over-year to 1.55 million, with CEO Andy Jassy signaling further workforce streamlining as automation and generative AI gain traction internally. “Our AI progress across the board continues to improve our customer experiences, speed of innovation, operational efficiency, and business growth, and I’m excited for what lies ahead,” he said in the earnings press release.

Investor response

Despite the upbeat earnings report, Amazon stock fell in extended trading, illustrating Wall Street’s wariness about continued retail volatility, capital-intensive growth, and competitive dynamics in cloud and AI. Still, analysts remain bullish on Amazon’s strategic direction, citing leadership in cloud innovation, resilient retail fundamentals, and an aggressive expansion into the future of artificial intelligence.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

IBM Vice Chairman Gary Cohn, the former Director of the National Economic Council under President Trump, sounded a cautious note on the state of the U.S. economy in his July 30 interview with CNBC’s Money Movers, warning that despite upbeat surface indicators, troubling signs are brewing beneath the headline numbers.

Cohn’s assessment came in the aftermath of a surprisingly robust GDP report showing 3% growth, which he acknowledged looked positive on its face. He said if you take a “big, wide aperture snapshot of the economy, the headline looks really good,” before arguing that a deeper analysis, even a “half-step back,” reveals important red flags. Notably, he highlighted a 15% drop in investment and concerning labor market statistics, including a significant decline in voluntary quits—a traditional signal of worker confidence in the job market. Cohn cited the latest JOLTS report, which showed 280,000 jobs lost and 150,000 fewer voluntary quits, suggesting Americans are growing more cautious about leaving their jobs for better opportunities. “People quit their job when they believe the next job is better and higher-paying,” he said, calling that a “bold statement on individuals’ view on the economy.”

Who eats the tariffs and who drinks the coffee?

“A snapshot of the economy right now is, ‘we’re fine, we’re good,’” Cohn said, referencing both the strong labor market and inflation measures that have moderated closer to the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. In fact, he argued the Fed is fulfilling its dual mandate of full employment and price stability, as the jobs market looks close to full employment, in his view. However, he warned about softer data such as consumer sentiment and in specific segments of the economy. Cohn noted that several soft retail earnings, such as Starbucks, show that “consumers are not out there willfully spending money.”

One of the interview’s major themes was the effect of tariffs and trade uncertainty. Cohn, who famously resigned from the Trump White House in 2018, seemingly after internal disagreements over tariffs, argued that tariffs should be applied carefully and strategically. He has clarified in 2024 and onwards that he supports tariffs on products the U.S. also produces, such as electric vehicles, but warned that indiscriminate tariffs risk inflaming inflation, especially on goods the U.S. does not manufacture domestically. Cohn has been saying for months that tariffs are “highly regressive” and essentially function as a tax on all Americans, with a greater impact on poorer people.

Cohn told Money Movers on July 30 that initially, U.S. companies may absorb some tariff-related costs, but said this was unsustainable in the long term due to shareholder and debt obligations. Ultimately, he argued, “companies are going to pass these costs along” to the consumer, squeezing household budgets and creating “one-time price shocks” that erode purchasing power if wages do not rise accordingly. Host Sara Eisen pushed back, arguing corporate balance sheets are healthy, companies are incorporating AI to boost efficiency, and companies may not want to anger the Trump administration, which has famously instructed companies to “eat the tariffs.”

Cohn’s consistent warnings about tariffs through the years have not come to fruition so far, but he’s far from alone in seeing a massive hit coming—at some point—from tariffs. The entire economics establishment has warned about the delayed impact of tariffs for months; as of July, though, the Trump administration has collected $100 billion in tariff revenue with seemingly little impact on inflation. Fortune‘s Irina Ivanova reported on how economists explain that, ranging from “it’s too soon” to “consumers won’t stand for it.” At the same time, Trump is increasingly winning trade deals on favorable terms to the United States, such as the EU’s agreement to a 15% tariff, with carve-outs on pharmaceuticals and metals, while U.S. imports to the EU will be duty-free.

Cohn’s question remains: Who will ultimately eat the tariffs, and who will buy the coffee? The American consumer is waiting for the economic dust to settle.

IBM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Fortune Media

LinkedIn co-founder and major Democratic donor Reid Hoffman delivered candid criticism of his own party on Joe Lonsdale’s “American Optimist” podcast this week, saying Democrats “really did alienate a section of Silicon Valley” during the last election cycle.

Hoffman, long recognized as a political power broker and tech visionary, did not mince words as he lamented the shifting relationship between Silicon Valley and the Democratic Party. “I regret this and wish it didn’t happen, but I think the Democratic Party really did alienate a section of Silicon Valley and the tech people, whether it was attacks on crypto, whether it was, you know, kind of just attacks on big tech, all these things,” he said, reflecting on a schism he regards as increasingly dangerous for the party and the U.S. technology sector.

A representative for Hoffman declined to comment further.

The criticism was perhaps surprising from Hoffman, who is among the most influential—and generous—donors to the Democratic Party in recent U.S. political history. Over the past decade, he has contributed tens of millions of dollars to Democratic candidates, state parties, super PACs, and advocacy groups across the country.

He told Lonsdale “attacks on crypto” and unspecified attacks on Big Tech were particularly harmful. “One of the things that I think Silicon Valley shares is this deep view that the way you make massive progress for humanity is creating scale technologies,” Hoffman said. “And the principal way of creating scale technologies is companies, and so if you’re attacking that and limiting it, then you have all kinds of problems.”

And yes, he said, at times this conflict has even led them to abandon traditional Democratic alliances. Lonsdale, a longtime right-of-center entrepreneur and investor, pressed Hoffman on the tension between supporting pro-innovation policy and traditional Democratic priorities such as labor protections and union power. Both Hoffman and Lonsdale decried the pessimism and tribalism they see infecting public discourse, agreeing that America requires leaders willing to collaborate across ideological lines for the sake of national progress. They cautioned that if regulatory and political obstacles continue to drive innovation out of traditional tech hubs, the country risks ceding its technological advantage.

Innovation and growth

Cited his own experience as an investor in Aurora—an autonomous-trucking company that is headquartered in California, but launching its first test drives in Texas due to the “modern regulatory environment”—Hoffman described how red states are rapidly becoming new laboratories of tech innovation.

He also acknowledged the recent political shift of several former allies away from the Democratic camp, including fellow member of the “PayPal Mafia,” Elon Musk. Marc Andreessen has also emerged as a right-friendly figure, and even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has broken with Democrats as well, saying in early July that he was “politically homeless.”

The podcast conversation ranged widely—from Hoffman’s new book “Superagency” and the PayPal Mafia’s distinctive culture, to AI optimism and the new regulatory battles shaping the technology industry. Even as he championed the promise of AI and entrepreneurship, Hoffman repeatedly returned to his core critique: Innovation has to be a core value for both left and right in America.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Jason Alden/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Microsoft delivered a blockbuster quarter to close its 2025 fiscal year, riding the wave of surging demand for cloud and AI services and sending its stock to new heights in after-hours trading. For the quarter ended June 30, 2025, Microsoft reported revenue of $76.4 billion, an 18% jump over the previous year. Net income climbed even more swiftly, up 24% to $27.2 billion. Earnings per share reached $3.65, outpacing analyst estimates of $3.37. “In our largest quarter of the year,” CEO Satya Nadella told analysts on the subsequent earnings call, “we significantly exceeded expectations.”

Investors responded decisively to the upbeat results and bullish AI outlook. Microsoft’s shares spiked over 7% in after-hours trading, pushing the stock toward record highs and lifting Microsoft’s market capitalization past the $4 trillion mark—cementing its place as one of just two companies to reach that level globally, along with Nvidia. The reaction underscored Wall Street’s confidence in Microsoft’s strategy, particularly its aggressive investments in cloud infrastructure and its push to commercialize AI tools such as Copilot across its productivity and developer platforms.

Nadella was emphatic in the earnings press release: “Cloud and AI is the driving force of business transformation across every industry and sector. We’re innovating across the tech stack to help customers adapt and grow in this new era.”

On the subsequent earnings call, one analyst expressed surprise at the size of the results. “Satya, back to the strength across the board in the quarter… It’s just the magnitude of upside that has shocked many here.”

To that point, the company’s Intelligent Cloud segment—home to Azure—generated $29.9 billion in revenue, up a robust 26%. Azure and other cloud services revenue soared 39% for the quarter, while annual Azure revenue surpassed $75 billion, growing 34% year-over-year. Nadella cited major enterprise customers leveraging both traditional and AI-powered workloads on Azure, highlighting that this is no longer just about experimentation—companies are moving quickly to deploy AI at scale.

Nadella claimed on the analyst call that “we continue to lead the AI infrastructure wave and gained market share every quarter this year,” noting that Microsoft operates more data centers than any other cloud provider, having opened new facilities across six continents. He said it operates over 400 data centers across 70 regions.

Strength across the board

The Productivity and Business Processes segment, anchored by Microsoft 365 and LinkedIn, generated $33.1 billion (+16%), and More Personal Computing brought in $13.5 billion (+9%), bolstered by a rebound in devices demand and rising Xbox content revenue. Throughout fiscal 2025, Microsoft amassed $281.7 billion in revenue (+15%) and $101.8 billion in net income (+16%). The company also returned $9.4 billion to shareholders in the fourth quarter through dividends and buybacks.

CFO Amy Hood emphasized Microsoft’s operational discipline and the scaling of AI investments, and revealed on the earnings call that the company expects over $30 billion of capital expenditure for the first quarter of 2026, “driven by the continued strong demand signals we see.

When asked about the return on investment on this massive spending, Hood responded that Microsoft has $368 billion of contracted backlog across the “breadth of the Microsoft Cloud,” not just Azure. She added that she feels very confident that this spending is “directly tied to business that is already contracted and on the books — and that we need to deliver.”

Hood also reassured employees and investors of the company’s forward momentum, noting in an internal post-earnings memo, as reported by Business Insider, that “FY26 will require intensity, clarity, and bold execution,” reflecting both the opportunities and competitive pressures ahead as Microsoft doubles down on AI and security priorities.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Ethan Miller/Getty Images

High Noon has issued a voluntary recall of its popular vodka seltzer after it was discovered that some cans had been erroneously labeled as Celsius energy drinks. The recall, announced on Tuesday and coordinated with the Food and Drug Administration, applies to two production lots of High Noon Beach Variety packs (12-pack/12 fluid ounce cans), with the seltzers mislabeled as CELSIUS® ASTRO VIBE™ Energy Drink, Sparkling Blue Razz Edition with a silver top. No illnesses or adverse events have been reported for this recall to date, the FDA said.

The two production lots were distributed to retailers in Florida, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin between July 21 and July 23, 2025. The affected High Noon Beach Variety packs are marked with the following lot codes: L CCC 17JL25 (14:00 to 23:59) and L CCC 18JL25 (00:00 to 03:00). Celsius-labeled cans with the lot code L CCB 02JL25 (2:55 to 3:11) are also included in the recall.

According to the FDA, the labeling error originated with a packaging supplier that services both the High Noon and Celsius brands. The supplier inadvertently shipped empty Celsius cans to High Noon, resulting in vodka seltzer being packaged into cans labeled for an energy drink product.

High Noon, which is produced by E&J Gallo Winery, stated, “We are working with the FDA, retailers, and distributors to proactively manage the recall to ensure the safety and well-being of our consumers.” The company emphasized that only a “small batch” of product was affected and continues to collaborate with regulatory agencies to trace and remove the mislabeled cans from shelves as quickly as possible.

A Gallo spokeswoman told Bloomberg attributed the issue to “a labeling error from our can supplier,” declining to provide the name of the packaging supplier. Although product recalls are common, mislabeled alcohol is quite rare. High Noon has seen explosive growth, growing from a launch in 2019 into the top-selling seltzer by 2022, dethroning the incumbent Tito’s.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Rich Polk/Getty Images for Interscope/Capitol

Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol is closing a convenience that was explicitly targeted toward Gen Z’s taste for “frictionless” experiences: their mobile-only “pickup” stores. The move signals a deliberate shift away from the high-speed, tech-driven model that defined much of the chain’s recent expansion. The coffee giant will convert or close approximately 80 to 90 of these mobile order-only locations nationwide by the end of 2026, Niccol said on Tuesday’s earnings call with analysts, marking the end of a six-year experiment that catered to on-the-go customers who seemed to prefer mobile ordering to lingering over a latte.

Announcing the closures, Niccol was direct about the rationale on Starbucks’ Tuesday call with analysts. “We found this format to be overly transactional and lacking the warmth and human connection that defines our brand,” he said.

Built primarily in urban centers, airports, and hospitals, these stores were designed to maximize convenience—no cash registers, limited or zero seating, and an efficient grab-and-go experience orchestrated through the Starbucks app. Starbucks wants to bring back the warm coffeehouse.

The move comes amid a period of challenge and transition for Starbucks. Sales at stores that have been open for at least one year have declined for six straight quarters, with North American sales have dropped by 2% most recently. Analysts point to customer fatigue with impersonal, tech-centric transactions and “soulless” atmospheres, especially as competitors offer new forms of hospitality and engagement. It’s also a tricky needle to thread, as Starbucks disclosed in its earnings that 31% of all transactions are mobile, making it a critical part of the business.

The company remains committed, according to Niccol, to enhancing digital and mobile experiences through technical upgrades to the Starbucks app and its Rewards program, set for rollout in 2026. But Starbucks’ other actions are suggesting that these experiences shouldn’t feel mobile.

Niccol, who took over as CEO in September 2024, has staked his turnaround strategy on restoring the brand’s emotional resonance, echoing former CEO Howard Schultz’s recognition that consumers needed a “third space” that wasn’t home or work. Niccol argued on the call that customer-value perceptions are near two-year highs, and they’re driven by gains among Gen Z and millennials, who make up over half of Starbucks’ customer base. It shows that younger consumers wanted more warmth than previously thought.

Uplift through green aprons

Starbucks has a program under way to “uplift” its coffee houses, which involves investing $150,000 per store to upgrade seating, lighting, and atmosphere in more standard locations. The chain’s new prototype stores—already being piloted in New York City—reintroduce cozy chairs, power outlets, and large tables, fostering a more communal and linger-friendly environment. Niccol said some mobile-only stores will get converted to this new setup, where it makes sense.

“We plan to complete an evaluation of our North American portfolio by the end of this fiscal year to ensure we have the right coffee houses in the right locations to drive profitability and deliver the Starbucks experience,” Niccol said on the earnings call.

Starbucks is also piloting smaller-format stores with limited seating to blend convenience with a sense of place—another sign the brand isn’t abandoning quick service, but is instead recalibrating its approach. As the company prepares to sunset its transactional pickup model, Starbucks is doubling down on its legacy: coffee shops as community anchors, not just efficiency engines. The era of the “app-only” Starbucks is ending, as the company bets that its future lies in connection, not just convenience.

These investments are part of Niccol’s $500 million “Green Apron Service” initiative, intended to restore “hospitality” to the center of its business. It involves a revamped barista dress code featuring, yes, the green apron, but also emphasizes personalized service. Starbucks believes this is what Gen Z really wants, not a frictionless mobile order that barely involves interacting with a human. There is other evidence that Gen Z craves more human connection, with 91% telling the Harris Poll they want more of a balance between remote and office work.

Starbucks COO Mike Grams spoke with CNBC earlier this week and also offered thoughts on how the company views Gen Z. He argued in favor of an approach the company describes as “hospitality” and, when asked about evolving “social cues,” he described how Starbucks is working to lean into a more subjective experience. “Connection is different things to different people,” he said, arguing that Starbucks baristas are well positioned “to understand what each individual customer wants in that moment in time.” In other words, Starbucks is risking a collision with the “Gen Z stare,” because it’s working to make sure that the human connection is front and center in its business.

When reached for comment, Starbucks referred Fortune to the earnings report and Niccol’s comments on the analyst call.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Zhang Peng/LightRocket via Getty Images

Apple’s annual Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) in June left some of Wall Street’s most prominent voices feeling oddly nostalgic—and not in a good way. According to Dan Ives, a top tech analyst at Wedbush Securities known for his prescient, albeit oft-times bullish, calls on Silicon Valley’s giants, was bearish about Apple. The atmosphere at this year’s WWDC, he wrote in a July 30 research note, “felt like an episode out of ‘Back to the Future’”—especially when it came to Apple’s treatment of artificial intelligence.

While fellow tech titans are racing to put AI front and center, Apple’s WWDC presentation was notable for its near silence on the subject. “Barely no mention of AI,” Ives remarked in his latest report, calling it “the elephant in the room.” He noted this was a stark contrast to the fever pitch seen at rival developer events. Analysts, investors, and developers tuned in with expectations of a grand reveal that would clarify Apple’s ambitions for the “AI Revolution.” Instead, they watched as the company leaned on traditional strengths—hardware updates and a strong services story—leaving the future of Siri and Apple’s broader AI roadmap conspicuously vague.

This omission has become a growing concern for analysts like Ives, who believe Apple is at a crossroads. “It’s becoming crystal clear that any innovation around AI at Apple is not coming from inside the walls of Apple Park,” he wrote, referencing the company’s famed Cupertino headquarters. While Apple has historically prided itself on building transformative technology in-house, Ives argues those days may be over.

Time for an acquisition?

“The time has come” for a big acquisition, he wrote, singling out Perplexity as a “no brainer” acquisition target—even if it costs upwards of $40 billion. According to Ives, such a move could instantly supercharge Apple’s lagging AI platform and help reposition Siri as the “next AI gateway for consumers.”

To date, Apple’s biggest acquisition remains Beats, a $3 billion deal in 2014—an order of magnitude smaller than the types of deals transforming the AI sector today. Apple’s traditionally cautious approach to M&A, Ives suggests, may be holding it back at a time when speed is everything. “AI technology on the enterprise and consumer landscape is happening at such a rapid pace Apple will not be able to catch up with an internally built solution,” he warned. The stakes, Ives estimates, are high: A successful AI monetization strategy could add as much as $75 per share to Apple’s valuation. “We believe [CEO Tim] Cook needs to rip the band-aid off and finally do an M&A deal,” he wrote.

The muted AI narrative at WWDC comes during a broader period of transition for Apple. While demand for iPhones—a bellwether for the company—remains globally robust, with particular improvement in China after a year of tough competition, the company faces mounting headwinds. Trade tensions, evolving supply chain risks, and increasing pressure from lower-priced rivals in Asia have stressed Apple’s core markets.

For now, analysts are keeping faith with Apple’s near-term performance. Wedbush maintains its “Outperform” rating, with a 12-month price target of $270 per share, citing expected growth driven by the upcoming iPhone 17 and continued strength in services. The stock was trading at $211.27 at the time of writing. But Ives is steadfast: the next chapter—centered on AI—will define Apple’s future.

Cook’s extraordinary record—and mounting criticism

To be clear, Cook has had a legendary run after succeeding Steve Jobs in 2011. Over the ensuing 14 years, Cook has led Apple through a period of extraordinary shareholder value creation—transforming a $300 billion company into a $3.2 trillion titan. Under his stewardship, Apple refined its operational efficiency, reinvigorated its services division, and delivered massive profits through established hits like the iPhone, AirPods, and Apple Watch. But as Fortune‘s Geoff Colvin reported, “suddenly his weaknesses are on display in the AI era.”

A chorus of analysts has joined Ives in arguing that Cook’s operational excellence and supply-chain mastery may not be enough to win the future, as the AI era upends the tech industry’s priorities. The first half of 2025, furthermore, has been bruising. The company’s stock is down about 16%, while rivals like Microsoft and Alphabet have soared on aggressive bets in generative AI. Apple’s “Apple Intelligence” initiative, which was supposed to position Siri and other features at the forefront of consumer AI, has failed to capture investor or developer enthusiasm. Meanwhile, key AI executives have left: Apple’s top AI executive Ruoming Pang recently defected to Meta, just weeks after another top Apple AI scientist, Tom Gunter, resigned. Simultaneously, Chief Operating Officer Jeff Williams—a long-touted Cook successor—is set to retire, forcing a broader management overhaul.

These departures have intensified debate about Apple’s innovation pipeline. Critics argue that under Cook, Apple has not delivered any genuinely transformative new product since the Jobs era, with most recent hits—like AirPods or the Apple Watch—refining rather than redefining product categories. The risk, analysts warn, is existential: If smart devices shift into new AI-centric paradigms and Apple fails to respond forcefully, the company’s platform risks obsolescence.

Research firm LightShed Partners rocked investors and the tech press in July by calling for a regime change. Analysts Walter Piecyk and Joe Galone insisted Apple needs a product-focused CEO, not one centered on logistics. They warned Apple’s lack of compelling innovation in AI and the relatively stagnant progression of Siri could irreversibly erode its competitive edge as Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI press forward. 

Cook’s defenders argue Apple has a unique position: its platform lock-in gives it time to execute a measured AI response. And historically the company has rarely been first-mover—its success derives from perfecting existing technologies, not inventing them. Nevertheless, with AI’s foundational impact compared to the internet or electricity, allowing the competition to set the pace could be dangerous.

Ives is still backing Cook, with reservations. “Patience is wearing thin among investors and importantly developers,” he warned. The coming months, particularly as Apple’s product cycle heats up in September and beyond, may prove pivotal—not just for the company’s balance sheet. Ives said Wedbush believes Cook will be Apple CEO for another five years, at least, but there are mounting challenges, from the “tariff iPhone quagmire,” with Apple’s manufacturing operations in China directly exposed to trade uncertainty, to President Donald Trump’s displeasure with India as an alternate supply chain solution, to “missing the AI foundational strategy.” He concluded, “this chapter will define Cook’s legacy.”

“It’s time for Cook and Cupertino to face the new reality of this quickly morphing AI-driven tech landscape,” Ives wrote. “Because if they do not change, it will be a historic strategic black eye for Apple in our view.”

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Justin Sullivan—Getty Images

In a market landscape still fixated on fears of stagflation and modest recoveries, Bank of America is sounding a contrarian—and decidedly bullish—note.

According to new note from BofA Research analysts, the next phase for the U.S. economy and equities might not be a routine recovery, but an outright boom.

“Today a confluence of factors argue that the key tail risk that may not be priced in is not just a cyclical recovery, but a boom,” they said.

5 reasons for a boom

BofA analysts cited five pillars supporting this more bullish case.

First is political will, arguing that with U.S. midterm elections a few quarters away, policymakers have strong incentive for near-term, pro-growth initiatives.

Second is Washington’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) targeting domestic manufacturing.

Third is the massive overseas jolt gathering, with Germany recently enacting the largest stimulus package in EU history, while global reflationary forces are building elsewhere.

Fourth, BofA sees a broad expansion of capital expenditures, with hyperscalers such as Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Alphabet set for nearly $700 billion in capital expenditures between 2025 and 2026. In addition, more non-U.S. companies plan to expand manufacturing capacity in the U.S., while municipalities are focused on updating aging infrastructure.

Fifth, BofA cited its proprietary “Regime Indicator,” a blend of macro signals including corporate revisions to earnings per share, GDP forecasts, and other emerging signals. It’s on the verge of flipping from a “Downturn” to a “Recovery”—a change that historically presages a rally in value stocks.

The dominant narrative in this indicator remains conservative, according to the BofA team, led by Savita Subramanian. In June, 70% of fund managers still predicted stagflation, with only 10% foreseeing a “boom” of above-trend growth and inflation. Yet, BofA argues, the catalyst for an upside breakout is real and imminent. If the Regime Indicator does indeed flip to “Recovery” in early August, historical precedent suggests a rapid rotation is likely.

So how healthy are these five factors actually looking?

Will there be enough spending?

Top economies have already pledged massive stimulus. In March, China unveiled plans to issue 1.3 trillion yuan ($179 billion) in special treasury bonds this year, plus 4.4 trillion yuan of local government special-purpose bonds.

Meanwhile, much of the EU’s stimulus still flowing from the earlier NextGenerationEU package is worth up to €806.9 billion (about $880 billion) through 2026. Major European economies have supplemented this with additional investments and, in some cases, targeted fiscal expansion.

Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Australia have adopted smaller-scale but still significant fiscal measures in 2025 to address sector-specific slowdowns, energy security, and household purchasing power. Most are focusing on targeted transfers, green investments, and industrial support.

Meanwhile, American companies have announced billions in new U.S. manufacturing, infrastructure, and technology investments since Trump took office, but these initiatives were announced before passage of the OBBBA.

Many investments are phased and slated for completion over the next decade, and it’s unclear how much can come online soon enough to play a role in the boom that BofA Research is projecting. Some of them, such as OpenAI’s $500 billion Stargate project, are reportedly struggling to raise funding to match the big numbers initially announced.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Christopher Furlong—Getty Images

Are you a step-checker? Do you look at your phone, watch, or other activity tracker a few times a day, to see if you’ve hit the 10,000 steps mark yet? Do you feel guilty if your step count doesn’t ever get over, say, 7,000?

What if the 10,000-steps-per-day mark was just a publicity campaign from the 1960s that caught the public’s attention, and recent science indicates that 7,000 is the true mark that carries a health benefit with it? That is exactly the scenario that’s playing out.

The latest large-scale analysis, published in The Lancet Public Health and drawing from over 160,000 adults across 57 studies worldwide, challenges the fabled 10,000-step mark. Researchers not only concluded that walking 7,000 steps per day was in fact linked to dramatic improvements in longevity and protection against a wide array of diseases, but that going the extra 3,000 steps didn’t make that much of a difference after all.

Why 10,000 steps became ‘the goal’

For years, “10,000 steps” has been consecrated as the gold standard of daily fitness. But the origin of that benchmark wasn’t medical—it was marketing. Ahead of the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, a Japanese pedometer called the “manpo-kei,” which translates to “10,000-step meter,” launched a global fitness trend. That catchy round number stuck, becoming the default goal for millions using wearable trackers.

The 10,000 steps benchmark just seems to be one of those things that lodges in your head. Popular YouTubers and fitness influencers run “10,000 step challenges” encouraging followers to meet or exceed the daily target, often featuring “walk with me” workout sessions. It’s been granted official status by digital apps, with the number “10,000” now a default setting on devices such as Fitbit. Corporate wellness programs, social media challenges, and public health campaigns also routinely use the 10,000-step mark as a motivational goal and badge of accomplishment.

The bombshell findings

The new research poured cold water on the idea of 10,000 as a scientific minimum. Compared to the least active group (2,000 steps), those who managed 7,000 steps per day saw:

• 47% decreased risk of premature death
• 25% lower chance of cardiovascular disease
• 38% reduced risk of dementia
• 6% lower cancer risk
• 22% lower incidence of depressive symptoms
• 28% reduction in falls
• 14% lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes

What’s more, these massive benefits approached a plateau with 7,000 steps; walking all the way to 10,000 steps per day generated only small additional reductions in risk for most conditions. For some diseases—like heart disease—benefits increased slightly beyond 7,000, but for many others, the curve flattened.

“Although 10,000 steps per day can still be a viable target for those who are more active,” according to the abstract, “7,000 steps per day is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in health outcomes and might be a more realistic and achievable target for some.” The authors add that the findings should be interpreted in light of limitations, such as the small number of studies available for most outcomes, a lack of age-specific analysis and potential biases at the individual study level.

‘More is better’—but only up to a point

Walking more remains beneficial, particularly for those who are mostly sedentary. The study found the greatest jump in health benefits when moving from very low step counts (~2,000) up to 7,000 daily. For the general adult population, 7,000 steps—about three miles—delivers the bulk of the effect. For adults over 60, benefits plateau a bit earlier, around 6,000–8,000 steps, while younger adults may see the curve level off closer to 8,000–10,000.

The researchers also revealed that the pace of walking was far less important: just getting in the steps, regardless of speed, provided the protective benefits.

Rethinking the fitness message

This research could prompt a shake-up in public health messaging, which has long promoted aspirational but somewhat arbitrary targets. Fitness professionals and wearable device makers now have fresh evidence to advise clients and consumers that a daily goal of 7,000 is both realistic and powerfully protective. Then again, 10,000 steps is catchy.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images