People are already losing interest in Apple's Vision Pro, according to Bloomberg.
Apple's $3,500 virtual reality device is a niche device that has drawn mixed reviews.
Despite an initial sales surge, the device has been criticized for its impracticality.
Some tech devotees are already losing interest in Apple's Vision Pro justmonths after the futuristic headset hit the market.
The long-awaited virtual reality device prompted long lines at Apple stores and an initial surge in sales back in February, but the early buzz around the accessory has quickly waned, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman reported Sunday.
That's bad news for Apple, which spent eight years and billions of dollars creating the Vision Pro. The device boasts a hefty $3,500 price tag, making it a certified specialty item and keeping it out of reach for many of Apple's typical customers.
The Vision Pro is unlikely to make the company any real money for years still to come, according to Gurman. And the number of people seeking demos for the device has dipped since February, according to Gurman.
Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
The device sold 180,000 units alone during a January preorder weekend.
Apple has seemingly responded to the growing disinterest by boosting marketing around the device, evidenced by the Vision Pro's prime placement on the company's website.
Reddit forums dedicated to the device include frustrated users complaining the device is impractical in everyday life and uncomfortable to wear. The Vision Pro requires its wearer to attach a battery, start the device, and move through its interface each use.
Virtual reality devices in the past have faced similar struggles in keeping buyers interested and engaged after the novelty wears off, Gurman said.
Business Insider's Jordan Hart foresaw some of those issues back in February, writing that she was running out of reasons to wear the Vision Pro after just one week. Gurman shared a similar sentiment, saying he's gone from wearing it regularly to just once or twice a week because it's "too cumbersome to use on a daily basis."
The reported decreased interest in Apple's shiniest new toy comes as the company juggles a multitude of other setbacks and struggles, including faltering revenue sources and regulatory skepticism.
A $418 million settlement could help American homebuyers save tens of thousands of dollars. But the path to ownership is still lined with hazards.
Maria Hergueta for BI
Austin Whitt has seen a lot in his six years as a real-estate agent. He weathered the pandemic in Tennessee, slinging homes in the Nashville area and training new Realtors as they piled into the industry. But twice in the past month, Whitt has encountered a rare sight: a buyer without an agent. In his years of listing homes for sale, Whitt had come across this kind of rugged individualist only once before. Sure, the recent run-ins may have been a coincidence, a blip. But given the seismic changes underway in real estate, Whitt can't be certain.
Thanks to a series of multibillion-dollar class-action lawsuits, the real-estate industry is in the throes of its biggest upheaval in half a century. The National Association of Realtors, the powerful industry group that sets the ground rules for buying and selling homes in America, recently negotiated a $418 million settlement with aggrieved home sellers who sued the organization over the commissions they'd paid to real-estate agents. The deal could open the door for more consumers to bargain down those fees or nudge some people looking for a new home to forgo an agent. Given their revolutionary nature, the proposed rule changes — which still need approval from a federal judge — have also prompted a flood of questions about the future of homebuying.
"It's a very fluid situation," Whitt told me.
Buying a home has never come with a handy road map. But one thing is clear: It's about to get a lot murkier. With that in mind, I've been asking experts how buyers can prepare for whatever world comes next. Their answers illuminated the potential pitfalls, of which there are many. They also highlighted new ways to come out ahead — and maybe save thousands of dollars along the way.
So, you're ready to turn your late-night Zillow scrolling into a proper home search. Before you begin the journey in earnest, you should ask yourself: Do I want to hire an agent? There's a good chance the answer is yes — buying a home is a complicated, emotional transaction that usually benefits from an experienced set of eyes. Last year, 89% of buyers enlisted the help of a licensed agent, according to the NAR. Even Steve Brobeck, a senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America and an outspoken critic of the real-estate industry, told me he wouldn't buy a home without one.
But the conventional wisdom — that it doesn't cost a buyer anything to hire an agent and that you need one to secure your dream home — is crumbling. Sites such as Zillow and Redfin have democratized the home search, while the recent lawsuits have exposed the billions of dollars that US consumers pay their agents every year. Some critics argue that buyers could be better served (and save a lot of cash) by instead hiring a lawyer for a few hours to look over contracts and make sure everything is in order.
Most buyers probably don't have that kind of confidence, especially first-timers. If you fall into that camp, the next step is to figure out exactly which kinds of services you'll need. Maybe you feel certain that you can find and tour homes on your own but want someone to manage the transaction and make sure you don't skip over any crucial to-dos. Or maybe you want a more involved agent who can send you listings, guide you through homes, help you line up inspections and a mortgage, and haggle with the seller over every last detail — someone whose "whole job is to be nosy," as Sabrina Brown, a broker in North Carolina, told me. Those are two very different job descriptions, but they've traditionally commanded pretty much the same fee.
Real-estate agents' commissions have fluctuated between 5% and 6% of the sale price for decades, despite advances in technology and an influx of agents.
Michael Warren/Getty Images
Discerning buyers could upend that status quo. Once you figure out what you want out of an agent, you'll have to figure out how much you're willing to pay for them. Prepare to have a frank conversation with prospective agents. For decades, homebuyers have coasted on the blissful assumption that using an agent is free. This illusion was maintained by the roundabout way in which money trades hands: The typical buyer never pays their agent directly; instead, the seller pays their own agent, who then uses part of that commission check to pay out the buyer's agent. Ultimately, the commission comes out of the money the buyer sent to the seller, but the transaction is hidden.
Sellers agreed to this method because they didn't want to risk having their homes passed over by buyers' agents who might "steer" their clients away from properties that didn't offer compensation to the other side or offered sums lower than standard commission rates, usually 5% to 6% of the total home price. And because buyers weren't paying their agents directly, they usually didn't see much reason to bargain down the fee. In fact, they might not even know their agent's rate until they're at the closing table, if they ever found out at all. This model has proved lucrative for agents. Buyers and sellers typically pay more than $100 billion a year to the real-estate industry, a massive wealth transfer that Brobeck estimated could be cut down by about $30 billion annually if commissions were in line with America's peers like the United Kingdom or Australia.
The recent lawsuits, which accused the NAR and some of the country's largest brokerages of conspiring to keep agents' commissions unfairly high, could signal the start of a new era. As part of its deal to settle the cases, the NAR agreed to prohibit sellers' agents from making offers of commission to buyers' agents on the multiple-listings services, the local databases where agents can browse homes and see how much they stand to collect on a deal. The organization also agreed to require its members to negotiate commissions with their buyer clients in writing before so much as showing them a home.
But even with these changes, the settlement, which is set to go into effect in July if approved, doesn't contain a single rule that would kill off the 6% commission on its own. A deal like this simply can't solve all the industry's problems in one fell swoop, Prentiss Cox, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, said recently in a public forum he convened to discuss the coming changes. In many instances, agents might proceed with business as usual, and consumers could still end up paying today's standard commission rates. In other words, it'll be up to savvy buyers to find ways to make this deal work in their favor.
The NAR has always argued that commissions are negotiable. That may be true in theory, but buyers rarely take advantage of that right. It's worth a shot, though — even if the seller is the one who pays out both agents after the deal closes, the money you bring to the table is ultimately footing the bill. If you negotiate a lower fee, you could get some money back from your agent in the form of a rebate after the sale closes. Alternatively, you might be able to bargain down the home price by tens of thousands of dollars if the seller knows they'll have to set aside less money for agent commissions.
Maybe you're the kind of buyer who wants someone to hold your hand through every step of the process, in which case the traditional 2.5% to 3% for your agent might be a good deal. But if you've found a home and just need help making sure the deal doesn't go off the rails, you stand a greater chance of scoring a lower fee from your agent. There are also various discount brokerages that charge lower commission rates, even flat fees, in exchange for a more bare-bones approach.
The Realtors keep saying, 'Oh, we deserve our 3% fee.' Well, maybe you do. Convince the buyer that you do.
Bear in mind that an agent isn't obligated to lower their commission in the same way that a lawyer doesn't have to cut down their hourly fee — even if you ask nicely. But they may be inclined to do so if they really want your business. And if not, well, there are many other agents out there who would probably love the chance to help you with your home purchase. Interview agents as if you were a boss hiring them for a job, which is exactly what you're doing. Don't shy away from the tough questions. Jack Ryan, a cofounder and the CEO of the discount brokerage Rex Real Estate, suggested one query: Ask your agent why they're worth 3% of the home's sale price — after all, that's equal to $15,000 on a $500,000 home. Some will have a great answer, others, not so much.
"The Realtors keep saying, 'Oh, we deserve our 3% fee,'" Ryan, whose company shuttered in the midst of a legal battle with the NAR and Zillow, told me. "Well, maybe you do. Convince the buyer that you do. And if you can add 3% of value, great. But why are you claiming you know what you're worth relative to what the market says you're worth?"
This brave new world of homebuying won't guarantee easy wins for consumers. The path to homeownership is still lined with plenty of hazards.
For instance, while listing agents — those who represent the seller — are set to be prohibited from offering commissions to buyers' agents via the MLS databases, they can still disclose commissions pretty much anywhere else: on their websites, on a phone call, or even in person at an open house. A seller just wants to get the best price for their home as quickly as possible, Rob Hahn, a longtime industry consultant, said during the University of Minnesota forum. To make sure their house is seen, the standard commission might be a necessary pill to swallow. On the other hand, sellers in hot markets might feel like they could save a lot of money by offering less to a buyer's agent — maybe 1% instead of the typical 2% or 3% — or even nothing at all. If people are falling over themselves to get into your home, why dangle money in front of buyers' agents just to get them through the door?
This is why buyers can no longer afford to remain in the dark about how their agents get paid and how much. If sellers aren't paying out commissions to buyers' agents, buyers themselves could end up on the hook. To avoid this kind of surprise and lay out the terms of their representation, buyers' agents will have to get their clients to sign what's known as a buyer-agency contract. Some states already require these contracts, but a lot of agents in other places never use them: Only 41% of buyers last year said they signed a buyer-agency agreement, according to the NAR. This might be a more prudent move than buyers even realize — most of the agreements floating around today were created by state Realtor associations and are therefore designed to protect the interests of the agent, Wendy Gilch, a consumer advocate, told me.
"Even if someone presents you with some printed form, that doesn't mean it's set in stone," Gilch, who focuses on transparency in real estate through her company, Selling Later, told me. "You can decline it and be like, 'No, I'm not going to sign that. Change this; change this."
Buyer-agency contracts don't have to be tilted in favor of Realtors. In fact, if used fairly, they can provide transparency and clarity for both buyers and their agents. Under the terms of the recent NAR settlement, these contracts would have to include a few things. First, a buyer and their agent would need to agree to the maximum amount of compensation that the buyer's agent can receive — this could be something like a certain percentage of the sale price, an hourly rate, or a flat fee if the agent is willing to accept that. If the buyer and their agent agree to, say, 2% of the sale price, the agent can't accept any more than that. The buyer's agent would also have to update the client, in writing, on how much commission they stand to receive from the house their client is pursuing. On the whole, these look like positive steps for consumers.
It's not the solution. It's the first step in attacking this problem. And it's been spectacularly successful in being the first step.
As always, though, the devil is in the details. For example, what happens if the seller isn't willing to pay the buyer's agent's commission? In many cases, the template forms provided by the state Realtor associations say the buyer is responsible for covering the difference between what the buyer's agent expects to receive and what the seller is offering to pay. This could leave buyers on the hook to pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets. A report from the Consumer Federation of America pointed out other risks: Buyers might not have a good way to get out of the contract if they're unsatisfied with their agent, or they might unwittingly agree to pay "junk fees," such as an administrative fee, which can cost anywhere between several hundred dollars and nearly $1,000.
One more scenario to consider: What happens if a seller is offering 3% of the price to a buyer's agent, but you and your agent agreed to a max of 2%? In most states, the buyer's agent can technically just rebate that extra money to their client. These kinds of rebates may be rare these days, but they could become more common after this settlement. On the other hand, in a mind-boggling twist, nine states prohibit rebates entirely. That needs to change.
The most important thing for buyers entering this new market, experts told me, is to read the buyer-agency contract carefully or consider hiring a lawyer if you have concerns. Realtors may rely on templates handed down from their state associations, but the terms aren't ironclad.
If all this sounds intimidating, rest assured: Even the people who live and breathe this stuff are struggling to make sense of it. David Dworkin, the president and CEO of the National Housing Conference, called the settlement "the most opaque and complicated agreement I have ever encountered." Dworkin told me he feared the deal would favor higher-income buyers and sellers who might be able to claim larger discounts from agents who stand to make a bunch of money off them regardless. But the bigger issue is that nobody has any idea how buyers and sellers would react to these proposed changes.
Depending on how you look at it, that's either aggravating or exciting. Regardless, the lawsuits have undoubtedly exposed market corruption, said Cox, the University of Minnesota law professor. All this focus on commissions could hasten a new era of experimentation in real estate, in which buyers' agents offer varying levels of service or commission rates in a bid to win clients. The revolution is only beginning; recently, the Justice Department got clearance to reopen its investigation into the NAR's practices, meaning more changes could be on the horizon. In this sense, the mere fact that more people are talking about commissions is a win.
The advice I got from experts can be boiled down to a simple mantra: Get in on that conversation. Talk to your agent early on in the process about the services you want, and make sure you're on the same page about their commissions.
"It's not the solution. It's the first step in attacking this problem," Cox said of the recent settlement. "And it's been spectacularly successful in being the first step."
James Rodriguez is a senior reporter on Business Insider's Discourse team.
Even if an employee successfully completes a performance-improvement plan, the underlying tension and strain on the relationship often persist.
Klaus Vedfelt/Getty Images
Steve Cadigan has led HR teams at top companies for over three decades.
He has seen how performance-improvement plans (PIPs) often fracture relationships between managers and employees.
The better alternative to PIPs allows employees to mutually agree to separate from the company.
Over the past three decades, I've witnessed various approaches to performance-improvement plans (PIPs) as an HR executive across five different industries and three countries.
Often, the traditional approach to PIPs — slapping them on employees who are underperforming without offering sufficient support — can feel punitive rather than constructive to many employees, fostering an environment of fear and mistrust.
But PIPs often fail to achieve their intended outcomes for a variety of reasons — from inadequately prepared managers to breakdowns in communication between managers and employees to subjective judgments of performance.
In my experience, the primary reason for the failure of PIPs lies in the irreparable fracture they create in the relationship between the employee and manager. Once the PIP process begins, this fracture in trust is seldom repaired. The atmosphere becomes palpably tense, and trust begins to erode.
PIPs lead to an irreparable fracture in the relationship
These stories serve as cautionary tales, highlighting the potential pitfalls of traditional PIPs and the need for organizations to rethink their approach to managing underperformance.
Even if an employee successfully meets the objectives outlined in the PIP, the underlying tension and strain on the relationship often persist, adversely impacting productivity and morale not only for the manager and the employee, but for the entire team.
I've rarely seen managers more tense than when addressing a PIP. These conditions don't set the stage for a productive process. At their core, PIPs should reflect an organization's commitment to achieving high performance. They should identify areas for improvement, set clear expectations, and provide a roadmap for progress.
A better approach involves choice
From 1998 to 2004, I was an HR executive at Cisco Systems, where I encountered a novel approach to the traditional PIP process.
Prior to my arrival, Cisco had recognized that something was broken in the PIP process. The HR team conducted a thorough analysis of PIPs across the company and made a fascinating discovery: most individuals placed on a PIP left the company within a year, regardless of whether their performance improved.
They spoke with many of the employees who survived their PIP and improved their performance yet still chose to leave, and the story they heard had a similar refrain. The employees felt their managers did not really support them, they no longer felt they were in a safe work environment, and many felt humiliated and deeply hurt by the process.
Looking at the data and listening to employees, the HR team developed a new approach that involved choice. Employees who were not performing to an acceptable level were offered two options:
Enter a PIP and try to improve, or
Mutually agree to separate from the company and receive more severance than they would if they failed the PIP.
By presenting employees with this alternative path, Cisco empowered them to make decisions aligned with their personal circumstances. This approach also alleviated stress for managers, enabling them to focus on other priorities. The conversations became more constructive, and employees appreciated being given a choice rather than feeling cornered into a dead-end PIP.
Performance evaluation is inherently subjective, and no process can eliminate all conflicts or unexpected reactions. However, offering employees a choice rather than a one-way ticket to a PIP can lead to more positive outcomes and healthier work environments.
As HR professionals and organizational leaders, it's our responsibility to challenge conventional practices and explore innovative solutions. By rethinking performance management and embracing alternative approaches, we can create a culture of trust, transparency, and continuous improvement where both employees and organizations thrive.
Steve Cadigan is a talent advisor to leaders and organizations around the world. He specializes in helping firms build talent strategies for the modern workplace.
Samu Hällfors is the CEO of Framery, an office soundproofing business in Helsinki.
Hällfors mirrors how he runs his company in line with Finnish values like shared responsibility.
He said people in Finland are hard working and candid, with strong boundaries between work and home.
This as-told-to essay is based on a transcribed conversation with Samu Hällfors, the CEO of Framery in Helsinki. It has been edited for length and clarity.
In 2010, I worked at Logia Software Oy in an open office space. My friend and I were tired of constantly listening to our boss speak on his phone. It was impossible to focus on our work. When we brought it up, our boss responded: "Well, buy me a phone booth."
The only problem was that there wasn't one on the market. We gave up working for the software company that day, and Framery was born.
Framery is a 14-year-old company headquartered in my homeland of Finland that offers soundproof solutions for offices. Our office is in Helsinki.
As the CEO of a company in the world's happiest country, I mirrored my company's values and policies with many of the Finnish cultural aspects I admire. Here are some ways I'm running Framery in line with those values.
Mutual responsibility makes people feel safe
There are multiple parallels between Finnish society and how we've built culture at Framery, starting with psychological safety. A few years ago, Readers' Digest published a report about a social experiment where 12 wallets were intentionally "dropped" in various cities around the world.
In Finland, 11 of those 12 wallets were returned to their owners. In Finnish society, people feel a general level of safety because the culture is focused on the collective responsibility to care for and be honest with each other, regardless of the relationship or how well we know someone. We are a close-knit community.
I try to encourage this attitude at work. I never allow my employees to feel that mistakes or failures are their fault.
Mistakes still happen. When they do, it's usually followed up with a discussion on how to remediate for the future. As long as the root cause of the mistake is not laziness or negligence, then the responsibility is shared, and there is no place for blame.
I want my employees to feel safe exploring new ideas, taking risks, and making mistakes.
Work-life balance is a priority
The Finnish workday is usually eight hours, with a half-hour lunch break, so people have time for hobbies and leisure activities after work. In Finland, we believe there is a time to rest and work; regardless of what we are doing, we put our complete attention and concentration into it.
I make it a point to visibly leave the office toward the end of the working day and to enforce strict rules around maximum working hours so that employees can enjoy work-life balance.
Sometimes projects may require extra hours, but employees are encouraged to balance their workweek by taking time off or long weekends.
Extreme candor for the benefit of the group
The Finns are very honest and direct people. Though this may come across as naive in other cultures, we value communicating candidly, independent thinking, and bearing responsibility accordingly.
Large corporations usually have layers of bureaucracy that determine who gets access to what information. That leads to a loss of shared purpose, the idea that people within the organization are all aligned to the same mission.
At Framery, everyone gets to participate in our strategy deep dives. We share highly classified information with every employee so they have equal footing and more oversight on their day-to-day tasks. I always host the sessions, and there can be no more than 12 participants at once, so there's an opportunity to ask questions and debate.
There's the obvious risk of leaked information, but I trust my employees. I think there's a bigger risk in not telling people important information that will be helpful in their daily tasks. Plus, disclosing private employer information is illegal, and Finns understand their responsibilities toward their employer.
Celebrate independent hard work
Companies have recently become more stringent with return-to-office policies and employee tracking tools. I view this as micromanagement, which destroys the individual's sense of autonomy and purpose.
Finnish culture is deeply rooted in forward-thinking and preparation, stemming from their historical need to brace for harsh, protracted winters.
This ingrained mindset fostered a strong work ethic among the Finns, born from the understanding that diligent effort paves the way for long-term career success and longevity.
I think our employees know better than their CEO on how to structure their personal workday. Teams can decide when they want to come into the office and how they plan to execute their work. They are mandated by themselves, not by management.
Whenever Costco releases a batch of gold bars for sale, the supply sells out "within a few hours" as shoppers snap up the precious metal for a small markup over its spot price.
The out-of-stock notices give the allure of a hard-to-get item, but the wholesale club is still moving a lot of gold bars and silver coins — to the estimated tune of $200 million a month.
But the Wall Street Journal reports that some buyers who have gotten their hands on a bar or two are now getting a crash course in the complicated world of trading commodities.
Gold bars are one of the few items that Costco does not allow returns, refunds, or price adjustments on, so the only way to get your money back is to find someone else who will buy it from you, and that's more complicated than some expected.
"It's not like trading stocks," New York-based appraiser Lark Mason told the newspaper. "There's a friction between what you pay and what you actually get."
One shopper, Adam Xi, encountered those frictions. He was hoping to use the $2,000 gold purchase to boost his credit-card points but then had to search for a buyer who ended up only paying him $1,960 for it, the Journal reported. Another managed to turn a $850 profit — after holding the bar for nine years.
Although gold has been used as a medium of exchange for thousands of years, it's not really considered currency in the modern sense.
Unlike cash or even gift cards, Costco classifies gold bars as collectibles, which may or may not retain their value over time.
For that matter, the Internal Revenue Service also considers gold bars as a collectible too, and demands as much as a 28% cut of any profits on gold held for more than one year.
The bars themselves might be fun to hold and look at, but between the possible interest, taxes, shipping, and other expenses — not to mention the hassle of finding a buyer — trading gold just might not be worth the trouble, even at Costco prices.
Tesla shares have tumbled 66% from their peak as investors gear up for a growth slowdown.
The stock drop has fueled an estimated $176 billion decline in Elon Musk's net worth.
The Tesla CEO is now worth about $164 billion, down from $340 billion in November 2021.
Tesla's mounting troubles have dealt a heavy blow to Elon Musk's net worth.
In November 2021, the Tesla CEO held the top spot on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, and seemed untouchable with an estimated fortune of $340 billion. He was more than three times richer than Warren Buffett at that point.
However, Musk's net worth has plunged by about $176 billion since then to $164 billion at Monday's close. The key driver has been Tesla stock, which has tumbled from a split-adjusted peak of $415 in 2021 to $142 — a 66% decline.
The share-price slump has slashed Tesla's market capitalization from north of $1.2 trillion to below $450 billion. Musk's net worth has taken a big hit from the decline because his 13% stake in the automaker makes up a big chunk of his wealth.
Musk's start to this year has also been dismal relative to his peers in the 12-digit club. He topped the Bloomberg rich list with a $229 billion fortune in January, but his net worth has crashed by $65 billion, or 28%, since then.
Moreover, Musk is the only one of the world's 11 richest people whose net worth has declined this year. He's lost more money on paper than anyone on the list has gained, including Zuckerberg who's up $43 billion.
Tesla's stock has tumbled in recent months due to mounting concerns about the company. Musk told employees this month that more than 10% of the company's global workforce would be laid off, signaling demand for EVs is faltering.
Musk's fortune isn't completely tied to Tesla. He also owns an estimated 42% stake in SpaceX, the space exploration company valued at $180 billion in December, and a roughly 79% stake in X after he acquired Twitter in 2022 and rebranded it last year.
China's workers are migrating from megacities to smaller towns because of economic challenges.
Big domestic and international brands, like Starbucks, are expanding in these smaller markets.
Migrants to lower-tier cities have disposable income that they're happy to spend on pricier coffee.
China's megacities are losing their appeal with some young workers, who are leaving them behind for smaller towns. Big chains like KFC and Luckin Coffee are following them.
Shanghai and Shenzhen both saw a net outflow of people in 2023, according to data Bloomberg cited on Tuesday from MetroDataTech, a Shanghai-based consultancy. MetroDataTech did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for data.
High-stress work environments and greater costs of living are pushing people back to their hometowns, Bloomberg reported.They're struggling to make it in big cities as the world's second-largest economy suffers from a flailing property market and slow post-pandemic consumption recovery.
Smaller cities' lower costs of living give reverse migrants more disposable income. Both Chinese and international fast-food businesses are eager to help them spend it.
It's a potentially lucrative move for the companies:When brand names like Starbucks open in small cities, people are willing to stand in line for hours and fork out over double the usual amount for specialty coffees, according to local media reports.
Going big on smaller cities
China's smaller cities aren't exactly an untapped market.
Around one-third of Starbucks' 6,800 outlets in China are already located in small markets, a local media outlet reported last year, citing Canyandata, a Beijing-based food and beverage data platform.
KFC and Pizza Hut operator Yum China, which plans to add 6,000 stores in Chinaby 2026, is also betting big on small cities. Chinese cities are unofficially categorized into "tiers" based on gross domestic product, population, and political administration. The four first-tier cities — the biggest type of city — have over 15 million people each.
"Over half of our new stores have been in lower-tier cities in recent years," Joey Wat, theCEO of Yum China, wrote in a shareholder letter earlier this month. "A good share of our future growth should come from the growing pool of consumers in such markets."
Domino's operator DPC Dash, which operates in 30 cities, said this month that more than half of its 835 restaurants in China are outside Beijing and Shanghai.
Local food joints are cashing in, too.
About half the total stores operated by some of the country's biggest fast food chains, such as burger joint Fuzhou Tastien and bubble tea chain Mixue Bingcheng, are located in third-tier or lower cities, according to Bloomberg, which cited Canyandata. Third-tier cities have 150,000 to 3 million residents.
The cost of living crisis driving young people out of China's big cities is a trend that echoes across continents. Some young people in countries including the US, UK, and Korea are finding that they can no longer afford to move out of their families' homes. Others are giving up on hubs like New York City and London because they feel lonely, stressed, or unsafe there.
Saudi Aramco President and Chief Executive Amin H. Nasser.
Hamad I Mohammed/Reuters
Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser praised China for making solar panels and electric vehicles affordable.
The West has recently stepped up criticism over China's dumping of cheap green products on the global markets.
Saudi Arabia is fostering closer ties with China and wooing Chinese investments and business partnerships.
China's green industries have an unlikely ally in Saudi Aramco — the world's largest oil company — who praised the world's second-largest economy for making solar panels and electric vehicles affordable.
"China really helped by reducing the cost of solar energy," Amin Nasser, the CEO of state-owned Saudi Aramco, said at the World Energy Congress in Rotterdam on Monday, according to the Financial Times.
"We can see the same now in electric vehicles. Their cost is one-third to one-half the cost of other electric vehicles," Nasser added, as he called for globalization and collaboration, per the FT.
Because China has made these green products so affordable, they will help the West achieve its target of cutting carbon emissions to a net zero level by 2050, said Nasser.
The West has hit out against China's overcapacity
Nasser's comments came amid the West's criticism that China has been dumping cheap solar panels and EVs on the global markets.
"China is now simply too large for the rest of the world to absorb this enormous capacity," said Yellen. She warned China against repeating its actions over a decade ago when it dumped products like steel on the global markets, decimating industries and communities.
Last week, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, too, echoed Yellen's concerns during a visit to China when he called for fair competition.
Beijing has hit back against the West's accusations of dumping, framing the criticism as a tactic to limit China's economic development.
China, the world's second-largest economy, is undergoing a painful transition from its previous growth drivers of real-estate and lower-end manufacturing to the hot new sectors of EVs, solar cells, and lithium batteries.
Saudi Arabia looks to foster closer ties with China
Nasser's praises of China also came at a strategic time for Riyadh's relationship with Beijing.
Unlike the West, Saudi Arabia is cozying up to China.
In January, Faisal Alibrahim, the Saudi Arabian minister of economy and planning, told the Nikkei that his country thinks it's "very wise" to strengthen its relationship with China, among other partners.
"There are lots of opportunities for China to invest in Saudi Arabia," Alibrahim told the media outlet. "At the same time, we are prioritizing, investing all around the world, including China in terms of the opportunities there."
As a key contributor to Saudi Arabia's economy, Aramco has good reasons to build closer ties with China amid the West's commitment to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
On Monday, Aramco announced it's in talks to acquire a 10% stake in China's Hengli Petrochemicals — the latest in a string of deals with Chinese refiners in less than 12 months. The deals are poised to expand Aramco's footprint in China.
In March last year, China brokered a détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran, prompting concerns over waning US influence in the Middle East.
Despite Saudi Arabia and China's developing relationship, the Chinese aren't quite present on the ground in Saudi Arabia, Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a testimony before the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission on Friday.
"It is clear to Saudis that the country needs a robust relationship with China," said Alterman. "Even if China doesn't replace the United States, Saudi Arabia sees China as an important check on the United States, and an important supplement to what the United States is willing to provide to China."
Rescuers work to move bodies at the wreckage of a crashed helicopter in Lumut.
Bomba Bahagian Korporat/Facebook
Two helicopters in Malaysia crashed into each other in midair during a parade rehearsal on Tuesday.
Footage posted by local media showed the rotors of one of the choppers striking the other vehicle.
Local authorities said 10 people, all naval staff, died in the crash.
At least 10 people have died after two Malaysian navy helicopters struck each other in midair during a parade rehearsal on Tuesday morning, local authorities said.
Footage posted by Malaysian media shows both choppers flying low over a parade formation before one of the vehicle's rotor blades collides with the other. Both fall to the ground as shredded parts separate from the choppers.
The Royal Malaysian Navy confirmed the incident in a statement on Tuesday, saying that a maritime operation helicopter and a Fennec had crashed at a base in Lumut at 9.32 a.m. local time.
Seven crew members from the maritime operation helicopter died, while another three from the Fennec were killed, the statement said.
The Fire and Rescue Department of Malaysia wrote that both helicopters were taking part in flight training for a ceremonial parade and that firefighters responded to the scene at around 9.50 a.m.
The department said it deployed 21 firefighters from two stations. All victims were naval staff and declared dead by base army hospital staff, fire officials said.
The Malaysian navy said an investigative board will be set up to identify the cause of the incident.
Photos of the crash site posted by authorities show that at least one of the helicopters landed in a track and field training area, its body crumpled and mangled.
Rescuers work on one of the crashed helicopters.
Bomba Bahagian Korporat/Facebook
The Royal Malaysian Navy has used the Fennec, a lightweight French-made attack helicopter, for several decades. An online listing for its assets includes one of the 36-foot long choppers, which says it was launched in 2004.
One Fennec can go for about $5 million on the market, per some aircraft tracking sites.
The other crashed helicopter, a Leonardo AW139, was manufactured by Anglo-Italian manufacturer AgustaWestland. These are typically used for transport purposes, and prices for the AW139 can vary between $5 million to $10 million on the commercial market.
A US Air Force version of the helicopter, the MH-139 Grey Wolf, costs more than $39 million per unit, per the Air & Space Forces Magazine.
The Noe Valley Town Square toilet was celebrated by residents after it was installed at a discounted cost of $200,000.
San Francisco Recreation and Parks
San Francisco celebrated a new public loo with a mini-carnival complete with games, lemonade, and a live band.
The public toilet initially cost $1.7 million with a multi-year deadline but had its price slashed to $200,000.
Its installation marks the end of a yearslong controversy over the rising cost of public works.
The scandal over a public toilet in San Francisco that cost $1.7 million has ended in celebration after the new loo opened on Monday with a much-discounted price tag of $200,000.
That's according to The New York Times, CBS News, and The San Francisco Chronicle, who sent reporters down to the toilet's launch in the Noe Valley Town Square.
Residents held a small festival next to the public potty, replete with a live band, toilet-themed carnival games, lemonade, and chocolate cupcakes decorated like poop. Three local politicians attended.
People took turns to try the new stainless steel toilet, and NYT interviewed a man dressed as a human-sized roll of toilet paper. CBS captured footage of a performer dressed as the "Super Mario" character Luigi dancing with a plunger.
"This whole thing got so ridiculous, so why not be ridiculous?" Leslie Crawford, who organized the event, told The SF Chronicle.
The over-the-top celebration reflects the yearslong controversy that emerged when people discovered in October 2022 that San Francisco planned to build the toilet over two years for $1.7 million — even after plumbing had already been laid.
People actually wanted the toilet in the plaza; an assembly member meant to celebrate the launch of the loo plans that month but canceled after the cost was revealed, per The SF Chronicle.
The expensive toilet was soon lampooned on national headlines, and became a lightning rod for concerns about wastage in US government projects and rising construction costs for public works.
City officials said they were weighed down by high construction costs in San Francisco, as well as the need for environmental reviews and checks from multiple commissions.
Under intense scrutiny, the plans for the toilet began to unravel. California Gov. Gavin Newsom pulled the $1.7 million from the city, telling officials to figure out how to reduce the toilet's cost before they could touch the funds again.
Then Chad Kaufman, owner of the Nevada-based Public Restroom Company, offered to donate a modular toilet to the city, saying he would help pay for engineering and architecture work to install the loo. Per NYT, his friend Vaughn Buckley, CEO of Pennsylvania-based Volumetric Building Companies, chipped in.
With help from Kaufman and Buckley, the city only had to pay $200,000 to install the town square toilet.
With the toilet controversy drawing to a close, San Francisco Mayor London Breed is seeking to avoid a repeat event by announcing new legislation this month allowing city officials to pool small project budgets for group discounts on construction and equipment.